Pre-Austronesian origins of seafaring in Insular Southeast Asia

Pre-Austronesian origins of seafaring in Insular Southeast Asia. Waruno Mahdi To appear in: Andrea Acri, Roger Blench & Alexandra Landmann (eds.), Spirits and Ships: Cultural Transfers in Early Monsoon Asia. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing Andrea Acri & Alexandra Landmann (eds.), proceedings of the Conference: “Cultural Transfers in Historical Maritime Asia: Austronesian-Indic Encounters” Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, 2–3 December 2013. Pre-Austronesian origins of seafaring in Insular Southeast Asia1 Waruno Mahdi <[email protected]> (Fritz Haber Institute, Berlin) Introduction. Earliest sea crossings and offshore fishing in various parts of the world—including Taiwan, the supposed homeland of Austronesian languages—are dated in the period of rising seas, from the outgoing Pleistocene (c. 14,000 BP) until Mid Holocene, or later. But archaeological data to be cited below show that sea crossings and high-sea fishing in Insular Southeast Asia (henceforth ISEA) must have begun at least three times earlier (c. 45,000 BP). When people elsewhere just began developing seaworthy watercraft, equatorial populations retreating before the rising seas in ISEA were likely to have already accumulated tens of millennia of experience, so it is only natural to expect that innovations in the construction of such watercraft originated from there. In this process of constructional innovation, the raft—the primeval watercraft—was likely to have been replaced by a multiple dugout2—a ‘raft’ with dugouts instead of logs—and then a double canoe, when improved construction of dugouts, and perhaps also smaller loads, made more than two hulls superfluous. I cite evidence elsewhere (Mahdi, forthcoming) indicating that Chinese as well as Malayo-Polynesian (henceforth MP)3 shipping had developed from a double canoe. However, as this latter was not a primeval watercraft construction, it was likely to have been acquired from the very equatorial populations— apparently ancestors of present-day Negritos—who, retreating before the rising seas, also brought it northwards from ISEA to Fujian, and subsequently to Taiwan. I will cite biogenetic data which place populations of Taiwan and ISEA closer to one another than either of them to that of the Chinese mainland. These data have even led to theories, to be cited below, of an equatorial origin of the Austronesians. Nevertheless, linguistic studies will also be cited, which indicate that the reconstructable corpus of ProtoAustronesian shares a significant number of elements with language phyla of the mainland. At the same time, one can distinguish two distinct protoforms for ‘person’, depending on whether of Australoid or Mongoloid appearance. The first migration wave of MalayoPolynesians apparently referred to themselves as the former (Mahdi 1994; forthcoming). Available archaeological and other data to be discussed below suggest development of a maritime mercantile tradition in the South China Sea, connecting Mainland Southeast Asia 1 Acknowledgements: I am indebted to the Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, for generous funding of my travel costs and accommodation, without which I would not have been able to deliver this paper at the Conference. I am very grateful to Gerhard Ertl, former director of the Physical Chemistry Department of the Fritz Haber Institute, Berlin, and the present director Martin Wolf, for the generous opportunity to use Department facilities in my linguistic studies, and also to Albrecht Ropers and Marcel Krenz for invaluable technical support. Many thanks also to Amartya Sarkar for crucial help in reading Sanskrit texts. 2 I discuss another development, i.e. the tapered raft, in Mahdi (forthcoming). 3 All Non-Taiwanese Austronesian languages are Malayo-Polynesian, and form a unique branch of the Austronesian language phylum, all other branches being confined to Taiwan (see Blust 2009: 49). Furthermore, I will refer to native speakers of Austronesian languages as ‘Austronesians’, and to Malayo-Polynesian languages as ‘Malayo-Polynesians’. 1 2 (henceforth MSEA) with the Philippines, and Southeast China and Taiwan with ISEA. The resulting Trans-South-China-Sea network apparently involved populations speaking MP languages, having the physical appearance of Negritos (as defined below), and being socioeconomically akin to Sea-People or Sama-Bajau communities. This translocal network continued into the metal age, as reflected by the Sa Huỳnh–Kalanay material-culture complex. One of its early features was burial of the dead in boat-formed coffins, and the use of MP words for ‘boat’ for ‘coffin’, attested from Assam till Sulawesi. The widespread metal-age ‘boat-of-the-dead’ cult may be a later development of the tradition of burial in boat-formed coffins. Communities with maritime mobility of various stages of development apparently operated around the Bay of Bengal for a long period of time too. Data on very early plant transmissions from ISEA to India, particularly of the banana and the coconut, will be considered. In a much later period, in the course of the first millennium CE, the dispersal of alternative variants of the place name Yava[dvīpa] (in Sumatra) between China and Greece suggests ancestors of the Moken as carriers (Mahdi 2009: 76–78, 80). These and other circumstances, suggest that equatorial populations from ISEA had been active in the Bay of Bengal since well before 1000 BCE till perhaps 500 CE. Who are—and were—the ‘Negritos’? The term ‘Negrito’—first introduced by the Spanish as a diminutive of negro ‘black’ (Endicott 2013: 9)—is somewhat diffusely and often ambiguously defined in the literature. As Negritos will be central to this discussion, this issue needs to be more closely inspected. Referring to people with equatorial complexion who originally inhabited ISEA, New Guinea, Insular Melanesia and Australia, I will use the cover term ‘Australoids’ without implications of an either assumed or actual biogenetic unity. I will further provisionally differentiate Australoids on a geographical basis into: ‘Negritos’, when located to the west of Halmahera, New Guinea and Timor; ‘Papuans’, when located on these islands or further east; and ‘Aborigines’, when located in Australia. It is not yet clear whether all pre-Austronesian peoples in ISEA dwelling to the west and north of Wallacea (the sea and islands situated between the Sunda and Sahul Shelves) formed a genetic unity, so the use of the term Negrito remains provisional in this respect. With regard to the linguistic perspective, Greenberg (1971) proposed that languages originally spoken in a wider region including ISEA and Near Oceania, more specifically in the Andamans, Timor, Halmahera, New Guinea, the Solomons, and Tasmania, formed a common superfamily. Subsequent more detailed studies have not confirmed the shared genetic affiliation of all the included language groups.4 However that may be, languages spoken by Negritos were not, and could not be, included in the picture, because practically no adequate remains of their original languages have survived. In the Philippines, the original languages of peoples referred to as ‘Negritos’ have been replaced by languages of the MP group (see Reid 1994), whereas peoples known in peninsular Malaysia as the Semang, who are commonly characterized as belonging to a ‘Negrito phenotype’, now speak languages of the Aslian branch of Austroasiatic languages (Diffloth 1975; Benjamin 2013: 475–478). The socio-economic and culture-anthropological aspect of the problem is overshadowed by a—to my mind prejudicial—prevalent view that subsistence as hunter-gatherers (or foragers) is an intrinsic feature of the Negrito phenotype, just as dark complexion, short 4 See Pawley (2009) for a detailed and comprehensive review. 3 stature, and tightly curled hair are (see Endicott 2013: 8–9). It is even assumed that, at transition to the Neolithic, Negrito hunter-gatherers were either adsorbed into agricultural communities speaking Austroasiatic or Austronesian languages, or marginalised to ecological zones not under pressure of agricultural development (ibid.: 11), as if Negritos were incapable of self-sustained economic development. When the concentration of population exceeds levels allowing subsistence from natural resources, people are compelled to provide for themselves through agriculture and animal husbandry. When given ecological conditions provide sufficient natural food resources, people retain, or return to, a hunter-gatherer mode of subsistence in spite of possessing ample agricultural knowledge (Hutterer 1983:175; Bellwood 2005a: 37–38). There is no reason why Negritos should be regarded as deviating from this pattern, to assume hunting and gathering as an intrinsic feature. Indeed, Benjamin (2013: 449) calls attention to inconsistent reference to Orang Asli population groups with mutually comparably dark complexion in the Malayan Peninsula, as either ‘Negrito’, ‘Semang’, ‘Senoi’ or ‘Proto-Malay’. The author’s solution to avoid inconsistencies was to use the term ‘Negrito’ only with regard to such people of that phenotype who pursued a given mode of subsistence, that of hunter-gatherers. This is methodologically quite correct, but in view of the much wider geographical and chronological scope to be considered in the present paper it would be inadequate. Indeed, the concentration of mainland populations in consequence of inundation of the Sahul and Sunda Shelves by rising sea levels led to development of agriculture at the Kuk swamp in East New Guinea and emergence of the Bacsonian neolithic in MSEA well before the incursion of speakers of Austroasiatic and Austronesian languages (Mahdi 1988: 348–349; forthcoming). The pattern of social organization of a given population changes over time, and a given pattern of social organization may be practiced by peoples of various phenotypes. A particular problem was presented by the once foraging Toála (lit. ‘forest people’) of Eastern Sulawesi. Although of a dark complexion, Sarasin (1906: 117–118) indicates that they do not have as tightly curled hair as Negritos do. While the hair of many Toála is fairly curled (cf. ibid.: 54 Fig. 3, Tafel VIII/13, IX/15), that of others is not (ibid.: Tafel VIII/14, X/18). Altogether, the author indicates a closer phenotype similarity to the Vedda of Sri Lanka, than to Negritos (ibid.: 118–119). Meanwhile, the Toála are presently no longer hunter-gatherers, but farmers. Well known are the Mlabri (a.k.a. Yumbri; formerly called Phi Tong Luang ‘spirits of the yellow leaves’) in North Thailand. These hunter-gatherers are not Negritos, but belong to the same phenotype as the neighbouring agricultural peoples who allegedly ‘marginalised’ the Negritos. The Mlabri are characterised by coarse (heavy) straight hair and high cheekbones, and speak a language of the Khmuic group of the Mon-Khmer branch of Austroasiatic.5 As further examples, Bulbeck (2013: 98) describes the Austroasiatic-speaking Shompen of the Nicobar Islands and the Semaq Beri of peninsular Malaysia. Bulbeck also mentions the Punan (~ Penan), nomadic Non-Negrito hunter-gatherers of Central Kalimantan and Sarawak. The following possible backgrounds for their present mode of subsistence are suggested in the literature: (1) they are remnants of a primeval population, of which the others became farmers; (2) they represent a separate group which is fully independent of neighbouring farming peoples; (3) they are descendants of agricultural peoples who reached Kalimantan and underwent socio-economic ‘devolution’ in the hinterland jungle; 5 See Bernatzik (1941: 111–181, and Fig-s. 44–46, 55, 60, 61–66); Flatz (1963: particularly Fig-s. 4 & 6–7, compare with a Non-Mlabri in Fig. 5); Rischel (1995: 22, and colour photographs between pp. 16–17). 