Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Origins of the Austronesian Peoples
David R. Thomas
Emeritus Professor
University of Auckland, New Zealand
dr.thomas@auckland.ac.nz
2011
Abstract
Information on the origins of the Austronesian peoples is available from diverse sources including
archaeology, linguistics, human and animal DNA and other sources. The chapter discusses two of the
theories about the origins of the Austronesian peoples and describes the sources of evidence
regarding Taiwan and Wallacea/Indonesia as alternative origin points near mainland Asia. The
sources of evidence covered include; research on the Lapita pottery dispersal patterns, linguistic
data, human DNA, animal DNA, and ocean voyaging technology. Although there is strong linguistic
evidence supporting Taiwan as an origin location for the Austronesians, the other evidence does not
consistently support this view.
About the author
David Thomas is Emeritus Professor in Social and Community Health at the School of Population
Health, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Since his retirement in 2008, he has been working as a
research consultant. He has taught social science research methods and evaluation. His areas of
research involvement include evaluation of health and education services and community
intervention programmes. He has specific interests in culture and ethnicity and the origins of the
Polynesian and Austronesian peoples. His publications include more than 60 journal articles and
book chapters published in British, United States, Australian and New Zealand academic publications
and two books. He is also the author or co‐author of 35 project and other reports.
Citation details:
Thomas D. R. (2011). Asal Usul Orang Austronesia (Origins of the Austronesian peoples). In N. H. S.
Abdul Rahman, Z. Ramli, M.Z. Musa & A. Jusoh (eds). Alam Melayu: Satu Pengenalan (Malay World:
One Contribution to Knowledge) (pp. 13‐21). Institut Alam Dan Tamandun Melayu, Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Origins of the Austronesian peoples
1
Origins of the Austronesian peoples
Debate about the origins of the Austronesians goes back many years. Austronesians are defined by
a shared group of languages encompassing approximately 351 million people. The Austronesian
language family is the one of the largest in the world, with around 1200 languages widely dispersed
throughout islands in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Ocean, with a smaller number in continental
Asia. In geographical terms, the language group covers a wide area in Oceania from Taiwan in East
Asia to New Zealand and Easter Island, with an outlier in Madagascar (Gray, Drummond & Greenhill,
2009). One branch of the Austronesians is referred to as the Malayo‐Polynesians, based on their
shared linguistic origins.
My personal interest in the origins of the Polynesians, and subsequently the Austronesians, arose
from my early interest in cross‐cultural psychology and research I carried out in several South Pacific
islands between 1971 and 1978. This research focussed on Polynesian patterns of social behaviour.
During the early phase of research for my doctoral degree, I sailed by yacht from New Zealand to
Tahiti and then to islands west of Tahiti including; the Cooks Islands, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Vanuatu and
the Solomon Islands. Observing first‐hand the diverse patterns of language and culture in the South
Pacific, lead to an ongoing interest in the origins of the first peoples to settle in the Pacific and in
Southeast Asia.
Early human settlement in Southeast Asia and Oceania
Recent evidence indicates that human settlement in Southeast Asia dates back to at least 55,000 to
65,000 years ago. A recent review indicated that “...analysis of the variation in mitochondrial DNA
among Andaman Islanders and people now living in the Malaysian peninsula suggest that modern
humans colonised this region at least 55,000 years ago, and possibly as long as 65,000 years ago”
(Jones, 2007, p. 37). Initial settlement of both Australia and Papua New Guinea is generally
confirmed to be around 50,000 BP (before present time) with some evidence suggesting even earlier
settlement dates.
