| 词条 | Austronesian hypothesis |
| 释义 |
}} The Austronesian hypothesis investigates the widespread radiation of Austronesian languages and speakers out of Asia. The original hypothesis was posed by linguist Robert Blust and later articulated from an archaeological point of view by Peter Bellwood called the “Out of Taiwan” theory. Wilhelm Solheim critiques this hypothesis in his Nusantao Model or the “Island People” theory; and new, additional models were formed by Stephen Oppenheimer, Cheng-Hwa and other authors as well. The Austronesian languages is a language family that is widely dispersed throughout Maritime Southeast Asia, Madagascar, most of the islands of the Pacific Ocean, and continental Asia. It is one of the world’s largest and primary language families. The Austronesian language used to be called the Malayo-Polynesian language family. These languages are spoken in many Indonesian islands; including all of the Philippines, Madagascar, and most of the islands of the Central and South Pacific, Malaysia, parts of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Taiwan. This language family is so unique because it has one of the world’s largest geographic spreads, comprising about one-fifth of the world’s languages. Austronesian origins and its dispersalThere are several theories as to how the Austronesian language family became so widely dispersed. The main hypothesis was formed by Peter Bellwood, an archaeologist, who analyzed Austronesian origins and tried to understand its dispersal. He drew upon the linguistic model originally created by linguist, Robert Blust. Blust is a prominent linguist in many areas, but specializes in the Austronesian languages. He developed an early form of the Austronesian Hypothesis by showing how the language moved from place to place. Bellwood initially had two primary conclusions. These were that Proto-Austronesian was located in or near Taiwan, and Austronesian expansion has primarily involved the founder movement and cannot be attributed solely to secondary learning (Bellwood 109). Moreover, he states that early expansion is related to factors of population, growth, and instability of agriculture. There is no archaeological evidence which allows us to view trade as a major factor of early Austronesian language expansion. One of the most prevalent theories states that the Austronesian speakers moved south from Taiwan and through the Philippines and Indonesia. Later, they crossed the Indian and Pacific Oceans into Madagascar and Hawaii. This is called the “Out-of-Taiwan” model. In this theory, Bellwood argues that the movement of people from Taiwan had a significant impact on culture, language, and people as the language spread. He also states that individual islands from Southeast Asia did not develop agriculture within their boundaries. However, the dispersal of agriculture coincides with the migration of the Austronesian form Taiwan 5000 years ago. Since Taiwan has the most Austronesian language diversity, linguists believe that it is the origin. Moreover, archaeological analysis shows that the oldest materials used by Austronesian speakers are found in Taiwan. However, migration is inherently very complicated and could be subject to many factors. Furthermore, migration generally is not unidirectional and back migrations need to be taken in account as well (Bellwood, P 2004). In order to understand how migration and dispersal occurred, we need to understand why it occurred. Bellwood’s basis for the Out of Taiwan Theory reveals that Austronesian speakers were agriculturalists. In order to support his model, he studied the effect of subsistence patterns of the landscape in these areas, and the people who lived there. According to Bellwood, there was a demographic advantage in maritime traveling among Austronesian speakers as they were near a chain of islands (Bellwood 110). Hence, they were able to develop agricultural skills and conquer other islands. This is evidenced by tools and artifacts that are similar in many places, yet oldest in Taiwan. Moreover, another factor that pushed the migration of Austronesian speakers could have been the rising population densities of agriculturalists from China pushing Austronesian speakers to move out. However, it was later discovered and critiqued by authors such as William Solheim and Stephen Oppenheimer that some of the agricultural and archaeological evidence used by Bellwood is flawed. For instance, Bellwood based his Austronesian hypothesis upon the movement of people, languages, and the movement of certain types of pottery and crops (such as taro, rice, and breadfruit). However, there is no evidence of early rice in Southeast Asia, thus discrediting the theory that Austronesian languages moved with people as they migrated out of Asia. Austronesian