Historical Notes on Words for Knives, Swords, and Other Metal Implements in Early Southern China and Mainland Southeast Asia / Ghi chú về lịch sử từ “dao”, “gươm”, và các vật liệu kim loại khác vào thời đại cổ trong miền Nam Trung Quốc và Đông Nam Á đất liền / 早期的中国南部和大陆东南亚的词:刀, 剑, 等金属器具的历史记载

- Pages: 39-56 Copyright for this paper vested in the author Released under Creative Commons Attribution License Volume 44 Editors: Paul Sidwell Brian Migliazza ISSN Website: http://mksjournal.org Published by: Mahidol University (Thailand) SIL International (USA) MON-KHMER STUDIES is the peer-reviewed, publication of record for research in Austroasiatic linguistics, founded in 1964.
- This historical linguistic study of words for knives, sickles, swords, and other metal tools and weapons in the region shows an expected region of Chinese influence from China to northern MSEA, encompassing Hmong-Mien, Tai, and Vietic.
- Of the groups in this study, Sinitic groups in the Central Plains entered the Bronze Age first from around the beginning of the second millennium BCE, and archaeological evidence shows developed technologies and significant social stratification there.
- In Mainland Southeast Asia (MSEA hereafter), the strongest evidence for the Bronze Age begins at the end of the second millennium BCE (Higham et.
- Higham with such archaeological cultures as the pre-Đông Sơn Gò Mun culture (1100-800 BCE) in the Red River region of Vietnam and various groups in modern-day Thailand.
- In MSEA, the Iron Age was at least in part likely brought from the north via groups in the Lingnan region of Guangdong and Guangxi (Higham 2014:197 and 267).
- Available lexical data shows that Chinese and Tai language groups constitute two major regional centers of the spread of words for such implements into other language groups.
- Chinese etyma for such vocabulary have, as expected, a dominant position among the Tai and Hmong-Mien languages in China and southward into northern parts of MSEA, generally stopping in the Vietic region.
- However, some Tai etyma for sharp metal instruments are also widespread, but in southern China and down through MSEA.3 Within Austroasiatic, there are few widespread reconstructable items for those words (with the exception, for example, of *kam ‘arrow’ (Shorto 2006) in §3.4), while there has been a great deal of borrowing, primarily from Tai, and apparent sharing of localized lexical innovations among MSEA Austroasiatic sub-branches.
- Hmong-Mien, while showing some Sinitic influence, has native etyma for ‘knife’ and ‘sword’.
- The rest of this paper is divided into four sections: (1) historical, archaeological, and sociocultural issues in the development of sharp tools and weapons in China and Southeast Asia are summarized.
- Cultural Development and Tools and Weapons in the Region This section has three parts.
- Section 2.2 summarizes the archaeological record of the beginning of the Bronze Age through the Iron Age in regions in China and MSEA.
- 2 Tibeto-Burman, Chamic, and Munda languages are not central in this paper as they are not in the geographic focus.
- In terms of lexical data, there is little evidence of exchange of words for metal utensils (e.g., ‘arrow’, ‘knife’, ‘axe’, etc.) between Tibeto-Burman and other language families in southeastern China (other than Sinitic) and MSEA.
- Finally, Munda languages have no shared cognates in this semantic domain, with the exception of a few attestations of Austroasiatic *kam ‘arrow’ in two Munda languages, Juang and Kharia (see section 3.4 for more details).
- Regarding insular SEA, Blust (2005) discusses words for ‘iron’ and ‘forge’ in Malay- Chamic and suggests contact between Chamic and Mon based on Mon scripts dating from the 6th century CE and after.
- That lexical dataset (e.g., *besi ‘iron’) does not appear in the data identified in this study and does not directly impact claims in this study.
- Among the languages in the region, terms for long bladed instruments may refer specifically to knives, daggers, machetes, or swords of different types, or a term may have a less precise or blended semantic sense, such as ‘knife/sword’.
- This semantic shift is similarly seen in Vietnamese, with the Sino-Vietnamese doublet dao /zaw33/ ‘knife’ and đao /ɗaw33/ ‘scimitar’.
- Glosses for attestations of this etymon among modern Palaungic languages’ include variously ‘scythe, sword’ (Riang-S), ‘knife’ (Muak-SA), ‘knife, penknife’ (Khang), ‘knife, machete’ (Wa), and ‘sword’ (Samtao and Lawa) (Sidwell 2015:208).
