 Good morning everyone. I apologize. The handout you have has some errors. I've made corrections. So the paper is for reference and feel free to recycle it after the talk. The PowerPoint here has updated information. I had some pre-2014 reconstructions and little things I changed. So it's something to refer to and scribble on and whatever you feel like. So as the title suggests here, I'm applying the backs of cigar old Chinese reconstructions as a point of reference. And it is useful to me because it has a lot of reference to the attic, which is my interest. My question is how do I know sometimes whether these are actually old Chinese or maybe some other period loans? Because there's always a degree of certainty and it's never 100%. And I'm also interested in the timing of these things and I'll talk about that a little bit. So I'll talk about the role of old Chinese in reconstructing early Vedic culture and its change after synodic influence. That's what I've been increasingly interested in. And I suppose the best term for what I am doing is ethno-historical linguistics. A linguistic ethno-history? I don't really know what to call it. It's not philology, so it's something a little different. Maybe someone has a better term. Regardless of the term, I'm taking an interdisciplinary approach and I'm exploring human sociocultural history using linguistic evidence. And I'm looking at the linguistic evidence in light of the sociocultural history. It's a blend. For example, I'll use semantic domain analysis to talk about some of the cultural aspects. So it involves a mixture of data and analytical approaches within disciplines where people disagree on things. So it's necessarily a matter of weight of evidence, I suppose, because each of the disciplines have their own theoretical approaches. So I'm going to start with a couple of quotes. So how do you connect historical sociolinguistics and maybe ethno-archaeology? So I'm going to give you a couple of quotes here. This is Audre Cour, the translation here by Guillaume, actually, but it's soon to be published, I guess. Translation is a bunch of articles working. So that bold print there under the cultural influence of Chinese as it has to by language. It's a nice, simple sentence. It just requires books and books of writing to explain and clarify, right? And so on the other side, or not the other side, but on the other side is Haigam, Charles Haigam is a top Southeast Asian archaeologist. The direct Chinese contact with Domson people is the most likely means whereby knowledge of iron is reached. Bakbo is the kind of northern region of Vietnam as you're referring to. Now, this could potentially benefit from the linguistic side of things. He wasn't looking at the linguistic side of things. So let's consider a sample here of lexical evidence. As you can see there, these terms for metals here and in the various language groups. And pretty evident that metallurgy in southern China and northern Vietnam starts in a very early period. That's what it would appear. So focusing on the Vietnamese and Vietic forms there, a gang there for steel, that's pretty clearly related. These, however, are a little more problematic. And you see there the proto-Dai and mommy-informed match reasonably well. I don't know quite what to do with this. And yet it seems pretty clear that this is not just chance similarities. It's pretty strong evidence from the archaeological side that iron age emerges with the arrival of the Chinese. So this is the kind of question I have in mind where there's uncertainty because these are sporadic borrowings and that sort of thing. So the kind of points of inquiry are considering what Vietic was like before and in the immediate centuries after the contact, the kind of convergence period in those first few centuries and not just Vietic, of course. And I'm interested as much as I can find refinement and periodization of the lexical borrowing. And so you obviously have to have extra linguistic data to be able to do that sort of thing. And along the way, when you're looking at all of these, you have to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each of the disciplines and of course what any one human being can do with taking on multiple disciplines at the same time. But anyways, to provide sufficient weight of evidence, that's basically the way to do it with this point. Okay, so to talk a little bit of considering the sociocultural aspect, we can consider modern Vietic cultural, sociocultural structures. So what I mean, for example, here, a state level, the Vietnamese is considered at the state level, less this is today, but just to consider this as a model for the past. The moon groups, which are largely chieftains, less cynicized, but very much, I forgot to click that red button there, pretty much Vietnamese and moon are in that cynosphere. So I was in the cynisfil, complex tone systems, monosyllabic. Whereas these others, we're going to be used to this, the Bong Joon groups, other