migrationThe Austronesian migration proved to be very elaborate; the Austronesian speaking people demonstrated great skill in constructing a home on resource lacking islands. When the Austronesian speakers traveled to Oceania many plants and animals came along. These plants included: bananas, breadfruit, taro, yam, and paper mulberry. The animals included chicken, pigs, rats, and dogs. The Austronesian speaking people needed these foods and domesticated animals to survive in different environments. “Given their close association to and dependence on humans for their dispersal, phylogeographic analyses of these commensal species provide unique insights into the complexities of Austronesian expansion and migrations” (Matthew Spriggs 2011) . A specific plant species serves as a great example to possibly trace the migration of the Austronesian culture as well. This would be the paper mulberry plant that was used to create barkcloth. The tapa culture of utilizing paper mulberry for cloth was introduced to Oceania and has a historic foundation in Tonga, Fiji, Samoa, and the Southeast Asian island of Sulawesi. Tapa making is also seen in Hawaii and Taiwan. The oldest barkcloth making culture was discovered to be in Guangxi, South China. The excavations are dated to be 8,000 B.P. old. “These archaeological findings suggest that barkcloth making was invented by Neolithic Austric-speaking peoples in South China long before Han-Chinese influences, which eventually replaced proto-Austronesian language as well as culture.”(Chi-Shan Chang, Hsiao-Lei Liu, Ximena Moncada, Andrea Seelenfreund, Daniela Seelenfreundand Kuo-Fang Chung PNAS November 2015) Austronesian speakers have spread from Madagascar to the Polynesian triangle, and Taiwan. They were very elaborate and diverse in technology; therefore, it is assumed they traveled far and long. They were highly skilled maritime navigators. There is both genetic and linguistic evidence of the Austronesian expansion. The earliest evidence was seen in the seventeenth century. There is a debate between these two forms of evidence in terms of which evidence is more accurate. There is also evidence in certain types of bacteria that were associated with different human populations. Furthermore, in Southeast Asia there is mostly biological and archaeological evidence of the Austronesian hypothesis in comparison to South America where there is mostly linguistic evidence. The Yaeyama Islands east of northern Taiwan show many similarities with Austronesian pottery. A place with extreme forms of evidence of the Austronesian speakers are the Pacific Islands in Oceania. Austronesian contact was prevalent in Australia as there were many cultural artifacts, such as pottery. There is evidence of the spread to Indian as well due to similar boat structures, linguistic similarities, and fruit species such as bilimbi, carambola, lime, coconut, langsat, noni, and santol. CritiquesWilhelm G. Solheim was a pioneer and influential leader in the field of Southeast archaeology. He had conducted field-based investigations and archaeological research throughout the region of Southeast Asia. Solheim is the founder of the Nusantao hypothesis, which is an alternative theory to the spread of the Austronesian language family. He hypothesized that the Austric languages were spoken throughout Southeast Asia, including Sundaland, during the late Pleistocene. The sea levels rose and Sundaland became the islands they are today, creating four geographic areas, isolating speakers from the east from those of the north and west. The people on the west, on the mainland and Sumatra, would be more land oriented while those on the east would be more marine oriented because the land would turn into islands. His hypothesis states that Pre-Austronesian was primarily developed in Mindanao and Northeast Indonesia and was carried north to the Visayan Islands and probably southern Luzon by around 5000 B.C. Moreover, Solheim hypothesized that Proto-Austronesian developed as a “trade language” or a “barter language” between the maritime people along the coasts of northern Luzon, southern Taiwan, and South China. He hypothesized that the maritime people intermarried with the coastal people, creating a distinct coastal population along the western shore of the South China Sea. After this development, Solheim believes Taiwan became relatively isolated and its Austronesian languages evolved locally with minimal input from outside. The movement of exploring and/or bartering is theorized to take place north from the South China coast to southern Korea and Kyushu, Japan (Solheim 1984). Solheim’s reasoning for excluding Taiwan out of the Austronesian movements is due to the difficult maneuvering of the channels between Luzon and Taiwan. The winds are very strong from the