- The Iron Age similarly began in the northwest in China by the 9th century BCE and reached the Yangtze region by the Warring States period (Higham 2014:197).
- North China: While some bronze items have been unearthed in the Majiayao sites of the upper Yellow River region from the third millennium BCE, the Chinese Bronze Age with a developed metallurgy practice (e.g., smelting facilities) becomes solidly established during the Erlitou period in the first half of the second millennium BCE.
- Bronze instruments of early Sinitic culture—and potentially some of the etyma—could be connected to that period.
- Somewhat to the south in the Yangtze River region, in a similar time frame, the Sanxingdui culture also developed not only a metallurgy practice, including bronze and gold, but also jade-working.
- In southeast China, there is evidence of an increase in the importance of warfare and military weapons in southern Chinese region where the Zhuang today reside (Barlow 1997:2-3).
- This includes the Lingnan culture in the Zhujiang River region (and eventually the Nanyue 南越 kingdom in the second century BCE) and the Gouding 句町 area of Guangxi.
- Further south, archaeological records show that the Đông Sơn region of northern Vietnam was a center of bronze production from early in the first millennium BCE, and it is the likely region of the emergence of Vietic culture (cf.
- In the Red River region, the Bronze Age had already been in place for several centuries (e.g., Kim 2010, Kim, Lai, and Trinh 2010, etc.
- Written records suggest Tai-Vietic contact via the merger of the Luoyue / 駱越 / Lạc Việt (probably connected to Vietic) and Ouyue / 甌越 / Âu Việt (probably connected to early Tai) groups into the Âu Lạc in the second half of the third century BCE, and archaeological evidence shows clear evidence of trade in the region in the first millennium prior to the Chinese southward migration.
- However, as will be shown in subsequent sections, despite the apparent exchange of bronze drums in the region (cf.
- Proto-Tai *klɔŋ A1 and tentative Proto-Vietic *kloŋʔ), other than the BRA form for ‘knife/sword’, no other terms in this study were exchanged between Tai and Vietic.
- Mainland Southeast Asia: While previous estimates dated the Bronze Age in the Ban Chiang site to 2100 BCE, additional carbon-dating and a careful review of prior research and comparison with other areas in the region have put the Bronze Age in MSEA at the end of the first millennium BCE (Higham et.
- Table 8.1 in Nolan and Lenski 2006:80).
- This replication of stone implements in bronze was the case during the transition from the Neolithic Phùng Nguyên and Bronze Age Gò Mun cultures in the Red River Valley, such as a Gò Mun site with bronze arrowheads, axes, and a sickle (Higham 2014:169).
- Mon-Khmer Studies kam ‘arrow’ is a pre-Bronze Age word that has been retained in many Austroasiatic languages, while a commonly seen word for ‘sickle’ in many mainland Austroasiatic languages appears to be the result of the spread of iron technology from the north, and thus in a later period.
- While some bronze sickles have been found in as in the above-mentioned Gò Mun site and another site in Cambodian (e.g., Highland 2014:169 and 174), there are many more instances of unearthed iron sickles, more often from Iron Age 2 onward (i.e., 200 BCE into the first few centuries CE).
- (a) Native terms in a language (e.g., pre-Bronze Age *kam ‘arrow’ in many Austroasiatic languages).
- (b) Borrowed terms for introduced items from other groups (e.g., Iron Age words for ‘sword’ and ‘scissors’ in Vietnamese).
- (c) Borrowed terms existing alongside native words (e.g., native and Chinese words for ‘spear’ and ‘sickle’ in Vietnamese).
- (d) Borrowed terms replacing earlier native terms (e.g., replacement of ‘arrow’ in Vietnamese).
- A related matter is the overall likelihood of the borrowing of words.
- Thus, words for ‘arrow’, which emerged in human societies many thousands of years ago, are borrowed much less frequently than words for ‘sword’, which were developed in China only in the mid-first millennium BCE.
- It is thus not surprising that words for items that emerged in the Bronze to Iron Ages, namely, ‘saw’, ‘scissors’, and ‘sword’,4 have been borrowed more often than words for ‘arrow’, ‘spear’, and ‘axes’.
- Instances appear in the archaeological record of Han- Dynasty iron saws (c.
