TB! nS Tue AUSTRONESIAN CONNECTION Flow prehistoric man first appeared in the Philippine Archipelago remains a ‘mystery to scholars and laymen alike. While archaeological research has provided the greatest amount of evidence, recent studies in genetics, linguistics, and other disciplines have also shed much light on the problem. It is necessary to first understand what transpired during those years in Southeast Asia. Is tm this context that the concept of the ‘Austronesian-speaking peoples becomes Use~ ful,a concepe that is row central tothe many scientific debates on population expansion in the Pacific. There are different hypotheses on the orl- gin and expansion of the Austronestans, so named from the Latin word austro or “south ern," and the Greek word ness, meaning “is- land." They were a prehistoric people whose descendants now occupy areas extending froma Madagascar in the west to Easter Is- land im the east, and from Taiwan in the north to New Zealand in the south. The Austro- nestans carried out one of humankind’s greatest population movements from their Teputed homeland in Southeast Asia to the Pacific Islands, a distance that covers about one-third of the globe. ‘A long-standing debate his been how to explain the wide distribution of the hundreds of languages in the Austronesian (or Malayo- Polynesian) language family, Similarities in vocabulary, however, prove that these lan- guiages descended from a single, common, and now extinct ancestral tongue known as Proto-Austronesian, spoken about 6,000 yeats ago. The Austronesian language family Incluctes 1,000-1,200 distinct Austronesian languages, more than any other known tan guage family. tas the most widespread lan- ‘guage family in the world prior to 1500 and is spoken today by an estimated 270 million people. The Austronesian-speaking, peoples ow Include the indigenous populations of Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Madagascar, and inhabitants ofthe Pacific Is- lands of Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia. The languages are also spoken among the aboriginal populations of Taiwan, in some areas of south Vietnam and Cambodia, along the north coast of New Guinea in the Mergui ‘Archipelago off the coast of Burma, and on Hainan Island in southern China. Rice growers and boatbuilders Studies suggest that speakers of Proto- ‘Austronesian used words relating to rice cul- tivation and boatmaking. (thas thus become clear that the Austronesian-speakers came from an ancestral homeland where horticul- ture, domestication of animals, and boat- building were known, Meanwhile the results, of botanical studies in the areas populated by Austronesians indicate the presence of, wild varieties of domesticated plants com monly used by these people. These include yam, taro, sugarcane, and tree crops like bananas, breadfruit and coconut. Opposite: The Negria, member of an Ausronetan ‘pecking group indigenous othe Phipps end found in Zambales, Pampanga, the Bicol Peninsula, Paney and Negros, and Pawan Isr A shel pendent commonly wed for commamentation by ‘Austronesian pecking peopl262, Right: The Ara (or Agta) of Nanuduon, Cagayan. Below: A map showing areas ighcer) where the Austronesten language ts scill, spoken today. : Marianas ree 4 ou MARSHALL! Interms of physical type, there isa greater resemblance among Austronesian speakers in island Southeast Asia. There are greater differences among people outside this region, such as in Madagascar and in the islands of the Pacific Ocean, which suggests the assimi- lation of other races. Where the Austronesians came from Archaeological sites in mainland and island’ Southeast Asia, specifically those that have definite dates determined through radiocar- ‘bom testing, have proven crucial inthe search, for the alleged Austronesian horneland. The coastal areas of mainland Southeast Asia and several islands in Taiwan, the Phil- ippines and Indonesia have been détertnined by recent research to make up the general area where the Austronesian homeland is supposedly located. It is an area close to the centers of éarly civilization and population growth. HAWAIIANS, pee vancueens ‘HON eae WESTERN SAMOA 4 er rumors vewonenona 600K, EASTER,* in'the feld of archaeology there are, at present, two opposing theories on the evolu- tion of the Austronesians. One can be referred to as the Mainland Origin Hypothesis which maintains that the Austronesians originated from South China and Taiwan, and from there spread southward and westward. Archaeologists Peter Bellwood of the Aus- tralian National University at Canberra, ‘Australia and K. C. Chang of Harvard Uni- versity are the main proponents of this hy- pothesis, Bellwood has proposed that-early Austronesians, who had an economy based on cereals such as rice and millet, expanded from the coastal area south of the Yangtze River in mainland China and into Taiwan and the northern Philippines by about 5,000 B.C. to 4,000 B.C. The early