TAIWAN, COASTAL SOUTH CHINA AND NORTHERN VIET NAM AND THE NUSANTAO MARITIME TRADING NETWORK

BY

WILHELM G. SOLHEIM II
(University of Hawai’i, Manoa)

Abstract
The primary concern of this essay is to present details of the development of the Nusantao Maritime Trading Network between Taiwan, coastal South China and Northern Viet Nam from a bit before 7,000 B.P. until about 2,000 B.P. The Nusantao Maritime Trading Network is seen as a very widespread trading and communication network which came to cover all of the Paci c Ocean, the coastal areas of the China Sea and Japan, the coastal areas of the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean as far as Madagascar, and Island Southeast Asia and the coastal area of Mainland Southeast Asia. Having begun in eastern Island Southeast Asia a few hundred years before 5000 B.C., it expanded from there to the north through the Philippines to Taiwan and coastal South China and then north along the coast of China to western and southern Korea and nally to Kyushu in Japan, starting here just before 3000 B.C., but becoming best developed in Korea and Japan during the rst millennium B.C.

The maritime culture of Southeast Asia has been a focus of my research since 1949, but my rst speci c publications on the subject were in 1975 (Solheim 1975a, 1975b). In the rst of these papers I referred to the people who developed this culture as Austronesians or Austronesian speakers (Solheim 1975a:151-157). I changed this to Nusantao for the following reason:
The use of the word Austronesian and/or the compound MalayoPolynesian for a people and a culture is very awkward, and is incorrect as well. Both terms are for a language family and should not be used for other purposes. Because these people share both a basic culture and a language, it should not be dif cult to coin a word for the people and culture from reconstructed protoforms of the language. As these are the people of the islands, I propose the term Nusantau for these people and cultures. (I would like to thank George Grace for giving me the root words nusa for island and tau for man or people) (Solheim 1975a:158).
© Brill, Leiden 2000 JEAA 2, 1–2

1973: 25. and Tausug of Malaysia. Yanagita Kunio (1976. 1992). those beginnings probably in southeastern Island Southeast Asia a bit before 5000 B. a maritime oriented culture from their beginnings. and Japan (Solheim 1995).274 WILHELM G. 1984-1985: 13. Okinawa. and the Philippines. 1975a: 154. The history of boat people in some other parts of Asia seems to be even earlier. at any one time. probably spoke a Malayo-Polynesian language but there was no doubt a varying sized minority of them. and linguistically. There is a lot in common among the peoples . must therefore bear considerable resemblance to the early Nusantao (Solheim 1990: 243-245). Good examples of these in Island Southeast Asia are the Bajao. SOLHEIM II My concept of the Nusantao (and its proper spelling) has evolved over time: I now de ne Nusantao as natives of Southeast Asia. A majority of the people with this culture. Nusantao culture There are many examples of Nusantao ethnic groups living today and in the recent past. Their genetic ancestry no doubt varied from time to time and place to place to include Southern Mongoloid and I would suggest that this may well have been the case from their very beginning (Solheim 1984-1985: 85-86 revised). culturally. In his conclusions about these people from Japan and Okinawa. Indonesia. With the Malay peninsula as center. it appears that we have had people living their lives on boats since the time of Emperor Onin or for about 2000 years. At any one time there were also many other Malayo-Polynesian speakers living in the interior of the larger islands who were not maritime oriented. Samal. and their descendants. which no doubt evolved from their early history as Nusantao. and the Andaman Islands shows traces of similar people. and I would not consider these as Nusantao. 1975b: 108. 1979: 200. from time to time. Solheim 1995) wrote: As far as our country is concerned. who did not speak a related language (Solheim 1975a:158). I have written about their lifestyles. an area including the Dutch Indian Islands. South China. The Nusantao were no doubt directly associated with the development and spread of Malayo-Polynesian languages.C. The Nusantao and the nonmaritime Malayo-Polynesian speakers no doubt were constantly mixing genetically. Similar groups have been reported from coastal Viet Nam. that their living on boats. the Burmese Islands. My de nition of Southeast Asia for many years has included South China (Solheim 1967a: 3.

