Talk:Dawenkou culture

Dawenkou contribution to Shang language

@Lathdrinor: You're right. That quote was taken verbatim, but the relationship of the neolithic signs to Shang is controversial.

For the record, I don't think the Dawenkou are a good proxy for modern Austronesians in a genetic sense, more like they were in the same interaction sphere. There are many explanations for the Dawenkou similarities, but I can't really segue into that on a Wiki article. I think their ancestral composition would be something like that of Southern China Dai or North Thai etc. possibly with more Southeast Eurasian/Oceanian etc. admixture due to the fact that the 'contact zone' between East Eurasians and Southeast Eurasians was much further north during this time period. --Easy772 (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Dawenkou closest physically to East Asians

I know this is at best a borderline secondary source, it's the closest I've seen. I feel the need to balance that paragraph outweighs the strict formality, but feel free to revert if anyone is unhappy with it. Easy772 (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Borderline is something of an understatement, given that the cited page contains no mention of Dawenkou, Polynesians or Austronesians, but only tentative remarks about Chinese Neolithic remains in general. The rest of the paragraph isn't a lot better either. Kanguole 10:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right regarding no mention of Austronesians. I was taking it as a kind of "sky is blue scenario" seeing that many researchers in various fields have noted those similarities. I also should have cited from page 120-131, my mistake, they do mention Dawenkou just not on p.131. And yes, neolithic North China which includes Dawenkou isn't necessarily the same as Dawenkou . I can wait until I stumble upon a more explicit source, but I think it's pretty clear that Dawenkou weren't closest to Polynesians physically, despite noted "resemblance". Easy772 (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Linguistic map

I have again removed the linguistic map based on J. Marshall Unger's presentation "Comparing the Japanese and Korean Languages: Culling Borrowed Words". It is completely inappropriate here:

• It is not from a peer reviewed publication, but a research presentation, where there is typically more lattitude for speculative illustrations.
• The source does not mention Dawenkou at all.
• Rather the source is focussed on the relationship between Japanese and Korean (and even there his locations are controversial), and does not mention Austronesian or the other languages apart from the maps.
• Unger's field is Japanese linguistics, not Austronesian or archaeology.
• The article text does not mention language (and there is little that it could say, since we cannot know what language the Dawenkou people spoke). Kanguole 23:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:For the points that you have raised:

• The source does not mention Dawenkou at all.

→ Although the map does not mention directly the Dawenkou culture, but it implies the culture by putting the times for pre-Austronesian in Shangdong and Jiangsu as >2000 BCE.

• The source is focussed on the relationship between Japanese and Korean (and even there his locations are controversial), and does not mention Austronesian or the other languages apart from the maps.
• Unger's field is Japanese linguistics, not Austronesian or archaeology.
• The article text does not mention language.

→ The problem here is not about the focus of the his paper and the mentioning of Austronesian, and the specialized languages of Unger. There are various sources talk about the connection between a pre-/para-Austronesian inhabitants and Dawenkou culture. The only thing these sources lack is a map to illustrate the distribution of the early Austronesian in the coastal region of Dawenkou cultural zone, which Unger does. So in this case, Unger presentation paper serves as a source providing illustrative map, rather than as a specialized source discussing about a pre-Austronesian presence in Dawenkou culture. If you claim about the absence of discussions about the connection between Austronesian and Dawenkou culture in Unger's study, then I can import such sources from other authors right away. Unger's researches focus on Japanese linguistics, but he must have probably been aware of and have read contemporary researches related to Austronesian in other fields.

→ I am going to create a new section about the connection between pre-Austronesian and Dawenkou culture. Leaving the article with only two sentences mentioning about the connection of Austronesian and Dawenkou culture is unacceptable. Gustmeister (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

By all means assemble what sources you can on claims of a relationship between Dawenkou and Austronesian, but Unger remains an unsuitable authority on the subject, and this presentation (not a paper) a particularly unsuitable source for illustrations of it. Kanguole 13:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:What do you mean by 'unsuitable'? His maps are extremely suitable for illustration. I've been asking him whether he used the maps in one of his books.

