Final Paper

The Origins of Austronesians, Negritoes and Primitive People: Historical and Comparative

Perspectives
 THE AUSTRONESIANS

I. The Language

Austronesian is a linguistic household unfold in most areas of the Southeast Asia, the

Pacific Ocean, and the Indian Ocean. Based on their linguistic similarity, this linguistic family

protected Malayo-Polynesians and Taiwan aborigines. The linguistic similarity additionally led

to the controversial speculation that Taiwan is the hometown of all the Malayo-Polynesians, a

hypothesis that has been debated with the aid of ethnologists, linguists, archaeologists, and

geneticists. It is properly accepted that the Eastern Austronesians (Micronesians and

Polynesians) derived from the Western Austronesians (Island Southeast Asians and Taiwanese),

and that the Daic populations on the mainland are supposed to be the headstream of all the

Austronesian populations.

The Austronesian languages structure a single and distinctly close-knit family, similar in

its degree of interior diversity and time depth to different principal language families such as

Austroasiatic, Uto-Aztecan and Indo-European. Prior to AD 1500 the Austronesian languages

belonged to the most substantial language family in the world, with a distribution extending

greater than half way round the globe from Madagascar to Easter Island. Today, Austronesian-

speaking peoples incorporate most or all of the indigenous populations of Indonesia, Malaysia,

the Philippines and Madagascar. Austronesian languages are additionally observed on Taiwan

(the feasible native land of the first Austronesians), in parts of southern Vietnam and Cambodia,

in the Mergui Archipelago off the coast of Burma, and on Hainan Island in southern China.

Further to the east, Austronesian languages are spoken in some of the coastal areas of Papua

New Guinea, in New Britain and New Ireland, and down the Melanesian chain of islands via the

Solomon Islands and Vanuatu as some ways as New Caledonia and Fiji. From there they extend
eastwards to encompass all of the languages of Polynesia and northwards to take in all of the

languages of Micronesia. There are estimated to be between 1000 and 1200 distinct Austronesian

languages, depending on one’s standards for distinguishing languages from dialects. These

languages are spoken through an estimated 270 million people whose distribution is

spectacularly uneven. All but about two million Austronesian-speakers stay west of a line drawn

north-south at about 130° east longitude, extending from just west of the Caroline Islands to just

east of the Bird’s Head on the island of New Guinea. The distribution of these languages over the

Austronesian-speaking location is, however, exceptionally more even, with something over 500

languages on both aspect of the 130° east longitudinal dividing line.

The fact that so many humans need to communicate associated Austronesian languages is

interesting, however does this linguistic fact illuminate the universal cultural and biological

origins and histories of these populations in any beneficial way? After all, the peoples who speak

these languages nowadays are not same in physical appearance. One would have little difficulty,

for instance, in differentiating by simple visual capability amongst a random combination of

Austronesian-speaking persons of Punan (Borneo), Agta (Luzon), Fijian and Tahitian origin.

Similarly, the forest-collecting Punan, the urbanized Moslem Malays of Kuala Lumpur and the

atoll dwellers of Micronesia would show up to have rather little in common in the socio-

economic and religious senses. Culture and physical look would possibly appear to be utilized as

channels of ethnic identity in many individual modern-day societies, but such channels are no

longer rigid and inflexible. Even the most cursory observation of present-day societies

somewhere in the world will depart little doubt that people, frequently large groups of them, can

intermarry with people of unique biological and cultural backgrounds, change their languages, or

undertake new cultures and lifestyles when conditions persuade or permit.

 Austronesian societies, likewise, have diverse significantly in these regards in the past.

Yet for all of them there exist linguistic, biological and archaeological proof that indicate various

levels of common foundation traceable back for a time depth of possibly 6000 years.

Austronesian societies have obviously fissioned and varied in complex ways, and this is one of

the motives why the study of these societies of Southeast Asia and Oceania, previous and

present, can be so interesting and rewarding.

II. Origins and Dispersals

The proof of comparative linguistics and of archaeology for the historical origin and

spread of Austronesian-speaking peoples is so overwhelming in its generic conclusions that most

research in other disciplines has shifted to ask more precise questions. These questions challenge

the transformations that happened because of this spread of the Austronesians — each the

interior trends within individual Austronesian cultures as well as those traits that resulted from

contact among Austronesian groups and with different populations and cultures. Neither the

biology, the language nor the tradition of the Austronesians has remained static over the past

5000 years.

Serjeantson and Gao, for example, in their paper argue for an evolutionary viewpoint that

absolutely acknowledges the biological modifications that have occurred. They focus on the

evolutionary forces that have affected adjustments in the genetic make-up of the populations of

Oceania. Whereas the Polynesians share many genetic facets with Island Southeast Asians, they

have also received genes from Melanesian populations and, importantly, have undergone further

evolution, losing certain genes, in their migrations into the Pacific. The result is a genetic

repertoire that is genuinely exclusive from that of the earliest Austronesians.

 The Serjeantson and Gao paper also addresses a key query raised about the early

Austronesians. Otto Dempwolff, who used to be one of the founding figures in the development

of comparative Austronesian linguistics, served for a long duration as a medical doctor in what

was, at the time, German New Guinea. In 1904, following a previously recommendation by

another German doctor, Danneil, Dempwolff speculated that malaria might also have exerted an

extensive selective pressure on early Austronesian populations whereas the non-Austronesian

populations had, it appeared, developed a degree of immunity that gave them a selective gain in

highly malarial areas. By this argument, it was the islands with the least malaria that furnished

the most secure pathway for the spread of the early Austronesians. Based on substantial research

stated in Serjeantson et al. (1992), the Serjeantson and Gao paper lends aid to Dempwolff’s

concept suggesting that the early Austronesians may certainly have arrived in Melanesia to

discover a malarial region inhabited by peoples comparatively properly adapted to the

surroundings and consequently it would have been prudent for them to have saved to the small

islands and to have continued eastward.

The paper by Bhatia, Easteal and Kirk makes comparable observations in analyzing the

distinct genetic make-up of Austronesian- and non-Austronesian- (or Papuan)-speaking

populations within Melanesia. Based on earlier research, Kirk has recognized three patterns of

linguistic and genetic differentiation primarily based on unique allele combinations: 1) an

Australoid pattern that relates to the Aboriginal populations of Australia, 2) a proto-Papuan

pattern whose highest frequencies occur in the highlands of Papua New Guinea and parts of Irian

Jaya, with lower frequencies along the New Guinea coast and still lower frequencies in the

Solomons, Banks Islands and Polynesian Outliers, and, 3) an Austronesian pattern that is not

observed in Australia and rarely happens in the Papua New Guinea Highlands. The best possible
frequency of this pattern is to be observed in some coastal areas of north and east New Guinea,

the Solomons, Banks Islands, the western Carolines and Fiji. Bhatia, Easteal and Kirk show that

while language may also be an indicator of genetic distinction in large geographical terms, in

Melanesia it is not an sufficient discriminant in precise cases.

Dutton’s chapter points closer to a comparable conclusion. He examines the kinds of

contact-induced exchange which have been found in the Austronesian languages of Melanesia

and discusses the issues posed by such alternate for the classification of the languages of the

Oceanic subgroup of Austronesian. The complex relationships between the Austronesians- and

non-Austronesian speakers, in particular in eastern Indonesia and Melanesia where contact has

had such a lengthy history, raises imperative questions for the study of the cultures of the region.

Supomo takes note of that Old Javanese engravings allude to neighborhood indigenous

networks as wanua [PMP *banua] and their occupants as anak wanua. The chambers that

administered these networks comprised of seniors alluded to as rama [PAn *ama signifying

'father']. Wanua were gathered in regional units alluded to as watak and these watak, thus, were

going by rakai, an assignment which Supomo contends is gotten from the term for 'senior' or

'granddad' [PAn *aki]. This early Javanese political framework was directed by a figure given

the title ratu [PMP *datu, signifying 'precursor, boss, lord']. The framework uses an unmistakable

family relationship figure of speech which can be connected both to proto-Austronesian and to

contemporary Javanese. Utilizing the proof from Old Javanese writings, Fox has demonstrated

that prior Javanese family relationship is totally Austronesian in structure with little Sanskrit

impact. To be sure the semantic structure of present day Javanese connection gives proof of an

unmistakable progression and advancement from Old Javanese (Fox 1986). As Supomo calls

attention to, one must look to Bali significantly more than Java for a large number of the
congruities with more established Javanese conventions in light of the fact that the "sanctuaries

of language" which he portrays were shipped and transplanted there after the happening to Islam.

It is fascinating along these lines to take note of that neighborhood networks sorted out regarding

banua and directed by town committees still keep on working in the upland zones of Bali today

(Reuter, pers.comm. 1994). Like Supomo, Reid likewise analyzes the congruities and changes

that happened because of outside strict and political impacts — the happening to Islam and

afterward Christianity among the oceanic populaces of Southeast Asia from the fifteenth century

forward. These cruising and exchanging populaces included Malays, Javanese, Chams and

Tagalogs ("Luzons") who had long-standing authentic associations with each other and with the

populaces of the hinterlands for whom they gave an opening to the ocean. The new religions

achieved fast changes in issues of personality — dress, discourse, deportment and diet — just as

increasingly progressive yet significant changes in sexual ethical quality, in the custom job of

ladies, and seeing someone to the hallowed, including frames of mind toward the soul world and

the dead.

Yengoyan's paper proceeds with this subject in looking at the various manners by which

Christianity, proclaimed through various pilgrim establishments and societies, has changed the

way of life of the Philippines and the Pacific. In this change of neighborhood Austronesian social

orders, rather than cultivating any one specific type of society, the blend of western

expansionism and Christianity has proffered an idea of independence, focusing on the jobs,

rights and obligations of people in every social relationship. It is this idea that keeps on applying

a significant impact on Austronesian social orders all through the locale.

THE NEGRITOS
 The events and period of prehistoric peopling state of Southeast Asia (SEA) have been a

little bit controversial. Human remains from archaeological sites such as Callao cave in the

Philippines (Mijares et al. 2010) and the Niah Cave in Malaysia (Barker et al. 2007) suggest that

the SEA was populated by anatomically modern humans approximately 50-70 kilo years ago

(KYA). Two models have been proposed to explain subsequent migrations involved shaping

todays SEA populations. The Out-of-Taiwan model refers to the Austronesian language

expansion before the present. This replaced the pre-existing Australoid people with Austronesian

agriculturists (Diamond and Bellwood 2003; Bellwood 2005). In the long period between

suggest an Early Train wave of migration during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene (Hil et al.

2006, 2007; Soares et al. 2008; Karafet et al. 2010; Jinam et al. 2012).

The origins of the negritos suggests that they are the directly descendant of African

populations who were replaced in most areas by subsequent migrations into SEA (Carey 1976).

But thee are also plausible models to account and support the claims of the origins of the

negritoes. A classical anthropological interpretation suggests that negritos are the only surviving

descendant of the early peopling stage of the Southern Asia (Bhasin et al. 1994; Myka 1993).

This model, based initially upon the physical similarities between the negritos and African

“pygmies” and Bushmen (Howells 1973). The occupation of the early people prior to occupation

of Melanesia and Australia would likely place the origin of the negritos. In the model

presentation of Coon (1965), he proposed that the negritos were a subgroup population of its

“Australoid” population, which inhabited and scattered all throughout the Southeast Asia during

the last ice age. He also then suggest that the phenotypic characteristics of the negritos similarly

to the sub-Saharan Africans were the result of the environmental adaptation of the negritos to

similar environments. It is also possible that the negritos are descended from the other Southeast
Asian or Oceanic group populations, with intrinsic characteristics evolving in the past several

years through the isolation and convergent adaptation in response to similar environment

conditions and subsistence strategies, thus tracking the path leading to the similarities with small

bodied African populations.

There is some evidence that genetic variation among the Andaman Islanders may reflect

considerable isolation following initial dispersal out of Africa (Kashyap et al. 2003; Thangaraj et

al. 2003, 2006; Thangaraj and Chaubey 2005). Although this plausibly fits an interpretative

framework where the Andaman islanders and other negrito populations represent relict

populations of this early migration, recent evidence suggests that genetic variation among these

populations is much more complex than previously though (Reich et al. 2009). These complex

lineage connections may not reflect a common ancestry concurrent with the dispersal out of

Africa, as predicted by the negrito hypothesis, but an intensity of long-term genetic isolation

from neighboring populations, suggests that base on genetic variation, the Aeta, Batak, and Agta

cluster with other South Asian populations and that their small body size evolved independently

of other pygmy populations in Africa or Papua New Guinea.

Early craniometric studies of the Aeta, Semang, and the Andamanese have pictured a

closer affinity of the negritos with Southeast Asian populations rather than Australian Aborigines

(Hanihara 1993). A recent investigation of South Asian craniofacial variation within the context

of global diversity revealed a relatively unique position of the Andaman islanders (Stock et al.

2007) who were morphologically intrinsic to their own from the other South Asian populations.
THE PRIMITIVES

What has been known as the earliest human being in the Philippines is represented by a

fossilized skullcap or frontal bone, called the Tabon Man, which attributed to the date of 22,000-

24,000 years ago, from the Pleistocene period or the last ice age (Fox 1970). The fossil remains

was discovered from the archaeological excavation of Dr. Robert Fox in the early 1960’s from

the now famous Tabon Cave, located in Lipuun Point, Palawan, Philippines. However, there is

really very little information regarding the human occupation of the Tabon Cave, the

anthropological and physical descriptions of the fossil remains, and their archaeological and

prehistoric significance. For an instance, there are at least more than three individual fossils

recovered from the Tabon Cave but these were not properly described anthropologically. The

skullcap from the Tabon was actually a female and it was not scientifically compared to the

known human fossils around the world with their relative ages.

And in just the recent discovery of Homo luzonensis, an extinct species of archaic

humans in the genus homo. It was discovered by the Filipino archaeologists Armand Mijares and

Philip J. Piper and initially identified as modern human by Florent Dertroit. In 2019, Armand

Mijares et al. described the qubsequent discovery of “twelve additional hominin elements that

represent at least three individuals that were found in the same stratigraphic layers of Callao

Cave as the previously discovered metatarsal” and identified the fossils as belonging to a newly

discovered species, Homo luzonensis on the basis of differences from previously identified

specie in the genus homo. In spite of the fact that the underlying speculation of early human

migration to the Philippines proposed the utilization of land spans during the last ice age, present

day bathymetric readings of the Mindoro Strait and Sibutu Passage recommend that neither
would have been completely shut (which relates with the Philippines being biogeographically

isolated from Sundaland by the Wallace Line

 Works cited

Bellwood, P . 1994 The archaeology of Papuan and Austronesian prehistory in the Northern

Moluccas, Eastern Indonesia. Paper given at the World Archaeological Congress, New

Delhi, 4-11 December.

Bhasin, M. K., H. Walter, and H. Danker-Hopfe. 1994. People of India: An Investigation of

Biological Variability in Ecological, Ethno-economic, and Linguistic Groups. Delhi:

Kamla-Raj Enterprises.

Carey, I. 1976. Orang Asli: The Aboriginal Tribes of Peninsular Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur:

Oxford University Press.

Coon, C. S. 1965. The Living Races of Man. New York: Knopf.

Dempwolff, Otto 1904 Über aussterbende Völker. Die Eingeborenen der “Westlichen Inseln” in

Deutsch-Neu-Guinea. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 36:414.

Détroit, F.; Mijares, A. S.; Corny, J.; Daver, G.; Zanolli, C.; Dizon, E.; Robles, E.; Grün, R. &

Piper, P. J. (2019). "A new species of Homo from the Late Pleistocene of the

Philippines". Nature. 568 (7751): 181–186. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1067-9

Dutton, Tom and Darell Tyron (eds) 1994 Language contact and change in the Austronesian

world. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.

Fox, J.J. 1986 The ordering of generations: change and continuity in old Javanese kinship. In

D.G. Marr and A.C. Milner (eds) Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th centuries, pp.315-

326. Kirch, P.V. and R.C. Green 1987 History, phylogeny and evolution in Polynesia.

Current Anthropology 28:431-456.

Grün, Rainer; Eggins, Stephen; Kinsley, Leslie; Moseley, Hannah & Sambridge, Malcolm

(December 2014). "Laser ablation U-series analysis of fossil bones and teeth".

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 416: 150–167.

doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2014.07.023

Serjeantson, S.W., P.G. Board and K.K. Bhatia 1992 Population genetics in Papua New Guinea:

a perspective on human evolution. In R.D. Attenborough and M.P. Alpers (eds) Human

biology in Papua New Guinea: the small cosmos, pp.198-233. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and Canberra: Research School of Pacific

Studies, The Australian National University.

Mijares, A. S.; Détroit, F.; Piper, P.; Grün, R.; Bellwood, P.; Aubert, M.; Champion, G.; Cuevas,

N.; De Leon, A.; Dizon, E. (2010). "New evidence for a 67,000-year-old human

presence at Callao Cave, Luzon, Philippines". Journal of Human Evolution. 59 (1):

123–132. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.04.008

Myka, F. P. 1993. Decline of Indigenous Populations: The Case of the Andaman Islanders.

Jaipur: Rawat Publications.