Comment on 'Farming and Language in Island Southeast Asia Reframing Austronesian History: Paradigms, especially old ones, die harder than Bruce Willis (original) (raw)
Related papers
Is Malayo-Polynesian a primary branch of Austronesian? A view from morphosyntax
Diachronica
An understudied morphosyntactic innovation, reanalysis of the Proto-Austronesian (PAn) stative intransitive prefix *ma- as a transitive affix, offers new insights into Austronesian higher-order subgrouping. While Malayo-Polynesian is currently considered an Austronesian primary branch with no identifiably closer relationship with any linguistic subgroup in the homeland (Blust 1999, 2013; Ross 2005), the fact it displays the same innovative use of ma- with Amis, Siraya, Kavalan, and Basay-Trobiawan and shares the merger of PAn *C/t with this group suggests that Malayo-Polynesian and East Formosan may share a common origin – the subgroup that comprises the four languages noted above. This observation points to a renewed subgrouping more consistent with a socio-historical picture where the out-of-Taiwan population descended from a seafaring community expanding to the Batanes and Luzon after having developed a seafaring tradition. It also aligns with recent findings in archaeology and genetics that (i) eastern Taiwan is most likely the starting point of Austronesian dispersal (Hung 2005, 2008, 2019; Bellwood 2017; Bell- wood & Dizon 2008; Carson & Hung 2018) and (ii) the Amis bear a significantly closer relationship with Austronesian communities outside Taiwan (Capelli et al. 2001; Trejaut et al. 2005; McColl et al. 2018; Pugach et. al. 2021; Tatte et. al. 2021). Future investi- gation of more shared innovations between Malayo-Polynesian and East Formosan could shed further light on their interrelation.
Splitting up proto-Malayopolynesian; new models of dispersals from Taiwan
The current model of proto-Malayo-Polynesian (PMP) holds that a unitary language was spoken in the Luzon Straits roughly four thousand years ago and that this diversified into all the extra-Formosan languages and was responsible for the Neolithic settlement of Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) and Oceania. The paper suggests that this is supported by neither linguistics, archaeology nor the distribution of material culture. Archaeology of ISEA after 4000 BP points to near simultaneous settlement in a wide variety of sites, while analysis of individual lexical items points to geographically biased distributions, suggesting they were selectively carried to different regions. Distributions of material culture items associated exclusively with Austronesian culture show strong geographical biases. Recent phenotypic results from Remote Oceania suggests a direct connection with some populations of Taiwan and Northern Luzon, contrary to previous models of complex mixing at intermediate stages, calling into question elaborate nested models of Austronesian phylogeny. This points to a rather different model of time and place, here called the ‘boiling pot’ which assumes the Luzon Strait was an centre of innovative maritime technology and the starting point for voyages in canoes with multi-ethnic crews. This would then see PMP as a network of related subgroups, which can never fully reconstitute a unitary PMP, because no such entity existed.
Farming and Language in Island Southeast Asia: Reframing Austronesian History
Current Anthropology a World Journal of the Sciences of Man, 2010
Current portrayals of Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) over the past 5,000 years are dominated by discussion of the Austronesian “farming/language dispersal,” with associated linguistic replacement, genetic clines, Neolithic “packages,” and social transformations. The alternative framework that we present improves our understanding of the nature of the Austronesian language dispersal from Taiwan and better accords with the population genetics, archaeological evidence, and crop domestication histories for ISEA. Genetic studies do not demonstrate that the dispersal of Austronesian languages through ISEA was associated with large-scale displacement, replacement, or absorption of preexisting populations. Linguistic phylogenies for Austronesian languages do not support staged movement from Taiwan through the Philippines into Indo-Malaysia; in addition, the lexical and grammatical structure of many Austronesian languages suggests significant interaction with pre-Austronesian languages and cultures of the region. Archaeological evidence, including domestication histories for major food plants, indicates that ISEA was a zone of considerable maritime interaction before the appearance of Austronesian languages. Material culture dispersed through ISEA from multiple sources along a mosaic of regional networks. The archaeological evidence helps us to shape a new interpretative framework of the social and historical processes that more parsimoniously accounts for apparent discrepancies between genetic phylogenies and linguistic distributions and allows for more nuanced models of the dispersal of technologies and societies without reference to the farming/language dispersal hypothesis.
