Tungusic Languages Research Articles

극동 토착종족의 뱀과 용 숭배 고찰

Kulin(~kula~kola, snake/ tungusic language) and kylang(snake/ nivh language), which are words for snakes among the indigenous tribes of the far east, and the gureongi of the korean peninsula, the orochi's snake god uguma(ezeni), and the upgureongi of the korean peninsula is phonetically and semantically similar. Therefore, the snake worship of the indigenous tribes of the far east is connected to the snake worship of the Korean Peninsula. In the mythological concept of the indigenous tribes of the far east, the snake is the creator of the earth and rivers, and in religious concepts, it is the shaman's assistant spirit, the connector of the three worlds of the universe, the god of lightning and thunder, and the progenitor god of races and clans. The dragon is an imaginary animal that was given the highest authority among animals by transforming the shape of a real animal, a snake, and then sanctifying it. Mudur, which refers to a dragon among indigenous tribes in the far east, is phonetically similar to ‘mir’, which is written in the native korean language for dragon, so there were cultural groups in the southern far east and the korean peninsula who shared the worship of dragons (mudur~mir). However, as they accepted different social systems, their dragon worship went through different transformations and development processes. In the korean peninsula and china, dragon worship developed in the following order: snake totem → dragon totem → dragon god → dragon king. The far eastern indigenous tribes did not experience a national society, nor did they have kings or emperors, so they did not develop dragons to the level of dragon kings. In other words, for them, dragons were not gods or objects of worship with the same status as those in the korean peninsula or china, and the development of dragon worship was limited compared to the korean peninsula or china.

Typological Reflections on the Rise of Possessive Alienability Splits in Tungusic

Abstract In this brief discussion note I consider rise of (in)alienability splits in Tungusic languages in a typological perspective. I provide typological arguments for the diachronic scenario (originally due to Sunik 1947), in which the interrogative pronoun ƞüi ‘who’ developed nominalizing and deictic function, subsequently giving rise to free possessive construction, on the one hand, and the alienability marker, on the other hand. It is shown that the proposed, typologically informed scenario can successfully account for peculiarities of the inalienable possession and related possessive markers in Tungusic languages, which alternative scenarios are not able to explain.

On Dagur Kinship Terms

Abstract According to conventional linguistic classifications, Dagur is one of the archaic Mongolic languages. This language is unique, allegedly connected with the Para- Mongolic language Khitan, and it has a close areal relationship with two Tungusic languages, Manchu and Solon Ewenki. This paper is a continuation of the author’s research on etymological studies of the Dagur language. Two papers have already been published, focusing respectively on names for body parts (Khabtagaeva 2021) and colours (Khabtagaeva 2022). The present paper addresses kinship terminology. The Dagur terms were collected from different published works and fieldwork materials. Most of the terms are of Mongolic origin with special Dagur phonetic features and with an internal Dagur mophological development. A few terms were borrowed from Tungusic languages and Chinese.

The Structure of the Noun Phrase in Northern and Southern Ewenki Dialects

Abstract The paper investigates the structure of Ewenki noun phrases, dealing with both their semantics and syntax. Whereas semantics are rather uniform cross-dialectally, there is considerable variation in syntax, especially regarding agreement patterns. As a rule, the more northern a dialect is the less agreement it exhibits within the noun phrase; besides that, cardinal numerals greater or equal to ‘2’ call for the modified noun in plural in rather Southern dialects, but for its unmarked form in rather Northern dialects. From a comparative point of view, it can be shown that the areal-typologically unexpected agreement within the noun phrase is probably the inherited pattern in (Northern) Tungusic languages, whereas the relevant Ewenki dialects lost it secondarily due to Turkic (Dolgan and Sakha) influence.

Non-canonical possessive constructions in Negidal and other Tungusic languages: a new analysis of the so-called “alienable possession” suffix

Abstract A distinction between inalienable and alienable possession is considered to be crosslinguistically common. For the Tungusic languages, it is generally illustrated with examples that contrast inherently possessed body parts with body parts belonging to a non-inherent possessor, with the latter being formally marked with a suffix -ŋ(V). However, as we argue here for Negidal (Northern Tungusic), rather than marking ‘alienable’ or ‘indirect’ possession, the suffix -ŋ(i) flags the occurrence of non-canonical possessive constructions; the supposedly straightforward interpretation of the oft-cited examples involving body parts is merely a secondary effect of the particular kind of non-canonical construction involved. This analysis unifies the diverse constructions in which -ŋ(i) occurs, namely with obligatorily possessed body parts, with non-possessible items such as nouns denoting humans or environment terms as well as demonstratives or adjectives, and with other modifiers when the possessee is elided. We complement our investigation with the analysis of the cognate suffix -ŋi, whose main function is to mark the possessor in possessive constructions with an elided head. The function of both suffixes can thus be subsumed under the marking of non-canonical possessive constructions. This analysis can be extended to several Tungusic languages, as the comparison with Negidal’s sister languages shows.