- For instance, Chinese 刀 dāo ‘knife’ has been reconstructed in Old Chinese (OC *C.tˤaw) and Middle Chinese (MC *taw), but not in any of the other language families in this study (except for Vietic *-taw).
- 3.1 Lexical Data in Hmong-Mien The geographic center of Hmong-Mien groups has historically been located somewhat to the north of Tai groups in China, with southward migrations into MSEA only in the past few centuries.
- Hypothetically, this puts early Hmong-Mien groups in the position to have the earliest contact with Bronze Age Sinitic groups.
- While Hmong-Mien ‘sickle’ and ‘scissors’ are Chinese in origin, the presence of two native words for ‘sword’ is notable.
- The approximate forms (no available reconstruction, listed in all caps) DZU ‘knife’ and DZOW ‘saw’ in Table 2 may be native, though their similarity to Chinese words are tentatively noted, as both Chinese words were also borrowed in Tai (§3.2) and Vietic (§3.3).
- 3.2 Lexical Data in Tai Languages Tai groups resided south of Hmong-Mien groups in the Bronze Age but farther north in the Lingnan region than Proto-Vietic groups did.
- Some of the Proto- Tai groups served as mercenaries in the Zhou Dynasty of the mid-first millennium BCE and developed their own cultural military practices (Barlow 1997).
- Table 3 shows that most native Tai words for metal instruments are reconstructable to Proto-Tai (PT in Table 3), while a few are seen only in Proto-Southwestern Tai (PSW in Table 3) (i.e., words for ‘sword’, ‘arrow’, and ‘saw.
- 3.3 Lexical Data in Vietnamese It is increasingly agreed by archaeologists that Vietnamese cultural origins stem from the Phùng Nguyên culture in the late-Neolithic in the mid-second millennium (Kim 2010:125).
- There are numerous archaeological remnants of bronze items in the Red River valley centuries before the Chinese southward expansion of the second century BC, such as the famous bronze drums of Southeast Asia and Southern China, of which a large number are in the Red River region.
- In archaeological literature, frequently noted bronze tools and weapons in the post-Phùng Nguyên eras, the Động Đậu, Gò Mun, and early Đông Sơn eras, include axes, spearheads, daggers, and arrowheads (e.g., Higham 1996 and 2014).
- It is thus not surprising to discover that Vietnamese has native words, or at least words without apparent Austroasiatic origins, for precisely these items (i.e., ‘axe’, ‘spear’, and ‘sickle’) in Table 4.
- This makes sense in light of Higham’s observation that archaeological data in the Đông Sơn period shows that iron was rare while bronze was abundant and his assertion that iron metallurgy at that time was likely the result of contact with the Chinese (Ibid:208-209).
- Whether the common form for ‘iron’ in Vietnamese sắt (cf.
- In the data, two OC-MC doublets include dao ‘knife’ and đao ‘scimitar’ (Chinese 刀 dāo) and gươm and kiếm ‘sword’ (Chinese 劍 jiàn).
- This further strengthens the claim that these items are in the same era of borrowing.
- The only apparent Tai loan is the word for ‘bush knife’, an item seen in many MSEA Austroasiatic languages (see §3.4 and §4).
- Thus, this type of bladed instrument may have spread in the region during the early Đông Sơn era pre-second century BCE at the same time that the bronze drums were traded.
- The Proto- Vietic reconstructions are from Ferlus 2007 in the online Mon-Khmer Etymological Dictionary.
- Lexical data for Vietnamese lacks native words for ‘knife’ or ‘arrow’, both of which were borrowed during the period of Old Chinese, and yet both bronze daggers and arrowheads are commonly listed in the archaeological literature on Đông Sơn sites.
- There is, in addition, the widespread Proto-Austroasiatic form *kam, which occurs in Muong and minor Vietic speech communities, and possibly in the Vietnamese dialect word căm ‘spoke (of wheel.
- Also of note, Vietnamese đồng ‘bronze’ is a Middle Chinese borrowing (MC 銅 *duwng), even though many bronze products appear in the archaeological record in northern Vietnam several centuries before Chinese presence there.
- A vivid picture is presented by Nguyen Viet (2005), who describes the Đa Bút culture (pre-cursor to the Phùng Nguyên culture) in the Red River region in the third millennium BCE as having long-term settlements with cemeteries, using stones with polished edges, making simple pottery, and innovating stone fishing net weights.