Vietic languages are more or less in that category of monchomeritipology and pre-citibals. They have some tones or a register, it's very conservative, but if you see the languages described, they are recognizably monchomer in structure. So this sort of language and society, there is some correspondence, and so that's the way to consider what the origins of Vietic culture are in this region here. This is that so-called Bac Bo region, there it is, Bac Bo. And the Dam Son culture, if you've heard the term, is centered in Northern Vietnam there and in the Red River Delta region. Gola is the center, Gola is a state-level society. That's more recent in the literature at this point that it's been established as state-level. So Dam Son culture is generally considered to be the source of Vietnamese culture, and if so, we can assume that it constitutes a proto-Vietic speech community, and Vietic there for me is that I'm not taking any particular position on any language or as a group of languages, we don't have that much information. With this emergence of the, again, Gola state by 200 BC, but certainly was surrounded by chieftains and tribes, those different levels of society. So it may have reached state-level here, but of course there would have been a variety of socio-political units outside. So we must assume, however, that the whole region was a monochromatic type Austro-Asianic language. So this is what we are, so different from today, this is the pre-citizization period. So that's the assumption of what I take to be this general circumstances for this synthetic Vietic contact of that period. Okay, so the lexical data, back to the lexical data. So as Audrey Cork claimed, lexical evidence shows Chinese cultural influence. This influence led to massive linguistic restructuring throughout the synisphere, fine. We don't focus on the literary sign of Vietnamese. Generally when people say sign of Vietnamese, that's what they mean, they mean the sort of literary level. So this is the short end LSB for literary sign of Vietnamese or late sign of Vietnamese in contrast with early sign of Vietnamese. So those are the terms I'll use. This is very formalized, high phonological consistency, absolute certainty. I can check it in a dictionary and I know it's sign of Vietnamese. Early sign of Vietnamese ESV rather than OSV for while I used OSV. We focus on that. This is largely from spoken transmission. We expect some mixed consistency in the phonological performance as I provide an example of it at the beginning. A degree of high to low certainty and just sometimes you can't know really and I keep them in the list and just label them low certainty, immediate certainty, high certainty. It's very rare that I label an old Chinese form complete certainty even though in my mind I'm certain. Okay, so we need some extra linguistic evidence to deal with the inconsistencies and then take historical and archaeological evidence. Okay, so one of the kinds of evidence is comparative. So the kinds of data are expected, comparatively risk of data as I've shown in those instances of words for metals. Historical documents and I'll provide a couple of brief examples of that to change historical documents. Of course the archaeological data and we've got approximate dates of material objects. As far as associated actions and cultural concepts we can only make inferences about those things, right? So we have the data. Intangible items are of course harder to deal with but certainly for ethno-historical purposes you keep the inferences in mind. So let's turn to examples of these types. Okay, in comparative evidence we want phonological patterns and of course the strongest indicator are the types of this, I'm going to call it shorthand, shang-chu reversal. It's not really a reversal, in a sense it's a reversal. So in that early period, or the late period, we find shang-chu and in that early period these are the reverse of them. So there's my early sign of Vietnamese, that little curved tone there means that's the shang category. That sock tone means it's a two category but it means it's the opposite. So that's pretty robust and consistent with the idea that there were no tones, final bottle stopped, final fricatives. And so those are pretty strong linguistic indicators. Sometimes we have words which don't have so much information so back at the gang steel indication that ping shang doesn't tell me much necessarily because of course it's not indistinctive in a sense as well as ru shang, not very distinctive. But the initials here, I guess it was discussed yesterday, some that kind of lenition at the initials, the G is more like the, that's a velar fricative essentially, those sorts of things. Also vowels tend to be a little bit of defongation and those are generally useful indicators of the time. The odd one is the level tones from shu shang. So that kind of goes counter to this category up here but I keep finding more of these and so we find this ping shang level