The best way . Within Southeast Asia itself I feel the most compelling evidence for a widespread maritime trading network during the rst millennium B. However. the northern Philippines. Solheim 1982-1983). but provided a living for many people of varying but similar cultures.the nusantao maritime trading network 275 who live their lives on the water. Palawan in west central Philippines. It provided a method of movement of portable luxury products and some relatively rare materials needed for tools. a probable earring or pendant two-headed animal made in jade. Figs. probably at rst brought in from India. tool types. almost no written documents concerning them exist. 1-2). such as obsidian. and elements of many different shared technologies. is the distribution of jade earrings. Korea. In addition.C. linguistics. and archaeology point to a close relationship between the peoples and cultures of prehistoric Japan and Korea with the peoples and cultures of Southeast Asia. the considerable overlapping in time and space with the early distribution of carnelian and early glass beads and bracelets in Southeast Asia. called lingling-o. or barter. When I rst noted this striking similarity I did not think of the explanation in terms of a maritime trading network. and Japan Physical anthropology. It presented a communication network that could pass around ideas. and even into western Indonesia from Melanesia. Sarawak. which was traded very widely in Island Melanesia. coastal central and peninsular Thailand. These. Relationships between Southeast Asia. by the Lapita people from around 1500 to 500 B. These jade objects are distinctive and have been found in Botel Tobago off southern Taiwan. were almost exactly similar in spite of the sites being about 2700 km apart by air and considerably more by sea (Solheim 1964:200-205.C. The development of the Nusantao concept The rst data which suggested to me a maritime trading network in Southeast Asia were several pottery vessels from a site in the Philippines and from another site on the west shore of the Gulf of Siam. The early trade. and much rarer. seemed to me to strongly suggest a very widespread trade. though unusual and distinctive in form and decoration. but most commonly in coastal Viet Nam (Loofs-Wissowa 1980-1981. but related. did not make anyone wealthy.

Hanihara 1990a. 1990b). SOLHEIM II to explain how this relationship came about is. including the peoples of Southeast Asia. “As one rereads Martin’s work on this question. of the Southeast Asian traders with peoples living along the China and western and southern Korean coast. I agree with the former (Solheim 1993a). and further believing that Japanese is not directly related to Korean. has hypothesized that Japanese is related to Austronesian. Christy Turner II (1976. Martin (1966. This continued strongly until about 1000 years ago and no doubt to a lesser degree until the recent past. Concerning this Murayama (1976:419) says.000 to 2000 years ago. and prehistoric Jomon with the peoples of Southeast Asia resulted from a movement north towards the end of the Pleistocene. and others consider that the relationship of the Ainu. Brace (1990:341-343) thinks it more likely that the movement went south and that the Jomon people were ancestral to the Micronesians and Polynesians. The Sundadonts included the Jomon peoples of prehistoric Japan. taken from Murayama 1976:428) has attempted to relate Japanese to Korean. along with a few other Japanese linguists. 1989) has proposed two general and related tooth types for the Mongoloid peoples. probably related in some way to Korean. northern China. like the peoples of Korea. While Turner. through the communication brought about by the Nusantao Maritime Trading Network. The origins of the Japanese language are still controversial.” He has further suggested that to study the relationship of Korean to Japanese it will be necessary to include Austronesian in such a comparison. Paul Benedict (1990) has gone in to this linguistic relationship in great detail proposing that Japanese is an Austro-Thai language. and that this involved a long period of contact and intermarriage. 1985: 49-50. . these being Sinodonty for the northern Mongoloids and American Indians and Sundadonty for the southern Mongoloids. 1979. Micronesia and Polynesia. which he usually refers to as Malayo-Polynesian. one is struck over and over again by the presence of important Malayo-Polynesian elements in the vocabularies of the two languages that he has compared. and Siberia (Turner 1989: 91. Murayama (1976: 419). long before the Nusantao Maritime Trading Network. I hypothesize that a major portion of the Austronesian element of Korean and Japanese was brought north by the Nusantao traders. This development from Korea within Yayoi Culture should be seen as connected with the Nusantao Maritime Trading Network.276 WILHELM G. in part. Hanihara. Okinawans. from about 4000 B. Murayama (1976: 427) further suggests that the original location in Japan where the language started was in the northern portion of Kyushu. after which dental types changed to Sinodont.C.. from about 12. The most widely accepted opinion is that it is an Altaic language.