northeast during the winter season. During the summer, it would be difficult to move south from Taiwan to the Philippines because both the winds and currents are going north. Although it is not impossible to sail from Taiwan to the Philippines, it is very difficult and sailing from the Philippines north to Taiwan is a much simpler task. (Solheim 1984) In his scientific paper “The Nasantao Hypothesis: The Origin and Spread of Austronesian Speakers,” Solheim criticized the evidence Bellwood used to support his “Out of Taiwan” theory. “Bellwood feels that rice agriculture was one of the driving forces in the early expansion of the Austronesian speakers.” (Solheim) Bellwood believes the Austronesian expansion centered in southern China, Taiwan and northern Philippines beginning in 4500 B.C. and that the first rice/millet was brought in from South China by the first Austronesian speakers. Solheim rejects the “Out of Taiwan” theory because the “earliest reasonably definite evidence for rice in Taiwan is from the site of K’en-ting, at the southern end of Taiwan where three sherds were found with impressions of possible rice husk, and dated to around 4000 B.P.” (Solheim Asian Perspectives Vol. 26, No. 1 (1984-1985), pp. 77–88) Solheim concludes that from the evidence we have today, rice does not appear to be present in Taiwan before 4000 years ago or if it was it was uncommon, and thus cannot be a driving force. Alternative theoriesOn the Austronesian hypothesis, there are several theories that support the current case of the migration that is proposed on the issue. Two major hypotheses which include the Neolithic Age Austronesian movement are the “out of Taiwan or South China” theory by the language oriented Peter Bellwood which is the main theory; and ‘Island Origin” theory by the Southeast Asian specialist, the archaeologist, Wilhelm Solheim; and another by Stephen Oppenheimer. There are also several other theories as well that should be brought up in respect to the authors and the issues. On the most recent several articles in In Focus: The Austronesian Expansion- a Reaction to “Paths of Origin” by Jesus T. Peralta, PHD, he discuss the validity and revisal of how the Austronesian hypothesis portrayals the current ideas and how the Austronesian farming-language dispersal across Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) during the mid-Holocene which is approximately 4000–3000 years ago (PERALTA 2011). In the Early farming in Island Southeast Asia: an alternative hypothesis by Tim Denham he brings up the point that the most accepted conventional portrayals of the “Austronesian dispersal hypothesis (e.g. Bellwood 1984/85, 1997, 2002, 2005; Diamond 2001; Diamond & Bellwood 2003), and its Neolithic variant (e.g. Spriggs 2003, 2007), farmer-voyagers migrated out of Taiwan approximately 4500–4000 cal BP to colonise ISEA from 4000 cal BP (Bellwood 2002) and the Mariana Islands and Palau by c. 3500–3400 cal BP (Hung et al. 2011). The major offsprings of these voyagers subsequently established the Lapita Cultural Complex in the Bismarck Archipelago by c. 3470–3250 cal BP (Kirch 1997; Spriggs 1997) and became the foundational cultures across most of the Pacific from c. 3250–3100 cal BP (Kirch 2000; Addison & Matisoo Smith 2010; dates for Lapita in Denham et al. 2012). A major problem with this historical metanarrative is the absence of substantial archaeological evidence for the contemporaneous spread of farming from Taiwan (Bulbeck 2008; Donohue & Denham 2010; Denham 2011).” There is also a globally accepted theory that is which brings upon the point that colonisation of most of Remote Oceania after 3250–3100 cal BP was enabled by vegetative forms of cultivation and plants characteristic of the New Guinea region.This includes a suite of animal domesticates—chicken, dog and pig—of ultimate mainland Asian origin. There is considerable uncertainty and debate concerning how this Pacific production system developed within the maritime landscape of ISEA and Near Oceania during the mid-Holocene, especially within the putative framework of Austronesian dispersal (from c. 4500–4000 cal BP), and before its dispersal eastward to Remote Oceania (from 3250–3100 cal BP). In this discursive note, which draws upon a host of recent literature, an alternative view of early agriculture in ISEA is proposed that does not rely upon Austronesian dispersal from Taiwan. This alternative working hypothesis is based upon multidisciplinary evidence from ISEA, including the generation and spread of associated animal and plant domesticates. This interpretation does not privilege one region over another; rather it is multilocal and multidirectional. Now from Oxford University School of Anthropology, Dr. Stephen Oppenheimer discusses his own point of view which is basically