http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101013/f...0.537.html

"Human societies progress in small steps just as biological evolution does, according to a study of the structure and language of societies in South East Asia and the Pacific Ocean...

Language phylogeny

Currie's team borrowed an empirical approach from phylogenetics — the study of evolutionary relatedness. But instead of looking at genes, they used a recently created family tree of 400 languages in South East Asia and the Pacific (also called Austronesia). This region stretches from Taiwan in the north to New Zealand in the south, and from Madagascar in the west to Easter Island in the east. The area includes provinces such as Bali and Java, as well as small, autonomous groups such as the Iban speakers living in Malaysia... "

Bonus: "Hidden" Language Found in Remote Indian Tribe

Quote:Diamond defends the method. " The languages are not used to derive any results at all about societies, but to work out the phylogenetic tree. And once that's worked out, you can use that tree to study — in this case — political evolution. So the only question would be 'are languages a good way to work out relationships between societies?'" In general, Diamond says, languages do fit the bil]

lol, sounds kinda transitive to me.

From what I know anthropologists feel that language is too malleable and prefer only hard evidence in fossils and such. I personally see no problem with it at all.