한국의 만주-퉁구스어 연구

The purpose of this paper is to predict the direction of future research by introducing the achievements on the Manchu-Tungus language by the third-generation Korean scholars. Since the subjects and methods of scholars' research tend to be fixed to some extent, it is thought that understanding the results of research so far will be able to estimate the direction of future research. Manchu-Tungusic research, if the scope of it is broadened, it can include comparison or contrast studies with other languages and typological studies, but in this paper, only Manchu-Tungusic research will be introduced. Also, since this is an introduction to research trends, specific examples and evaluations are deferred to a later date. Studies on the Manchu-Tungus language up to the second generation in Korea mainly focused on books on Qing studies published by the bureau of interpretaion in Joseon dynasty, research on Manchu books published in the Qing Dynasty, and collect and analysis of spoken Manchu-Tungus data in China and Russia was made. The third generation is those born after the 1970s. While the previous generations mainly studied Manchu language philologically and phonologically, they have been conducting grammatical research mainly within the theoretical framework of modern linguistics for the past 10 years. It is also characterized by the fact that they attempt to analyze spoken Manchu-Tungus following the second generation. Research on spoken language materials is expected to become more active in the future as some scholars are carrying out the “Studies of linguistic transcription and annotation of three endangered Tungus languages” project supported by the government.

An Amuro-Mongolic Etymon and Its Diachronic Implications

Abstract The paper discusses the etymological connection between Amuric *alr ‘berry’ and Mongolic *alïr-su/n ‘lingonberry’. The two items represent the common root *alïr and must reflect a trace of language contact. However, unlike several other lexical items shared by Amuric and Mongolic, this word is not attested in Tungusic, except as a very late and localized secondary borrowing from Mongolic. This means that the connection may be due to a relatively old direct contact between Pre-Proto-Amuric and Pre-Proto-Mongolic. This, in turn, has implications to the question concerning the prehistorical locations of the Amuric, Mongolic, and Tungusic language families in southern and central Manchuria.

Comparing Etymological Characteristics of Plant Naming in Yakut, Even, and Evenk Languages

This article considers issues of language contacts between Yakut, Even, and Evenk people through an analysis of plant vocabulary. We define etymological characteristics of fixed lexical units that denote plant names and present results of a comparative analysis of plant naming in these three languages, with emphasis on lexical parallels and structural types in designating plant names. To our knowledge, this is the first research to undertake a comparative study of plant naming in the Yakut and Tungusic languages (Even and Evenk) with consideration of the methods of their formation. The study is highly relevant because of the unique contribution of plant-world vocabulary in helping to clarify peculiarities of native speakers’ natural environments. Our results show that, based on lexical units with stable semantic meaning, the Evenk language is in the closest position vis-à-vis Yakut. There are 16 names in Yakut of plants and four of common names of herbs that grow on the territory of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) and have borrowed names in Evenk and Even. Twenty-eight names have lexical parallels in Evenk (including variations) and two in Even.

Amuric Hydronyms in Manchuria and the Puyŏ Connection of Ghilyak

Abstract This paper examines the possibility that the earlier homeland of the Ghilyak language(s), collectively identified as the Amuric language family and today spoken in the Lower Amur basin and on the island of Sakhalin, was located further south in Central Manchuria. It may be assumed that the Amuric linguistic lineage moved northwards along the Sungari-Amur basin under the pressure of the Tungusic languages spreading from the south along the same route. It is possible that traces of the former presence of Amuric in Central Manchuria are preserved in the names of the large rivers of the region, notably the Sungari and Ussuri. It is also possible to postulate a political context for the linguistic expansions of both Amuric and Tungusic in the framework of protohistorical Manchuria. In this framework, the origins of the Amuric language family may with some likelihood be linked to Puyŏ, the first historically known political state in the region.

