Alderete, Larrien Keith – Dignadice, Donna – Sandoval, Camille

Hist 113 – Maritime History of the Philippines

September 16, 2023

Understanding Maritime Origins, A Commentary

Peter Bellwood’s The Hypotheses for Austronesian Origins believes that the spread
of Austronesian peoples is because of the human expansion that resulted to migration to
other islands. On the other hand, Wilhelm Solheim II’s The Nusantao Hypothesis: The Origin
and Spread of Austronesian Speakers (Austronesian-speaking peoples) emphasized the
similarities in languages and cultures of several countries in Asia Pacific. These similarities
are due to the communication of people in trading. These two hypotheses provides
evidences to support their claims and also to give criticism on other prehistoric claims. We
were able to find the difference and coherence of their theories by critically analyzing their
article with thoughts of providing a clearer perception of how these theories were accepted
by many.

Solheim and Bellwood shared a common agreement regarding the Austonesian

origin, as they both regarded it primarily as a linguistic question. Both significantly mentioned
that Austonesian peoples or the Nusantao, first appeared in Asia-Pacific region during the
Neolithic age.

However, their theories of migration have several significant differences and

contradicts the viewpoint of each other. The differences between Bellwood and Solheim’s
theory of migration can be attributed to their academic leanings and personal experiences.
Bellwood has a linguistic background and his publications include his discussions that lean
into such. Austronesian originally referred to the languages spoken in SEA, Oceania, etc.
Bellwood extends the use of Austronesian (from the Latin auster “south wind” and the Greek
nêsos for “island”, giving the approximate meaning “south islander”) to the populations and
their ancestors who speak the language. Solheim emphasizes the cultural aspects of the
Southeast Asian peoples, whereas Bellwood's theory places emphasis on the linguistic
origin of the peoples. Austronesian and Nusantao are terms with closely similar meanings
but are not interchangeable. Bellwood’s theory leans towards linguistics as the main source
of evidence, with the supplementation of archeological data from materials like pottery, to
explain the migration and maritime origins of the peoples of the Philippines.

A strength of Bellwood’s theory is that the Austronesian languages are brought by

human expansion, not as trade language. In contrast, Solheim asserted that the
Austronesian origin should not be approached through a singular lens but rather as a
comprehensive synthesis of linguistic, physical anthropology, and archaeological data.
Solheim makes use of data from excavated material. He includes observations of human
behavior in explaining the concept of the Nusantao (from Austronesian rootwords nusa for
“south” and tao for “people”) like his observations of the maritime cultures in the Philippines
and related areas. He support this argument by presenting additional archaeological findings
that raised the questions about why the supposed “mainland” region opted for shell-based
tool production rather than utilizing the abundant and more workable stones resources.
 Contrary to Bellwood’s hypothesis that Taiwan served as the primary origin of
Austronesian speakers, Solheim excluded Taiwan due to the absence of blade and
blade-like stone tools in the northern Philippines. Moreover, Solheim highlights the definition
of the Nusantao to include maritime non-Austonesian speakers but exclude non-maritime
Austronesian speakers in the ancestry of these peoples. Solheim stresses that the spread of
language and culture in the areas was not a product of migration but a product of years of
trading of the Nusantao Maritime Trading and Communication Network.

Another difference between two theories is that Bellwood's presents a linear direction
of migration, while Solheim's presents something similar to concentric, overlapping circles
(there is the use of the “lobes” to group areas and migrations) that include the Philippines.
He strengthened his claims more by explaining formidable challenge the Nusantao from
Taiwan would face in attempting to move from the northern Philippines, primarily due to it’s
challenging sea routes and strong northeast winds. Solheim also views the peoples in a
sense as less of peoples with biological relations but those that share cultural similarities.

In considering the theories proposed by Bellwood and Solheim regarding the

Austronesian origin and expansion, it becomes evident that each theory possesses its own
set of strengths and weaknesses. Both theories offer valid points and sound reasoning, yet
they also exhibit notable limitations. One significant issue is the relative lack of attention
given to the archaeological significance of Mindanao, which seems to be an oversight in the
formulation of these hypotheses. While Bellwood's focus on the Northern Philippines
provides valuable insights, it is criticized for not encompassing a more comprehensive
perspective. Additionally, it is crucial to note that both theories rely on specific primary
analysis methods favored by their respective authors, supplemented with secondary data
from various sources. This methodological approach raises concerns about the
generalizability of their findings and their susceptibility to scrutiny. On the positive side,
Bellwood's theory, which centers on Austronesian origins through linguistics and human
expansion, merits recognition. Similarly, Solheim's perspective regarding the spread of the
Nusantao, primarily driven by its role as a trade language among ancient peoples, is
noteworthy. However, the prevailing sentiment leans toward Solheim's theory being stronger,
primarily due to his effective presentation of evidence. He not only employs an
archaeological lens, but also factors in considerations of geographical mobility. Notably, he
underscores the vital role of maritime culture in the Austronesian expansion, firmly believing
that Austronesian languages served as a crucial trade and barter language among early
Nusantao.

In conclusion, the Philippines’ strategic geographical location as an archipelago with

abundant islands and extensive maritime connectivity played a pivotal role in the
Austronesian people migration narrative. Its historical role as a trade hub in Southeast Asia
was intertwined with the ease of maritime access between Northern Luzon and Southern
China, a key region in Austronesian origin. This proximity facilitated early Austronesian
interactions and migrations, making the Philippines a crossroads for both cultural exchange
and human movement. Considering this geographical context, alongside theories from
scholars like Bellwood and Solheim, they provide a comprehensive understanding of the
factors that shaped Austronesian origins and expansion. It underscores the profound
influence of geography on human history and migration patterns, emphasizing the
Philippines’ central role in this broader narrative.