Until about 15,000 years ago, the
sea level was around 120 metres
lower than current levels. This had
two notable features that would
have facilitated migration in the
Southeast Asia region. Malaysia,
most of Western Indonesia and
Vietnam were part of a large
peninsula known as the Sunda
Shelf, sometimes referred to as the
Sunda/Vietnam shelf. The Sunda
shelf extended as far as
Southwestern islands in the
Philippines. The other key feature
was the Sahul shelf, which
connected Australia and New
Guinea in a large land mass that
extended close to eastern
Indonesia. The lower sea level
would have allowed land‐based
Figure 1 Map of Sunda and Sahul and the Wallace Line
migration and sea travel within sight Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Sunda_and_Sahul.png
of land, over large areas of Southeast
Origins of the Austronesian peoples
2
Asia. One effect would have been that first human settlers arriving in New Guinea and Australia
would have had a shorter distance for sea travel, compared to current distances.
The area between the Sunda Shelf and Sahul Shelf is has been a crucial area in Austronesian
migration and is commonly referred to as Wallacea. This region includes the existing Sulawesi,
Lombok and Timor Islands. It is of particular interest for understanding the origins of the both
Austronesians and other human groups who migrated south. Wallacea is on the east side of a
geographical divide known as the Wallace line. This line, is marked by a deep sea channel through
central Indonesia, which is a major divide in plant and animal species and in language groups
between Eastern and Western Indonesia.
Human settlement from Southeast Asia into Oceania
The history of human dispersion and settlement in Southeast Asia and land areas south and east
of Indonesia including Australia, Papua New Guinea and the Pacific Islands form an intriguing
pattern. The confirmed settlement dates for by non‐Austronesian groups in Papua New Guinea and
Australia were about 55000‐60000 BP. Austronesian groups were much later arrivals in the region.
The initial Austronesian settlements in island southeast Asia (Eastern Indonesia) were around 4500‐
6300 BP.
One of the most intriguing groups associated with the settlement of what has been called ‘near
Oceania’ is the Lapita pottery pattern, which is associated with an early Austronesian language
group. The first Lapita patterns to appeared around 3300–3500 BP, in previously unoccupied
coastal niches in Melanesia (Hurles, Matisoo‐Smith, Gray, & Penny, 2003). Lapita groups, initially
identified by their distinctive ceramic pottery style, were named after an excavation site in New
Caledonia where the pottery was first found.
Lapita is distinguished by the introduction of pottery technology into the region and is
associated with more readily identifiable horticultural practices and animal domesticates,
and its settlements are located on smaller offshore islands or nearby reef flats. Second, the
geographic distribution of Lapita [pottery] ... was extremely widespread over a relatively
short period of time. Sites with early Lapita pottery occur in the interval from ca. 3500 to
3200 b.p. from the Bismarck Archipelago to Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga in the east, a distance of
over 2,170 miles (3,500 km). (Graves, 2010)
Markers of the Lapita culture pattern included permanent villages, horticultural crops, domestic
animals (pigs, dogs, chickens). It also included fishhooks for inshore and open ocean fishing, fishing
nets, sea‐going canoes, stone adzes, and shell bracelets. (Hurles et al, 2003)
There is now clear evidence the peoples associated with Lapita pottery carried out extensive ocean
voyaging initially around the Bismarck Archipelago (east of Papua New Guinea) and then to ‘Remote
Oceania’ which includes island Melanesia (Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia) and Western
Polynesia (Fiji, Samoa and Tonga), where they were the first human settlers. Research in the
Solomon Islands has documented the extensive Lapita coastal settlement networks in that region
(Sheppard & Walter, 2006).
Settlement theories for Austronesians
There are two dominant theories or hypotheses about the origins of the Austronesians, one
suggesting an origin in Taiwan. The other theory supports an origin in Island Southeast Asia, based in
a region called “Wallacea” in the central area of Indonesia. Associated with these two theories are
specific models for Austronesian migration that have been referred to by various names.
Origins of the Austronesian peoples
3
A dominant version of the Taiwan origin theory has been referred to as the ‘express train.’ It is
associated with the extensive research of Peter Bellwood and colleagues (e.g., Bellwood& Sanchez‐
Mazas, 2005, Diamond & Bellwood, 2003). The ‘express train’ model holds that Austronesian groups
from Taiwan progressively settled the Philippines, Central and Eastern Indonesia (Island Southeast
Asia) and northern and eastern coastal locations in New Guinea (Bismarck Archipelago) before
moving into the part of the Southwest Pacific (known as Island Melanesia). In subsequent ocean
voyaging, the Malayo‐Polynesian branch of Austronesians settled Western and Eastern Polynesia.