tone, there's no tone on there, or what are evidently shu shang final fricatives. And so it's odd because here the speaker's recognizing here something else is happening instead of that's an interesting question to consider. Backstreet's cigar, I've noted. Okay, the phonological categories of old Chinese loans and early sign of Vietnamese are corroborated by old Chinese loans that go to die, Hmong Vien as well as Vieting. So a bit of comparative evidence, so when I find these kinds of things, okay, good, I find tonal correspondences, good. So it's beyond Vietic looking at the others and going okay, well they match too. Even some things like the particular vowel that Vier did use, the back on the rounder vowel as in the proto-die form. I've noticed a few instances of that. Oh, you see the sources there. Vieting is actually Michelle Ferguson and I don't know if I'm supposed to cite this stuff or not. It's unmonquering. So it should be okay to cite it. Okay, so the comparative evidence is useful in establishing some of the words as old Chinese or not, well, old Chinese or at least in the early period, not necessarily old Chinese. That's another question I'll get to at the end of the talk here. Okay, let's get a sample historical record and you don't have to read the whole thing, but this text referring from the fifth century back to the first century in that region of northern Vietnam there, that's the political administration there. And I identified the words just for fun, essentially. I'm not claiming that these words are old Chinese words just because they're in this text exactly, but did it historical documentation that these concepts were introduced into the region? Now I'm going to give the caveats after I say that, of course. Okay, so essentially saying Xi Guang brought all of those things to northern Vietnam. Well, that's a very bold statement. So I've picked out some of these words, so this is evidence of the possibility that these words were introduced in this approximate period. That's all. No strong claims, but it is evidence that one should not ignore and throw away. Okay, but of course there are problems in identifying early sign of Vietnamese through these historical documents, right? So historians know such texts are fraught with uncertainties and the Ho Han Shu excerpt is referring to something centuries before. It's largely taken from and written as a court document to an emperor. So in addition to its usual literary Chinese conciseness which doesn't give much information, it's compounded by bias, and so we cannot take it at face value. There are reconstructable forms for these kinds of things in Austro-Asianic, soon proto-Austro-Asianic for some of these things. So in addition, the Dumson culture at already reached a state level society and they had rice agriculture for some centuries before. So what does this mean when the document says Xi Guang introduced these things? Well, certainly there were some administrative pushes to do certain things. So we have to take the evidence skeptically, but it's certainly useful to consider as a source of that extra-linguistic data. Okay, let's see. So a couple of other historical examples. Well here, you can see there's just brief information. I have not come across wells in the archaeological literature in the Baqou region. There are some for Chinese that go well, early Han, Western Han, I've forgotten the term now, but to replicas of wells that are buried with people in tombs and that sort of thing. So it was well established tradition, but there's this horrible evidence of the Nguangmong region in that first period. And then we have the correspondence of the tomes. So it brings in a little bit of extra-linguistic evidence to suggest, oh indeed, yes, it was mandated in the region at that time, at that approximate time. Part of the clothing in that previous sample, this excerpt, I'm not sure what to make of the timing of the loss of the final k and that sort of thing, but certainly it was, they used a different word in the historical text. It was guang, you know, something like approximate of that term for hat, headwear. And finally, some censuses from that same period suggest if you're taking censuses and you are collecting taxes, household administration becomes common. And what I don't quite know is I expect the tone, the Shang-Tu reversal, and it's not there, and I don't quite know what to make of it, the old Chinese reconstruction is this, but it has a shun. So I thought it would be a shun, but I don't know enough about that. So I'm not sure what to make of this in terms of the timing. I need some more clarification there. Okay, now archaeological data. We've covered comparative, historical, archaeological data. There are numerous caveats that one must keep in mind. They are very poximate times. They are disagreeing in some of the researchers, such as when the Bronze Age began in Southeast Asia, things like that. There's uncertainty in the timing of loanwords. Loanwords could have come in at that time. They could have come in much later. I have no way to confirm any of that, right? So regarding the archaeological evidence, you have to put out the caveats up front. We can infer cultural practices and concepts, but they're never non-disprovable. I can never prove or disprove absolutely, for example, that marriage was or was not introduced at that time. A lot of it is inferential. Having said that, we can still use some of the data. Oh, yes, of course, there are gaps in the data. There are gaps in the archaeological data. There are gaps in the lexical data. That's the way it is. So we can deal with whatever data we're able to find. Okay, so first example is the word for sword, which appears in the Makbo region in a very late B.C. period. Bronze knives and axes were part of the Donsan culture several centuries prior. So it's not that the Chinese did not bring in the Bronze Age. That's several centuries before. The Iron Age, not the Bronze Age, okay? But swords specifically are considered to be largely innovations from the north. There's also support of this for this Pingcheng for a Chucheng category word. So we've got a combination of historical, archaeological, and linguistic data to strengthen that as a pre-millennial, a pre-the turn of the millennium time. Polished mirrors are very common in the Han style Thames in Northern Vietnam. I'm going to mention mirrors in mainland Southeast Asian archaeology prior to this period. Unlike, for example, the bronze drums, if you're familiar with those, that's well studied. The mirror is not so much. So as far as I can tell, this is something that arrives with the Chinese. So the archaeological evidence is not as early as swords, a little bit later. Again, at that first century B.C.E. is where a lot of this seems to have happened. A lot of the archaeological evidence really focuses on that first century B.C.E. There are things before that something really did happen at that time. Okay, even the last volts in that region. Again, to that first century B.C.E. Oh, and we've got our expected tone. Oh, yes. We've got our final valve stop versus final fricking-type tone. They're as expected. Okay. I'm going to go quickly through this one because this one can take a while. Tile. Interesting because of the final off-lie. No, as far as I can tell, no modern very Chinese has it. It's all ah. Momin dai. Ah. Vietnamese final off-lie. Ah. Apparently, I guess, cigar, but I guess it would have been Bill Baxter who first noted it in the odes, I guess, and I forgot when it was mentioned exactly. Rhymes in the odes. Okay, so that's the only evidence. Rhymes in the odes. So that's good. That's linguistic evidence. Archaeological evidence. In our recent study, thousands of ceramic roof styles dating to this earlier period. This is much earlier. This is not the first century. Seed in the first century, or really second century. Easy. Large numbers of tiles. They don't appear elsewhere. It's all in this concentrated period. At the co-law site that I mentioned before. Okay. Context of increasing political status and legitimacy in this emerging state. Fine. No Chinese characters on the tiles, though. But it's evidently a Chinese style. So modeling of things. Okay. So. I can hypothesize, and hypothesize means one can argue against it. Of course, that it increases the likelihood that noise and synthetic borrowing and that the borrowing may have come as early as really around 200 BCE. And if so, that really is, as far as I can tell, the earliest evidence of an old Chinese loan. I haven't found anything. For example, in the Warren states period. This is West Kong, essentially. It's a very beginning of West Kong. The takeaway here is that the combination of this increases the certainty of it. And with those, we have archeological evidence. Okay. So now, talking about semantic domains. So I'm going to go over a couple of categories of semantic domains here. So I've shown instances of synidic impact on early agriculture via historical and archeological data. I'll use the lexical stuff to do a little semantic domain analysis. Normally semantic domain analysis is done with living speakers. So I'm using, again, data that's incomplete, uncertain. But certainly we can see that relative age and gender was impacted. That younger is native. Older is Chinese. And from a very early period, evidently. Okay. We have this paternal versus maternal becoming stronger through the lexical evidence of old Chinese suggesting social cultural impact there. Okay. The difference between paternal and maternal size in those terms. Now, later middle Chinese words were added to supplement it. But these, apparently, based on the the tone that we've got our expected Shantou reversal here, these do appear to be in that general period. So my guess would be either the first century CE or the 300th, fourth century CE when another group arrived. And that, to me, is a question of the timing. And this has had an impact on the overall system of address and pronouns. I mean, it had a very profound impact on the terms of address and the amazing pronouns. Of course, you're introducing marriages and talk to those family structures related to that period. So it wasn't the 100s. AE wasn't the 300s. I don't know when there were more that came in the 300s. But an overall restructuring of the system. So that's a good sample of what I could do. Now, obviously, this is very cursory. But the idea that what was Austro-Asianic system before and we'd have to model what happens in other Monchimeric-type groups to see what it could have been. Okay. What kinds of changes. But the complete, virtually, loss. I mean, pronouns in Vietnamese are inappropriate to use among friends. I'm sorry, only the friends inappropriate to use in polite situations. Okay. Beyond marriage and family structure, what about trade systems? Certainly, there was a state-level society at the co-law site. But we see a number of Chinese old Chinese terms or maybe somewhat later terms from this period. And while bronze was an important part of the Dam Son culture, bronze had long been used there. Silver, gold, and coins in the archeological literature are only in the archeological record after the establishment of Chinese administration. So in sign of Vietnamese, early sign of Vietnamese is full range of market economy, materials, and concepts. So, again, this is cursory. But it suggests a significant impact on the trade system and probably the development of a complex economic system. What it was before, don't have enough information. Okay, a related issue was just general material culture. So, clothing was already mentioned as being mandated by Xi Guang. So we have those kinds of words and there's some more. Home furnishings. And what was common in Vietta culture prior to the Han arrival is less certain. But at least for now, when we combine a marriage, family, economy, and household, we have a fairly complete package, cultural package, Chinese style cultural package from this. Okay. To top it off, I'm not even going to talk about it. Of course, writing, literacy, abstract concepts of time, calendars, really quite a rich range of something that we can see. So I've got over I don't know, 300, 350 early sign of Vietnamese terms that I consider in the high certainty category, another hundred of reduced certainty. There's enough evidence to do some tentative hypothesizing. So to summarize the kind of changes here historical ethnosemantics really, that's what I've been doing. A number of... Oh, that was the two minute warning. Get ready presenters, that's what you're going to get. Okay. So I don't want I want to be careful not to assume that Vietta peoples did not have some of these practices in some of these materials. It's sensitive. And if I'm talking to Vietnamese scholars I want to be very careful. And indeed, just for scientific validity I have to be careful. There's plenty of evidence of a fairly advanced complex sociocultural, sociopolitical structure in the region. Images on the Doms Sun bronzes, the bronze drums as well, so wealthy leaders in the Doms Sun bronzes, though hats were introduced, but perhaps just Chinese style hats. Chinese style accoutrements and such. But it does appear that a complex economy was introduced. It obviously had a complex significant impact on the family system, marriage practices and that sort of thing. It's also important to notice where things did not have impact and just to remind, although numbers borrowed, Vietnamese has its own numbers, good for them, right? Not like some other groups. So there is a lot of contact and yet conversely, not a lot of grammatical vocabulary from that period, whereas I presented not long ago on Sinodai grammatical vocabulary, quite a rich array of grammatical vocabulary compared to Vietnamese. So, you know, putting this into modern structural influence, but I don't know. Maybe it's up a little bit by the socio-cultural changes. And on the last page there 26 there, oh sorry for you the panel 26, some of these transitional forms, and I'm not quite sure what to do with these. I suspect that this is see the tones they don't flip. This is totally different category. I don't know how to evaluate these yet. Are these due to different varieties of Sinodai? Did they come in a later period after tones had emerged? Some lingering questions, but if I'm going to tie in these kinds of things provide approximate dates, I need the extra-linguistic dates to be able to do that. So, oh and for example the things related potentially to Buddhism, that's clearly in the early centuries, not in the Han Dynasty that such patterns would be barbed. So I'm finished, I can answer questions and if you don't have questions now I can certainly talk with people later. And obviously I have lots of things that are challenging and hypotheses that can be challenged. But I certainly would appreciate any questions or comments or help with figuring things out. Thank you.