The dating for the Dapenkeng Culture on Taiwan is not yet solidly established. cist grave. Mark Hudson (1990: 68-69) states that most Japanese archaeologists see rice agriculture coming from South China. but element by element over several thousand years. I hypothesize that rice agriculture was introduced into western Japan from Korea. that most of the concrete parallels are with Korea rather than coastal China (cf. Wang 1989). and northern Viet Nam The Dapenkeng Culture of Taiwan is the earliest Neolithic culture to be found on Taiwan and as such is probably the culture of the rst proto-Austronesian speakers on Taiwan. stepped adze. by the Nusantao Maritime Trading Network. securely dated as beginning around 2500 B. either directly to Japan or by way of Korea. Kim Jeong-hak 1978:78-81. however. forming the Yayoi Culture in Japan. and relatively rarely carved-paddle pottery. . stone dagger. the artifacts associated with the beginnings of rice agriculture in both Korea and western Japan were. perforated disk [probably a spindle whorl]. the so called plain pottery of Korea. coastal China. 1992) . the semi-lunar stone knife. but also. brought north from northern Mainland Southeast Asia (South China in particular) by the Nusantao maritime traders not as a complex but element by element over one to two thousand years. pediform adze. in part (Kim Won-yong 1964. Japan. not as a full-blown culture. and in particular from around the mouth of the Yangtze River. Kaneko 1966:18-21. Solheim 1990.or spearhead. for the most part. concave based and longstemmed polished stone arrow. double burial jar. but it probably began considerably earlier than the following prehistoric culture. . Kim Won-Yong (1964) brings together rice. where I wrote: The complex of artifacts associate with rice cultivation in Korea has been noted before. Harunari 1990. . “There can be no doubt. semilunar or crescent stone knife. Taiwan.the nusantao maritime trading network 277 Much of the archaeological evidence for this Korea/Japan-Southeast Asia relationship is in Solheim (1989). .” Hudson (1990:69) also feels that the spread of rice agriculture east along the Japanese coast of the Japan Sea during early Yayoi times was through the agency of a maritime culture. I propose that the east coast of China between the mouth of the Yangtze and the eastern tip of the Shandong Peninsula was the homeland of the Yayoi Culture and that it was brought to Kyushu. .C. and the stepped adze. . The artifacts that appear to me to be a part of the rice associated complex include: the table and capstone dolman.

Tung Wan Tsai is a site of this sort in Hong Kong. often small and exhibiting a high degree of maritime dependence. SOLHEIM II Tsang Cheng-hwa (1992a) has recently reported on his extensive excavations on the Penghu Islands off the west coast of southern Taiwan. . The earliest dating for the Dapenkeng on the islands. . Starting in late Bronze Age times and continuing well into the Han dynasty. Tsang (1992b) reports that the artifacts and dates of the Dapenkeng Culture on Taiwan and the islands are much the same as those from the sand dune sites on the opposite Fujian and Guangdong coasts. . Rogers et al.P. During the Middle Holocene Transgression very little of these islands would have been above sea level.” The pattern of this site has been found at numerous sites in Hong Kong: “scattered and isolated deposits. Concerning the material culture of the people using this site. . and gathering were the most important economic activities. evidence points to the casual and temporary structures characteristic of a mobile boat-based population. and a lack of structural or midden features.P. “The variation in the cultural deposits re ects the potential range from [sic!] use of the site as a minimal short-term encampment to a longer-term base camp by maritime adapted peoples under changing circumstances” (Rogers et al. or later. . This pattern is found on sandbar sites dating from the mid Neolithic onwards” (Rogers et al. and roughly polished axes and adzes. It is most likely that the rst contact with and settlement of these islands came from this coastal area of Taiwan. It appears likely that the rst Dapenkeng settlements on Taiwan were earlier than this and in the southwestern coastal area of Taiwan. . with some cultivation added to these. basket-marked. on shellmounds and sand dunes.. Tsang further writes that the nds from these coastal sites. suggesting that the most likely source of the Dapenkeng Culture is in that area: “By 7000 years B. were formed on the southeastern coast of China” (1992a: 269). with a resulting material culture that is small. “A maritime adapted toolkit will be ltered to suit a mobile lifestyle where numerous possessions would be a burden. 1995: 151). (1995: 150) continue. however. 1995: 150). indicate that shing. following the lowering of sea levels after the Middle Holocene Transgression. shell-edge-impressed and painted coarse sandy pottery. Tung Wan Tsai’s “. a conservative material culture of unmodi ed or minimally modi ed pebbles and a tradition of continuing coarse ceramic types. chipped pebble tools. These would be a logical stepping stone between the south coast of China and Taiwan. 1995).278 WILHELM G. hunting.” (Rogers et al. is around 5000 B. multipurpose and easily transportable. these cultures. characterized by cordmarked.