Recent linguistic research has developed a modified version of the ‘express train’ Taiwan origin
theory in terms of a ‘pulse‐pause model.’ This model describes the earliest Austronesian languages
in relation to the sequence of periods during their development (Gray, Drummond & Greenhill,
2009).
An alternative theory about the settlement sequence of Austronesians has been described as a
“slow‐boat” or “slow train” diffusion from Wallacea. The ‘slow‐boat’ model is based on genetic
evidence from human and animal DNA and argues for a Malayo‐Polynesian origin within Wallacea,
and, according to some proponents, an Austronesian origin in island Southeast Asia, rather than
Taiwan (Oppenheimer, 1998). The supporters of this theory consider that a genetic signal of recent
dispersal (10 000 BP) can be traced back from Polynesia only as far as Wallacea.
While there are other theories about the origins of the Austronesian (e.g., see reviews in Donohue &
Denham, 2010, Hurles et al, 2003), much of the debate is around the two theories outlined above.
The remainder of this chapter reviews current evidence relevant to these two general theories. The
topic of the origin of the Austronesians has been one of lively interest and considerable controversy
for many years. This interest shows no signs of abating. There has been a steady stream of
publications related to the topic. Three strands of research evidence are reviewed (linguistic, human
DNA, animal DNA) followed by comments about the development of ocean voyaging skills and
technology which played a crucial role in Austronesian migration and settlement.
Linguistic evidence
A series of recent studies, based an extensive database of Austronesian languages, has produced
several reports which clearly indicate a Taiwan origin for the proto‐Austronesian and ancestral
language of all the Austronesian groups (Greenhill & Gray, 2005; Gray, et al, 2009). This research
group has systematically assembled a comprehensive linguistic database that provides a valuable
resource for Austronesian researchers.
The conclusion from the analysis of linguistic evidence supports a revised version of the “express
train” theory, which they refer to as the pulse‐pause model. In this model, migration and settlement
events are followed by a series of pauses, often over several hundred years, where settlement
consolidation takes place before the next migration event to another location.
In agreement with the pulse‐pause scenario, the language trees place the Austronesian
origin in Taiwan approximately 5230 years ago and reveal a series of settlement pauses and
expansion pulses linked to technological and social innovations. (Gray et al, 2009, p. 479)
This pulse‐pause model showed an initial pause of around 800‐1000 years between the origin date
of 5230 BP and the first Austronesian settlement in the Philippines which coincided with the
development of the Malayo‐Polynesian branch of the language (Gray et al, 2009, p. 482). The initial
pause is attributed by the authors to the difficulties in crossing the 350km Bashi channel between
Taiwan and the Philippines. There are difficulties with the assumption that ocean voyaging
technology was sufficient advanced around 4200BP to make an ocean journey of 350km. This point
is elaborated later in the chapter.
Origins of the Austronesian peoples
4
Research on the Austronesian language groups has lead to the development of several models or
trees that show the relative linkages between specific groups of languages. The ‘founding’ language
is generally referred to as Proto‐Austronesian which is seen as the ancestor language for 10
languages which seem to have developed in Taiwan. Only one of these 10 languages, Malayo‐
Polynesian, is evident outside Taiwan and the Malayo‐Polynesian origin language is generally seen as
the source for all other Austronesian languages outside Taiwan (Blust, 1995; Donohue & Denham,
2010). Most writers generally accept that the Malayo‐Polynesian was the precursor language to all
of the other Austronesian language groups in Island Southeast Asia and Oceania. They agree that
dispersal of this language group took place from Island Southeast Asia into Oceania. What is in
dispute is whether the source of the Malayo‐Polynesian languages was in Taiwan.