Austronestans spread into the islands of eastern Indonesia 4,500 years ago and gradually replaced the indig- enous hunting and gathering populations. According to Bellwood, population growth and instability because of agriculture were probably the main motivating factors behind the Austronesian expansion. Bellwood further hypothesized that when, prehistoric groups started producing their ‘own food during the Neolithic Period, as op- posed to simple hunting and gathering ac- tivities, it resulted in a dramatic increase in. population and the subsequent development ‘of complex societies. It was possible that many of these societies expanded into new areas and introduced their food-production techniques in the new lands. As the food- producers spread, so did their languages. Families of languages are invariably found where agriculture first started, such as in China and New Guinea The other hypothesis, the Island Origin Hypothesis, asserts that the Austronesians most likely originated and dispersed from {sland Southeast Asia. Withelm G. Solheim lof the University of Hawaii has long been the leading proponent of this idea. He pro- poses that Proto-Austronesian ‘developed primarily.in northeastern Indonesia and Mindanao Island, expanding northwards with a developing maritime population through the Philippine Archipelago and into Taiwan, From there they reached South China, continuing north and south along the coast, ‘The data from mainland and island South- east Asia led Solheim to hypothesize on a population of maritime-oriented prehis- toric people which he called the *Nusantao.” ‘This was the term he used for the Austro- nesian-speaking peoples who made and used their stone and shell Make * tools in their original home- land, Whether they had knowledge of horticul- ture 3,000 years ago is not certain. Solheim be- lieved that it was the Nusantao maritime traders who developed Proto-Austronesian as a trade language “along the coasts of northern Luzon, south- ‘em Taiwan, and South China, between 4,500 and 5,000 B.C..." Waves of travelers across the ages The expansion of the Proto-Austronestan speakers is archaeologically linked to the Neolithic Period or New Stone Age of South- ‘east Asia. This period in prehistory ts charac- terized by the manufacture and use of ground and polished stone and shell tools for forest clearing and boatmaking, as differentiated from the flaked stone artifacts of the eatlier Paleolithic Period or Old Stone Age. Bark- cloth manufacture has been indicated by the recovery of stone beaters in some sites, Ma- rine shell artifacts were important innovations 263 Above: Flaed stone tools associated with ‘he same group. Lefe A shell ede, 1 standard part ofthe tool hic of Austronestan speaking peoples.tlow: Polished sione ols found tn the ulippines, Tatwan, sd Indonesia, and ter im the Pacific lands during this period, with the manufacture and use of shel fish-hooks and of adzes made from the giant lam Tridacna gigas The main distinction ofthe Neolithic Pe- riod, however, is the manufacture and use of pottery. A knowledge of farming was ater included to identify the period, although this practice did not appear at the same time in every area, The end of the Neolithic Period is conventently marked by the appearance of metals. ‘The story of prehistoric man in the Phil- ~4ppine archipelago is invariably connected tothe moverent of people in Southeast Asia. Various ideas have been advanced concern- ing che peopling of the archipelago, In 1947, H. Otley Beyer suggested that the peopling of the Philippines occurred through several “waves of migrations,” a theory based mainly on his studies of stone tools in the Philippines and on the then pre- vailing theory on populatiort migration pre- sented by Robert Heine Geldern in 1932. Beyer's wave migration hypothesis can be summarized thus: A core population existed some 250,000 years ago, made up of “a primitive human type” akin to the Java Man By 30,000 to 25,000 years ago, the first of two pygmy groups came from the south, the ‘Australoid-Salal Type. By 15,000 to 12,000 yeats ago, the Proto-Malays came through Palawan and Mindoro, originating from Borneo. By around 6,000 to 5,000 years ago the frst group of Indonesians, referred to as Indonesians A, arvived in the archipelago on. boats and comprised the "tall, slender inhab- ltants of the North." By about 2,500 years ago, a "shorter, dark-skinned and stockier” group known as Indonesians B came also by boat from Indochina and South China and headed for Luzon and Formosa. The final arrivals were the Malays from the south, who showed characteristics of the “Mongoloid fea- tures representing an ancient mixture of in- donesian and Mongoloid elements.” ( The arrival of each group was seen to ir troduce culture complexes which stimulated changes in the archipelago’ previously es- tablished society. Beyer theorized thatthe first two waves of migration, including early man, and the Negritos