4 and (4) it is not (yet) possible to determine their origin.6 One weakness of positions (1) and (2), and thus also of (4), is the failure to note the implications of the group’s physical complexion. The Punan do not represent an either Negrito or other equatorial phenotype; their skin colour is described as ‘light brown to brown’.7 Hence, the Punan must ultimately originate from the East Asian mainland,8 and reached their present equatorial homeland as part of the MP dispersal. They were thus agriculturists at one time in the past. Being hunter-gatherers is not an exclusive way of life of Negritos, as some preAustronesian indigenes with ‘dark skin complexion and tightly curled hair’ practice farming. For example, swiddening is reported for the Lanohs and the Bateks on the Malayan Peninsula (Benjamin 2013: 455). For Philippine Negritos, Bulbeck (2013: 97) mentions the Ayta (see Bellwood 2005a: 33) and the Palawan Bataks (Novellino 2011). Besides foraging in primeval (undisturbed natural) forests, and in some instances farming, Negrito communities also earned their subsistence as maritime hunter-gatherers,9 being described as Negrito sea-nomads for example by Sopher (1965: 54–59, 291–293). People of a Negrito or similarly equatorial phenotype apparently played a significant role in protohistorical maritime communication, particularly as ship crews. One Chinese source, Hui Lin’s 9th century ‘Comprehensive pronunciations and meanings of [words in] the [Buddhist] scriptures’ (一切經音義, Yīqiè jǐng yīn yì), describes Malay-speaking crews of Malayan ships (崑崙舶, Kūnlún bó) as follows (Pelliot 1925: 257 & 261): ‘Running these ships are mostly Gǔlùn-s serving as seamen. … These are Yí-barbarians amidst islands of the South Sea region; entirely black and naked-bodied.’10 Gǔlùn is apparently a Chinese rendering of hulun ~ kulun, a word meaning ‘person’ in languages of former vassals of the Malay thalassocracy of Sri Vijaya (Sanskrit Śrī Vijaya),11 which also underwent a semantic shift to ‘servant’, and ‘I, me [your humble servant]’ (Mahdi 1994: 203–204 n. 23; 2009: 79–80). Malays and Javanese indeed have a darker complexion than Han Chinese, but not sufficiently so to lead to the cited Gǔlùn description. Furthermore, the majority in Southeast China at that time were not Han Chinese, but the somewhat darker Thai-Kadai and HmongMien, so it is unlikely that the quoted description referred to Malays in general. This follows more clearly from a passage in the 7th-century Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Yijing’s ‘Account of 6 With regard to bibliographic references for hypotheses (1) till (3), see Sellato (1994: 115–116) who himself holds to position (4). 7 See Bulbeck (2013: 96), and the photographs in Sellato (1994: 111–112), and Urquhart (1951: plates XVI a & b). 8 Regional diversification (see Bulbeck 2013: 100) cannot substantiate a local origin of a so striking non-equatorial phenotype, bearing in mind the dark complexion of descendants of all first Homo sapiens sapiens populations in ISEA, New Guinea and Australia. Furthermore, one would rather assume an equatorial origin for the Toála of Sulawesi, than for the Punan. 9 Maritime hunting and gathering also occurs outside Southeast Asia, see for example Yesner (1980). 10 The Chinese original: 運動此船多骨論為水匠• ... 南海 州島中夷人也• 甚黑裸形• (yùndòng cǐ chuán duō Gǔlùn wéi shuǐjiàng; … Nánhǎi zhōu dǎozhōng Yírén yě; shènhēi luǒxíng;). 11 I write ‘Sri Vijaya’ (noun) / ‘Srivijayan’ (adjective) by analogy to ‘Sri Lanka’ / ‘Srilankan’. It can be shown, that the name indeed originally represented two words in Malay. In direct loans from Sanskrit, a v of the precursor is regularly rendered in initial position as b, and in intervocalic as w. The v in Vijaya was apparently pronounced as a b in Malay, considering that Śrī Vijaya is rendered in Arabic as Sribuza, and in Chinese as Shīlìfóshì (尸利佛逝, Early Middle Chinese *ɕi-lih-but-dʑiajh, Pulleyblank 1991), see Mahdi (1994: 207 endnote 35). 5 the Righteous Law12 sent from the South Seas’ (南海寄歸內法傳 Nánhǎi jìguī nèi fǎchuàn), which indicated that they were ‘curly-haired’ and black, while inhabitants of the islands were ‘not different from in China, but for going barefoot and wearing the sarong (干縵 gānmàn)’.13 Indeed, vassal Negrito Sea-People (Orang Laut) communities apparently provided crews and even ships for Malayan monarchs and ship owners. Towards the end of this article, below, I will briefly return to the relationship between Sea-People vassals and their Malayan overlords. ISEA as original scene of maritime mobility As I noted elsewhere (Mahdi forthcoming), it was during the rising sea level between the Late Pleistocene and Mid Holocene, mainly from c. 14,000 until 4,000 BP (Milliman and Emmery 1968: 1122–1123) that maritime mobility developed in various parts of the world. This included crossings to isolated islands in the Mediterranean (Broodbank 2006; Ammerman 2010; Farr 2010), or to such islands before the west coast of North America (Erlandson et al. 2008; Fitzhugh and Kennett 2010). However, the humid tropical environment in ISEA apparently offered unique conditions which favoured and even motivated maritime mobility since a very much earlier period. The settlement of Sahul as early as c. 45,000 BP (O’Connell and Allen 2004: 849) or c. 49,000– 43,000 BP (Summerhayes et al. 2010: 78)14 implied maritime mobility to cross more than 100 km wide straits in Wallacea. The sea crossings had not been accidental consequences of storms or tsunamis. Remains of deep-water fish, implying fishing well offshore, were found at sites dated before 30,000 BP in Sahul (Erlandson 2010: 22; O’Connell et al. 2010: 60), and in East Timor (Lape et al. 2007: 240; O’Connor 2007: 530). It seems likely that the principal forms of watercraft were rafts which, besides bark canoes, have been reported along the entire east coast of Australia (Doran 1981: 74–75). So when the rising sea after 14,000 BP encouraged first maritime mobility elsewhere, seafaring in ISEA already looked back on experience since approximately 45,000 BP. Hence, one may expect that watercraft construction then advanced to further sophistications in ISEA. As suggested by Mahdi (forthcoming), this probably led to a multiple dugout, that is a ‘raft’ of dugouts (see Fig. 1a). Following increasing sophistication of the dugout hulls, and perhaps also lighter weight of the loads which were carried, the number of hulls could be reduced to the minimum of two, resulting in a double canoe (Fig. 1b). It will become evident below, that the original watercraft of both the Chinese and the Austronesians was the double canoe. Not being a primeval type of boat construction, it must have been introduced by population groups—apparently Negritos—migrating northwards from ISEA to Southeast China and Taiwan. Then, at a later stage, apparently in the course of material-culture exchange as a result of contacts between the northwards-migrating Negritos and mainland populations, the double canoe underwent further constructional sophistication in that the dugout hulls were enhanced to so-called five-part hulls (Fig. 1c). 12 I.e. Buddhism. I had no access to the original Chinese text, and quote here from the English of I-Tsing (1896: 12); cf. also the French of I-Tsing (1894: 63–64 fn. 7). 14 I leave out early radiocarbon dates of Sahul colonisation at 65,000–60,000 BP (see references in Redd and Stoneking 1999: 808) which were apparently not yet calibrated. 13 6 Biogenetic data place populations of Taiwan and ISEA closer to one another than either of them to inhabitants of the Chinese mainland (Lin et al. 2005: 240). Indeed, such biogenetic data even gave rise to theories of an equatorial origin of the Austronesians, in particular in a ‘triangular area formed by Taiwan, Sumatra, and Timor’ (Meacham 1984–1985: 94–95). Fig. 1. Primeval developments in watercraft construction in ISEA beyond the raft: (a) a multiple dugout; (b) a double canoe with dugout hulls, and (c) with five-part hulls. (based on Mahdi forthcoming, Fig. 1). However, there are significant historical-linguistic arguments against a purely equatorial origin of Austronesians. Donohue and Denham (2010) meanwhile indicate that there must have been significant exchange of material culture between Austronesians and preAustronesian inhabitants of ISEA. Furthermore, the observed dispersal of DNA could be explained by an early northwards migration of equatorial populations and their subsequent participation in the southwards MP dispersal (Mahdi, ‘Comment’ in Donohue and Denham 2010: 242). Linguistic data indicate two distinct protoforms for the word ‘person’ in MP languages, depending on whether with darker or lighter skin taint. The reference to persons with equatorial complexion, *qata, has reflexes meaning ‘person’ in languages of ethnicities with equatorial complexion. These are typically distributed in peripherial areas, particularly on the Barrier islands to the west of Sumatra and closely related languages in North Sumatra, on islands of Nusa Tenggara, in Belau and New Caledonia (Mahdi 1988: 58; 1994: 464–465; forthcoming). For several languages, the reflexes have been glossed as ‘slave’—perhaps to be understood as ‘member of subordinate community’—particularly in Central and East Indonesia (ibid.). Reflexes of a variant with *R infix, *qaRta, occur in languages of the Philippines, in which it refers explicitly to Negritos (in languages of both Negrito and NonNegrito peoples), see Charles (1974: 460). It must be noted that not all dark-skinned people referred to by a reflex of the protoform *qata (or *qaRta) answer to an explicit Negrito phenotype. For example, the Enggano off the southwest coast of Sumatra, though darkskinned, have straight rather than curled hair. I will therefore refer to dark-skinned MalayoPolynesians named by a reflex of *qata as ‘Qata’, regardless of whether explicitly of a Negrito phenotype or not. Austronesian languages of ethnicities with apparent mainland—so-called ‘Mongoloid’— ancestry frequently have reflexes of the protoform *Cau as word for ‘person’ (Zorc 1994: 575). The two protoforms also formed the composite *Cau ma-qata, reflexes of which are the word for ‘person’ in languages forming part of a distribution sweep through Central-East Indonesia and Papua-New Guinea, apparently in transit through former dispersal areas of reflexes of *qata in Melanesia, all the way to Polynesia (Mahdi 1994: 461; forthcoming). Considering that *C is rendered t in just about all MP languages, I will refer to the *Cau ~ *Cau ma-qata—who are generally lighter-skinned than the Qata—as ‘Tau’. Evidently, 7 following their own observations too, Austronesians represent populations of two distinct phenotypes. Consequently, the meeting of the two types at respective places in their distribution area would be felt to result from two happenings: a migration wave of darkerskinned Qata, followed in its wake by a migration of Tau. Of course, the dispersal also led to genetically mixed populations, a circumstance which helps us to understand the formation of such a seemingly contradictory expression as *Cau ma-qata. The concrete development of maritime communication in the South China Sea and into the Indian Ocean will be considered below. At this point it is important to corroborate the postulation that the watercraft which were introduced to the north were double canoes. Introduction of watercraft to Mainland China and Taiwan Hornell (1946: 88-89; see also Gibson 1958: 16-17, 32) postulated that the original watercraft from which the Chinese junk developed had indeed been a double canoe which was apparently introduced to the Chinese during the Late Shang (a.k.a. Yin) period (1300–1046 BCE as dated in Lee 2002: 18 Table I). Needham (1971: 392–396, 439) assumed development from a raft instead. However, concurring with Hornell, I have confirmed the origin from a double canoe on the basis of the early form of the corresponding script character Mahdi (1992; forthcoming). The basic Chinese character for ‘watercraft’, 舟 zhōu (Giles 1912: #2446),15 which also functions as semantic radical in complex characters referring to watercraft, indeed appears to have originally depicted a double canoe (see Fig. 2a-e). Rather than numerous longitudinal lines depicting the logs of a raft there are just two, one on each side like runners of a sleigh. These are connected by two or more transversal lines which never mark the bow and stern ends as they would in case of a raft (Mahdi 1992: 4; forthcoming). The word zhōu (舟) ‘watercraft’ must indeed have originally denoted a double canoe. The early pronunciation of the word has been reconstructed as:16 • zhōu (舟) < EMC *tɕuw (Pulleyblank 1991: 411) < OC *tju (Baxter 1992: 810). (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) Fig. 2. Ancient and modern renderings of Chinese characters: (a–e) zhōu ‘watercraft’, (f–g) fǎng ‘two boats lashed together,’ and (h–i) chuán ‘boat, ship’. a & b are Late Shang bone (c. 1300–1046 BCE); c, d, f & h are Eastern Zhou (770–250 BCE); e, g & i are modern. The pre-modern forms follow Karlgren (1940: ##1084b–e, 740h & 229f) As semantic radical, the (narrowed) zhōu serves as component—typically on the left side—of composite characters referring directly or indirectly to watercraft, see for example Fig. 2f-i. The former two (f-g) represent the oldest in a row of words referring to two boats lashed together:17 15 I use the currently standard Pinyin transcription for Chinese, while Giles (1912) used Giles-Wade. EMC = Early Middle Chinese, c. 590–680 CE (Pulleyblank 1991); OC = Old Chinese, c. 770–250 BCE (Baxter 1992). 