The Only Known Text from Bala, an Extinct Tungusic Language

Bala (bala1242) is an extinct Tungusic language formerly spoken in and around the Zhangguangcai mountain range in Northeast China. The language is only fragmentarily recorded. This study analyzes a song that is the only known text of this language and was written with the help of Chinese characters. The language of the song is close to Manchu dialects but exhibits clear signs of a mixture with a more archaic variety. The underlying language is probably from a higher register of Bala that is strongly influenced by Manchu but at the same time preserves several unique characteristics, such as an intervocalic -g- in dege(ng) 德更 ‘high’ (Manchu den).

Genomic Insights Into the Admixture History of Mongolic- and Tungusic-Speaking Populations From Southwestern East Asia.

As a major part of the modern Trans-Eurasian or Altaic language family, most of the Mongolic and Tungusic languages were mainly spoken in northern China, Mongolia, and southern Siberia, but some were also found in southern China. Previous genetic surveys only focused on the dissection of genetic structure of northern Altaic-speaking populations; however, the ancestral origin and genomic diversification of Mongolic and Tungusic–speaking populations from southwestern East Asia remain poorly understood because of the paucity of high-density sampling and genome-wide data. Here, we generated genome-wide data at nearly 700,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 26 Mongolians and 55 Manchus collected from Guizhou province in southwestern China. We applied principal component analysis (PCA), ADMIXTURE, f statistics, qpWave/qpAdm analysis, qpGraph, TreeMix, Fst, and ALDER to infer the fine-scale population genetic structure and admixture history. We found significant genetic differentiation between northern and southern Mongolic and Tungusic speakers, as one specific genetic cline of Manchu and Mongolian was identified in Guizhou province. Further results from ADMIXTURE and f statistics showed that the studied Guizhou Mongolians and Manchus had a strong genetic affinity with southern East Asians, especially for inland southern East Asians. The qpAdm-based estimates of ancestry admixture proportion demonstrated that Guizhou Mongolians and Manchus people could be modeled as the admixtures of one northern ancestry related to northern Tungusic/Mongolic speakers or Yellow River farmers and one southern ancestry associated with Austronesian, Tai-Kadai, and Austroasiatic speakers. The qpGraph-based phylogeny and neighbor-joining tree further confirmed that Guizhou Manchus and Mongolians derived approximately half of the ancestry from their northern ancestors and the other half from southern Indigenous East Asians. The estimated admixture time ranged from 600 to 1,000 years ago, which further confirmed the admixture events were mediated via the Mongolians Empire expansion during the formation of the Yuan dynasty.

A Bayesian approach to the classification of Tungusic languages

Abstract The Tungusic language family is comprised of languages spoken in Siberia, the Russian Far East, Northeast China and Xinjiang. There is a general consensus that these languages are genealogically related and descend from a common ancestral language. Nevertheless, there is considerable disagreement with regard to the internal structure of the Tungusic family and the time depth of its separation into daughter languages. Here we use computational Bayesian phylogenetic methods to generate a phylogeny of Tungusic languages and estimate the time-depth of the family. Our analysis is based on the recently introduced Leipzig-Jakarta-Jena list, a dataset of 254 basic vocabulary items collected for 21 Tungusic doculects. Our results are consistent with two basic classifications previously proposed in the literature, notably a Manchu-Tungusic classification, in which the break-up of Jurchenic constitutes the first split in the tree, as well as a North-South classification, which includes a Jurchenic-Nanaic and an Orochic-Ewenic branch. In addition, we obtain a time-depth for the age of Proto-Tungusic between the 8th century BC and the 12th century AD (95% highest posterior density interval). Previous classifications of Tungusic were based on both classical historical comparative linguistic and lexicostatistic approaches, but the application of Bayesian phylogenetic methods to the Tungusic languages has not so far been attempted. In contrast to previous approaches, our Bayesian analysis adds an understanding of the statistical robustness of the proposed branches and infers absolute divergence dates, allowing variation of rates of change across branches and cognate sets. In this way, our research provides a reliable quantitative basis for previous estimates based on classical historical linguistic and lexicostatistic approaches.

Genomic insights into the formation of human populations in East Asia.