stating that those population dispersals came earlier, from within the central region and which he believes it came from the result of several flooding. Dr. Oppenheimer is also a major critic of Bellwood and created this theory as to be opposed to him. In his book Eden in the East: The Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia, when he suggested the migrations came from within ISEA and resulted from flooding in the region. Dr Oppenheimer states: “One of my main predictions in the book was that three major floods following the Ice Age forced the inhabitants to escape in boats and flee to less flood-prone regions. By examining mitochondrial DNA from their descendants in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, we now have strong evidence to support the flooding theory and this is possibly why Southeast Asia has a richer store of flood myths, more than any other region in the world.” Dr Oppenheimer’s book, which is also based on heavy emphasis of multidisciplinary evidence, discusses about the effects of the drowning of a huge ancient continent called ‘Sundaland’ (that extended the Asian landmass as far as Borneo and Java). This happened during the period 15,000 to 7,000 years ago following the last Ice Age. He outlines how “rising sea levels in three massive pulses caused flooding and the submergence of the Sunda Continent, creating the Java and South China Seas and the thousands of islands that make up Indonesia and the Philippines today.” Major questionsMajor questions that arise from all of these theories are “Where was the source area” and “How did they disperse?” these have become very important in the studies of human history of Southeast Asia and the Oceania. A new hypothesis which needed to be included in terms of current evidence from Taiwan and its neighboring current countries which is called the “ Multi-route Hypothesis”, that suggest that the ancestors of the Austronesian speaking peoples that are currently or were living along the coastlines of Pearl River Delta, Hainan and the Tonkin gulf did not only sail to Taiwan, but also the chances of them sailing to Philippines and Sarawak from the northern coast of the South China Sea by multiple routes instead of a single route passing only through Taiwan and the Philippines is there. Basically stating that the Bellwood theory may be correct about sailing from Taiwan however there may have been more than one route which does have evidence backing it. More research is still necessary to backup this theory. There is also a waves of studies that are tying in genetics into the case and there is well backed evidence supporting these theories (Cheng Hwa Tsang 2009). A new study by the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History was published very recently Feb 27, 2018 in Nature Ecology & Evolution. The researchers shed light upon new evidence associated with the spread of Austronesian languages. In this case, DNA evidence revealed a total replacement of genes in the South Pacific, yet the people in these regions continued speaking Austronesian languages. They also stated that migrations of people from the Bismarck islands in Oceania to the islands of the Pacific began around 2,500 years ago, much is significantly earlier than what was previously believed. The DNA evidence determined that Papuan people arrived in Vanuatu, a country in Oceania, not too long after the initial settlement by Austronesian speakers. The researchers were able to show that the initial Austronesian inhabitants of Vanuatu has been largely replaced by Papuan peoples coming from the Bismarck Archipelago. However, today, people from and currently living in Vanuatu continue to speak languages descended from Austronesian speakers rather than any Papuan language of newer migration groups. This shows that despite the movement and replacement of people in Vanuatu, the Austronesian languages remained relatively constant throughout time, which is an extremely rare circumstance. This further exhibits the cultural influence of the Austronesian language family (phys.org). Although the linguist model works, the archaeology data falls short of explaining population movement. Bellwood based his theory on the migration of pottery all across Southeast Asia (oldest being in Taiwan), which supported the “Out-of-Taiwan” theory. Although the pottery matched throughout the landscape, the main source of food, rice, did not. There was no evidence of early rice throughout early island Southeast Asia, this created a black hole in the hypothesis, allowing us to come to the conclusion that the language may not have spread through migrations outside of Southeast Asia. See also
Works cited/References
2 : Prehistoric migrations|Austronesian languages |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。