I do not agree with Bellwood (1979: 207) that “Taiwan is a potentially vital area for the transmission of cultural innovations from the Asian mainland into the islands. with the Middle Neolithic people of southeast China. Conclusions I hypothesize that the Early Nusantao Maritime Trading Network.C. the type of rice grown in China at this time. but continued through the Philippines and Taiwan to Japan where it amounts to 7% of the rice grown today in Japan (Solheim 1993b). I have previously argued against the importance of rice in the movement of Austronesian speakers from coastal China to Taiwan and south through the Philippines (Solheim 1984-1985: 84). it would have been these Nusantao maritime traders. Nusantao peoples made contact. as I mentioned previously. I have shown that it is likely that the earliest rice in Taiwan and the Philippines was javanica and not japonica and that this rice not only came from Indonesia. Bellwood (1984-1985:115) proposed that a migration of people probably from Fujian crossed to Taiwan during the fth millennium B. who. These proto-Austronesian speakers established cereal agriculture in which rice was of major importance. after advancing from south to north through the Philippines. If rice came to Taiwan it would have been Oryza sativa japonica. I would postulate that the Austronesian languages were probably transmitted into insular Southeast Asia and the Paci c Islands along the eastern coast of the Southeast Asian mainland rather than through the island of Taiwan. they would have moved up the river making contact with the local inhabitants and not have stayed totally along the coast. cultural and genetic. .” because he chooses to emphasize the importance of the Corded Ware Yuanshan cultural tradition. for I hypothesize that any time that maritime people in their explorations would come across the mouth of a large river.C. This included the peoples up the lower Yangtze River. while continuing to have contact with southwestern Taiwan. Since the homeland of this tradition was most likely on the coast of the mainland between Fujian and Viet Nam. brought back the seeds of the Dapenkeng Culture to Taiwan.the nusantao maritime trading network 279 I have been in disagreement with Peter Bellwood for some time on the movement of Austronesian speakers from South China into southern Island Southeast Asia and the Paci c. Thus. reached southern Taiwan and coastal southeastern China sometime shortly before 5000 B. Based on the current archaeological evidence mentioned above.

the Lapita Pottery Tradition. and archaeology it is now generally agreed that the ancestors of the Polynesian peoples were the bearers of the Lapita Culture of Melanesia and that the ancestry of the Lapita peoples came from eastern Island Southeast Asia somewhat before the middle of the second millennium B. I had pointed out the relationship of this pottery to that of the Sa-huynh-Kalanay Pottery Tradition of the Philippines and Viet Nam (1964: 206-209. I would say that this long distance trade element of Lapita Culture came with the ancestors of the Lapita people from Island Southeast Asia carried by their Nusantao ancestors (Solheim 1976. To present my reasoning for this. to my knowledge. now Malayo-Polynesian speaking Nusantao. it became apparent that this could not be so. While I have not expressed it in this way before. Wickler 1990). from southeastern China was along the coast of Viet Nam. so there is no existing model which can be looked to. the primary identifying archaeologically recovered artifact was the Lapita pottery. as . their material culture in their land settlements would have varied from site to site as they moved north and south from southeastern coastal China. except for the no doubt much evolved maritime cultures still in existence in Asia and the Paci c. I have noted the relationship of Lapita pottery to the Sa-huynh-Kalanay Pottery Tradition of Island Southeast Asia (Solheim 1976: 35-36). they quickly incorporated the new cultural elements they came into contact with. This Nusantao combination of land settlement and expanding maritime trading network is. On the basis of linguistics. I agree with Tsang that the movement of Austronesian speakers.C. 1984-1985: 84-85). With their knowledge both of the ocean and of landbased economic activities such as hunting. gathering. unique in the world. As soon as radiocarbon dating became somewhat common in the archaeology of the Paci c and Southeast Asia. 1967b: 167) and proposed that it belonged to the same tradition. It has generally been felt that this long distance trade developed in the islands of the Bismark Archipelago. I must move to the Paci c and the earliest.280 WILHELM G. I hypothesize that these Middle Neolithic sites along the China coast were the land portion settlements of the Nusantao. For many years in the study of the Lapita Culture. Due to their rapid amalgamation with the local cultures with which they came into contact. SOLHEIM II I would also hypothesize that these people were very adaptable to new conditions. forming a somewhat new and different culture in their sand dune and shell mound located sites. physical anthropology. widespread pottery tradition there. Furthermore. and horticulture. Before the Lapita pottery was classi ed as such. It is argued that an important element of the Lapita Culture that led to the colonization of the Paci c islands was the extensive long distance trade carried on by the Lapita peoples (Kirch 1988.