Sure, I'm going to create a new section about Austronesian and Dawenkou.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustmeister (talk • contribs) 16:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean unsuitable for use in this article, for the reasons listed above. Kanguole 17:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:The only people who care about the identity of the inhabitants of Dawenkou culture are whose who study Japanese and Korean linguistics and history. Your claim about Unger's unqualification to write about Dawenkou culture simply due to his specialization in Japanese linguistics is completely invalid. I've been asking him whether he used the maps in one of his books. If he did, I'd sure use the map for illustration. Gustmeister (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:Prof. Unger has replied me (I'm going to remove the link after you have seen the image). The maps are at pages 226-229 in a more up-to-date paper published in 2014 by Unger [1]. Specifically, page 226 refers to the connection between pre-Austronesian and Dawenkou culture. Unger uses the term Austro-Thai rather than pre-Austronesian in this paper. The time is 3300 BCE, which is at the middle of the estimated time frame for Dawenkou culture. Therefore, I'm going to use the maps for illustration purpose. Specifically, the 1st map is the best suited. Gustmeister (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a more formal publication, but the principal objections remain: his field is the history of Japanese, and that is what the paper is about. "Austro-Thai" features only in map 1, as an area outside his focus, and is not explored in the paper. (This is much clearer in the full paper.) It is therefore not a usable source on the language of the Dawenkou culture. Kanguole 09:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:It seems like you want to minimize and eliminate all non-Chinese characteristics of historical entities, and replace them with Chinese-related characteristics. Featuring in only one map is enough as the time frames in other maps are not within that of Dawenkou culture. Your words outside of his focus is invalid since whose who study Japanese and Korean histories are people who pay attention to the identity of Dawenkou people most. Moreover, researchers outside of the fields of Japanese and Korean history and linguistics also support the connection between Austronesian and Dawenkou culture, i.e. Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench, George van Driem, Stanley Starosta. Laurent Sagart (2008) also provides a map illustrating the southward migration of pre-Austronesian from Dawenkou culture to Taiwan [2] (page 17) with the time for the southward migration being 3500 BCE, which is similar to Unger's 1st map. The map is NOT used as a linguistic map, but FOR demonstrating the connection between pre-Austronesian/Austro-Tai and the Dawenkou culture. The evidence will be drawn from archeological and cultural traces. Gustmeister (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd also like to stress that I don't need to get the agreement from you to use the map. Gustmeister (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

We have very little on which to base conjectures about languages spoken by any of these archaeological cultures, or even whether those languages have surviving relatives.

That this issue is outside of Unger's focus is entirely pertinent to the question of using him as a source – see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

Laurent Sagart is the main recent proponent of this idea (with support from Stanley Starosta), as part of the Sino-Austronesian proposal, which has been heavily criticized by Austronesian specialists. Blench seems to lean towards the Hemudu culture as precursors of Austronesian. Van Driem surveys the Sino-Austronesian, Sino-Caucasian and East Asian proposals, but says he does not subscribe to any of them. Kanguole 11:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:I've said that the evidence that I'm going to add is archeological and cultural since there's no linguistic trace of Dawenkou culture left so far. What other researchers have criticized about Laurent Sagart's theory is not his Sino-Austronesian part, but his numeral-based model of Austronesian phylogeny proposed in 2008. Sagart's Sino-Austronesian theory, at this moment, has gained more linguistic evidence shown in his 2017 paper Austronesian and Chinese words for the millets, coupled with genetic supports from Ko et al. (2014) and Li et al. (2017). Van Driem surveys the Sino-Austronesian, Sino-Caucasian and East Asian proposals, but says he does not subscribe to any of them, where does he say that? In his 1998 paper titled Neolithic correlates if ancient Tibeto-Burman migrations (p. 94) [3], he states that Austronesian traits of the Dawenkou Neolithic of Shandong are derived from a linguistic contact between Austronesian-related cultures along the coast further south and the ancient Northern Tibeto-Burman Yangshao Neolithic civilization, which means that he considers the similarity between proto-Austronesian and early Chinese to be due to linguistic contact, rather than genetic connection like Laurent Sagart proposes. Van Driem's opinion is reiterated in his 2008 paper titled To which language family does Chinese belong, or what's in a name? (p. 228) [4], in which he writes that:

"At the time, I speculated that the correspondences adduced by Sagart might be the residue of a contact situation between ancient Northern Tibeto-Burmans, i.e. Sinitic or Sino-Bodic peoples, and ancient Austronesians (van Driem 1998). I proposed that proto-Austronesians were the behind littoral cultures which lay south of the Yangtze delta such as the Hemudu culture on Hangzhou Bay in Zhejiang, the Dapenkeng of Formosa, the Fuguodun of Quemoy and related Neolithic cultures of Fukien of the 5th and early 4th millennia BC. The contact situation between Proto-Austronesian and an ancient variety of Tibeto-Burman which accounted for Sagart's correspondences ensued upon the northward expansion of Proto-Austronesians from south of the Yangtze delta, giving rise to the Longshan interaction sphere which emerged in the 4th and 3rd millennia BC and connected coastal cultures from north to south, such as the Dawenkou assemblage in Shandong, the Qingliangang culture of northern Jiangsu, and the Majiabang culture of the Yangtze delta." Gustmeister (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Austronesian specialists have criticized the whole of Sagart's Sino-Austronesian theory, especially the OC-AN comparisons. Robert Blust has been particularly scathing.

Regarding van Driem, I was referring to I do not currently subscribe to the East Asian theory any more than I do to Sino-Austronesian or Sino-Caucasian on page 241 of the same article. Kanguole 15:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:OK. I did not pay attention to that sentence. But the paper was published in 2008 at the time when genetic evidence by Ko et al. (2014), Li et al. (2017) and new linguistic evidence by Sagart (2017) had not yet come out. His view about Sagart's theory may have changed after reading these articles. Therefore, I'm going to ask him about his opinion on the recent evidence supporting Sagart's theory and the connection between Austronesian and Dawenkou culture. But before that, I'm about to check all of his most recent publications to see how he views Sagart's theory and maybe the Dawenkou-Austronesian connection first.

About Austronesian specialists' criticisms, except for Blust, who and when do they make their criticisms ? if they did that before 2014, then their views may have changed at this moment. Gustmeister (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:You are right that Roger Blench doesn't say anything about the connection between Austronesian and the Dawenkou culture. Gustmeister (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

About sources for the connection between Austronesian and the Dawenkou culture, I can't find anything supporting this connection besides works of Laurent Sagart and Paul Kekai Manansala, plus Ko et al.'s and Li et al.'s genetic studies. Roger Blench writes about tooth ablation practice among the Austronesian and Tai-Kadai, but does not mention anything about the connection. Martine Robbeets (2017) [5] also writes about the connection, but she misinterprets other people's viewpoints. So, all I may be able to do is to add further details to the two existing sentences. Gustmeister (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

RFC about linguistic map

There is a clear consensus that the article should not include File:EastAsiaMap1.png. The proponent of that map has been blocked as a sockpuppet.

Cunard (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Dawenkou culture article include this (or similar) linguistic map? Kanguole 15:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The map (at right) is adapted from a presentation "Comparing the Japanese and Korean Languages: Culling Borrowed Words" by J. Marshall Unger. A more recent version is map 1 in the appendix of Unger, J. Marshall (2014). "No rush to judgment: the case against Japanese as an isolate". NINJAL Project Review. 4 (3): 211–230. doi:10.15084/00000755. Kanguole 16:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• oppose – There is little basis for assertions about the distribution of language(s) in this area so long ago, and different theories correspond to wildly different maps, so why single this one out? Moreover, the map is being used here to suggest that the language of the Dawenkou culture was an ancestor of the Austronesian languages, but the source doesn't even mention Dawenkou and barely mentions Austronesian, because it is all about the history of the Japanese and Korean languages (and even there it is advancing a controversial position). Indeed the author, J. Marshall Unger, is a specialist in the history of Japanese, not Austronesian or archaeology. He has filled out this map based on the Sino-Austronesian theory, which has been roundly criticized by Austronesian specialists. Kanguole 16:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:What do you mean by "oppose"? I have not yet even asked George van Driem about his opinion on the recent advances in Sagart's Sino-Austronesian theory. Specifically, Sagart's 2017 paper Austronesian and Chinese words for the millets [6], and genetic evidence supporting Sagart's theory by Ko et al. (2014) [7] and Li et al. (2017) [8]. Moreover, assuming that this map would not be supported for use, there is another map by Sagart (2008) [9] (page 17) illustrating the connection between pre-Austronesian and Dawenkou culture, which could replace Unger's map. MORE importantly, DO NOT use different accounts of yours or invite your acquaintances to come here to vote. Gustmeister (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gustmeister: On what basis are you accusing Kanguole, a respected long-term editor, of sockpuppetry and illegal canvassing? Please retract your accusation if you cannot produce supporting evidence and stop casting aspersions against other users. -Zanhe (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe:Your and this Users's long-time career on Wikipedia is what makes me suspicious of your honesty. You all could use your long-time experience with Wikipedia to fool new users. Gustmeister (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gustmeister: You're disregarding my warning and casting aspersions again. If you have any evidence to suspect Kanguole or myself of sockpuppetry, file a report at WP:SPI and administrators will examine our IP addresses and other technical evidence. If you have no evidence, stop making false accusations or I'll report you to WP:ANI. Consider this your last warning. -Zanhe (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an academic, and all of this is new to me, so my perspective may be different from yours (I have some background in the region, and in linguistics). From my perspective, the contextual map is a useful addition even if controversial. I actually prefer the Sagart map mentioned above. The caption mentions that the map was recently proposed, so readers will be unlikely to rely on it, but it could be useful for visualizing the subject matter. I would propose modifying the map caption to say "indicating a proposed link between the Dawenkou culture and the pre-Austronesian" instead of "showing that Dawenkou culture was linked to pre-Austronesian". If a better map becomes available, by all means substitute it. Sakuranohi (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment How does the map relate to the 'Agriculture and Diet' section it is currently in? Or indeed where is the prose the map is supporting? There are lots of terms in the map that are unexplained in the article. Right now, compared to the article content, the map seems fringe and as having undue weight. Images and maps are supposed to support, not replace prose. It seems either the article needs expanding or the map is out-of-scope. Kind regards, Cesdeva (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC).

• Oppose this map unfairly promotes an unproven hypothesis about the origin of Austronesian speakers. Wikipedia is about presenting academic consensus, and unproven theories should be discussed with an abundance of caution and weighed against competing viewpoints. Also, from my interaction with User:Gustmeister, I seriously question his competence in this subject (see [10]). -Zanhe (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe:What subject? It is right to question my competence in Chinese history as Chinese historical texts are often modified, edited by later imperial historians and they are biased when describe non-Chinese peoples. So it is not my interest to read these texts unless they are already analyzed by modern researchers. However, this issue is not about Chinese history. At this moment, other linguists have not yet expressed their opinions about Sagart's theory, however, with the rapid advances in DNA analysis technology, possibly five years later, there will be more supporting DNA evidence for the presence of Austronesian in Shandong.

So, if somehow this map was not supported for use, then 5 years later I would return to this topic again. Gustmeister (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gustmeister: I was talking about the subject of prehistoric and ancient languages in China. Your comment about "Wu language documents" betrays your lack of competence in this subject. If academic consensus changes in five years in light of new evidence, by all means come back and update Wikipedia. But I recommend that you brush up on your knowledge of ancient Chinese history and archaeology in the meantime. Nobody's asking you to read traditional historical texts; there are plenty of writings by modern scholars who critically assess those old sources and new archaeological evidence. -Zanhe (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe:No need to write much. So, you seem to know about this subject (the Austronesian presence in the Dawenkou culture), could you explain why an Austronesian presence in the Dawenkou culture is unreasonable, and then list sources mention as such ? Gustmeister (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. Per WP:BURDEN, since you want to depict Dawenkou as Austronesian, you need to produce sources to show that that is the scholarly consensus. (That will be difficult, because it isn't.) Kanguole 22:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe:@Kanguole:No need to write lengthy. Per WP:BURDEN, user Zanhe gives an opposing vote in THIS POLL, so he MUST EXPLAIN why an Austronesian presence in the Dawenkou culture is unreasonable, and then list sources mention as such. this User has attacked me by all means possible about my shortage of knowledge on this subject, so he MUST SHOW that he is knowledgeable about this topic. IF NOOT, this User is not QUALIFIED to vote. Gustmeister (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If you read WP:BURDEN, you'll see that is not how it works. Kanguole 23:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

*Support This map represents the growing DNA evidence for the presence of the pre-Austronesian all along the eastern coastal region of East Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustmeister (talk • contribs) 12:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Strike !vote of confirmed sock of blocked editor, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It turns out Gustmeister himself is a sockpuppet who is now blocked. No wonder he always suspected others of sockpuppetry. -Zanhe (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

User blocked is not a reason to cross his comment. 459PHJ3502 (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

User socked is. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Since the proponent of the map has been indef-blocked, I am withdrawing this RFC, and will remove the map. Kanguole 13:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.