17 Due to regional variation in meaning, I cite two different dictionaries. 16 8 fǎng (舫) ‘two boats lashed together, a large boat, a galley’ (Giles 1912: #3447), ‘two boats attached by the sides to each other, rectangular boat’ (Couvreur 1904: 767) < < EMC *puaŋ h (Pulleyblank 1991: 92) < OC *paŋ; háng (航) ‘two boats lashed together, a large vessel’ (Giles 1912: #3852), ‘two boats attached by the sides to each other, boat’ (Couvreur 1904: 767) < < EMC *γaŋ (Pulleyblank 1991: 120); bàng (艕) ‘two boats fastened side by side’ (Giles 1912: #8665); páng (舽) ‘two boats lashed together, known as 舽舡 [pángxiāng] 18 or 舽艭 [pángshuāng]’19 (Giles 1912: #8694); huáng (艎) ‘a fast sailing boat, a ferry boat’ (Giles 1912: #5117), ‘boat, a ferry formed by two boats attached to each other by the sides’ (Couvreur 1908: 768).20 This custom of lashing two boats together may reflect an earlier use of double canoes, which would further confirm the origin of a junk from a double canoe. The custom persisted into the 20th century, when two junks were joined by spars for the transport of timber and of reeds on the Middle Yangtze (Worcester 1971: 419, 458). Noteworthy is that the first of the above series of words also occurred in the composite fǎngchuán (舫船)21 which, according to one historiographic source, denoted ‘double hulled boats’ used in a military expedition in 312 BCE (Needham 1971: 441 fn. c).22 With regard to Taiwan—the presumed homeland of Austronesian languages—it is noteworthy that its earliest inhabitants have been described as agriculturists (Chang 1969: 60, 64, 249–250; Bellwood 1984–1985; 1995; 2005b: 36), not as seafarers. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a unique Proto-Austronesian (PAn) protoform for ‘boat’. Instead one finds several protoforms with limited dispersal areas, including some probable doublets:23 *qaCu > (1) Sediq ʔásǝʔ, Pazeh ʔasuʔ, Bunun hatoʔ (Ferrell 1969: 247); *qabaŋ > (1) Saaroa ʔabaŋǝ, Oponohu-Rukai havaŋu, Siraya avang, (2) Gaddang ʔabaŋ, Tiruray ʔawaŋ, Ilanun awaŋ, (4) Mentawai abak, Moken kabaŋ ‘boat’ 18 The second element 舡 has two readings: chuán ‘boat, ship’, and xiāng ‘barge’ (Giles 1912: #2741 and #4275 respectively). For the latter variant, the pronunciation in dialects given by Giles corresponds to that of gāng (扛) (ibid.: #5886). 19 The second element is 艭 shuāng ‘boat’ (Giles 1912: 10,119). 20 The word also forms the compound huángxiāng (艎舡) ‘k.o. junk’, a dialectal form of which was apparently borrowed into Malay and Javanese as wangkang, cf. Jones (2007: 340). Giles (1912: #5117/5106 & #4275/5886) provides the following dialect forms: Guangzhou wongk’ong; Hakka fongkong; Fuzhou hwongkoung; Ningbo wongkong; Sichuan hwangkang; Yangzhou hwangkang; Beijing hwangkang (see also footnote 18). The Malay and Javanese cognate was apparently acquired from a northern dialect. Most Chinese immigrants in ISEA are from the south, particularly from Xiamen (a.k.a. Amoy), Southern Fujian, for the dialect of which I did not find a cognate in Douglas (1899). This may be the reason why the precursor of wangkang remained obscure to the public, leading even to a folk etymological reinterpretation as wánggāng (王舡), lit. ‘royal barge’. 21 With chuán ‘watercraft’ (Giles 1912: #2742), attested for Eastern Zhou, see Fig. 2f. 22 Citing the apparently unpublished Communications and Transport in the Chhin [sic] and Han Periods of Lo Jung-pang (*Singapore 1912, †Davis, California 1981), which I was unable to access. 23 Here and further, to save space, only skeletal listings are cited with representative examples from areas numerated as: (1) Taiwan; (2) The Philippines; (3) Sulawesi with neighbouring islands; (4) West of Sulawesi; (5) Nusa Tenggara; (6) Maluku; (7) West Papua and PNG with neighbouring islands; (8) Further Oceania. More elaborate listings can be found in the cited source references. 9 (Ferrell 1969: 247; Pawley and Pawley 1994: 338; Zorc 1994: 585); *baŋkaʔ > (1) Kavalan baŋka, (2) Tagalog baŋkáʔ, Tausug baŋkaʔ, (3) Mori, Muna baŋka, (5) Sumbawa baŋka ‘boat’ (Dempwolff 1938: 20; Blust 1972: #83; Pawley and Pawley 1994: 338; Zorc 1994: 572); *waŋka24 > (5) Manggarai, Rembong waŋka, (6) Tifu waga, (7) Yautefa wǎgĕ, Yabem waŋ, Suau waga, (8) Fiji waŋga, Tonga vaka ‘boat’ (Stresemann 1927:67; Capell 1942: 115 #319; Pawley and Pawley 1994: 337). Reflexes of the two first-cited protoforms *qaCu and *qabaŋ are represented in several highest-level branches of Austronesian, meaning that both would be formally assignable to PAn. However, coexistence of two highest-level proto-synonyms is rather unlikely, and probably implies horizontal borrowing over borders of highest-level branches in some not more closely definable period I will refer to as Early Austronesian (EAn). Kavalan baŋka, the unique reflex of *baŋkaʔ in Taiwan, is likely to be a borrowing from the Philippines (Ferrell 1969: 20; Wolff 2010: 756), so formally, the protoform is MalayoPolynesian, like the fourth cited protoform *waŋka. The respective distribution areas of reflexes of baŋkaʔ and *waŋka do not conform to the division between West and Central-East MP, meaning that we have another instance of horizontal borrowing between across borders of language groups. The protoform *waŋka is likely to be a secondary doublet of *baŋkaʔ, which in turn seems to share the root *baŋ with the second item in the list, *qabaŋ. Furthermore, *qaCu could consist of a root *Cu and the same pre-posited *qa- as in *qabaŋ, so that the four Austronesian items perhaps only represent two original lexical roots: *Cu and *baŋ. The former seems likely to be a cognate of OC *tju (modern zhōu 舟, see above). Meanwhile, OC *paŋ (modern fǎng 舫) could be cognate with *baŋ. Thus, not only do the Austronesian languages not have a unique highest-level protoform for ‘boat’, they share the two ‘closest-to-highest level’ protoforms with Old Chinese. It seems likely that this lexical exchange—apparently reflecting material culture exchange—involved Early MalayoPolynesians amongst the Baiyue (百越 Bǎiyuè) in the Fujian area (cf. Chang and Goodenough 1996: 43–52) at a significantly later time than the primary branching of Proto-Austronesian. The Malayo-Polynesians, meanwhile, do not have a uniform basic watercraft construction. Besides double canoes they also have single- and double-outrigger canoes, as well as singlehulled keeled plank-boats without outriggers. Of these, the double-outrigger canoe was at first assumed to have been the earliest (Heine-Geldern 1932; Hornell 1943). However, Doran (1981) showed that it was the double canoe that had been the original MP watercraft construction, and Mahdi (1988: 54–55; 1994: 457, 481 n. 180; 1999a: 145–148) confirmed this with additional evidence. Hence, the watercraft form which was introduced into the Fujian-Taiwan region—presumable by northwards migrating Negritos—and served as prototype for Chinese as well as MP watercraft, was indeed the double canoe. Maritime Proto-Globalisation: the Trans-South-China-Sea Network It seems likely that the seafarers who brought the common precursor of the protoform doublets *qabaŋ ~ *baŋkaʔ ~ *waŋka to the north had also been involved in the emergence 24 The protoform was mistakenly reconstructed as *waŋkaŋ, amongst others by Dempwolff (1938: 164); Zorc (1994: 594); and Wolff (2010: 1027), who precipitously included the Chinese borrowing wangkang (see above, footnote 20) into the set of cognates (see Mahdi 1994: 217 #109; 2012b: 218). 10 of a tradition of maritime trade. The apparent (i.e. not genuine) protoform *beli ‘buy’ (perhaps also ‘acquire through barter’) seems to have been a secondary development, distributed through contact as a result of trade activity. The underlying PAn form or root seems to have been *liu ‘change, exchange, return’—having the variant (allomorph) *liw in affixed derivations, particularly with prefixes *ba- and *sa-: *liu > (1) Ami paliw ‘work on another’s field (in place of payment)’, caliw ‘borrow, lend’, Pazeh bariw ‘buy, sell’, (2) West Bukidnon-Manobo liwan ‘replace (something)’, (3) Bantik liu ‘turn upside down’, Sangir saliu ‘exchange’, Bolaang Mongondou motaloy ‘buy’, Bugis bali ‘answer’, (4) Malay baliʔ ‘turn back’,25 kǝmbali ‘return’, Kelabit baliw ‘transform’, (5) Manggarai wali ‘exchange, return’, (6) Buru sali ‘recieve’, (8) Fiji soli ‘be given’, Samoa liu ‘change’ (Dempwolff 1938: 22; Blust 1989: 163 #542; Zorc 1994: 558, 571, 589; Wolff 2010: 855, 894). Evidently, reflexes of *ba-liw were sporadically used for ‘exchange’ and ‘barter’ since a very early period, and transmitted in these meanings by trading communities, in whose vernacular it was rendered *beli ‘buy, acquire through barter’. Distribution through contact resulted in a secondary cognate set (Mahdi 2012a: 102–103): *beli > (1) Paiwan vǝli, (2) Tagalog bili ‘buy’, (3) Bare’e oli ‘price’, Makassarese balli, (4) Malay bǝli, Merina-Malagasy vidi, (5) Manggarai wǝli ‘buy’, Leti vǝli, (6) Buru fili-n ‘price’, (7) Motu hoi, (8) Fiji voli-a ‘buy’ (Brandstetter 1910: 21; Dempwolff 1938: 27; Zorc 1994: 558, 573; Wolff 2010: 765). The distribution of reflexes of *beli have certain aspects in common with that of *qabaŋ ~ *baŋkaʔ ~ *waŋka: in both instances there is a limited reflexion in languages of Taiwan on one side, and a widespread representation over a significant part of the MP distribution area. Possibly, the same trading seafaring communities may have been involved in the beginnings of both protoform dispersals. Solheim (1984–1985: 79–81) proposed an interesting concept for which the author coined the name ‘Nusantao’, supposedly meaning ‘people of the island homeland’.26 The concept appeared at first to confuse linguistic, biogenetic, and material culture developments, to then assume a migration of Early (or even ‘Pre-‘) Austronesian speakers from the north of East Indonesia northwards through the Philippines. It seems unlikely, however, that the rising sea level would have led to a migration from Wallacea rather than from inundated parts of the Sunda and Sahul Shelves. Remarkable in Solheim’s hypothesis is, however, that the author saw the ‘Sea Gypsies’27 of Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia and the Sama–Bajau of the Philippines, Sabah and Central Indonesia as the most direct descendants of his Nusantao (ibid.: 86), and that the South China Sea apparently became the scene of maritime communication and trade involving communities that were linguistically MP, physiologically—for the greater part— Negrito, and socio-economically resembling the Sea-People. One may add, that this may even 25 Some Malayic dialects have automatic postglottalisation of final vowels. Actually, Nusantao more likely means ‘island homeland of people’. That which the author wished to express would be *Tau- or *To-nusa, compare Toraja (lit. ‘people of the interior or highlands’, *daya ‘direction away from the sea’), or Toála (‘people of the forest’, *Salas ‘forest’). 27 It is not clear whether by ‘Sea Gypsies’ Solheim implied the Moken-Moklen alone here, or also the Sea People (Orang Laut) of Riau and the Strait of Malacca. 