or pygmies, reached the ar chipelago through the former land bridges, of the Pleistocene Period. The succeeding waves were horticultural peoples who origi- nated from the different coastal areas of South China and Vietnam. The most impor tant wave, according to Beyer, were the so-called Malays who arrived from the southwest and had knowl- edge of pottery, glassmaking, iron working, and cloth weaving, Beyer’ reconstruction ofthe peopling ofthe Philippinesis the one most commonly used by historians in book on Philippine history 4 | }Development from within In 1975, F Landa Jocano, former chairman of the anthropology department of the University of the Philippines, published a work on Philippine prehistory that saw the developing Filipino culture as evolving from within, and not as a part of the larger Southeast Asian cultural milieu. In Jocano’ scheme, Philippine prehistory is divided into three periods: the Formative Period, the incipient Period and the Emergent Period. a; Beginning with the arrival of the frst homi- riids about 500,000 years ago, the Formative Period continued until about 2,500 years ago. ‘wo main trends in the development of cul- ture during this period were the Old Stone ‘Age, characterized by core and flaked stone tools, and the New Stone Age, which saw the development of techniques of grinding and polishing stone tools, of pottery-making, and the beginnings of horticulture. Rather short and overlapping the New Stone Age was Jocano’ Incipient Period from about 3,000 to 2,000 years ago, which has been described 2s “the beginning of the gen- eral leveling off of local regional sociocul- tural differences and an uneven breakdown of isolation throughout the archipelago.” The Incipient Period saw the local manufacture of metal artifacts, a vast improvement in the quality of locally made earthenware potter- jes in terms of form and decorative tech- niques, and evidence for the start of long- distance trade as noted by the recovery of jade and glass ornaments in some prehistoric burials Long-distance trade which started earlier blossomed into a full-blown activity during the Emergent Period, which saw “the appeat- ance of definable Filipino social organization (political, economic, religious, and so forth) and patterns of cultural behavior.” It was during this petiod that contact with the greater Southeast Asian populations greatly expanded, ending when Indian influence reached the Philippines, probably by about the year 100 In. 1981, Wilhelm G. Solheim It presénted a third framework for Philippine prehistory. Basing his reconstruction on Jocanos model, he revised his periodization on the basis of new archaeological data, Solheim recon- struction proposes four periods of Philip- pine prehistory: “The Archaic, from the first arrival of man in the Philippines to 5,000 B.C; Incipient Filipino, from 5,000 B.C. to 1,000 B.C.; Formative Filipino, 1,000 B.C. to 500 A.D.;and Established Filipino, from 500 A.D. to 1521 (with the coming of the Spanish and the beginning of ‘history’. ‘Attempting to present a general frame- ‘work for Philippine prehistory, Solheim qua- lified that his review was not a detailed dis- cussion of all available Philippine prehistoric data, and that the dates presented were sub- ject to change as new archaeological data became available. A detailed account of the thajor Phi pine archaeological finds was presented by Solheim to fit into the different periods he proposed. Using polished stone and shell tools, pottery tradition and burial practices, Sotheim restates his concept of the Nusan- tao, a maritime-oriented people of island 265 Spread: Negras stil, Jorase for their needs, while remaining nomadic hunters and gatherersgh: A hableue of vets, the Negro a vast hnowledge the uses of the nes around him. Southeast Asia with an early Neolithic cul- ture, who used stone and shell tools and ac- cepted pottery from the north, ‘The Negritos of the Philippines “Negrito” is the term used to identify the roughly 35,000 pygmies of Southeast Asia and Oceania, The Negritos, who appear to ‘be most numerous in che Philippines, include the Andamanese, the Semang of Malaysia, the small groups in southern Thailand and Sumatra, and the Aeta of the Philippines. In the Philippines they are distributed widely fom the far north of Luzon, specifically in Zambales and Pampanga, were many have been greatly affected and scattered by the Mount Pinatubo eruptions. Several groups are found on the northeastern coast of Luzon and the Bicol Peninsula, including Sorsogon. [Negros are also found on the islands of Panay and Negros in the Visayas, and in Palawan and northeastern Mindanao. Robert B. Fox, in his study of the useful plants of the Pinatubo Negritos of Zambales, ‘evealed that these people had an intense fa miliary with their surroundings, having a wledge of 74 wild food plants and an in- ventory of protein sources such as wild pig, deer, civet, monitor