The deep population history of East Asia remains poorly understood due to a lack of ancient DNA data and sparse sampling of present-day people1,2. We report genome-wide data from 166 East Asians dating to 6000 BCE – 1000 CE and 46 present-day groups. Hunter-gatherers from Japan, the Amur River Basin, and people of Neolithic and Iron Age Taiwan and the Tibetan plateau are linked by a deeply-splitting lineage likely reflecting a Late Pleistocene coastal migration. We follow Holocene expansions from four regions. First, hunter-gatherers of Mongolia and the Amur River Basin have ancestry shared by Mongolic and Tungusic language speakers but do not carry West Liao River farmer ancestry contradicting theories that their expansion spread these proto-languages. Second, Yellow River Basin farmers at ~3000 BCE likely spread Sino-Tibetan languages as their ancestry dispersed both to Tibet where it forms up ~84% to some groups and to the Central Plain where it contributed ~59–84% to Han Chinese. Third, people from Taiwan ~1300 BCE to 800 CE derived ~75% ancestry from a lineage also common in modern Austronesian, Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic speakers likely deriving from Yangtze River Valley farmers; ancient Taiwan people also derived ~25% ancestry from a northern lineage related to but different from Yellow River farmers implying an additional north-to-south expansion. Fourth, Yamnaya Steppe pastoralist ancestry arrived in western Mongolia after ~3000 BCE but was displaced by previously established lineages even while it persisted in western China as expected if it spread the ancestor of Tocharian Indo-European languages. Two later gene flows affected western Mongolia: after ~2000 BCE migrants with Yamnaya and European farmer ancestry, and episodic impacts of later groups with ancestry from Turan.

Towards a typological profile of the North Siberian substrate

The paper deals with a number of typologically rare features present in the languages of Northern Siberia (Nenets, Enets, Nganasan, Ewenki, Neghidal, Ewen, to some extent also Yukaghir and Chukchi); these features are: interrogative mood of the verbs, intraclitics, nominal tense, polysemy ‘real’ / ‘autochtonous’. They are absent in the languages spoken to the south, including other Uralic and Tungusic languages, thus being of clearly areal character. On the other hand, none of the existing languages can be regarded as a source of these features, so that their origin must be due to a common substrate. Interestingly, all the four features are well attested in the Eskaleut languages. These features allow us to make some hypotheses about the typological profi le of the languages spoken in Northern Siberia about 1000–2000 years ago. They must have been diff erent from the Uralo-Altaic type, but probably were typologically close to the present-day Eskaleut (Unangan-Yupik-Inuit).

Лексико-семантические соответствия глаголов с образно-характеризующим значением в хакасском и алтайском языках (в сравнении с кыпчакскими языками)

We study the correlations between figurative-characterizing verbs in Turkic languages of Siberia (Altai, Khakas) and Kipchak languages (Kyrgyz, Kazakh, Bashkir). In these languages, we distinguish a small ancient group of figurative stems common for all Turkic, and sometimes also Mongolian and Tungusic languages. In the Altai and Khakass languages, there are commonalities and differences in the formation of complex words from figurative bases both between these languages themselves and with Kipchak. One common trait of these languages is the simultaneous formation of figurative-characterizing verbs and their Aktionsart meaning defined by an auxiliary verb (in analytic word formation) or certain affixes: =y characterizes a state while =ŋda ~ =ŋna ~ =ŋnaa denotes an evenly distributed meaning of action. The =(а)y affix is also found in the Mongolian language while =ŋda ~ =ŋna ~ =ŋnaa is typical for the Siberian and Kipchak languages. The difference in the formation of complex verbs with figurative-characterizing meaning lies in the usage of different verb components: Alt. et= ‘to do’; Khak. tüs= ‘to go down’, pol= ‘to be’, it= ‘to do’ (rarely); Kyrg., Kaz. et= ‘to do’, ber= ‘to take’, qaq= ‘to knock’, etc. The analysis of correlations has shown their small number among complex words and greater number among synthetic words, with a high number of Mongolian loanwords common for Siberian and Kipchak languages. In figurative-characterizing verbs, most correlations found in Siberian languages (without those in Kipchak) are derived from all-Turkic stems. No Altai-Kipchak correlations without their presence in the Khakass language were found, while there are a few correlations with Kyrgyz language. Also, no Khakas-Kipchak correlations were detected.