Human DNA evidence
There has been considerable research on human DNA that is relevant to the debate about the
origins of the Austronesians. However, the findings reported often do not reach a definitive
conclusion in relation to the two main models or theories of Austronesian origins. A report on Y
chromosome variation, based on 1,209 samples drawn from Southeast Asia, Oceania, southern
China, and Taiwan, concluded that:
The first component associates Polynesians with Melanesian populations, whereas the
northern agricultural contribution is highlighted by the second component, which associates
Polynesians with Southeast Asians and the Ami [from Taiwan] and is closer to southern China
Capelli et al, 2001, p. 441).
...the overall picture supports an association between Polynesia and Melanesia and a
distinction between Melanesia and Southeast Asia, possibly reflecting a long‐term human
presence in the region and at least partial independence, during this time, between
Melanesia and Southeast Asia (Capelli et al, 2001, p. 441).
A major difficulty with the findings of human DNA research is distinguishing the extent of mixing
between migrating Austronesian groups and indigenous populations during initial movement
through Wallacea and Melanesia (near Oceania)from mixing of genes occurring over the subsequent
3500 years.
Genetic drift and post‐settlement migration render analyses difficult because current gene
frequencies do not represent ancestral gene frequencies. Although the models agree in
inferring that Continental Asia is the ultimate origin of genetic lineages now in Remote
Oceania, they differ in the timing of the migration movements. (Hurles et al, 2003. p. 535)
A recent summary of research on human DNA by Oppenheimer and Richards reached a more
definite conclusion that Polynesian genetic patterns have their ancestry in Island Southeast Asia.
However, evidence is accumulating from several genetic markers that Polynesian lineages
have a much deeper ancestry within tropical Island Southeast Asia than this hypothesis
would suggest. The new evidence implies that the Polynesians originated not in
China/Taiwan, but in eastern Indonesia, somewhere between Wallace’s line and the island of
New Guinea. (Oppenheimer & Richards, 2001, p. 166)
Given these conclusions, it seems that there has been no breakthrough in human DNA research that
primarily supports one of the models of Austronesian settlement.
Origins of the Austronesian peoples
5
Animal DNA evidence
Commensal animals are those that live in close association with another species, such as humans
(Bronson, 1984). Commensal animals that accompanied human settlement in Oceania included pigs,
chickens, dogs and rats. Animal DNA evidence is used in human settlement research to complement
human DNA evidence. Animal DNA is can be useful when human DNA is fragmentary or unavailable.
Of the four animals that commonly accompanied the early Austronesians, there is some published
research on two species: pigs and rats. The specific pig species linked to Austronesian settlement is
the Sus warthog. The data support two separate, human‐mediated dispersals of Sus from Asia into
the Pacific and a third within Wallacea. Pacific Clade pigs originated in peninsular Southeast Asia,
and were later introduced to Sunda Islands, Moluccas, and New Guinea region. The variety that
accompanied Lapita peoples, and the later Polynesian dispersals in Oceania, appear as exclusively
Pacific Clade pigs (Larson et al 2007, p. 4836). The Larson et al study noted that the Pacific Clade
signature was absent from samples from Taiwan and not in 40 wild samples from the Philippines.
The complete absence of Pacific Clade haplotypes from modern and ancient specimens from
mainland China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Borneo, and Sulawesi suggests that any human
dispersal from Taiwan to the New Guinea region via the Philippines, as purported by the
‘‘Out of Taiwan’’ model, did not include the movement of domestic pigs. The origin and
trajectory of the pigs associated with both the Lapita cultural complex and the pigs initially
taken to Polynesia as part of it must reside elsewhere. (Larson et al 2007, p. 4837)
Research on rat DNA has focused on the Pacific rat (Rattus exulans) which accompanied the Lapita
migrants from Wallacea to Island Melanesia and beyond into Polynesia (Matisoo‐Smith & Robins,
2004). They reported that R. exulans was associated with all Lapita sites and was clearly introduced
by Lapita peoples into island Melanesia and Polynesia.
They concluded that:
the somewhat simplistic [express train] set of models, although perhaps appropriate for
describing the spread of the Austronesian languages, are inadequate for biological data in
general and for our R. exulans data in particular. Similarly, the various [Bismarck Archipelago
Indigenous Inhabitants] models, which argue for no clear phylogenetic signal, are also
rejected by the results of our analyses. (Matisoo‐Smith & Robins, 2004, p. 9171)
Ocean voyaging technology
Research on the Lapita groups has confirmed they had the technology for extensive ocean voyaging
and were able to make return trips between islands which were out of sight of over the horizon.
They demonstrated effective strategies for ocean voyaging as part of establishing new settlements
and for two‐way voyaging for trade and exploration (Sheppard & Walter, 2006). This raises the
question as to what locations were most suitable for the development of ocean voyaging skills.
Given that the earliest linguistic dates for origins of the Austronesians are around 5500‐‐‐6500 BP,
sea levels would have been at current levels. Thus, the Austronesian migration routes would have
required ocean voyaging out of side of land for many days. This needed complex voyaging
knowledge and skills to make exploration voyages and two‐way voyaging.
There is extensive research with Micronesian groups on indigenous navigation technology such as
ocean sailing canoes (Finney, 2006); and the skills and techniques for passing on this knowledge
between generations (Gladwin, 1970; Lewis, 1994). One of the key concepts in navigation was the
‘expanded target’ where islands out of sight over the horizon could be detected by use of indicators
Origins of the Austronesian peoples
6
such as land‐based seabirds feeding at sea during the day, wave bounce from large ocean swells
reflected off islands, vegetation reflection on low clouds and the use of star charts (Lewis, 1994).
Information about early ocean voyaging technology has not been used in dispersal sequencing as
there is no means for establishing dates. One alternative is to identify likely geographical profiles for
development of voyaging skills that were well developed at the time of Lapita voyaging (Sheppard &
Walter, 2006). The most likely sites to for the development of ocean voyaging technology are land
patterns that provide both semi‐sheltered and open coastal areas with islands visible on the horizon.
There are many locations in Indonesia, and Wallacea, that fit this pattern particularly Sulawesi, the
Moluccas and nearby islands. A major problem in assuming Taiwan as an origin location is the
350km Bashi channel between Taiwan and the northern Philippines. It seems unlikely that Taiwan
was an origin location for the development of long‐distance ocean voyaging.
There are two other options that would still provide for Taiwan as an origin point. Wild pig DNA with
the Pacific Clade pattern was reported in two specimens in Vietnam (Larson et al, 2007, p.4836). This
is consistent with the possibility that the first Austronesian migrations took a coastal route through
Southern China and Vietnam and subsequently settled in Wallacea. The other possibility, mentioned
by several writers, is that deep‐sea ocean voyaging technology initially developed in Wallacea and
spread from there through Island Melanesia, and perhaps from Wallacea to the Philippines. A
coastal route from Taiwan to Wallacea would be consistent with this view.
Conclusions
The origins of the Austronesians is an intriguing puzzle that continues to stimulate multiple theories
and assembling of diverse data. These data can be interpreted in many ways. Given the research
evidence reviewed, all the writers seem to agree that the Austronesians are a distinctive group
defined by a common source language, called Proto‐Austronesian. There seems to be little dispute
that the early Malayo‐Polynesian branch of the Austronesian group, identified by the Lapita pottery
pattern, went through the Bismarck Archipelago and Island Melanesia to become the first human
settlers in Island Melanesia and subsequently in Western and Eastern Polynesia.
The primary difference among the writers is about whether the evidence supports Taiwan as an
origin or founding location for the first Austronesian peoples, or whether the Austronesians first
developed in the Wallacea region in Eastern Indonesia and subsequently migrated to the Philippines
and Taiwan and then to the Southwest Pacific . There is a strong case that the linguistic evidence
points an Austronesian source in Taiwan. At some point Austronesians developed advanced ocean
voyaging skills. There is little evidence that this occurred in Taiwan and the geography of the Taiwan
region makes this unlikely.
Origins of the Austronesian peoples
7
References
Diamond, J. & Bellwood, P. (2003). Farmers and their languages: the first expansions, Science, 300,
597–603.
Bellwood, P., & Sanchez‐Mazas, A. (2005). Human Migrations in Continental East Asia and Taiwan:
Genetic, Linguistic, and Archaeological Evidence. Current Anthropology, 46(3), 480‐484. .
Blust, R. (1995). The prehistory of the Austronesian‐speaking peoples: A view from language. Journal
of World Prehistory, 9(4), 453–510.
Bronson, F. (1984). The adaptability of the house mouse. Scientific American, 250, 90‐97.
Capelli, C., Wilson, J. F., Richards, M., Gratrix, F., Oppenheimer, S., Underhill, P., et al. (2001). A
predominantly indigenous paternal heritage for the Austronesian‐speaking peoples of Insular
Southeast Asia and Oceania. American Journal of Human Genetics, 68, 432‐443.
Donohue, M., & Denham, T. (2010). Farming and Language in Island Southeast Asia: Reframing
Austronesian History. Current Anthropology, 51(2), 223‐256. doi:10.1086/650991
Finney, B. (2006) Ocean sailing canoes. In K. R. Howe, (Ed.). Waka Moana Voyages of the ancestors:
The discovery and settlement of the Pacific (pp. 101‐153). Auckland, New Zealand: David Bateman.
Gladwin, T. (1970). East is a big bird: Navigation and logic on Puluwat Atoll. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Graves, M. (2010). Settlement of Melanesia and Micronesia. Retrieved on 7 December 2010 from
www.jrank.org/history/pages/6393/Settlement‐Melanesia‐Micronesia.html
Gray, R. D., Drummond, A. J., & Greenhill, S. J. (2009). Language Phylogenies Reveal Expansion Pulses
and Pauses in Pacific Settlement. Science, 323(23 January), 479‐483.
Greenhill, S., & Gray, R. (2005). Testing population dispersal hypotheses: Pacific settlement,
phylogenetic trees and Austronesian languages In R. Mace, C. Holden & S. Shennan (Eds.), The
Evolution of Cultural Diversity: Phylogenetic Approaches (pp. 31‐52). London: UCL Press.
Hurles, M. E., Matisoo‐Smith, E., Gray, R. D., & Penny, D. (2003). Untangling Oceanic settlement: the
edge of the knowable. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(10), 531‐540. doi: 10.1016/S0169‐
5347(03)00245‐3
Jones, D. (2007, 27 October). Going global: How humans conquered the world. New Scientist(2627),
36‐41. Retrieved from www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626271.800‐going‐global‐how‐humans‐
conquered‐the‐world.html
Larson, G., et al. (2007). Phylogeny and ancient DNA of Sus provides new evidence for human
dispersal routes in Island Southeast Asia and Pacific. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science, 104(12), 4834‐4839.
Lewis, D. (1994). We, the Navigators: The Ancient Art of Landfinding in the Pacific (2nd ed.).
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Origins of the Austronesian peoples
8
Matisoo‐Smith, E., & Robins, J. H. (2004). Origins and dispersals of Pacific peoples: Evidence from
mtDNA phylogenies of the Pacific rat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 101(24), 9167‐9172.
Oppenheimer, S. (1998). Eden in the East: the drowned continent of Southeast Asia. London:
Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Oppenheimer, S.J. & Richards, M. (2001) Polynesian Origins: Slow boat to Melanesia? Nature, 410,
166–167.
Sheppard, P & Walter, R. (2006) A revised model of Solomon Islands culture history. Journal of the
Polynesian Society, 115( 11), 47‐76.
Origins of the Austronesian peoples
9