 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 okay. So I'm, as the title suggests here, I'm using 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 if 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 a hundred percent. So 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 Vietic culture and its change after synthetic influence. That's what I've been increasingly interested in. I suppose the best term for what I am doing is ethno-historical linguistics. 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 by using linguistic evidence and I'm looking at the linguistic evidence in light of the sociocultural history. So 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. Okay. So I'm going to start with a couple of quotes. So how do you connect historical sociolinguistics and ethno-archaeology? So I'm going to give you a couple of quotes here. This is Vodricur, the translation here by Yeome, actually, but it's soon to be published, I guess. The translation of the book is working. So that bold print, they're under the cultural influence of Chinese as it has to by long words. A nice simple sentence. It just requires books and books of writing to explain and clarify. And so on the other side, I've been on the other side as Hagen, which Charles Hagen lives in the top Southeast Asian archaeologist. The direct Chinese contact with Donaldson people is the most likely means whereby knowledge of iron is reached. Bakbo is the kind of northern region of Vietnam as a reference. 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-dye and momian form 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 the 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, Vietnames is considered at the state level. That's this today. Okay. But just to consider, this is a model for the past. The moon groups, which are largely chiefdoms, less synthesized, but very much, I forgot to put that right about in there, pretty much Vietnames and moon are in that synosphere. So I was in the synisfil, complex tone systems, monosyllabic, whereas these other groups, I'm going to be used to this, the moon group's other Vietic languages are more or less in that category of monchimer typology and the pre-citibals, but they have some tones or register. It's very conservative, but if you see the languages described, they are recognizably monchimer in structure. So this sort of language and society, there are some correspondences. 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 Dao Son culture, if you've heard the term, is centered in Northern Vietnam there and in the River Delta region. Golau is the center. Golau is a state level society. That's more recent in the literature at this point that it's been established at state level. So the Dao Son culture is generally considered to be the source of Vietnames culture and if so, we can assume that it constitutes a proto-Vietic speech community and Vietic, therefore, means that I'm not taking any particular position on any language or it's a group of languages. We don't have that much information. With this emergence of the, again, Golau state by 200 B.C., 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 monchimeric type Austro-Asian client, which again, so this is what we are. So different from today, this is the pre-citizensization period. So that's the assumption of what I take to be this general circumstances for this synthetic Vietic contact at that period. 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 cynosphere. 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. I'll use the short hand, 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-phrological 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 forms as I provide an example of it at the beginning. And degree of high to low certainty, and just sometimes you can't know really. And we keep them. 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. I'm going to take historical and archaeological evidence. Okay, so one of the kinds of evidence, comparative, some kind of data are expected, comparative linguistic data, as I've shown in those instances of words for metals, historical documents, and I'll provide a couple brief examples of that to change historical documents. Of course, the archaeological data, 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. There's no 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 and use type. Okay, in comparative evidence, we want phonological patterns and, of course, the, I think it's, of course, the strongest indicator are the types of this, I'm going to call it shorthand, shangchu reversal. It's not really a reversal, in a sense it's a reversal. So in that early period of the late period, we find shangchu and in that early period are the reverse of them. So there's my early sign of Vietnamese, that little curve tone there means that's the shang category. That sock tone means it's a two category, but in these it's the opposite. So that's, 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 linguistically indicators. Okay, 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, just non-distinctive in a sense, as well as ru shang, not very distinctive. But the initials here, as was, I guess it was discussed yesterday some, that kind of lenition at the initials, the G is more like the, that's it, a velar fricative, essentially, those sorts of things. Also vowels tend to be a little bit of diphthongization, and those are generally useful indicators of the time. An odd one is the level tones from two 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 two shang final fricatives. And so it's odd, because here the speaker's recognizing, here something else is happening, instead of that, that's an interesting question to consider, back to the cigar I've noted. Okay. Okay, the phonological categories of old Chinese loans and early sign of Vietnamese are corroborated by old Chinese loans, as well as Thietic. 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 Thietic looking at the others and going, okay, well they match too. Even some things like the particular vowel that Beard had used, the back on the rounder vowel, as in the photo di-form, I've noticed a few instances of that, but you see the sources there, Thietic is actually Michelle Ferguson, and I don't know if I'm supposed to cite this stuff or not, but it's our non-communicable dictionary, so 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 that 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 5th century back to the 1st century in that region of northern Vietnam there, that's the political administration there, and I identify 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 that it is a 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 she long brought all of those things to northern Vietnam, well, very bold statement. Okay, 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. Not, 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 fructible uncertainties, and the Ho Han Shui 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 wet rice agriculture for some centuries before. So what does this mean when the document says she long 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 they're just brief information. I have not come across wells in the archaeological literature in the Bakbo region. There are some for Chinese that go well, early on, Western on, 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 a sort of evidence of the Nguyen-Mong region in that first period of our history and then we have the correspondence of the tomes. So it brings in a little bit of extra linguistic evidence that suggests, 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 guan, you know, something like headwear. And finally some censuses from that same period suggest that 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 shangtu reversal, and it's not there. And I don't quite know what to make of the old Chinese reconstruction is this, but it has a shang, so I thought it would be too shangtu, 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 proximate times. They're disagreeing on 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. They, 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, okay. 