lizard, python, bats, birds, monkeys, frogs, eels, fish, shrimps, erabs, insects, and snails The Negritos are of short stature, with dark skin and kinky to wavy hair, Mixed mar- riages have produced a range of physical types, so some of them are taller and lighter- skinned. ‘Although they live seminomadic lives, some Negrto groups have setted down and practiced shifting agriculture, Almostall ofthe known Philippine Negrto groups have had contact with some settled Christian Filipinos, with both groups helping each other. The ‘Negritos ofnorthern Luzon have been called by various words for “black,” such a5 Aeta, Alia, Arta, Atta, Agra, and It; at various times they have also been refered to as Pugot or dwar” Baluga or “hall-breed,” and Dummagat or “seafarer”A piece of the Austronesian puzzle ‘An understanding of the Philippine Negritos and the scientific study of Negrito languages and genetics is relevant to the understand- ing of the Austronesian puzzle and the peo- pling of the Philippine archipelago. Bellwood believed the Negritos to be the descendants of the earliest population of the Philippines. The differences in the vari- ous groups, he attributes to microevolution- ary development within the country. Sol- heim considered them the descendants of a late Pleistocene Epoch population scattered across the Philippines. The Philippine Negritos have also been believed to belong to the Australoids, who centered the archipelago through the Sunda Shelf during the last glacial period. ‘Advances in genetics theory since the 1960s have made possible new approaches in the study of the biological origins of hu- man groups. Using these new techniques, scientists such 2s Ketichi Omoto have at- tempted, since 1975, to “shed light on the problem of the biological origins of the Philippine populations, particularly the Negritos.. ‘With assistance from the Department of Health and the National Museum of the 269 Spread: Negritos often live in lean-tos, signs of a nomadic fe, as they move ‘from one place to ‘another to trade forest products with lowland Christians.270 Right: Negritos know their forests as the celty man knows kis streets. Below: A stone bark beater used for pounding bark neo clothes, but also believed to be used for forming lay Ineo pots Philippines, Omoto collected blood samples from different ethnic groups with emphasis n the Negritos, resulting in “more than 1,000 Negrito blood samples from six local groups: the Aeta of west-central Luzon, the Agta of-northern Luzon, the Dumaget of northern Luzon, the Ati of Negros, the Batak of Palawan, and the Mamanwa of northeast- em Mindanao.” In addition, 378 samples were obtained from the Tagalog of Manila and the Visayas of Negros. The patterns of gene distribution resulting from Omoto’ research ‘on Philippine Negritos gen- erated two hypotheses: “The first hypothesis is that there were two separate migrations in the formation of aboriginal hunter-gatherer groups of the Philippines: one from Sundaland via Palawan Island to the western part of the Philippines, and the other along the southern coast of Sundatand eastward, ot elsewhere from Wallacea northward to Mindanao. This second group must have mi- grated further along the eastern coast of the Philippine Islands up to the northernmost Luzon. In this hypothesis, the western group represented by the Aeta and the eastern group represented by the Mamanwa are of separate origins. 4, “The second hypothesis would be that the ‘Aeta and the Mamanwa were differentiated from the common basic population of the Philippines. According to this hypothesis, the difference in gene distribution and also physical phenotype (stature) between the ‘western and the eastern populations are due to local micro-evolution within the Philip- pine Istands.” Contacts with Asia and Austronesia Following this lead, Omoto’ genetic studies suggest that “the Aeta have closer genetic affinities to Asian populations than to Aus- tralian aborigines.” Furthermore, Omotoas- serts that the isolation of the Negritos took place at a relatively recent time, 20,000 to 25,000 years ago, and that they probably evolved from the basic population of Sunda land. Research on some of the Philippine Negrito languages has resulted in incerest- ing data showing that there was indeed contact between the Negritos and the Austronesians. During the early 1900s, it was believed that the languages spoken by the Philippine Negritos were different ftom the languages spoken by other Filipinos. Linguistic stud ies, however, later showed that the Negritos spoke Austronesian languages typically simi-lar to the languages spoken by their Chris- tian neighbors. In some cases, the languages spoken were almost identical. More detailed studies indicate that this was not true for all instagces, however. In'his research on Negrito languages, Lawrence A. Reid, an anthropologist and a linguist from the University of Hawaii, says tesearch is sili unable to definitely expiain a number of