- Evidence of metallurgy practices (e.g., molds for bronze implements) appears in MSEA in the mid- to late-second millennium BCE, and thus, the Bronze Age arrived there later than in southern China.
- Lexical data on metal tools and weapons shows that, of native Austroasiatic etyma for metal objects, few terms are widespread in the language family, with only a few appearing in multiple sub- branches.
- including a few reflexes in the Munda languages Juang 7 The falling tone marks liêm as a colloquial borrowing, instead of the expected level tone of the standardized literary reading.
- There are, in contrast, several widespread terms for metal instruments (‘knife’, ‘sword’, ‘axe’, and ‘sickle’) from Tai throughout MSEA Austroasiatic, as described below.
- (b) Tai loanwords in this semantic domain are common in the region.
- and (c) Chinese lexical influence in this domain is minimal south of the Vietic region.
- 3.4.1 Words for ‘Knife/Sword’ in MSEA Austroasiatic Languages Archaeological evidence excludes the possibility of reconstructing ‘sword’ in Austroasiatic since swords as a specific warfare category only emerged in the mid-first millennium BCE in China, long after the assumed dispersal of Austroasiatic.
- Table 5: Native Words for ‘Knife’ and ‘Sword’ in Austroasiatic8 Forms Phylum Branch Attestations *wac /waac ‘knife Aslian several languages with the form WOɈ / sword’ Bahnaric Stieng [wiəʔ] ‘knife (small)’ (Huf1971:C Proto-Khasic *wac ‘knife, sword’ (Sid2012:R:864.A) Khmuic Khmu (Cuang) [wɛk] ‘jungle knife’ (Suw2002:C:973) Proto-Palaungic *waac ‘knife, sword’ (Sid2010:R:1162) *pis/piis ‘knife’ Proto-Bahnaric *pih ~ *piːh ‘knife’ (Sid2000:R:300) Khmuic T’in [piəʔ] ‘knife (small)’ (Huf1971:C sɟaŋ ‘kind of Proto-Bahnaric *caŋ ‘knife, sword’ (Sid2011:R:91) sword’ Monic Mon [sèaŋ] ‘sword’ (Huf1971:C PIT ‘knife’ Proto-Pearic *beːt.
- There is some phonological and semantic overlap of MIT ‘knife’, from Tai, with the posited form PIT ‘knife’ in Table 5, but these must be considered separate etyma for now unless further evidence shows phonological patterns to relate them.
- In the tables of this article, the sources are included in the format used in the MKED, making them easily located there.
- Mon-Khmer Studies However, the most widespread form for ‘knife’, in both native and borrowed terms for ‘knife’, is the BRA form.
- Thus, Proto-Tai *vra C2 may have been borrowed at multiple times, including once in the pre-Han period and again centuries later after tonogenesis and loss of glottal stops was complete in Vietic and Tai.
- Table 6: Likely Loanwords for ‘Knife’ and ‘Sword’ in Austroasiatic Source Form Phylum branch Attestations BRA ‘large knife’ Proto-Monic *mraaʔ (Dif1984:R:N191) from PTai vra C2 Proto-Vietic *m-raːʔ ‘bush-knife’ (Fer2007:R:120) and SWTai *braa Proto-Waic *plaʔ ‘(classifier for tools, knives)’ (Dif1980:R:ʔ89-1) C2 Proto-West-Bahnaric *braː (Sid2003:R:4) Proto-Katuic *braa (Sid2005:R:6) Proto-Pramic (of *braː (Sid2013:R:PP-34) Khmuic) Khmeric Khmer [prie] ‘a large knife for chopping or cutting’ (Headley 1977) Mangic Mang [pjaː²] ‘knife’ (Loi2008:C:962) MIT ‘knife’ Khmeric Surin Khmer [kmet] ‘a knife (in general)’ PTai *miət D2L (Dha1978:C:397) SWTai *miit D2L Khmuic Mlabri [miit] ‘knife’ (Ris1995:C:914).
- Khmu (Cuang) [miːt] ‘knife’ (Suw2002:C:1519) Palaungic Lamet (Nkris) [miːt] ‘knife’ (Lin1978:C:276).