they share a great majority of their forms and decoration. Ann Arbor. Hanihara. Harunari Hideji (1990). New York: Oxford University Press. at least to me. Early Korean States.” Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon 98 (3): 233-346. Man’s Conquest of the Paci c.” Micronesica Supplement No. Hanihara. Hudson. I still support this contention.” Asian Perspectives 26(1): 107-117. across to Borneo and either around the north coast or the south coast of Borneo. References Cited Bellwood. (1990). “Dental anthropological evidence of af nities among the Oceania and the Pan-Paci c populations: The basic populations in East Asia. as while the two traditions are distinct. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 63-111. On the other hand. III. Both the forms and patterns of decoration were present in both north and south Viet Nam well before 2000 B. brought by Nusantao traders. II. Though no one else has remarked on this. This would mean that the Nusantao Maritime Trading Network developed towards the south from southeastern China along the coast of the China Sea. Mark J.C. . They were so similar. Micronesia would appear to have been settled from the Philippines by a different variant of the Nusantao Maritime Trading Network. Benedict. into eastern Indonesia and then out to the Bismark archipelago. Tsunehiko (1990b). Michigan: Karoma Publishers. Jomon.the nusantao maritime trading network 281 Lapita pottery had somewhat earlier dates than the Sa-huynh-Kalanay pottery. that I pointed out that the two pottery traditions must have a common ancestor (Solheim et al. Peter (1984-1985). that the ancestry of the Lapita pottery came from Viet Nam (Solheim 1976: 145-146). Paul (1990) Japanese/Austro-Tai. 1979: 126-129). Bellwood. pp. “A hypothesis for Austronesian origins. 2: 323-348. Hoabinhian. Brace. “Studies on the af nities of Sakhalin Ainu based on dental characters: The basic populations in East Asia. or both. Loring (1990) “Micronesians. who were probably also the ancestors of the Lapita people (Solheim 1979:197). Yayoi jidai no hajimari (The beginning of the Yayoi Period). Peter (1979).” In Gina L. however. Barnes (editor). Tokyo: Tokyo University Press. Thais and relations: A craniofacial and odontometric perspective.” Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon 98 (4): 425-437. Tsunehiko (1990a). Yayoi. Asians. C. “From Toro to Yoshinogari: changing perspectives on Yayoi archaeology. This strongly suggests.

Wilhelm G.” Journal of Japanese Studies 2: 413-436.E. S. and Ellen A. Hong Kong... Journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological Society 9: 57-76. Julie Van Den Bergh. Translated and edited by Richard J. Kim. “International congresses and symposia. Proceed- . Nan W. Rogers. Wilhelm G.. Leiniager. Won-Yong (1964) The Beginning of Rice Cultivation in Korea. II (1967b). Kirch. II (1975b). Solheim. SOLHEIM II Kaneko.” In Mario D. 15 presented at the International Conference on Asian History. Solheim. Tung Wan Tsai: A Bronze Age and Tian Period Coastal Site.H. “The Nusantao and South China. pp. The Prehistory of Korea. Martin. “Long distance exchange and island colonization: the Lapita case. Solheim. Wilhelm G. Paleogeographie. Jeong-hak (1978). “The Malayo-Polynesian component in the Japanese language. II (1964). University of Hong Kong. “Further relationships of the Sa-huynhKalanay Pottery Tradition. (1988). 32-42. Kim.. “Japan. Solheim. Colloquium 18 Le Premier Peuplement de 1’Archipel Nippon et les Iles du Paci gue: Chronologie. Asian Perspectives 18(2): 146-160.” Asian Perspectives 8(1): 196-211. Murayama Schichiro (1976).” Language 42:185-251.P. Solheim. Patrick V. Solheim. the Philippines: Alemar Phoenix. Wilhelm G.” In Chosuke Serizawa (editor). “Coastal Irian Jaya and the origin of the Nusantao (Austronesian speaking people).. Loofs-Wissowa.” Norwegian Archaeological Review 21: 103-117. “The Sa-huynh-Kalanay Pottery Tradition: Past and future research. (1966). “Lexical evidence relating Korean to Japanese. Industries.” Journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological Society 6: 108-115. Quezon City. II (1976). Wilhelm G. a review of Yayoi period burial practices. Zamorah (editor). Wilhelm G. H. Paper No. II (1975a). as exemplied by two types of ear-ornaments. Solheim. 151-174.” Asian Perspectives 9:1-26. “Remarks on the Neolithic in South China and Southeast Asia.282 WILHELM G. Antiquities and Monuments Of ce Occasional Paper No. Pamela Rumball. Wilhelm G. Pearson and Kazue Pearson.” Asian Perspectives 10: 1-8. II (1973). Sophia Mirchaniani. pp. 3. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Studies in Philippine Anthropology. “Prehistoric and protohistoric links between the Indochinese peninsula and the Philippines. Erika (1966). “Re ections on the new data of Southeast Asian prehistory: Austronesian origin and consequence. (l980-1981)..” Journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological Society 4: 25-29. II (1967a). Widiowson (1995)..