things, such as what the languages of the Negritos were like before their expo- sure 10 Austronesian speakers, when the Austronesian languages were adopted and leamed by the Negrtos, and ~ sinte all the Negritos now speak Austronesian languages = when or why they gave up their original tongues. Learning the new, forgetting the old By assuming that some of today$ Philippine Negrtos are descendants of early Homo sa piens who inhabived the Philippines some 22,000 years ago, Reid maintains that “each am Lefer A drawing at Madrid's Museo Naval features an Agta mother and cll2m. Right: Negrivos of, Cagayan gather rattan and prepare efor use. geographically distinct group must have had its own language, and that because of the extremely long time period, the languages ‘must have been very different from one an~ other.” Based on his linguistic studies, how- lever, Reid does speculate that some of the ‘Negrito groups may have learned thelr first ‘Austronesian language at very early stage of ‘Austronesian expansion into the archipelago, “perhaps at earliest contac, as settlers moved cout and into other areas of the archipelago, probably over 4,000 years ago. ‘As for the reason for the switch from their original languages to Austronesian, the concept of mutual symbiosis comes into play. The newcomers had much to offer the Negritos, such as pottery and the knowledge of agriculture. The new Settlers could like- wise have benefited from the Negritos’ hunt= ing skills, chus adding wild pig and deer as well as other forest products to thetr dies. ‘Another reason Reid presents for the language switch was intimate trade contact, where the two groups ‘lived and worked to- gether, their children growing up together, ‘with Negrito bilingualism developing, and probably within a space ofa few generations, forgetting their original tongues.” The Austronesians were here Archaeological sites dating back to the Neolithic Period have been documented in various areas of the Philippine archipelago, Neolithic sites in the country, located near the coasts or along banks of major rivers, are fairly distributed over the various islands. The sites have yielded polished stone and shell implements like adzes, axes, gouges, chisels and bark-cloth beaters, shell and stone ornaments, shell utensils, modified river pebbles used as hammers, sone blades or knives, earthenware pottery vessels, tools ‘made from deer antlers, and evidence of food remains which include a variety of land and marine animalssuch as pig, deer, marine and brackish shellfish, crabs, and mollusks. “The polished stone and shell tools all sug- gest that mgn at this time was clearing for- ests for planting and hollowing out tree trunks to use as boats. Agriculture during the Neolithic Period is indirectly confirmed by the recovered stone implements. More di- rect evideuce, specifically for rice planting, {s seen in the rice husks used as tempering ‘materials and recovered from pottery shards at the archaeological excavations in Anda- rayan, Cagayan, a site which dates back to around 3,700 years ago. alge‘There are a number of cases where the Neolithic assemblages were found in sites swith only a Paleolithic tradition of stone tool making. One such example is Rabel Cve in Petiablanca, Cagayan. Ranging in dates irom 3,000 to 4,900 years ago, the assemblages at this site yielded Paleolithic flake and cobble tools made and used at the same cave. A fre~ quently visited site with food remains of birds, bats, pigs, and deer, and numerous freshwater river shells, this cave sheltered prehistoric occupants who were predomi fantly hunters and gatherers. The presence of earthenware pottery shards also suggests contact with settled groups which probably occupied the open areas neat the Pefablance limestone formation. ‘The importance of maritime skills During the movement ofthe ancestors of the ‘Austronesian-speaking peoples in the Neo- lithic Period, the seafaring skills necessary for travel by boat over large, perilous bodies of ‘water to traverse what used to be the Sunda and Sahul Shelves was a critical ability. These ‘maritime skills were believed to have been de- veloped in island Southeast Asta. ‘The peopling ofthe Philippine archipelago {s inextricably linked with the Austronesia speaking peoples’ patterns of migration. The recovery of the fossil remains of early man in this part of the world strongly indicates that the ancestors of modem man were already in. Southeast Asia half 2 million years ago. ‘Although the early hypotheses on the peo- pling of the Philippines were explained mostly through theories of migration, more recent data has indicated the possibility of other independent cultures and societies ‘within the archipelago. Prehistoric maritime trade activity in the archipelago has also be- come a crucial factor in explaining the jour- neys of early man across the islands. 273 Lefe Knowledge of ‘and access tothe sea ‘also enable Negritos to gather marine