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, okay? Having said that, we can still use some of the data. And useful. Oh yes, of course, they're gaps in the data. They're gaps in the archaeological data. They're gaps in the lexical data. That's the way it is. And so we build whatever data we're very able to find. Okay, so first example is the word for sword, which appears in the Bakbo region in a very late BC 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 Pingchang for a Chuxiang 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 Tung's in Northern Vietnam. The common mention of mirrors in mainland Southeast Asian archaeology prior to this period, unlike, for example, the bronze drums. If you're familiar with those, that's, you know, well studied mirrors not so much. So as far as I can tell, this is something that arrives with Chinese. So the archaeological evidence is not as early as swords a little bit later. Again, at that first century BCE is where a lot of this seems to have happened. A lot of the archaeological evidence really focuses on that first century BCE. There are things before, there's something really did happen at that time. Okay, even the last holds in that region again to that first century BCE. Oh, and we've got our expected tone. Oh, yes. We've got our final law of thought versus final fricking of type tone, 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 offline, no, as far as I can tell, no modern very Chinese hasn't. It's all ah, ma mian dai, ah. Vietnamese, final offline, ah. Apparently, I guess, cigar, but I guess it would have been Bill Baxter, who first noted it in the Ode's, I guess, and I forgot when it was mentioned exactly. Rhymes in the Ode's. Okay, so that's the only evidence. Rhymes in the Ode's. So that's good. That's linguistic evidence. Archaeological evidence. And I recently studied thousands of ceramic roof styles dating to this earlier period. This is much earlier. This is not the first century scene for a 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. 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 thing. So, I can hypothesize, and hypothesize means one can argue against. Of course, that it increases the likelihood that noise is a synodic 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 evidential evidence of an old Chinese loan. I haven't found anything, for example, in the Warring States period. This is West Han, essentially. It's a very beginning of West Han. The takeaway here is that the combination of this increases the certainty of it. So, we have the Ode's, we have archaeological 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 synodic impact on early agriculture via historical and archaeological data. Let's use the lexical stuff to do a little semantic domain analysis. Normally, semantic domain analysis does 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's 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 a sociocultural impact there. Okay. The difference between paternal and maternal sides in those terms. Now, later middle Chinese words were added to supplement it, but these, apparently, based on the tone that we've got our expectant Shaan Tu 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 be amazing pronouns. Of course, you're introducing marriages and talk to those family structures related to that period. So, was it the 100s, 80s, was it 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 what, 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, we would have to model what happens in other Montcomeric-type groups to see what it could have been. Okay, what kinds of changes that would complete. Virtually loss. I mean, pronouns in Vietnamese are virtually tapped and 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. We see a number, but we see a number of Chinese old Chinese terms, or maybe somewhat later terms from this period. And while, while bronze was an important part of the Donaldson culture, bronze had long been used. Their silver, gold, and coins in the archaeological literature are only in the archaeological 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, it's cursory, but it suggests a significant impact on the trade system and probably the development of a complex economic system. What it was before, I don't have enough information. Okay, related issue was just general material culture. So, clothing was already mentioned as being mandated by Xigong. So, we have those kinds of words and there's some more. Home furnishings. Again, what was common in Vietic 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, right? Just, 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 100 of reduced certainty. There's enough evidence to do some tentative hypothesizing. So, to summarize the kind of changes here, kind of historical ethno-semantics, really, that's what I've been doing. Number of, okay. Oh, that was the two-minute warning. Get ready presenters, that's what you're going to get. So, I don't want, I want to be careful not to assume that Vietic peoples did not have some of these practices and some of these materials. It's, 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, there's plenty of evidence of the fairly advanced, complex, sociocultural, sociopolitical structure in the region. Images on the dumb sun, bronzes, the bronze drum, so wealthy leaders wearing different kinds of headwear. Wearing headwear, it wasn't as though hats were introduced, but perhaps just Chinese style hats, Chinese style accoutrements and such. Okay. But it does appear that a complex economy was introduced. It obviously had a complex, it has significant impact on the family system, marriage practices and that sort of thing. Okay. It's also important to notice where things did not have impact. And just to remind, just to highlight that, no numbers borrowed, Vietnamese has its own number is good for them, right? 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 Sinodi grammatical vocabulary, quite a rich array of grammatical vocabulary compared to Vietnamese. So, you know, putting this into perspective, I still say like to moderate structural influence, but I don't know. Maybe it's upped a little bit by the socio-cultural changes. And on the last page there, 26, there, I'm 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 synonyms? Did they come in a later period after tones had emerged? Some lingering questions. But if I'm going to tie 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 to, potentially to Buddhism, that's clearly in the early centuries, not in the Han dynasty, that such terms would be borrowed. 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.