Archaeology of the P’eng-Hu Islands.” In Ian Glover. “Dental evidence on the origins of the Ainu and Japanese.. Taibei: Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica Special Publications Number 95. Solheim. Hong Kong. Avelino Legaspi. Solheim. “A proposed prehistoric maritime network from Southeast Asia to Korea and Japan.. Taiwan. “The Son Vi and ‘Hoabinhian’ in Japan.J. Nice. “The Nusantao hypothesis: the origin and spread of Austronesian speakers. Nangang. Tsang Cheng-hwa (1992b). II (1992).the nusantao maritime trading network 283 ings of the International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. II (1982-1983). Wilhelm G. Turner.. “New archaeological data from both sides of the Taiwan Strait and their implications for the controversy about the Austronesian origins and expansion. II (1979). II (1984-1985). Wilhelm G. “Thoughts on land and sea peoples in Southeast Asia and their possible relationship to initial settlement of Micronesia. II (1976).” Paper presented at the Circum-Paci c Prehistory Conference. Viet Nam. Wilhelm G.. Solheim. Solheim. “Four lobes of the Nusantao Maritime Trading Network..” Paper presented at the 34th Congress of Asian and North African Studies. Solheim.” Asian Perspectives 22 (2): 165-205. Solheim. “Nusantao traders beyond Southeast Asia. Bangkok: White Lotus. “A look at ‘L’Art préboudhique de la Chine et le l’Asie du Sudest et son in uence en Océanie’ forty years after.111.” Asian Perspectives 26 (1): 77-88. Manila.’” Journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological Society 10: 107. Seattle. Wilhelm G. Archaeological Survey in Southeastern Mindanao.” Paper presented at the International Symposium on Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan.). 8. II (1990). II (1993b). Pornchai Suchitta. II (1989). Wilhelm G. pp. Taibei. Solheim. II. Christy G. Tsang Cheng-hwa (1992a)..” Bulletin of the Indo-Paci c Prehistory Association. Trade and Urban Centres in Thailand and Southeast Asia.” Micronesica Supplement 2: 241-246.” Science 193: 911-913. Wilhelm G. . (1979). 199-212. S. Wilhelm G.” Paper presented at the Hoabinhian Conference. Early Metallurgy. in press. II (1995).. and John Villiers (eds. Solheim. Wilhelm G. Wilhelm G. Solheim. “The Nusantao and north south dispersals.. Ha Noi. National Museum Monograph No. II (1993a). Solheim. “Remarks on ‘The lingling-o and bi-cephalous ornaments. and Jaime Neri. Wilhelm G..

Manoa 2424 Maile Way Honolulu. Wickler. II (1985). Yanagita. II (1979).” In Robert Kirk and Emoke Szathmary (eds. Christy G.284 WILHELM G.” Scienti c American 260(2): 88-96.). HI 96734S . Canberra: The Journal of Paci c History. II (1989). “Teeth and prehistory in Asia. Turner. Christy G. Siberia. “Sinodonty and Sundadonty: A dental anthropological view of Mongoloid microevolution. Khabarovsk.” Translated by Douglas Fuqua and Toshiyuki Minami. pp. Kunio (1976). Wang Wei (1989). Ethnos 6: 92-96.” Asian Perspectives 29: 135-154. origin. Turner. “Ebune. K˜kogaku zasshi 75: 108. “Prehistoric Melanesian exchange and interaction: recent evidence from the northern Solomon Islands. Out of Asia: Peopling the Americas and the Paci c. Stephen (1990). Christy G. and dispersal into the Paci c Basin. and the Americas.” Paper presented at the XIV Paci c Science Congress. USSR. Address: Department of Anthropology University of Hawai’i. SOLHEIM II Turner. “The dental search for native American origins. 31-78. “Ch goku enkai chih˜ no n˜k˜ bunka no t˜den (Eastward transmission of agriculture of the coastal region of China”.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful