The Nusantao Hypothesis: The Origin and Spread of Austronesian Speaker

By WILHELM G. SOLHEIM II

Summary:

• Tackles about the origins of the Austronesian language family and presents different perspectives on this topic.
• Explores the disagreement among various papers and suggests the presence of a factor influencing interpretations.
• The author argues that the concept of "Austronesian" encompasses language, people, and culture.
• It challenges the notion that the origins of Austronesian are solely a linguistic matter, emphasizing the impact of culture and
genetics.

The Austronesian language family includes languages spoken in Southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands, and parts of
Madagascar. The Austronesian speakers are believed to have originated in Southeast Asia and then spread to other regions
through migration and colonization.

The traditional hypothesis regarding the origin and spread of Austronesian speakers is that they originated from a
South China homeland and spread south across "Indo-China," down the Malay Peninsula, and into western Indonesia by 2000
B.C. From there, they divided into two branches east of Java, with one branch moving northward through the Philippines and
another branch moving eastward into Island Melanesia and further east into Tonga and the rest of the Pacific. This hypothesis
suggests that the Austronesian speakers migrated in multiple waves, with different movements and routes.
The Nusantao hypothesis suggests that the Austronesian language developed among the maritime Nusantao people
along the coasts of northern Luzon, southern Taiwan, and South China between 4500 and 5000 B.C. It proposes that Proto-
Austronesian served as a trade or barter language among these people. The hypothesis also suggests that the Nusantao
people intermarried with coastal populations, creating a distinct coastal population along the western shore of the South China
Sea. From there, the Austronesian language spread through the Philippines and Indonesia, as well as eastward into Island
Melanesia and further east to Tonga and Micronesia. The Nusantao hypothesis emphasizes the maritime orientation of the
Austronesian culture and its development in Southeast Asia.
According to Bellwood, the driving force of Austronesian speaker expansion was rice agriculture. "Amtronesian
expansion, centered in southern China, Taiwan the northern Philippines, and commencing from 4500 B.C (Ibid. identifies first
Austronesian presence in Taiwan as the Ta-p'en-k'eng culture and states: "Hence the Ta-p'en-k'eng culture is of enormous
importance as a potential record of the oldest stage of Austronesian society which can be identified on linguistic grounds (that
is Initial Austronesian)."

1.) The origins of the Austronesian language family

a. The Austronesian language family is a linguistic construct, and the question of its origins is primarily a linguistic
question. (Bellwood)
b. The Austronesian homeland is believed to be in a subtropical region, possibly in the mainland of China. (Blust)
c. The Austronesian speakers spread south from a South China homeland across Indo-China, down the Malay Peninsula,
and into western Indonesia. (Geldern)
d. The Austronesian speakers sailed from a South China homeland to the Philippines and then southeast to Melanesia
and east to Micronesia. (Howells)
e. The Austronesian speakers spread into Southeast Asia and the Island world, with different routes and movements.
(Various hypotheses)

It is important to note that there is disagreement and varying interpretations among the different perspectives presented in the
document.

2.) Argue for the inclusion of culture and genetics in the discussion of Austronesian origins
 a. The author argues that the discussion of Austronesian origins should include culture and genetics because the term
"Austronesian" encompasses not only the language family but also the people who speak or spoke Austronesian
languages and the culture of the ethnic groups associated with these languages. The author suggests that there is a
correlation between the distribution and history of the Austronesian languages, the ethnic groups that speak these
languages, and their cultural practices. Therefore, to fully understand the origins of Austronesian, all three subjects -
language, people, and culture - must be taken into account and their results combined. The author also acknowledges
that there may be genetic influences from non-Austronesian cultures on the Austronesian-speaking populations,
further emphasizing the importance of considering genetics in the discussion of Austronesian origins. (Page 1)

3. Factors that may be influencing interpretations of the Austronesian language family's origins

1. Different disciplines: The interpretations of Austronesian origins involve linguistic, archaeological, and genetic
data. Each discipline may have its own methods and biases, leading to different interpretations.
2. Lack of agreement: There is not full agreement among researchers on the origins of the Austronesian language
family. Different papers have different interpretations, leading to conflicting views.
3. Multiple subjects: The term "Austronesian" refers to multiple subjects, including the language family, the people
who speak or spoke Austronesian languages, and the culture of these ethnic groups. This complexity can lead to
misunderstandings and different interpretations.
4. Combination of results: To reconstruct prehistory, all three subjects (linguistic, archaeological, and genetic) must
be taken into account and their results combined. Disagreements between fields should be studied to find
interpretations that fit in both fields.
5. Other disciplines: There are other disciplines, such as cultural anthropology, that can provide insights into the
origins of the Austronesian language family but may have lesser value in reconstructing prehistory.
Hypothesis For Austronesian Origin
By Peter Bellwood
Summary

• Argues that human expansion, rather than large-scale migration, is the main factor in the phenomenon of Austronesian
origins. Additionally, the paper recognizes the significance of both human expansion and local evolution in shaping
human identities.

Bellwood emphasizes that the question of Austronesian origins is primarily a linguistic question, as the Austronesian
taxon itself is a linguistic construct. He argues that linguistic evidence plays a central role in understanding Austronesian origins
and early expansion. Linguistic literature, according to Bellwood, provides insights into the movement and recent expansion of
Austronesian languages. He also suggests that linguistic data allows for the reconstruction of protolanguages and can provide
valuable information about the ultimate region of Austronesian origin.

1. Evidence Bellwood provided to support the idea of human expansion as the main factor in Austronesian origins

1. The author argues that there is no convincing evidence for population "pressure" in the southern Chinese
Neolithic, suggesting that population growth alone cannot explain the spread of Austronesians.
2. The author states that it is unlikely that Taiwan itself could have been the source of a massive expansion
southward, indicating that migration alone is not sufficient to explain the Austronesian spread.
3. The author points out that Taiwan has seen mainly local evolution of cultures over the last 6000 years,
suggesting that the Austronesian culture in Taiwan is not the result of a large-scale migration.
4. The author mentions the lack of archaeological evidence to support a coherent migration of people from
southern China into Taiwan and Luzon, but acknowledges that diffusion from the adjacent land masses
into Taiwan has taken place.

Overall, the author's argument is based on the absence of population pressure in southern China, the local
evolution of cultures in Taiwan, and the lack of archaeological evidence for a large-scale migration from southern China
into Taiwan and Luzon.

2. Differentiate between human expansion and large-scale migration in the context of Austronesian origins
The author differentiates between human expansion and large-scale migration in the context of Austronesian
origins by emphasizing the importance of human expansion. While large-scale migration is acknowledged as a factor, the
author gives more weight to human expansion as the primary driver of Austronesian origins. The author believes that
factors such as population growth and instability promoted by agriculture played a significant role in the early expansion
of Austronesians. The author also argues that linguistic evidence is crucial in understanding Austronesian origins, as the
Austronesian taxon itself is a linguistic construct.

3. Role of local evolution in shaping human identities

The document mentions that the role of local evolution in shaping human identities is one of the polarized
concepts discussed in relation to Austronesian origins. The author, Peter Bellwood, differs from Meacham in the stress
given to human expansion rather than large-scale migration. Bellwood believes that both human expansion and local
evolution have operated in the past, through processes of within- and between-population interaction, to shape human
identities. However, the document does not provide further details on the specific role of local evolution in shaping
human identities.

Meacham associates Bellwood's published statements with concepts such as "pressure" and "waves" of Austronesian
migration, which Bellwood himself does not favor. Bellwood, on the other hand, emphasizes human expansion rather than
large-scale migration as a major factor in the spread of the Austronesians.
 Meacham's interpretation of the origin of Austronesian is that it is based on the concept of "local evolution." He
argues that there is no convincing evidence for population "pressure" in the southern Chinese Neolithic and that Taiwan
itself could not have been the source of a massive expansion south. Meacham suggests that Taiwan has seen mainly
local evolution of cultures over the last 6000 years and that there is generally no archaeological evidence to support a
coherent migration of people from southern China into Taiwan and Luzon. He believes that the spread of Austronesian
languages is better explained by cultural factors, such as exploration, settlement, and the desire to possess new
territory, rather than population pressure.

4. Observation on South-east Asian Archaeological about Austronesian:

- The difficulty in delineating specific archaeological assemblages or skeletal populations directly ancestral to modern
Austronesian counterparts.

- The concept of "Austronesian origin" is diffuse and involves interactions with many ancient populations unrelated to
present Austronesian speakers.

- The linguistic evidence is considered as important as archaeological evidence in determining Austronesian origins.

- The linguistic evidence suggests that Taiwan is the most probable location of Proto-Austronesian.
- The linguistic evidence also supports the hypothesis of Proto-Oceanic as a widespread chain of closely related dialects
in Melanesia.

- The linguistic evidence suggests that Proto-Malayo-Polynesian was developed through mobility and communication
between Austronesian speakers.
- The concept of large-scale migration from China as the primary explanation for Austronesian expansion is not favored
by some researchers.
- Factors of population growth and instability promoted by agriculture, rather than trade, are considered as major factors
in the early days of Austronesian expansion.

The Neolithical Expansion Model

The neolithic expansion model mentioned in the document refers to a theory that explains the spread of the
Neolithic culture and its associated populations. According to this model, the expansion of the Neolithic culture was not
a result of a single unified migration but rather a gradual and centrifugal establishment of new settlements within an
expanding frontier zone.

The model suggests that the expansion occurred through multiple local movements rather than a conscious and
coordinated long-distance migration. It was driven by factors such as population growth and the need for new resources,
particularly agricultural land. As populations grew, they gradually established new settlements in previously uninhabited
or sparsely populated areas.

The neolithic expansion model also takes into account the assimilation of preexisting populations. As new
settlements were established, there was likely interaction and assimilation with the local hunter-gatherer groups or other
existing communities. This process of assimilation and cultural diffusion contributed to the spread of the Neolithic
culture.

It is important to note that the neolithic expansion model is based on a combination of genetic and
archaeological data. It suggests that the expansion was not a rapid and uniform process but rather a slow and piecemeal
one, taking place over an extended period of time.