«БОЛЬШОЙ ТОЛКОВЫЙ СЛОВАРЬ ЯКУТСКОГО ЯЗЫКА»: НОВОЕ ДОСТИЖЕНИЕ ЯКУТСКОЙ ЛЕКСИКОГРАФИИ

The present article describes the Great Explanatory Dictionary of the Yakut Language. The Dictionary is the outcome of 46 years of work done by lexicographers at the Institute for Humanities Research and Indigenous Studies of the North, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The editor of the Dictionary is Pyotr A. Sleptsov, professor, Doctor of Philological Sciences, member of the Academy of Sciences of Sakha Republic. The Dictionary includes 15 volumes of about 800 sheets, 9,500 pages in total, containing some 80 thousand words and phraseological units. The Dictionary provides a full description of Yakut vocabulary in all its centuries-old richness. The lexical units are from various sources: phraseological units, compounds, archaisms, rarely used words or folk terminology, as well as common dialect words. The authors point out that the Dictionary employs almost all literature written in Yakut: published folklore texts of various genres; translations of classic Russian and world literature; works of all Yakut writers, from classic to modern. The Dictionary is based on the academic card index which presently includes over three million cards with citations showing the lexical and phraseological stock of the Yakut language in its fullness. It would not be possible to create such a huge lexicographic work without a high level of theory of the Yakut language and the present lexicographic tradition that has been bilingual since its foundation. The article shows the relevance of the great multi-volume lexicographic work, describing some characteristics of Yakut vocabulary as reflected in the Dictionary. Also, examples of lexicographic presentation of certain groups of vocabulary are provided. These include a bulk of figurative words and their verbal derivatives, a large number of modal words, particles, and word groups, compound words and terms, phraseological units. The authors of the Dictionary paid great attention to words denoting various ethnographic notions. These words denoting realities that in many cases disappeared from modern life as well as purely Yakut phenomena needed encyclopedic, or close to that, treatment. The Dictionary is targeted at the widest audience. However, its academic reference direction is also important since it will become an essential source for comparative studies of the lexico-semantic system in three large language families: Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages, at the intersection of which Yakut developed.

Онгоцонские хамниганы в XIX в.: этнический состав и расселение

This article continues the series of the works devoted to the study of ethnic composition of the Buryat and Khamnigan departments in 19th century. One of the self-government bodies of indigenous of the Transbaikalia in the 19th century was the Urulginskaya Steppe Duma, the main population of which was the “Tungus of Manchu tribe”, as the Russian administration called them. The Ongotson indigenous council was the southwestern outskirts of the Urulga Steppe duma. In the 19th century, in the literature, the population of this council, like most of the population of Urulga Steppe Duma, was called “Horse Tungus”. The basis of the ethnic composition of the Ongotson Khamnigans was represented by Sartuls, Sarduls, Bakhashils, Lunikers and Chimchagits. The largest unit was the Sartuls – immigrants from Central Asia, who settled in Mongolia, mainly in the west of Khalkha. A part of the Sartuls in the east (in the Setsen-khan aimag, on the borderlands of Mongolia and Manchuria, in Jarut, Yekhe and Khada), became involved in the ethnic composition of both the Mongols and Manchus. From here, probably, take roots of both the Sartuls and Sarduls of Onon region. It was the Sartuls who had a key influence on the linguistic and confessional affiliation of all Ongotson Khamnigans. The ethnonym Bakhashil < Vakasil < Vakaroi indicates the participation of “Reindeer Tungus” (Evenks) in the formation of groups of “Horse Tungus” (Solon). The spread of the ethnonym Vakarai and its other phonetic variants indicates a wide area of its distribution in the Evenks environment. However, the existing hypotheses admit its origin in the Manchu-Tungusic, Yukaghir and Turkic environment, of which the first two are preferable. The ethnonym Chimchigit< Chimchagir may have Tungus-Manchurian and Mongolian roots. Lunikir is found in Transbaikalia, Mongolia and Barga, which reflects the long-term contacts of its carriers in this region. The origin of this ethnonym is unclear, although it has a form close to the Tungus languages. The discovered connections with Mongolia, Manchuria and vast expanses of Eastern Siberia and Amgun region reflect the crossroads of the migration routes of Mongols and Manchu-Tungusic both in Transbaikalia, and specifically in the Onon region. This significantly expands the research area into ethnic history not only of the Khamnigans, but also wider than the Mongolian and Manchu-Tungusic linguistic groups. A detailed map of the settlement of Ongotson Khamnigans, based on the census tables, was compiled.

Paternal origin of Tungusic-speaking populations: Insights from the updated phylogenetic tree of Y-chromosome haplogroup C2a-M86.

Haplogroup C2a-M48 is the predominant paternal lineage of Tungusic-speaking populations, one of the largest population groups in Siberia. Up until now, the origins and dispersal of Tungusic-speaking populations have remained unclear. In this study, the demographic history of Tungusic-speaking populations was explored using the phylogenetic analysis of haplogroup C2a-M86, the major subbranch of C2a-M48. In total, 18 newly generated Y chromosome sequences from C2a-M48 males and 20 previously available Y-chromosome sequences from this haplogroup were analyzed. A highly revised phylogenetic tree of haplogroup C2a-M86 with age estimates was reconstructed. Frequencies of this lineage in the literature were collected and a comprehensive analysis of this lineage in 13 022 individuals from 245 populations in Eurasia was performed. The distribution map of C2a-M48 indicated the most probable area of origin and diffusion route of this paternal lineage in North Eurasia. Most C2a-M86 samples from Tungusic-speaking populations belonged to the sublineage C2a-F5484, which emerged about 3300 years ago. We identified six unique sublineages corresponding to the Manchu, Evenks, Evens, Oroqen, and Daurpopulations; these sublineages diverged gradually over the past 1900 years. Notably, we observed a clear north-south dichotomous structure for sublineages derived from C2a-F5484, consistent with the internal north-south divergence of Tungusic languages and ethnic groups. We identified the important founding paternal haplogroup, C2a-F5484, for Tungusic-speaking populations as well as numerous unique subgroups of this haplogroup. We propose that the timeframe for the divergence of C2a-F5484 corresponds with the early differentiation of ancestral Tungusic-speaking populations.

Глагольный залог в якутском и тувинском языках в сопоставлении с монгольскими и тунгусскими языками

В статье обсуждаются залоговые формы глагола, их семантическая структура и оформляемые на их базе синтаксические конструкции, представленные в исследованиях по тюркским, монгольским, тунгусским языкам. В настоящее время исследование данных глагольных образований вплотную связано с актуальной проблемой системных связей формальной морфологии и грамматической семантики.Вопрос определения залога получал неоднозначную трактовку и вызывал дискуссии на всем протяжении истории изучения тюркских языков. В рассматриваемых языках представлен почти одинаковый набор грамматических форм залога: основного (или действительного), страдательного, взаимного (или совместно-взаимного), понудительного, возвратного. Языки каждой группы алтайских языков оперируют одним и тем же аффиксом залоговых форм или его алломорфами. Например, в монгольских языках побудительный залог образуется при помощи одного суффикса -уул, в тунгусо-маньчжурских языках каузатив представлен аффиксом, восходящим к форманту *-вукан-/укан, тюркские используют варианты аффикса -т(º)р. Характерной чертой алтайских языков является общность семантики каждой залоговой формы в них. Например, функция побудительного залога определяется как выражение вмешательства одного субъекта в действие другого. Языки алтайской типологии в целом совпадают в области синтаксического представления залоговых отношений.В анализируемых языках синтаксические конструкции с залоговой семантикой оформляются в зависимости от переходности/непереходности исходной глагольной основы и семантических типов актантов ситуации. Глагольный залог требует дальнейшего исследования как грамматическая форма и основанная на ней семантическая категория залоговости.

Millet agriculture dispersed from Northeast China to the Russian Far East: Integrating archaeology, genetics, and linguistics

Broomcorn and foxtail millets were being cultivated in the West Liao River basin in Northeast China by at least the sixth millennium BCE. However, when and how millet agriculture spread from there to the north and east remains poorly understood. Here, we trace the dispersal of millet agriculture from Northeast China to the Russian Far East and weigh demic against cultural diffusion as mechanisms for that dispersal. We compare two routes for the spread of millet into the Russian Far East discussed in previous research—an inland route across Manchuria, and a coastal/inland route initially following the Liaodong Peninsula and Yalu River—using an archaeological dataset including millet remains, pottery, stone tools, spindle whorls, jade and figurines. We then integrate the archaeological evidence with linguistic and genetic findings in an approach we term ‘triangulation’. We conclude that an expansion of agricultural societies in Northeast China during the Middle to Late Hongshan (40003000 BCE) coincided with the arrival of millet cultivation in eastern Heilongjiang and the Primorye province of the Russian Far East. Our findings support the inland, Manchuria route for the dispersal of millet to the Primorye and suggest that, as well as long-distance cultural exchange, demic diffusion was also involved. Our results are broadly compatible with the farming/language dispersal hypothesis and consistent with a link between the spread of millet farming and proto-Tungusic, the language ancestral to the contemporary Tungusic languages, in late Neolithic Northeast Asia.