The origin and early dispersal of speakers of Transeurasian languages—that is, Japanese, Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic—is among the most disputed issues of Eurasian population history1–3. A key problem is the relationship between linguistic dispersals, agricultural expansions and population movements4,5. Here we address this question by ‘triangulating’ genetics, archaeology and linguistics in a unified perspective. We report wide-ranging datasets from these disciplines, including a comprehensive Transeurasian agropastoral and basic vocabulary; an archaeological database of 255 Neolithic–Bronze Age sites from Northeast Asia; and a collection of ancient genomes from Korea, the Ryukyu islands and early cereal farmers in Japan, complementing previously published genomes from East Asia. Challenging the traditional ‘pastoralist hypothesis’6–8, we show that the common ancestry and primary dispersals of Transeurasian languages can be traced back to the first farmers moving across Northeast Asia from the Early Neolithic onwards, but that this shared heritage has been masked by extensive cultural interaction since the Bronze Age. As well as marking considerable progress in the three individual disciplines, by combining their converging evidence we show that the early spread of Transeurasian speakers was driven by agriculture.

The origin and early dispersal of speakers of Transeurasian languages, i.e., Japanese, Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic, is among the most disputed issues of Eurasian population history. A key problem is the relationship between linguistic dispersals, agricultural expansions and population movements. Here we address this question through ‘triangulating’ genetics, archaeology and linguistics in a unified perspective. We report new, wide-ranging datasets from these disciplines, including the most comprehensive Transeurasian agropastoral and basic vocabulary presented to date, an archaeological database of 255 Neolithic and Bronze Age sites from Northeast Asia, and the first collection of ancient genomes from Korea, the Ryukyu islands and early cereal farmers in Japan, complementing previously published genomes from East Asia. Challenging the traditional ‘Pastoralist Hypothesis’, we show that the common ancestry and primary dispersals of Transeurasian languages can be traced back to the first farmers moving across Northeast Asia from the Early Neolithic onwards, but that this shared heritage has been masked by extensive cultural interaction since the Bronze Age. As well as marking significant progress in the three individual disciplines, by combining their converging evidence, we show that the early spread of Transeurasian speakers was driven by agriculture.

In a recent study we used an interdisciplinary approach combining linguistics, archaeology and genetics to analyse the Transeurasian languages. Our analysis concluded that the early dispersals of these languages were driven by agriculture. A preprint published on this server presents objections to the Transeurasian hypothesis and its association with farming dispersals. However, close inspection of that text reveals numerous misinterpretations and inconsistencies. In the interest of furthering scientific debate over Transeurasian language and population history, we address the critiques, revising datasets and fine-tuning approaches. The linguistic critique questions the quantity and quality of our datasets. Here we show that the number of surviving cognate sets for Transeurasian is in line with that for well-established language families. In addition, we find that Tian et al. s failure to reject a core of regularly corresponding cognates in the basic vocabulary creates ground for a consensus about the genealogical relatability of the Transeurasian languages. The archaeological critique attempts a re-analysis of one Bayesian test using re-scored data only for northern China. Over half of the suggested re-scorings contain inconsistencies and it is not explained why the re-analysis retains the original data for sites outside northern China, comprising almost 60% of the total. More importantly, the sweeping claim that there is no evidence supporting the prehistoric migrations analysed in our study is not backed by any discussion of the archaeological record. With respect to genetics, the preprint claims a re-analysis showing that the data do not conclusively support the farming-driven dispersal of Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic, nor the two-wave spread of farming to Korea. In fact, the only genetic re-analysis presented is limited to samples from Korea and Japan and does not contradict our original conservative modelling of Neolithic individuals with Hongshan and our Bronze Age ones with Upper Xiajiadian. In sum, in bringing multiple lines of evidence together through triangulation, we gained a more balanced and richer understanding of Transeurasian dispersals than each discipline could provide individually. Our research doubtless leaves room for improvement but we remain confident that triangulation did not fail, but rather brought us a step closer to understanding the history of the Transeurasian languages.

This chapter presents diagnostic criteria for the classification of the Korean dialects and describes the characteristics of seven Korean dialects: Hamgyŏng, P'yŏngan, the Central, Ch'ungch'ŏng, Chŏlla, Kyŏngsang, and Jeju dialects, by phonological, grammatical, and lexical features. There have been many attempts to provide criteria for marking off borderlines between the Korean dialects. Owing to the lack of well-defined and agreed-upon criteria, however, the division and characterization of the dialects have been presented differently depending on researchers’ interests and theoretical backgrounds. The primary goal of this chapter is to introduce essential criteria of the classifications that are frequently mentioned in the literature and to illustrate the unique features of each dialect of Korean. Furthermore, this chapter aims to propose a genealogical tree of the Korean dialects based on the features of each dialect that are discussed in this chapter.

No abstract