- Lamet (Lampang) [míːt] ‘knife’ (Nar1980:C:425) DAP ‘sword’ Khmeric Surin Khmer [daːp] ‘a sword’ (Dha1978:C:719) SWTai *ʔdaap Katuic Bru [da:p] ‘sword’ (The1980:C:332).
- Ngeq [da:p] DL3 ‘sword’ (Smi1970:C:429) DAW ‘knife / Proto-West-Bahnaric *taːw ‘sword’ (Sid2003:R:139) sword’ from Proto-Vietic *-taːw ‘knife’ (Fer2007:R:250) Chinese and Khmeric Khmer [daaw] ‘sword’ (Huf1971:C Vietnamese Monic Nyah Kur [buun taw] ‘sword’ (Huf1971:C Pearic in five varieties of Pearic 3.4.2 Words for ‘Axe’ and ‘Sickle’ in MSEA Austroasiatic As noted in section 2, bronze axes have a long presence throughout MSEA, at least from the end of the second millennium BCE, while early evidence of bronze sickles comes from the northern Red River region.
- In the lexical data, there are proto-Austroasiatic terms for ‘axe’, but terms for ‘sickle’ were generally borrowed.
- Mon-Khmer Studies Table 7: Words for ‘Axe’ in Austroasiatic Source Form Phylum branch Attestations *[d2]muj ‘axe’ Proto-West- *tmɨː (Sid2003:R:1010) Native word Bahnaric Khmuic T’in [muj] (Fil2009:C:114).
- Pear (multiple (fǔtóu) varieties) [puː tʰau] Unlike for ‘axe’, Shorto reconstructed no words for ‘sickle’ in Austroasiatic, nor are there existing reconstructions in sub-branches in the Mon-Khmer Etymological Dictionary.
- Table 8: Forms for ‘Sickle’ in Austroasiatic Source Form Phylum branch Attestations KIEW Bahnaric Tampuan [ki̤ əw] ‘sickle, reaping hook’ Cro2004:C:458-1N Mangic Mang [keːw³] (Loi2008:C:447) Khmuic Mal, Khmu, T’in (e.g., T’in [Mal] kiaw ‘sickle’ (Fil2009:C:1822) Monic Nyah Kur (Nam Lao) [kíǝw] ‘sickle’ (The1984:C:1599-1) KENDIW Bahnaric Tampuan [kandi̤ əw] Cro2004:C:458-1C Khmeric Surin Khmer [knɪːw] Dha1978:C:648).
- DAW was not listed in the tables in the sections on Tai or Hmong-Mien (albeit with tentative possibilities), though it does appear sporadically in them (e.g., Thai ปังตอ bang33 da:w33, Hmong (Bunu) tau33, etc.
- Map 1: Region of languages with Chinese LIM ‘Sickle’, KIM ‘Sword’, and KEW ‘Scissors’ in China and Northern MSEA ALVES, Mark.
- Mon-Khmer Studies Map 2: Region of languages with Chinese DAW ‘Sword/Knife’ in China and MSEA In a parallel development to the south, Tai BRA for ‘knife/sword’ and KIEW ‘sickle’ are also among the most widespread in MSEA among Austroasiatic languages (Map 3).
- Had the borrowing gone in the other direction, there should be some Tai groups with tone C but others with tone A, reflecting the MK languages without final glottal stop.
- Mon-Khmer Studies Map 3: Region of languages with Tai BRA ‘Sword/Knife’ and KIEW ‘Sickle’ in Southern China and MSEA BRA / KIEW 5.
- If this lexical situation does match the transmission of material culture, the Old Chinese terms in Vietnamese should have been borrowed around the time of the West to East Han of about the second century BCE to the first century CE, and the Tai BRA form would have been borrowed at least as early, though perhaps earlier in the pre-Chinese Đông Sơn period.
- Metal knives and axes, according to archaeological data, were in the region at least three thousand years ago, and yet a majority of Austroasiatic languages have Tai words, and Vietic has been impacted heavily by Sinitic.
- Stratification in the peopling of China.
- The role of agriculture in the evolution of mainland Southeast Asian language phyla.
- The origins of the Bronze Age of Southeast Asia.
- The Underpinnings of sociopolitical complexity and civilization in the Red River Valley of Vietnam.
- in The Lexicon of Proto Oceanic: the Culture and Environment of Ancestral Oceanic Society: 1 Material Culture, ed