26 11 have been a precursor of the well-known kula of Kiriwina (Trobriand) Islands (see Malinowski 1984) and hiri of the Gulf of Papua (Lewis 1969). The emergence of a Trans-South-China-Sea maritime trade network is confirmed in particular by the dispersal of various items of material culture between Indochina and the Philippines, particularly a pottery complex that spread into the Archipelago (Solheim 1964: 196). It continued well into the metal age, as attested at Sa Huỳnh (Parmentier 1924) and Fig. 3. The Malayo-Polynesian migration through ISEA (2500–1000 BCE), and maritime communication in the ISEA – South China Sea region (1000 BCE – 500 CE). Kalanay (Solheim 1957: 286–288). This metal-age phase apparently coincided chronologically with the Acheho-Chamic migration into Indochina. It also involved earliest iron, bronze and glass objects dated 500 BCE till 500 CE in the Philippines (Bacus 2004: 263). The beginning of the above-mentioned Trans-South-China-Sea network, however, apparently dates from before the metal age. This includes Taiwan, Indochina, and the Philippines (see Hung and Bellwood 2010: particularly Fig. 2.1–3). One cultural feature connected with this network is of particular significance for the present study, and that is burial in boat-shaped coffins. Its prehistoric dispersal area included the Niah Caves in the North of Sarawak (Harrisson 1958) and several sites in Vietnam (Higham 1989: 195, 204) and the Philippines (Junker 1999: 150). Boat-coffin burial in ISEA continued to be practiced till recent times, as shown by Steinmann (1939: 153–159). On the island of Tanimbar, the dead were placed in coffins shaped like double canoes (van Hoëvell 1890a: 159; 1890b: 207), although contemporaneous watercrafts were single-hulled. The burial ritual thus reflected traditions of the past, when double canoes were common in ISEA. This, and the pre-metal-age origin of the tradition, is confirmed by the dispersal of the boat-coffin burial in Oceania up to as far as Hawaii (Holmes 1931: 157–159). Noteworthy is also a connection with the contemporaneous dispersal of the protoform doublets for ‘boat’. For example, borrowed reflexes of EAn *qabaŋ became a word for ‘coffin’ in some Central-Bahnaric Mnong-Sre dialects spoken in the Mekong basin: 12 • Biat-Mnong ʔbaŋ, Sre gǝbaŋ ‘coffin’ (Shorto 2006: 205 #633) These are not MP, but Mon-Khmer languages. There also are other examples of such word borrowing which suggest contacts with Western MP speakers sailing up the Mekong (Mahdi 2010). The custom of boat-coffin burial, meanwhile, also involved the doublet *baŋkaʔ, as evidenced by Mori baŋka ‘boat, coffin’ (Esser 1926: 42). The boat-coffin custom led to the emergence and development of a metal-age ship-of-thedead cult, with characteristic graphic icons in MSEA and ISEA.28 This distribution of boat-coffins and the ship-of-the-dead cult over a widespread area encompassing both MSEA and ISEA fits well with the concept of a Trans-South-China-Sea maritime trade network described above. However, although this advancement of maritime mobility at first probably involved the earliest form of MP watercraft, the double canoe, the graphic ship-of-the-dead icons—representing a later metal-age phase—show single-hulled watercraft (without outriggers) instead. Were it not for the coffin forms in Tanimbar, one would even question that boat-burying sailors of double-canoes had ever been involved in ISEA. Advance of Maritime Proto-Globalisation into the Indian Ocean That maritime communication and trade from ISEA also spread into the Indian Ocean is meanwhile well known (Solheim 1980: 334; Manguin 1996; 2004; Bellina and Glover 2004: 73–80). It seemed clear that Malayo-Polynesians had played a central role (Mahdi 1999b: 169–170, 177–180). However, maritime mobility now appears not to have been originally initiated by Austronesians, but that the technology essential for it was apparently developed and passed on to them by Negritos. One must presume, therefore, that Negritos or other Australoids had not only moved northwards, but also westwards into and across the Indian Ocean. This could have happened in successive stages on rafts, then multiple dugouts, and finally double canoes (Mahdi forthcoming). One noteworthy parallelism is the semantic shift of a word for ‘boat, trough’ to mean ‘coffin’ in some Tibeto-Burmic languages, particularly since it possibly involves a borrowing of the same EAn *qabaŋ ‘boat’: • Proto-Kukish *r-Kuaŋ > Mikir Kukish, Naga Bari k‘oŋ, Banpara Naga k‘uŋ ‘trough used as a coffin or as a canoe’ • Garo riŋ-koŋ ‘trough’, Middle Burmese k‘oŋ, Rawang (a.k.a. Krangku) k‘ōŋ-śi, Tamalu goŋ-śi ‘boat’ (Shafer 1974:406, 427). This repetition of the same semantic shift suggests that seafarers practicing burial in boatshaped coffins not only sailed up the Mekong, but also up the Salween, Irawaddy, Ganges and Brahmaputra. However, the maritime communication which resulted in the transmission of this linguistic feature already involved speakers of Malayo-Polynesian (*qabaŋ being Early Austronesian), and not anymore pre-Austronesian Negritos. The westward extent of the maritime communication network seems to reach rather far, to perhaps already proceed around Cape Comorin into the Arabian Sea at a very early time. Stargard (1979: 20–22) reports the earliest appearance of iron as well as onyx beads (of South Asian origin) at Taungthaman, Myanmar, in the 5th century BCE, and notes the appearance of 28 See Goloubew (1929); Steinmann (1939: 160–182 & plates 71–78); Bernet Kempers (1988: 143– 162, 586–587), see Mahdi (1994: 459). 13 the same two artefact types at Ban Chiang, Thailand, and in the Tabon caves in Palawan, the Philippines. The author stressed that the cited artefacts were late exotic introductions into a local culture which showed unbroken continuity from the preceding Neolithic. Hence, these were neither new settlements of immigrants from South Asia, nor even reflect adoption of Indic religious culture by local communities. Unfortunately, iron and onyx cannot tell us who had brought them to the sites at which they were found. Concrete evidence of westward maritime communication and migration of an even much earlier period, i.e. involving either Negrito or other Australoid peoples, is the transmission of the banana and the coconut. The banksii subspecies of the Musa acuminata Colla (genome A) banana had already been deliberately planted by 6950–6440 BP at the Kuk Swamp in Papua-New Guinea (PNG), as shown in archaeological studies by Denham et al. (2003: 192), confirmed by Haberle et al. (2012). Domestication over several millennia led to seedless varieties and generation of an at first diploid (AA), then to further diploid and triploid (AAA) cultivars involving also another subspecies, the M. acuminata ssp. errans (Denham and Donohue 2009: 18). Cross-breeding with another species, M. balbisiana Colla (genome B), apparently native to MSEA as well as ISEA, led to AB diploids, then to AAB and ABB triploids (ibid.).29 M. acuminata-generated cultivars had apparently been transmitted westwards via ISEA to South Asia already before the MP dispersal (Donohue and Denham 2009; Perrier et al. 2011). The apparently oldest set of cognates—assigned by Denham and Donohue (2009: 23–25) to a protoform *muku—is distributed over languages of New Guinea, further Melanesia, and East Indonesia (see Donohue and Denham 2009: 303 Fig. 10, 308 Fig. 15, red & yellow). The distribution encompasses languages of mutually not affiliated Trans-New Guinean and MP, so the cited *muku cannot be a protoform in the strict sense. Denham and Donohue (2009: 14 Fig. 4) propose a scheme of phonological development which, in view of a still lacking reconstruction of Proto-Trans-New Guinean historical phonology, inevitably remains impressionistic. Considering the place of original domestication of the banana in PNG, cognates in Papuan languages of East New Guinea are more likely to represent directly inherited reflexes, and for these I am inclined to propose a protoform like *mug[u] or *mog[u], compare:30 Trans-New Guinean / / Southeast Papuan / Yarebanic: Yareba mo, Moikodi moʔo; / Madang / / Croisilles: Utu mug, Samosa mogu, Mosimo mugu; / Rai Coast / / Peka: Sop mug, Danaru muŋgu; / Minjim: Anjam muŋge, Male muŋgo-l, Bongu muga; / Bosavi: Kaluli magu; / West Trans-New Guinean / 29 Previously, the now obsolete terms Musa sapientum L. and M. paradisiaca L. were used for varieties of the edible banana. Meanwhile, Musa × paradisiaca seems to be a common term for A&Btriploid cultivars. 30 Here (as in further lists) only a representative listing is shown, based on Denham and Donohue (2009: 24–25 Table 2 & 3) and Perrier et al. (2011: online Suppl. Table S4), who accumulated a remarkable collection of lexical data. I have revised some of the transcriptions for sake of uniformity. The subclassification of Trans-New Guinean—provided here to elucidate the geographical distribution—follows the Summer Institute of Linguistics’ (SIL) Ethnologue. 14 / Timor-Alor-Pantar /31 / Alor-Pantar / / Alor: Kui moga-l, Woisaka moge-r, Kabola moʔo-y; / Pantar: Lamma maʔa ~ mag-gi, Teiwa muχu-l; / Tanglapui maka; / Oirata mu; / Timor: Fataluku mu, Makasae muʔu; West Papuan / West Bird’s Head: Tehit oga ‘banana’. Already in the Papuan languages considered above, horizontal dispersal by borrowing must have played a certain role, because primeval dispersal of banana cultivars probably postdated the first split of Proto-Trans-New Guinean. This is all the more so for MP cognates which must evidently reflect a Papuan substrate or adstrate in the respective languages (cf. Denham and Donohue 2009: 26), probably involving several parallel acts of Papuan-toAustronesian lexical transmission:32 • (5) Manggarai muku, Li’o muku, Sika muʔu, Lamaholot muko, Kemak mu, Aputai mu, Kisat muʔu, Fordata muʔu, Kai muk ~ muʔu, Batuley mug, (7) Erokwanas maʔo, Ura yamek, (8) Kokota muku, Sie ya-moʔ, Aneityum na-mek, Kumak mugi-c ‘banana’ (Calon 1891: 204; Verheijen 1984: 61; Perrier et al. 2011: online Suppl. Table S4 ##63–104). The relatively scarce traces in languages of further Melanesia, which however include a reflex in Kumak in New Caledonia, suggests that the Trans-New Guinean borrowing was carried southwards by the Qata, i.e. before the influx of the Tau who transmitted reflexes of a different protoform for ‘banana’ which will be considered below. Remarkable are possible cognates in Indoaryan and Dravidian languages in South Asia, as well as in other languages further west, as indicated by Hoogervorst (2013a: 56) who elicited many of the cognates cited below.33 I begin with the Sanskrit cognates and their reflexes: Sanskrit moca ‘juice of a tree, Moringa Pterygosperma,34 Musa Sapientum’35 ~ ~ mocā ‘Musa Sapientum, cotton shrub,36 indigo plant,37 Hingtsha Repens,38 banana [fruit]’ ~ ~ mauca ‘banana [fruit]’ (Monier-Williams 1899: 835–836) > > Prakrit mocā, Hindi mocā, Bengali mocā, Kusunda motsa,39 Aramaic m⋅w⋅z⋅ā ( ), Farsi mawz ~ mūz, Arabic mawz ~ mūz, Kurdish moz ~ mûz, Turkish muz, Amharic muz, Somali mōs[-ka] ~ mūs[-ka] ‘banana’, Swahili mazu ‘k.o. banana’. 31 Schapper et al. (2014: 124) cite Proto-Alor-Pantar *mogol and Proto-Timor mugu. The same enumeration of Austronesian distribution areas as above is used here, see footnote 23. 33 Some are also from Perrier et al. (2011: Table S4 ##107, 789–791, 920, 924–925, 941) who assign all but #107 (‘Pali mokkha, moca’) to an either undefined or Arabic precursor. In early sources, the banana is sometimes referred to as ‘plantain’, which will be rendered here as ‘banana’. 34 I.e. Moringa pterygosperma Gaertn. = M. oleifera Lam., the drumstick or horseradish tree. 35 I.e. the edible-banana plant. 36 Gossypium arboreum L., native in particular to the South Asian subcontinent. 37 Indigofera tinctoria L., the original source of indigo dye. 38 I.e. Hingtsha repens Roxb., an obsolete denomination of a surface-creeping, also water-floating, plant used in traditional medicine, apparently Enhydra heloncha Dc. or E. fluctuans Lour. 39 Watters (2006: 146) cites Kusunda motsa, while Rana (2002) has Kusunda mucha, and lists TibetoBurman cognates: Central Magar mocha, Tamang moje, Dura muja, Gurung mach ‘banana’. 