Hukay: Journal for Archaeological Research in Asia and the Pacific Volume 17, 2012
""This paper is a journal review on Austronesian expansion in Southeast Asia. Most archaeological research in the Neolithic Age sites across Island Southeast Asia are geared toward supporting or disproving the hypotheses on the origins and dispersal of Austronesian-speaking people. The most mainstream is the “Out of Taiwan” hypothesis, which is a part of the larger farming/language dispersal hypothesis (Bellwood 2005). The geographical scope of this hypothesis explains the geographical focus of this analysis. On the other hand, the most popular alternative to this hypothesis is known as the “Nusantao Maritime Trading and Communication Networks” hypothesis (Solheim et al. 2006). The discourse on the Austronesian expansion in Southeast Asia during the Neolithic was tracked down in the last 15 years, from 1996 to 2010, in American Journal of Physical Anthropology, American Anthropologist, Current Anthropology, Molecular Biology and Evolution, and Antiquity. The focus is on articles discussing bioarchaeology, genetics, and material culture for examining how the two subfields of anthropology, which are bioanthropology and archaeology, covered this discourse. This analysis discusses the treatment of the topic and trends across the five journals, across time, and across subfields and disciplines. Then, general comparisons across categories and concluding remarks follow.""
The Wider Connections of Austronesian: A Response to Blust (2009)
This paper responds to the criticisms addressed by Robert A. Blust in his 2009 book to the lexical and phonological component of the Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian hypothesis (Sagart 2005). It describes two models of Austronesian origins: a southern, rice-based, Austro-Tai or Austric model with a homeland in the Yangtze Valley, defended by Blust; and a northern, millet- and rice-based, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian model with a source in northeastern China, defended by the author. Recent findings in archaeology, paleobotany and human genetics supporting the Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian hypothesis are reviewed. Blust’s criticisms are then responded to. His observations on individual lexical comparisons are discussed. His general criticisms on semantics, use of rare and obscure material, and usage of Austronesian ‘roots’ in external comparison, are also addressed. The paper concludes that the phonological and lexical evidence for Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian is limited because of the time depth involved, but robust, and that it agrees with evidence from other disciplines.
Austronesian Diaspora: A new perspective, 2016
Recent multidisciplinary research on the Palaeolithic to Neolithic transition has confirmed several stages of cultural development dated between 20,000 BC and 1500 BC in southern China, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia. The patterns of habitation, settlement, subsistence, and material culture underwent remarkable changes at certain points during this long time sequence, and even whole populations were replaced or massively transformed. This updated synthesis of new research findings will focus the discussion on the archaeological evidence from Taiwan and its neighboring regions, especially from northern Luzon in the Philippines, and the Marianas of western Micronesia.
Chapter 10. Becoming Austronesian
Typological Studies in Language, 2020
We examine the spread of Austronesian languages as a process that proceeded in different ways at different times, even in the same locale. We examine the many ways a language can show ‘Austronesian traits’, and confront this with the known presence of pre-Austronesian languages across Island Southeast Asia, and the inferred similarity of social processes between mainland and Island Southeast Asia. We argue that many languages which are classi8ed as Austronesian are indeed exemplary Austronesian languages, but that many others should be considered to be the outcome of creolisation processes, and yet others show the traces of scenarios involving (imperfect) language shi- from earlier non-Austronesian languages. Indeed, many of the languages should be considered to be non-Austronesian languages (‘Papuan’) with (in some cases minimal) Austronesian (lexical) veneers.