32 15 These reflexes do not seem to result from parallel Papuan or MP borrowings. Turner (1966: 597 #10348) cites Sanskrit mocā as common precursor of the Middle and New Indoaryan cognates. Besides a specific reference to the banana plant or fruit, the Sanskrit doublets reportedly also referred in some primary sources to various other plants, but this may at least in part be due to uncertainties in the interpretation of source texts. Considering that inherited Middle and New Indoaryan reflexes, and also borrowed cognates in other languages all mean ‘banana’, this must also have been the basic meaning of the Sanskrit forms. The cited cognate in Kusunda (an almost extinct isolate of Nepal) must be of Indoaryan provenance; Löw (1881: 336) names Sanskrit as donor of the Aramaic cognate (which does not yet occur in Talmudic texts), and Steingass (1892: 1344) notes the same for Farsi. From the latter it apparently entered Arabic, and from that further into African languages. Johnson (1959: 265) notes the Arabic cognate as precursor of the semantically particularized Swahili cognate. The Kurdish and Turkish cognates could be from either Farsi or Arabic. Altogether, the entire above-cited cognate set appears to ultimately derive from Sanskrit mocā ~ mauca. Meanwhile, the unspecific plant reference of the apparently original Sanskrit moca ~ mocā (masculine ~ feminine) set matches better with possible Dravidian cognates cited by Hoogervorst (2013a: 56), compare: • Tamil mōttai ‘unblown flower of banana, fragrant pandanus,40 a.o.’, Kannada mōte ‘leaflike envelope around inflorescence of the banana, coconut, or fragrant pandanus’, Tulu mōte ‘banana inflorescence’ (Burrow and Emeneau 1984: 464 #5138). Bananas are not ‘plucked’ individually, but the entire bunch, growing from one inflorescence ‘bud’, is chopped at the stem and taken as a whole. Hence, reference to either the inflorescence or the fruit involves a relatively light semantic shift. Leaving aside secondary reflexes of the Sanskrit forms, the above cited cognates are not widely spread in the respective language phyla, and probably do not reflect an either Proto-Indoaryan or ProtoDravidian original. The non-specific semantic reference may result from the word being acquired from coastal seafarers. Until there is further confirmation that the Indian and NewGuinean cognate sets are mutually related, one must provisonally also consider the possibility of a coincidental phonological similarity, particularly in view of the wide gap between the respective dispersal areas. I will return to this below. Another probable dispersal of a word for ‘banana’ involves a cognate set with less semantic variation, assigned in Perrier et al. (2011: online Suppl. Table S4 ##576–596) to a protoform *baule (perhaps *baulai ?), compare: West Papuan / North Halmahera–Bird’s Head: Galela bole, Loloda bole, Abui balēy; Malayo-Polynesian / Western Oceanic / / Suau: Saliba baela; / New Britain: Lamogai obul ; Dravidian: Tamil vāṛai, Malayalam vāṛa, Kannada bāṛe, Kodagu bāḷe, Tulu bārè ~ bāḷè (Burrow and Emeneau 1984: 486 #5373); Indoaryan: Sanskrit vāra-buṣā ~ vāra-bṛiṣā ‘banana’ (Monier-Williams 1899: 943 s.v. vāra2). 40 Pandanus verus Kurz = Pandanus odorifer (Forssk.) Kuntze. 16 Here we have a comparable dispersal gap as in that of the previously considered set, and the form is similarly reflected in several Dravidian languages, although in only one Indoaryan— Sanskrit. Whereas the assumed dispersal of the former cognate set west of PNG advanced along the south of East Indonesia through Nusa Tenggara, that of the latter set apparently followed soon after that along the north, through Halmahera. To my mind, the parallelism in the dispersal of the two assumed cognate sets increases the credibility of the first-considered one. Furthermore, the dispersal of the second set may have been the reason of the semantic shifts which the Indic cognates of the first set underwent. The reason of the dispersal gap between East Indonesia and South Asia is probably the very early time of the transmissions, and that cognates in the intermediate areas were subsequently displaced by other words for ‘banana’. Amongst these are items of a somewhat complicated set of banana terms, assigned by Donohue and Denham (2009: 303) to an ultimate protoform *qaRutay with intermediate doublets cited as *taloy ~ *kaloy ~ *kela ~ *kola ~ *loka,41 see Perrier et al. (2011: online Suppl. Table S4 ##446–540). It would need too much space to consider the relationship between all the apparent doublets. With regard to a possible westward transmission across the Bay of Bengal, only a set of doublets which I provisionally reconstruct as *loka ~ *kalo ~ *kula needs to be inspected. I begin with reflexes in MP languages, using the same areal numeration as defined in footnote 23: • (3) Mandar loka, Baree loka, Kulawi lokaʔ, Banggai loʔa, (4) Karo-Batak galuh, TobaBatak gaol, Simalur kaol ~ xaol ~ haol, (5) Bima kalo, Kambera kalu, (6) Banda kula, Asilulu kula, Haruku kura, Sawai lokε ‘banana’ (Kähler 1961: 97; Perrier et al. 2011: ibid. ##461–471, 486–492). The westward dispersal of cognates through languages of sections (5) and (4) fits well with the westward movement of the Qata (see the unfilled arrow in the lower left of Fig. 3, and cf. Nothofer 1994), and thus proceeded later, already within the period of the MP migration. West of the Bay of Bengal, reflexes of an apparently cognate doublet, *kela, indeed do not appear to include Middle Indoaryan or earlier cognates, and are thus more recent than those of the previously inspected sets: • Bengali kola, Nepali kerā, Hindi kelā, Pashto kelá, Farsi kīla, Sindhi kīla ‘banana’. (Perrier et al. 2011: ibid. ##496–506). Whereas the two earlier cited forms first reached Dravidian languages of South India, apparently brought across by seafarers on primeval watercraft—perhaps rafts—using the westward Winter Monsoon Current (see Fig. 4), the presently inspected transmission reached India further north, being perhaps introduced into Kalinga (also shown in Fig. 4). There appears to be a certain conformity with the dispersal of particular di- and triploids. De Langhe et al. (2009: 170 Fig. 3) report a high density of the AB diploid around the southern tip of India, while that of AAB and ABB triploids is spread along the east coast of India till as far north as the Ganges delta. This suggests that the borrowing of the two first above-mentioned banana-words into Dravidian languages coincided with the transmission of the AB diploid, while the later introduction of *kela cognates to India accompanied the transmission of the triploids. Of interest is also the dispersal of the *taloy ~ *kaloy doublets, which includes MonKhmer and Tai-Kadai languages of the mainland (Perrier et al. 2011: ibid. ##446–460) and 41 Cognates directly reflecting *qaRutay are restricted to the Philippines. 17 possibly involved the dispersal of Musa balbisiana Colla hybrids, but requires too much space to peruse here. Noteworthy in the same connection is another ‘as-if’ protoform with a distribution which conforms to that of M. balbisiana, reconstructed by Donohue and Denham (2009: 300–301) as *baRat. MP reflexes are restricted to the Philippines and the northern half of Borneo/Kalimantan, but do not strictly follow regular sound correspondences, so that one must postulate effective protoform doublets: Fig. 4. The Bay of Bengal, scene of early westward transmission of the banana and the coconut to the South Indian periphery. *baRat ~ *balat ~ *balak > (2) Kapampangan balat, Isneg bāgat, Bikol batag,42 Ifugao bālat, (4) Tanjong balat, Melanau balak, Bintulu balak, Lara' barak (Perrier et al. 2011: online Suppl. Table S4 ##1–25). With regard to reflexes assigned to *balak, one could assume final -k of the original transcription to denote final glottal stop, but several more cognates are rendered with final -k in Ray (1913: 72 #7 and 156 #7) so that a final velar probably is indeed implied. The cognate set is noteworthy in view of its dispersal to Mon-Khmer languages of the mainland (Perrier et al. 2011: ibid. ##26–57), reflecting the effective protoform doublets *pǝrāt ~ *pǝriăt:43 • (Old & Modern) Mon brāt, Nyakur: phrātB ; Bru: priatB ; Sou: pariat ; Halang priat, Chrau prīt, Bahnar prīt, Kui prītL, 42 With *R/*t metathesis. In two-register languages, ‘normal’ and ‘breathy’ articulation is indicated by a subscript L or B. They imply an historical voiceless and voiced initial consonant respectively. 43 18 (Shorto 1971: 275; 2006: 304 #1070; Peiros 1996: 52 #763; Sidwell 2000: 85 #294). With exception of Mon which had been the paramount language of the Mon kingdom of Ramaññadesa, the Mon-Khmer languages having cognates are located along the middle course of the Mekong. Hence, the over-all distribution of reflexes of the MP and Mon-Khmer doublet sets suggests an original dispersal in the Trans-South-China-Sea trade network discussed above. The Mon cognate could be the result of secondary transmission through the territorial network of Ramaññadesa. The list provided by Perrier et al. (2011: online Suppl. Table S4) includes many more cognate sets, but besides requiring too much space to discuss here, they are less significant for the immediate subject of this article. Suffice it to consider just one MP protoform for ‘banana’ with the widest dispersal of reflexes, apparently transmitted by the Tau, amongst others also into West Papua: *pu[n]ti > (2) Palawan-Batak punti, Kalamian-Tagbanwa puntiʔ, (3) Tontemboan punti, Sa'dan-Toraja punti, (4) Merina-Malagasy funtsi, Lampung punti, Old Javanese punti, Tarakan punti, (5) Manggarai punti, Leti udi, (6) Bonfia fudi, (7) Arguni fud, Irarutu fude, Yamdena fundi, (8) Fiji vudi, Samoa futi ‘banana’ (Dempwolff 1938: 123; Reid 1971: 49 #13; Smits and Voorhoeve 1992: 207-208; Wolff 2010: 945–946; Perrier et al. 2011: online Suppl. Table S4 ##165–445). The dispersal of *pu[n]ti is probably the principal (though not exclusive) cause of apparent gaps in dispersals of earlier words for banana. There is not as much lexical data to trace the westward dispersal of the coconut (Cocos nucifera L.), as it is with the banana. It may be significant, however, that the Sanskrit Rāmāyaṇa, attributed to Valmiki, mentions amongst the Vanara (vānara, lit. ‘ape, monkey’) peoples, recruited by King Sugriva for his military campaign, also one who ate coconuts (Mankad 1965: 238; see also Mahdi 1999b: 168): 4.36.25 On the Milky Sea’s beach, and in tamāla woods live, and of coconuts eat, their number is countless.44 The Milky Sea of Sanskritic literary tradition is the Bay of Bengal, so that the peoples who ate the coconut (nārikela)45 lived on the Indian east coast. The cited passage, implying that eating coconuts was still uncommon or exotic enough to serve as distinctive feature of an ethnic group, must evidently originate from long before the turn of the Common Era. Indeed, the coconut must have already been transmitted around Cape Comorin around the beginning of the first millennium CE, because by 120 CE the Saka Ushavadata46 reportedly granted coconut plantations to Brahmans on the west coast (Kosambi 1965: 189). The South Indian periphery (including Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Laccadives) was the last to be incorporated into the culture sphere reflected in classical Sanskrit literature, so a feature considered exotic in that literature may actually not have been novel in the South. With regard to Austronesian languages, the protoform *nieuR47 ‘coconut’ is practically not reflected in languages of Taiwan, but only in Malayo-Polynesian languages: 44 The Sanskrit original: kṣīrodavelānilayās tamālavanavāsinaḥ / nārikelāśana ścauva teṣaṁ saṁkhyā na vidyate (4.36.25 in Mankad 1965, who also cites the location in other editions: Goresio 4.37.22, Bombay 4.37.21, Lahore 4.30.21). 45 The tamāla tree and some other items in the passage are discussed in Mahdi (1999b: 166–169) 46 A.k.a. Rishabhadatta, a viceroy of apparently Scythian descent on the west coast of India. 47 Stresemann (1927: 82–83) had *niuǝR (*niueR in modern transcription) to account for some Maluku reflexes; Dyen (1953: 13, 15 n. 49) had *ñiuR to account for initial ñ in some other cognates. 19 * nieuR > (2) Ivatan nioy, Inibaloi niyog, (3) Sangir niuhǝʔ, To Bungku nii, (4) KruiLampung niwi, Madurese nεyɔr, (5) Sawu ñiu, Kai nuer, (6) Kamarian niwer, Bonfia nuos, (7) Sobei niwe, Molima niula, (8) Bugotu niu, Hawaii niu ‘coconut’ (Dempwolff 1938: 108; Reid 1971: 62 ##53–54; Sneddon 1984: 95; Mahdi 1999a: 394–39; Wolff 2010: 906). The unique Taiwan reflex cited by Wolff (ibid.), Kavalan nuzu ‘coconut’, seems indeed, as noted by the author, to be a MP borrowing. Words for ‘coconut’ in Indic languages are not, however, borrowings of the MP form. As pointed out by Hoogervorst (2013b: 73–74), Dravidian languages have cognates of Tamil tēṅkāy, literally either ‘south fruit’ or ‘sweet fruit’, while Sanskrit had nārikela, apparently from a Dravidian *nari ‘fibre, rope’ + *keṭ-i/a/u ‘tree, bush’. Borrowed reflexes of this and the above-cited MP form practically accompany the further dispersal of the coconut, as noted by Gunn et al. (2011: 6). The authors also cite results of recent phylogeographic research which established two definitively different genotypes: the one Pacific-Ocean specific with an early dispersal covering the Malayan Peninsula, ISEA and New Guinea (so-called ‘Malesia’), termed group A; the other Indian-Ocean specific having an early dispersal in the South Indian periphery, termed group B. This seemed to suggest two separate domestications. Even assuming a purely anthropogenic propagation of group A, and ignoring a very likely early ‘complicity’ of Papuans, the dispersal of the group-A coconut must have happened at the latest during the Malayo-Polynesian migration into Near Oceania around 1,500–1,000 BCE (Pawley 1999: 112 map 4). Meanwhile, the coconut in India was practically unknown in the north before the writing of the Rāmāyaṇa (towards the end of the last millennium BCE). The dispersal of group B seems to have been restricted to the South Indian periphery until around 200 BCE. Indeed, results of further historiographic and archaeological research indicate that the coconut was cultivated in the South Indian periphery itself since around 1,000–500 BCE (Gunn et al. 2011: 6). The limited South Indian dispersal area and low degree of variety in group B lets an independent descent of the group from a common (A-and-B) precursor in Gondwanaland48 seem most unlikely. Indeed, neither do biologists classify group B as a different subspecies, nor do geneticists refer to a separate group-B genome. Hence, the group-B genotype (within a common C. nucifera genome) apparently resulted from a relatively late mutation of a group-A original brought to Sri Lanka before 1,000 BCE. The assumption that floating coconuts were perhaps carried westwards by the Winter Monsoon current (see Fig. 4) also seems unlikely, because the further transmission to Africa was evidently anthropogenic (see Gunn et al. 2011: 1). The most credible scenario seems to be that the group-B mutant appeared, and was exclusively retained, in the course of artificial selection within a relatively small and isolated group-A population brought across the Bay of Bengal by humans travelling on rafts, drifting along with the Winter Monsoon Current. In view of the early date, the transmitters were probably pre-Austronesian Negritos. In general, the Bay of Bengal had been the scene of a lively exchange of cultivars between the South Asian subcontinent and ISEA (Mahdi 1998; Hoogervorst 2013b). The transmission of the banana and the coconut, reviewed above, appears to have occurred before the beginning Mahdi (1999a: 394–395) proposed to unite the two as *nieuR, presuming e/u metathesis in the former, and *nie > ñi fusion in the latter. An occasional i/e metathesis can also not be excluded. 48 The palaeogeographic supercontinent which broke up into Antarctica, South America, Africa, Madagascar, Australia, the Arabian Peninsula, and the South Indian subcontinent—the last common mainland before separation of the earliest distribution areas of coconut-groups A and B. 20 of MP activity in the Indian Ocean. Of further interest may be some of the earliest transmissions within the period of MP activity, because the earliest Malayo-Polynesians on the scene must have been the Qata who were either Negrito or carried a substantial percentage of Negrito admixture. In discussing the transmission of the banana above, the dispersal of the third cognate set (*loka ~ *kalo ~ *kula ~ *kela) across the Bay of Bengal seems to have already involved the Qata. In particular, reflexes were represented in Karo- and Toba-Batak which seem to also exhibit certain particularities in some other cognate sets (see Mahdi 2008: 135 footnote 76). A noteworthy example is the eastward transmission of Prakrit java ‘barley’,49 which apparently proceeded in two phases. Besides the main transmission, reflected amongst others in Old Javanese jawa ‘foxtail millet’,50 there must have been an earlier one with only a few individual reflexes. These are Karo-Batak jaba ‘foxtail millet’ and Toba-Batak jaba-ure ‘sorghum’,51 in which the reflexion of internal v as b betrays that the transmission was mediated by ancestors of the Moken (Mahdi 2009: 75, 84). A noteworthy feature of traditional Indic—i.e. Sanskrit, Prakrit, and Tamil, literature and lore were peoples referred to as Naga (nāga, literally ‘serpent, snake’). Having perused a series of primary sources and commentaries, I concluded that the Naga were regarded as ferocious warlike peoples who were mobile on the sea, and typically inhabited islands, the sea coast, or the banks of rivers, were given to pillaging, piracy, or ‘cannibalism’, being also very non-uniform in level of culture development, from relatively ‘primitive’ to relatively ‘civilised’, in the eyes of early Indoaryans and Tamils (Mahdi 1999b: 169–182). Of all peoples in the wider region, only Malayo-Polynesians fit this description relatively well. The following passage from the Ādiparvan, the first book of the Sanskrit Mahābhārata, is noteworthy in this respect: 1.21.4 To the abode of the Naga, the lovely Ramaniyaka at the lonely ocean bay, do take me there, oh dear Vinata.52 The toponym Ramaniyaka (ramaṇīyaka) may be a reference to the land of the Mons, referred to in Middle Mon as Rāmaññadesa or raḥ rman, cf. also Old Khmer ramañ ~ rmañ ‘Mon’ (Shorto 1971: 317, 325). If that is correct, it implies that the Naga in question probably inhabited the Martaban coast, and this is noteworthy for several reasons. Ptolemy located ‘Besyngite cannibals’ (bēsyngeitói anthrōpophágoi) on the Martaban coast between the mouths of the Irrawaddy (Témala) and Salween (Bēsýnga), see Coedès (1977: 52). Meanwhile, Luce (1965: 145–146;) called attention to an ancient Mon tradition that the Martaban coast was under constant threat of raids from the sea by rakṣasa-s, depicted as ‘cannibal demons’, termed ‘Malayan Vikings’ by the author (see also Forbes 1878: 234). Luce believed these were the ancestors of the Moken of the Mergui Islands. Mokens were indeed seafarers since very early, and Moken kabaŋ ‘boat, ship’ (<EAn *qabaŋ) was apparently borrowed into Old Mon as kɓaŋ ‘ship’ (Mahdi 2009: 82). In Myanmar tradition, the rakṣasa-s of the Mons were called bilù, glossed in the dictionary of Judson (Stevenson and Eveleth 1921: 727) as ‘a kind of monster which eats 49 Hordeum vulgare L. Setaria italica (L.) P. Beauvois. 51 Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. 52 The Sanskrit original: Nāgānāmālayaṁ bhadre suramyaṁ ramaṇīyakaṁ / samudrakuksāv ekānte tatra māṁ vinate vaha (Sukthankar 1933:135). 50 21 human flesh and possesses super-human eyes’. There still is an island named Bilùgyùn (gyùn ‘island’) in the Gulf of Martaban immediately before Moulmein in the mouth of the Salween. A 10th-century Buddhist treatise by the Kashmirian poet Kshemendra, the Bodhisatvāvadāna Kalpalatā, notes that nāga ‘pirates’ swore allegiance to Ashoka (ruled c. 269–232 BCE) when he converted to Buddhism (Mookerji 1912: 113–115). This may perhaps be seen as earliest date of religiously or mystically motivated submission of Sea-People communities to a paramount monarchy. This feature is better known for later periods when such communities submitted to a likewise Buddhist Srivijayan paramount who threatened them with mystic curses, Old Malay mangmang (see Mahdi 2008: 131, 133 footnote 70). Late manifestations of this relationship between Sea-People and (meanwhile Muslim) monarchies are recorded for the mid 19th century (ibid.: 135). Apparently, in traditional literature throughout the South Asian Subcontinent, nāga was a cover term which was also applicable to Sea-People (Orang Laut) freebooters and seanomads operating around the Gulf of Martaban and perhaps also in the Riau-Johore area. Littoral regions around the Strait of Malacca, therefore, seem a likely place to locate the islands of the ‘cannibal’ nāga-s. Grierson (1906: 14) proposed that the rakṣasa-s or bilù of the Martaban coast may have been Negritos. The Sea People, many of whom speak dialects of Malay, and the Moken, are indeed in the main either Negrito or exhibit a substantial Negrito admixture. Conclusion. Mahdi (forthcoming) cited archaeological and linguistic evidence, suggesting primeval development of maritime mobility in ISEA very much earlier than anywhere else in the world. During the rising sea levels (Late Pleistocene until Mid Holocene), retreating equatorial populations from the Sunda Shelf apparently developed the construction of their watercraft further, from rafts to multiple dugouts, and then to double canoes, which they brought northwards along the southeastern coast of China, and westwards across the Bay of Bengal. The double canoe was then introduced to other populations, which the migrating equatorial peoples (apparently ancestors of Negritos) met in the areas they reached. During the last millennium BCE, the area between the South China Sea and the Bay of Bengal had apparently been the scene of further development of maritime communication and trade. In this, the decisive actors must have been Negritos, and perhaps also other Australoid peoples of ISEA. Already before that, however, Australoid peoples had apparently transmitted the banana and the coconut across the Bay of Bengal. Towards the turn of the Common Era, Negrito and other Australoid peoples involved in sea communication in and from ISEA had apparently adopted MP languages, as was the case with the Moken. From this period onwards, a decisive role in maritime communication in the area would be played by Malay shipping, fetching cloves from North Maluku, nutmegs from Banda, and sandalwood from Nusa Tenggara, and delivering these to China and India. I hope to have demonstrated, that an initial role in the development of maritime mobility and communication networks had been performed by equatorial peoples of ISEA, in particular by peoples I have referred to as Negritos. 22 Bibliographic References Ammermann Albert J., 2010, The First Argonauts: Towards the Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterranean. In Atholl Anderson, James H. Barrett, and Katherine V. Boyle (eds.), The Global Origins and Development of Seafaring, pp. 81–92. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Bacus, Elizabeth A., 2004, The archaeology of the Philippine Archipelago. In Ian Glover and Peter Bellwood (eds.), Southeast Asia: From prehistory to history, pp. 257-281. London & New York: Routledge Curzon Baxter, William H., 1992, A handbook of Old Chinese phonology, Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 64. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Bellina, Berénice, and Ian Glover, 2004, The archaeology of early contact with India and the Mediterranean World, from the fourth century BC to the fourth century AD. In Ian Glover and Peter Bellwood (eds.), Southeast Asia: From prehistory to history, pp. 68-88. London & New York: Routledge Curzon Bellwood, Peter, 1984–1985. A hypothesis for Austronesian origins. Asian Perspectives 26:107-117. ––––––––, 1995, Austronesian prehistory in Southeast Asia: homeland, expansion and transformation. In Peter Bellwood, James J. Fox and Darwell Tryon (eds.), The austronesians: Historical and comparative perspective, pp. 96–111. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University. ––––––––, 2005a, The first farmers: origins of agricultural societies. Malden (MA), London, & Carlton (Australia): Blackwell Publishing. ––––––––, 2005b, Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis in the East Asian context. In Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas (eds.), The peopling of East Asia. Putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics, pp. 17–30. London & New York: Routledge Curzon. Benjamin, Geoffrey, 2013, Why the Peninsular “Negritos” Remained Distinct. Human Biology 85: 445–483. Bernatzik, Hugo Adolf, 1941, Die Geister der gelben Blätter. Forschungsreisen in Hinterindien, unter Mitarbeit von Emmy Bernatzik. Leipzig: Koehler & Voigtländer Verlag. Bernet Kempers, A.J., 1988. The kettledrums of Southeast Asia: A Bronze Age world and its aftermath, Modem Quatenary Research in Southeast Asia 10. Rotterdam: Balkema. Blust, Robert, 1972, Proto-Oceanic addenda with cognates in non-Oceanic Austronesian languages: A preliminary list. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 14.1: 1–43. ––––––––, 1989, Austronesian Etymologies—IV, Oceanic Linguistics 28:111–180. ––––––––, 2009, The Austronesian languages, Pacific Linguistics 602. Canberra: Australian National University. Brandstetter, Renward, 1910, Wurzel und Wort in den Indonesischen Sprachen, Renward Brandstetters Monographien zur Indonesischen Sprachforschung 6. Luzern: Verlag der Buchhandlung Haag. Broodbank, Cyprian, 2006, the Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activity. Journal of Mediteranean Archaeology 19: 199–230. 23 Bulbeck, David, 2013, Craniodental Affinities of Southeast Asia’s “Negritos” and the Concordance with their Genetic Affinities. Human Biology 85: 95–133. Burrow, T, and M.B. Emeneau, 1984, A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Calon, L.F., 1891, Woordenlijst van het dialect van Lio (West Flores). Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 35: 200–208. Chang, Kwang-chih, 1969, Fengpitou, Tapengkeng, and the Prehistory of Taiwan, Yale University Publications in Anthropology no. 73. New Haven: Department of Anthropüology, Yale University. Charles, Mathew, 1974, Problems in the reconstruction of Proto-Philippine phonology and the subgrouping of the Philippine languages. Oceanic Linguistics 13: 457–509. Coedès, George, 1977, Textes d’auteurs grecs et latins relatifs à l’Extrême-Orient. Hildesheim / New York: Georg Olms Verlag (1st ed. 1910). Couvreur, S., 1904, Dictionaire classique de la langue chinoise. Ho Kien Fou: Imprimerie de la mission catholique. De Langhe, Edmond, Luc Vrydaghs, Pierre de Maret, Xavier Perrier and Tim Denham, 2009, Why Bananas Matter: An introduction to the history of banana domestication. Ethnobotany Research & Applications 7: 165–177. Dempwolff, Otto, 1938, Vergleichende Lautlehre des austronesischen Wortschatzes, 3. Bd., Austronesisches Wörterverzeichnis. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer / Hamburg; Friederichsen, de Gruyter and Co. Denham, T.P., S.G. Haberle, C. Lentfer, R. Fullagar, J. Field, M. Therin, N. Porch, B. Winsborough, 2003, Origins of Agriculture at Kuk Swamp in the Highlands of New Guinea. Science 301: 189–193. Denham, Tim, and Mark Donohue, 2009, Pre-Austronesian dispersal of banana cultivars West from New Guinea: linguistic relics from Eastern Indonesia. Archaeology in Oceania 44: 18–28. Diffloth, Gérard, 1975, Les langues Mon-Khmer du Malaisie, classification historique et innovations. Asie du Sud-Est et Monde Insulindien 6.4: 1–19. Donohue, Mark, and Tim Denham, 2009, Banana (Musa spp.) Domestication in the AsiaPacific Region: Linguistic and archaeobotanical perspectives. Ethnobotany Research & Applications 7: 293–332. ––––––––, 2010, Farming and Language in Island Southeast Asia: Reframing Austronesian History, Current Anthropology 51: 223–256. Doran, Edwin Jr., 1981, Wangka: Austronesian Canoe Origins. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Douglas, Carstairs, 1899, Chinese-English Dictionary of the Vernacular or Spoken Language of Amoy, with the principal variations of the Chang-Chew and Chin-Chew dialects. London: Publishing Office of the Presbyterian Church of England. Dyen, Isidore, 1953, The Proto-Malayo-Polynesian Laryngeals. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America. Endicott, Phillip, 2013, Introduction: Revisiting the "Negrito" Hypothesis: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Human Prehistory in Southeast Asia. Human Biology 85: 7–20. Erlandson, Jon McVey, 2010, Neptune’s Children: the Evolution of Human Seafaring. In Atholl Anderson, James H. Barrett, and Katherine V. Boyle (eds.), The Global 24 Origins and Development of Seafaring, pp. 19–27. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Erlandson, Jon M., Madonna L. Moss, Matthew Des Lauriers, 2008, Life on the edge: early maritime cultures of the Pacific Coast of North America. Quaternary Science Reviews 27: 2232–2245. Esser, Samuel Jonathan, 1926 [1927], Klank- en vormleer van het Morisch (eerste gedeelte). Leiden: A. Vros. Farr, R. Helen, 2010, Island Colonizsation and Trade in the Mediterranean. In Atholl Anderson, James H. Barrett, and Katherine V. Boyle (eds.), The Global Origins and Development of Seafaring, pp. 179–189. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Ferrand, G., 1929, Le K’ouen-louen et les anciennes navigations interocéaniques dans les mers du sud. Journal Asiatique 11e série 13: 239–333, 431–492, 14: 5–68, 201– 241. Ferrell, Raleigh, 1969, Taiwan aboriginal groups: problems in culture and linguistic classification. Institute of Ethnology Academia Sinica monograph no. 17. Taipei: Academia Sinica. Fitzhugh, Ben, and Douglas J. Kennett, 2010, Seafaring Intensity and Island-Mainland Interaction along the Pacific Coast of North America. In Atholl Anderson, James H. Barrett, and Katherine V. Boyle (eds.), The Global Origins and Development of Seafaring, pp. 69–80. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Flatz, Gebhard, 1963, The Mlabri: Anthropometric Genetic, and Medical Examinations. Journal of the Siam Society 51: 161–177. Forbes, C.J.F.S., 1878, On the Connexions of the Mons of Pegu with the Koles of Central India, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, new series, 10: 234–243. Gibson, Charles E., 1958, The Story of the Ship: from the earliest days to the present. London & New York: Abelard-Schuman. Giles, Herbert A., 1912, A Chinese-English Dictionary, 2nd ed. Shanghai etc.: Kelly & Walsh / London: Quaritch. Goloubew, Victor. 1929. L'age du bronze au Tonkin et dans le Nord-Annam. Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extrême-Orient 29: 1–46. Greenberg, Joseph H., 1971. The Indo-Pacific hypothesis. In Thomas A. Sebeok, ed. Current trends in linguistics 8: linguistics in Oceania, 807–871. The Hague: Mouton. Grierson, G.A., 1906, Linguistic Survey of India, vol. 4, Muṇḍā and Dravidian Languages. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent, Gov. Print. Gunn, Bee F., Luc Baudouin, Kenneth M. Olsen, 2011, Independent Origins of Cultivated Coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) in the Old World Tropics. PLoS ONE 6: e21143. Haberle, Simon G., Carol Lentfer, Shawn O’Donnell, Tim Denham, 2012, The palaeoenvironments of Kuk Swamp from the beginnings of agriculture in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. Quaternary International 249: 129–139. Harrisson, Tom, 1958, The Great Cave, Sarawak: A ship-of-the-dead cult and related rock painting. Archaeological News Letter 6: 199-203. Heine-Geldern, Robert, 1932, Urheimat und früheste Wanderung der Austronesier, Anthropos 27: 543–619. 25 Higham, Charles. 1989. The archaeology of Mainland Southeast Asia from 10,000 B.C. to the Fall of Angkor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoëvell, G.W.W.C. Baron van, 1890a, Tanimbar en Tinoerlaoet-Eilanden. Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 33: 160–186. ––––––––, 1890b, Leti-Eilanden. Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 33: 200–232. Holmes, Tommy, 1981, the Hawaiian Canoe. Hanalei (HI): Editions Limited. Hoogervorst, Tom, 2013a, Southeast Asia in the ancient Indian Ocean World. Combining historical linguistic and archaeological approaches. BAR International Series 2580. Oxford: Archaeopress. ––––––––, 2013b, If Only Plants Could Talk …: Reconstructing Pre-Modern Biological Translocations in the Indian Ocean. In Satish Chandra and Himanshu Prabha Ray (eds.), The Sea, Identity and History. From the Bay of Bengal to the South China Sea, pp. 67–92. New Delhi: Manohar. Hornell, James, 1943, Outrigger devices: Distributions and Origin, Journal of the Polynesian Society 52: 91–100. ––––––––, 1946, Water Transport: Origins & Early Evolution. Cambridge: the University Press. Hung, Hsiao-chun, and Peter Bellwood, 2010, Movement of raw materials and manufactured goods across the South China Sea after 500 BCE: From Taiwan to Thailand and back. In Bérénice Bellina, Elisabeth A. Bacus, Thomas Oliver Pryce and Jan Wisseman Christie (eds.), 50 Years of Archaeology in Southeast Asia: Essays in Honour of Ian Glover, pp. 234–245. Bangkok: River Books. Hutterer, Karl Leopold, 1983, The Natural and Cultural History of Southeast Asian Agriculture: Ecological and Evolutionary Considerations. Anthropos 78: 169–212. I-Tsing (義淨 Yìjìng), 1894, Les religieux éminents qui allerent chercher la Loi dans les pays d’occident: Mémoire composé a l’époque de la grande dynastie T'ang, traduit par Édouard Chavannes. Paris: Ernest Leroux. ––––––––, 1896, A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago (A.D. 671–695), translated by J. Takakusu. Oxford : Clarendon. Johnson, Frederick, 1959, (gen. ed.), A Standard Swahili-English Dictionary (founded on Madan’s Swahili-English dictionary). London: Oxford University Press. Jones, Russell, 2007, (gen. ed.), Loan-words in Indonesian and Malay. Compiled by the Indonesian etymological Project. Leiden: KITLV Press. Kähler, Hans, 1961, Simalur-Deutsches Wörterbuch mit Deutsch-Simaluresischem Wörterverzeichnis, Veröffentlichungen des Seminars für Indonesische und Südseesprachen der Universität Hamburg 3. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Karlgren, Bernhard, 1940, Grammata Serica: Script and phonetics in Chinese and SinoJapanese, Bulletin of the Museum of Far East Antiquity 12. Stockholm [reprint 1940, Gothenburg: Elanders]. Kosambi, D.D., 1965, The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Lape, Peter V., Sue O’Connor, and Nick Burningham, 2007. Rock Art: A Potential Source of Information about Past Maritime Technology in the South-East Asia-Pacific Region. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 36: 238–253. 26 Lee, Yun Kuen, 2002, Building the Chronology of Early Chinese History, Asian Perspectives 41: 15–42. Lewis, David, 1969, Children of Three Oceans. London: Collins. Lin, Marie, Chen-Chung Chu, Richard E. Broadberry, Lung-Chih Yu, Jun-Hun Luo, and Jean A. Trejaut, 2005, Genetic diversity of Taiwan’s indigenous peoples: possible relationship with insular Southeast Asia. In Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas (eds.), The peopling of East Asia. Putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics, pp. 230–247. London & New York: Routledge Curzon. Löw, Immanuel, 1881, Aramæische Pflanzennamen. Leipzig: Verlag Wilhelm Engelmann. Luce, Gordon H., 1965, Rice and Religion, a study of Old Mon-Khmer evolution and culture, Journal of the Siam Society 53: 139–152. Mahdi, Waruno, 1988, Morphophonologische Besonderheiten und historische Phonologie des Malagasy, Veröffentlichungen des Seminars für Indonesische und Südseesprachen der Universität Hamburg 20. Berlin & Hamburg: Dietrich Reimer. ––––––––, 1992, Zur Ontogenese des austronesischen und malaiischen Schiffes. Poster presentation, Tagung des Südostasienarbeitskreises, 3–5 July 1992, Königstein im Taunus. ––––––––, 1994, Some Austronesian maverick protoforms with culture-historical implications, Oceanic Linguistics 33:167-229, 431–490. ––––––––, 1999a, The dispersal of Austronesian boat forms in the Indian Ocean. In Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs (eds.), Archaeology and Language III: Artefacts, Languages and Texts, pp. 144–179. London & New York: Routledge. ––––––––, 1998, Linguistic Data on Transmission of Southeast Asian Cultigens to India and Sri Lanka. In Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs (eds.), Archaeology and Language II: Archaeological Data and Linguistic Hypotheses, pp. 390–415. London & New York: Routledge. ––––––––, 1999b, Linguistic and philological data towards a chronology of Austronesian activity in India and Sri Lanka. In Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs (eds.), Archaeology and Language IV: Language Change and Cultural Transformation, pp. 160–242. London & New York: Routledge. ––––––––, 2005, Old Malay. In Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, pp. 182–201. London & New York: Routledge ––––––––, 2008, Yavadvipa and the Merapi Volcano in West Sumatra. Archipel 75: 111–143. ––––––––, 2009, In search of an historical Sea-People Malay dialect with -aba-. In Alexander Adelaar and Andrew Pawley (eds.), Austronesian histzorical linguistics and culture history: a festschrift for Robert Blust, Pacific Linguistics 601.Canberra: The Australian National University. ––––––––, 2010, The Protohistorical Linguistic, Ethnic, and Political Situation around the Gulf of Thailand in the Light of Borrowing between Malayo-Chamic and Eastern Austroasiatic Languages. Paper presented at the 13th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, Berlin 2010. ––––––––, 2012a, Bifurcation of Commercial Tradition in West Indonesia, 1850–1930, as Reflected in Contemporaneous Malay Print Publishing. Asian Journal of Social Science 40: 100–132. 27 ––––––––, 2012b, Review of John U. Wolff (2010, Proto-Austronesian Phonology with Glossary. Ithaca [NY]: Southeast Asia Program Publications, Cornell University), Archipel 83: 214–222 (2012). ––––––––, forthcoming, Origins of Southeast Asian Shipping and Maritime Communication across the Indian Ocean. In Gwyn Campbell (gen. ed.), East Africa and Early Trans-Indian Ocean World Interchange, to appear in the Palgrave Series. Malinowski, Bronislaw, 1984, Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. Long Grove (Illinois): Waveland Press. Manguin, Pierre-Yves, 1996, Southeast Asian Shipping in the Indian Ocean during the first millennium A.D. In Himanshu Prabha Ray and Jean-François Salles (eds.), Tradition and Archaeology: Easly Maritime Contacts in the Indian Ocean, pp. 181–196. New Delhi: Manohar. ––––––––, 2004, The archaeology of early maritime polities of Southeast Asia, in Ian Glover and Peter Bellwood (eds.), Southeast Asia: From prehistory to history, pp. 282313. London & New York: Routledge Curzon. Mankad, D.R., 1965, The Kiṣkindhākāṇḍa: The Fourth Book of the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, the National Epic of India. Baroda: Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda Press. Meacham, William, 1984–1985. On the improbability of Austronesian origins in South China. Asian Perspectives 26:89–106. Milliman, John D., and K.O. Emery, 1968, Sea Levels during the Past 35,000 Years. Science 162: 1121–1123. Monier-Williams, Monier, 1899, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages, revised by E. Leumann, C. Cappeller, et al. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mookerji, Radhakumud, 1912, Indian Shipping: a history of the sea-borne trade and maritime activity of the Indians from the earliest times. Bombay / Calcutta / London / New York: Longmans, Green & Co. Needham, Joseph, 1971, Science and Civilisation in China, with collab. of Wang Ling and Lu Gwei-Djen, vol. 4, Physics and Physical Technology, pt. III: Civil Engineering and Nautics, pp.105–119. Cambridge: the University Press. Nothofer, Bernd, 1994, The relationship between the languages of the Barrier Islands and the Sulawesi-Philippine languages. In: Tom Dutton, Darrel T. Tryon (eds.), Language Contact and Change in the Austronesian World, Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 77. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Novellino, Dario, 2011, Towards a ‘Common Logic of Procurement’: Unravelling the Foraging-Farming Interface on Palawan Island (The Philippines). In Graeme Barker and Monica Janowski (eds.), Why Cultivate? Anthropological and Archaeological Approaches to Foraging-Farming Transitions in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. O’Connell, James F., and Jim Allen, 2004, Dating the colonization of Sahul (Pleistocene Australia–New Guinea): a review of recent research. Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 835-853. O’Connell, James F., Jim Allen, and Kristen Hawkes, 2010, Pleistocene Sahul and the orgins of seafaring. In Atholl Anderson, James H. Barrett, and Katherine V. Boyle (eds.), The Global Origins and Development of Seafaring, pp. 57–68. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. 28 O’Connor, Sue, 2007, New Evidence from East Timor contributes to our understanding of earliesrt modern human colonisation east of the Sunda Shelf. Antiquity 81: 523– 535. Parmentier, H., 1924, Notes d'archéologie indochinoise. VII — Dépôts de Jarres à Sa-huỳnh (Guảng-ngãi, Annam). Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extrême-Orient 24: 325– 343. Pawley, Andrew, 1999, Chasing rainbows: implications for the rapid dispersal of Austronesian languages for subgrouping and reconstruction. In E. Zeitoun, P.J. Li (eds.), Selected Papers from 8-ICAL. Taipei: Academia sinica ––––––––, 2009, Greenberg’s Indo-Pacific hypothesis: an assessment. In Bethwyn Evans (ed.), Discovering history through language: Papers in honour of Malcolm Ross, Pacific Linguistics 605, pp. 153–180. Canberra: The Australian National University. Pawley, Andrew, and Medina Pawley, 1994, Early Austronesian terms for canoe parts and seafaring. In A.K. Pawley and M.D. Ross (eds.), Austronesian terminologies: continuity and change, Pacific Linguistics Series C–127, pp. 329–361. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Pelliot, Paul, 1925, Quelques textes chinois concernant l'Indochine Hindouisée. In Études asiatiques, publiées à l’occasion du vingt-cinquième anniversaire de l'École Française de l'Extrême-Orient, tôme 2, Publication de l'École Française de l'Extrême-Orient 20, pp. 243–263. Hanoi: EFEO. Peiros, Ilia, 1996, Katuic Comparative Dictionary, Pacific Linguistics Series C 132. Canbera: Research Schools of Pacific and Asian Studies. Perrier, Xavier, Edmond De Langhe, Mark Donohue, Carol Lentfer, Luc Vrydaghs, Frédéric Bakry, Françoise Carreel, Isabelle Hippolyte, Jean-Pierre Horry, Christophe Jenny, Vincent Lebot, Ange-Marie Risterucci, Kodjo Tomekpe, Hugues Doutrelepont, Terry Ball, Jason Manwaring, Pierre de Maret, and Tim Denham. 2011, Multidisciplinary perspectives on banana (Musa spp.) domestication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 11311–11318. Pulleyblank, Edwin G., 1991, Lexicon of reconstructed pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Rana, B.K., 2002, New Materials on Kusunda Language. Paper presented at the Fourth Round Table International Conference on Ethnogenesis of South and Central Asia, Harvard University, Cambridge (MA) 2002. Ray, Sidney H., 1913, The Languages of Borneo, The Sarawak Museum Journal 1, No. 4. Singapore et al.: Kelly & Walsh. Redd, Alan J., and Mark Stoneking, 1999, Peopling of Sahul: mtDNA Variation in Aboriginal Australian and Papua New Guinean Populations. American Journal of Human Genetics 65: 808–828. Reid, Lawrence A., 1971, (ed.), Philippine Minor Languages: Word Lists and Phonologies, Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications 8. Honolulu: Inuversity of Hawaii Press. ––––––––, 1994, Unraveling the linguistic histories of Philippine Negritos. In Tom Dutton and Darrel T. Tryon (eds.), Language Contact and Change in the Austronesian World, Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 77, pp. 443-475. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 29 Rischel, Jørgen, 1995, Minor Mlabri. A Hunter-Gatherer Language of Northern Indochina. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Sarasin, Fritz, 1906, Die Varietäten des Menschen auf Celebes. 2. Teil in: Paul Sarasin and Fritz Sarasin, Materialien zur Naturgeschichte der Insel Celebes. V. Bd., Versuch einer Athropologie der Insel Celebes. Wiesbaden: C. W. Kreidel. Schapper, Antoinette, Juliette Huber & Aone van Engelenhoven, 2014, The relatedness of Timor-Kisar and Alor-Pantar languages: A preliminary demonstration. In Marian Klamer (ed.), The Alor-Pantar languages: History and typology, pp. 99–154. Berlin: Language Science Press. Sellato, Bernard. 1994. Nomads of the Borneo rainforest. Transl. By Stephanie Morgan. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Shafer, Robert, 1974, Introduction to Sino-Tibetan. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Shorto, H.L., 1971, A Dictionary of the Mon Inscriptions from the Sixth to the Sixteenth Centuries. London: Oxford University Press. ––––––––, 2006, A Mon-Khmer comparative dictionary, Paul Sidwell (main ed.), Doug Cooper and Christian Bauer (assist. ed.), Pacific Linguistics 579. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Sidwell, Paul J., 2000, Proto South Bahnaric: A reconstruction of a Mon-Khmer language of Indo-China, Pacific Linguistics 501. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies. Smits, L., and C.L. Voorhoeve, 1992, (eds.) The J.C. Anceaux Collection of Wordlists of Irian Jaya, A: Austronesian Languages, Part I, Irian Jaya Source Materials no. 4, Series B nos. 1. Leiden – Jakarta: Irian Jaya Studies (IRIS) Project, Department of Languages and Cultures of Southeast Asia and Oceania (DSALCUL), Leiden University. Sneddon, J.N., 1984. Proto-Sangiric and the Sangiric languages. Pacific Linguistics B- 91. Canberra: Australian National University Solheim, Wilhelm G. II, 1957, The Kulanay Pottery Complex in the Philippines. Artibus Asiae 20: 279–288. ––––––––, 1964, Further Relationships of the Sa-Huỳnh-Kalanay Pottery Tradition, Asian Perspectives 8: 196–211. ––––––––, 1980, Neue Befunde zur späten Prähistorie Südostasiens und ihre Interpretation, Saeculum 31:275-317, 319-344. ––––––––, 1984–1985, The Nusantao Hypothesis: The Origin and Spread of Austronesian Speakers. Asian Perspectives 26:77–88. Sopher, David E., 1965, The Sea Nomads: A Study Based on the Literature of the Maritime Boat People of Southeast Asia, Memoirs of the National Museum 5. Syracuse: Syracuse University. Stargardt, Janice, 1979, L'isthme de la Péninsule Malaise dans les navigations au long cours: nouvelle données archaeologiques, Archipel 18: 15-39. Steingass, F., 1892, A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary, Including the Arabic Words and Phrases to be Met with in Persian Literature, being Johnson and Richardson’s Persian, Arabic and English Dictionary revised, enlarged and entirely reconstructed. London: Routledge & Keegan Paul Steinmann, Alfred, 1939 [1941], Das kulitsche Schiff in Indonesian (Habilitationsschrift zur Erlangung der venia legendi an der Universität Zürich). Jahrbuch für 30 prähistorische und ethnographische Kunst, Jg. 1939–1940; Band 13 & 14: 149– 205. Published Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1941. Stevenson, Robert C., and F.H. Eveleth, 1921, (eds.), The Judson Burmese–English Dictionary. Rangoon: American Baptist Mission Press. Stresemann, Erwin, 1927, Die Lauterscheinungen in den ambonischen Sprachen, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen 10. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Sukthankar, Vishnu S., 1933, (ed.), The Mahābhārata, vol. 1. The Ādiparvan. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Summerhayes, Glen R., Matthew Leavesley, Andrew Fairbairn, Herman Mandui, Judith Field, Anne Ford, Richard Fullagar, 2010, Human Adaption and Plant Use in Highland New Guinea 49,000 to 44,000 Years Ago. Science 330: 78–81. Turner, R.L., 1099, A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. London: Oxford University Press Urquhart, I.A.N., 1951, Some Notes on Jungle Punans in Kapit District. Sarawak Museum Journal 5: 495–533. Verheijen, Jilis A.J., 1984, Plant Names in Austronesian Linguistics, NUSA Linguistic Studies of Indonesian and Other Languages in Indonesia 20. Jakarta: Badan Penyelenggara Seri NUSA. Watters, David E., 2006, Notes on Kusunda Grammar: A Language Isolate of Nepal. Himalayan Linguistics Archive 3: 1–182. Wolff, John U., 2010, Proto-Austronesian Phonology with Glossary. Ithaca [NY]: Southeast Asia Program Publications, Cornell University. Worcester, G.R.G., 1971, The Junks & Sampans of the Yangtze. Annapolis [MD]: Naval Institute Press. Yesner, David R., 1980, Maritime Hunter-Gatherers: Ecology and Prehistory. Current Anthropology 21: 727–750. Zorc, R. David Paul, 1994, Austronesian culture history through reconstructed vocabulary (an overview). In A.K. Pawley and M.D. Ross (eds.), Austronesian terminologies: continuity and change, Pacific Linguistics series C 127, pp. 541–594. Canberra: Australian National University.