This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Austronesian peoples article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I have been taking a look at the extent to which the article text is supported by the cited references. It is a slow job, but I have found three instances where not only is article text unsupported by the cited references but at times, it is largely contradicted by them. The third example has three references – all of which fail to support the article text.
I started with the first two paragraphs of the section headed "Paleolithic".
The first paragraph, first sentence, has two cited references: Jett, Ancient Ocean Crossings and Jinam et al, Discerning the Origins of the Negritos. The facts in that first sentence that you might expect to be confirmed by references are
Neither of these facts are confirmed by the two cited references. Jett mentions "eastern Asia" being reached by 70,000 years ago - but he is not discussing ISEA there. Jinam et al open their paper with a date of at least 40,000 BP for human presence in Southeast Asia. Neither of these sources specifically discuss the coastal migration routes mentioned in the article. The nearest Jett comes to this is the coastal migration into North America, in a completely different part of his book. If these sources do not confirm anything in the preceding part of the paragraph, what are they doing there?
The second paragraph refers to "these early populations" – which is rather a woolly term for a period of c. 50,000 years). The suggestion is made that some crossings were accidental. Mention is made of the major barriers to migration (Wallace Line, etc.) and then the article says that settlement in what are now islands was "mostly through land migration".
Jett, the cited source, gives a very much different account. First, it should be made clear that Jett does make a number of self-contradictory statements in his book. However, reading it as a whole, he is clear that the crossing of the Wallace Line would have involved watercraft:
"The depauperate faunas to the east of Wallace’s Line argue against the efficacy of natural rafting, and neither were modern humans’ premodern predecessors rafted to the east of Flores as one would expect had natural rafting been a viable mechanism in the region."
He mentions pelagic fishing 43,400 BP in East Timor. He also discusses the New Britain obsidian trade, 24,000 BP and involving water transport. There are a number of statements by Jett that present a picture of a population with effective maritime technology, for instance:
"Again, watercraft would have been the only feasible means for colonizing these lands, and deep-sea fishing is evidenced in New Ireland at some 35,000 years ago. Most of these islands are intervisible, but to reach Buka from New Ireland required an 87-mile ocean voyage, one-third of which was out of sight of land."
I cannot reasonably quote them all, but Jett makes other remarks along the same lines. I suggest that the reader of this part of the Wikipedia article would take away a very different picture [than (missing word added 23 May 2024)]from the source: mostly migration on land, with some by water, much of which was accidental.
Looking elsewhere in the article, the last paragraph in the section titled "Migration from Taiwan" starts with: "In the Indian Ocean, they sailed west from Maritime Southeast Asia; the Austronesian peoples reached Madagascar by ca. 50–500 CE." The key fact in the sentence is the date (the article has already mentioned Madagascar as having received Austronesian settlers). Three sources are cited to support this. None of them mention the date in the article as a date for Austronesian settlement in Madagascar, nor do they reach a conclusion of any date for this.
The first reference is titled Genetic evidence and historical theories of the Asian and African origins of the present Malagasy population. The main emphasis is on the proportions of African, Austronesian and other components in the genetic makeup of the Malagasy people. It handles the date of the arrival of Austronesians only in passing, and with not much precision:
"Dating based on linguistic borrowings suggest a recent split of a proto-Malagasy population from other Indonesian populations within the first millennium of the Christian era";
"...it was possible to date their admixture with Austronesian-speaking population in the last two millennia".
There is no way that this reference can support the date given in the article.
The second reference is The Culture History of Madagascar. The closest statement to dating Austronesian arrival in the island is
"Dahl (1951) proposed A.D. 400 as an estimated date of departure of proto-Malagasy speakers from Indonesia, based on the limited number of Sanskrit loan words in Malagasy. Adelaar (1989) has argued in response that most of these Sanskrit loans were probably borrowed via Old Malay or Old Javanese, and not directly from an Indian language. He prefers to date the migration as seventh century or later."
Otherwise the paper lists a number of archaeological finds in the first millenium AD, but makes no association between any of them and Austronesian settlers. The closest is mention of a site with pottery similar to that found in modern Vezo villages (dated A.D. 650 with a range of A.D. 440-780) but discusses the inability to confirm that with additional work as the site was lost in a cyclone. The paper's conclusion focuses on the further work that needs to be done to understand the overall subject.
The third reference is A chronology for late prehistoric Madagascar. At an early stage it says:
"We do not even know for sure whether the earliest visitors to the island were Asians or Africans."
Dates of evidence of settlement are discussed, but none have any suggestion of who the settlers might be.
I find it particularly disturbing that an initial look at the references which supposedly support the text has found so many discrepancies between sources and article. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The issue of the date of Austronesian settlement of Madagascar has crept back into the article again. There are two mentions:
Estimates for when this occurred vary from the 1st century CE,[153] to as late as the 6th to 7th centuries CE.[154][155]
the Austronesian peoples reached Madagascar by ca. 50–500 CE
The only reference that supports the 1st century date is Herrera et al: East African origins for Madagascan chickens as indicated by mitochondrial DNA. The only mention of an early date is in the introduction to the paper. It says:
The cited sources in this paper (Herrera et al) are Dewar & Wright 1993: The culture history of Madagascar and Burney et al. 2004: A chronology for late prehistoric Madagascar. These are the two references discussed above and are used in the Wikipedia article. As discussed above, neither paper supports these early dates. Since the Herrera et al is all about the using genetics to determine the origin of chickens in Madagascar, the date of Austronesian settlement is almost a reference in passing. What is worrying is that the authors of this paper may have taken the date of settlement from an earlier version of this article, together with the references (which we can see from the earlier discussion, were supporting the incorrect date). If so, this is Wikipedia recycling its own error. At a minimum, Herrera et al provide a date that is not supported by the sources they cite.
The second mention in the article provides an extra reference: Gunn et al, 2011: Independent Origins of Cultivated Coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) in the Old World Tropics. This states:
Historical records suggest that 14–16 centuries ago, Austronesians and Arabs were trading along the oceanic route connecting Southeast Asia to southern coastal east Africa
So, this is not settlement, but trade to East Africa. Gunn et al support this with a reference, Allibert C. Austronesian migration and the establishment of the Malagasy civilisation: Contrasted readings in linguistics, archaeology, genetics and cultural anthropology. 2008. I don't have access to the full text of Allibert, but it says:
...leading to conclusions broadly supporting the thesis of Austronesian migrations directly to Madagascar from Kalimantan and Sulawesi around the 5th and 7th centuries CE. So in this instance, the Wikipedia article is supported by an additional reference
(Gunn et al) that does not support reached Madagascar by ca. 50–500 CE
(because by my maths, 14 centuries ago does not take us back to 50 CE, even if they were specifically talking about settlement) and tracing where Gunn source their numbers (Allibert) we get the 5th to 7th centuries AD range that is pretty much what
User:Austronesier corrected the article to beforehand.
ThoughtIdRetired
TIR
19:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
It would seem obvious to me that a new sub-topic is needed: fauna and flora links. The genetics of the paper mulberry, for example, lead straight back to TAIWAN, Polynesian pig are genetically linked to Yunnan Province, China (' northern peninsular Southeast Asia', specifically southern China’s Yunnan Province.) The 'kura' dog is linked to middle Indonesia via China, the Polynesian rat originated in Southeast Asia, the chicken is from the Philippines, etc. 2001:8003:1D9E:9400:F564:E8C3:BB2E:1716 ( talk) 08:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I have no idea where you all got the idea that we should only link terms that readers do not understand. See MOS:UNDERLINK. Do I need to discuss the individual histories of the crops here to make it obvious why they need to be linked? They are relevant to the article. Not a random word that just happened to be there.
The previous section in this talk page is literally complaining about the inadequate coverage of Austronesian domesticates. OBSIDIAN† SOUL 15:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
These don't all need to be wikilinks in the lead section. I think the WP:Easter egg links from "rice" to History of rice cultivation should also be removed from the lead. Walsh90210 ( talk) 02:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
User:Revirvlkodlaku, more important than the presentational point of whether or not to link (topic above) is whether the article makes too-confident assertions about Austronesians being involved in the translocation of all the plant and animal species discussed in the article. The supporting references contain a substantial amount of hesitancy over who exactly was responsible for the entire journey of the species mentioned. For instance, the language used by Fuller et al in The archaeobiology of Indian Ocean translocations: Current outlines of cultural exchanges by proto-historic seafarers is much more guarded than this Wikipedia article: [referring to transfer of the banana] "...could indicate an early westward diffusion of bananas by sea from insular Southeast Asia to the Indus as early as 2000 BC"; [in a later part of the discussion] "...which might have involved seafarers speaking Austronesian languages" [bold added in each case]. Fuller goes on to discuss the evidence of the arrival of the banana in Africa being associated with the Austronesian settlement of Madagascar but then points out recent evidence of phytoliths dated to 500 BC in West Africa – so pretty much torpedoing that idea. The discussion then goes on to mention Blench's "daring continental circumnavigation hypothesis". There is no conclusion on the matter.
It is a lengthy process reading the supporting references for each of the species involved, but if (1) the banana is the best studied example (Fuller et al) and (2) reading his work on this, the reasonable conclusion is that we do not even approach any certainty as to what happened, then one has to worry whether all the other translocations that are boldly attributed to Austronesians are actually clearly supported by the cited sources. It would be entirely wrong for a reader of the article to take away the absoluteness of the claims as they are currently made. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 21:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
@ ThoughtIdRetired: I will probably continue this discussion from my perspective as an active researcher in this field when time allows (you know by now my slow pace of doing things, I guess). There are certainly a couple of points where I disagree with you, but I was repelled by the toxic atmosphere and erratic behavior here and in the bizarre ANI thread; I can't breathe in a toxic enviromnent, so I preferred not even to watch this discussion. But "gone are the clouds" now, and in a clean and sober debate, I will happily explain where both of you have made good points and not-so-good points. – Austronesier ( talk) 20:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I find it strange that this article does not use Donohue, Mark; Denham, Tim (April 2010). "Farming and Language in Island Southeast Asia: Reframing Austronesian History". Current Anthropology. 51 (2): 223–256. doi: 10.1086/650991. ISSN 0011-3204. in stating the nuanced counter arguments to Bellwood's theories. This seems to be a pivotal paper, widely cited, which also includes an addendum of useful comments from those working in the field – including Bellwood. If nothing else, it gives a clear statement of the existing academic consensus on the Austronesian dispersal (which it is, of course, challenging).
Is there any explanation as to why this paper is not used as a source for the article? ThoughtIdRetired TIR 15:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Genetic studies do not demonstrate that the dispersal of Austronesian languages through ISEA was associated with large‐scale displacement, replacement, or absorption of preexisting populationsor
Linguistic phylogenies for Austronesian languages do not support staged movement from Taiwan through the Philippines into Indo‐Malaysia. The first statement has been proven wrong with the emergence of population genetics based on the autosomal genome (starting with Lipson et al. (2014)), the second ignores the fact that while Blust's classification was flawed, there is still clear evidence for a structured classification of the Malayo-Polynesian languages with intermediate layers.
There is an almost complete lack of domesticated rice dating to 4,000–3,000 years ago in archaeological contexts associated with food processing and consumption across the whole regionis outdated. They have taken absence of archeological evidence as evidence of absence (which was mildly speaking unwise in the light of linguistic evidence), but the works of archeologists like Hsiao-chun Hung and Mike Carson have unearthed clear evidence in support of the Out-of-Taiwan expansion as agriculture-driven.
multiple studies demonstrate that the Taiwanese contribution to the genetics of ISEA populations, both Austronesian and non‐Austronesian, is relatively minor. – Austronesier ( talk) 12:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Island Southeast Asia was settled by modern humans in the Paleolithic following coastal migration routes, presumably starting before 70,000 BP from Africa, long before the development of Austronesian cultures.[100][101][102][bold added] The "coastal migration routes" is unsupported by any of the (now) three sources cited. The phraseology of the sentence is also confusing: what date for the arrival of modern humans in ISEA would the reader infer? Though no such date is given in the article, I suggest many would take away 70,000 BP from their reading of this.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)) The short story on early sailing technology in ISEA (as one of the world's two "nursery" areas for the development of watercraft – McGrail is one of many who propose this two nursery concept) is that nobody really knows. If you have access to Anderson's paper, look at his opening remarks "...no other major topic in Oceanic prehistory has proven so intractable...". I think that is a suitable warning on much of the early maritime technology content of the article.
ThoughtIdRetired
TIR
14:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Austronesian peoples article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I have been taking a look at the extent to which the article text is supported by the cited references. It is a slow job, but I have found three instances where not only is article text unsupported by the cited references but at times, it is largely contradicted by them. The third example has three references – all of which fail to support the article text.
I started with the first two paragraphs of the section headed "Paleolithic".
The first paragraph, first sentence, has two cited references: Jett, Ancient Ocean Crossings and Jinam et al, Discerning the Origins of the Negritos. The facts in that first sentence that you might expect to be confirmed by references are
Neither of these facts are confirmed by the two cited references. Jett mentions "eastern Asia" being reached by 70,000 years ago - but he is not discussing ISEA there. Jinam et al open their paper with a date of at least 40,000 BP for human presence in Southeast Asia. Neither of these sources specifically discuss the coastal migration routes mentioned in the article. The nearest Jett comes to this is the coastal migration into North America, in a completely different part of his book. If these sources do not confirm anything in the preceding part of the paragraph, what are they doing there?
The second paragraph refers to "these early populations" – which is rather a woolly term for a period of c. 50,000 years). The suggestion is made that some crossings were accidental. Mention is made of the major barriers to migration (Wallace Line, etc.) and then the article says that settlement in what are now islands was "mostly through land migration".
Jett, the cited source, gives a very much different account. First, it should be made clear that Jett does make a number of self-contradictory statements in his book. However, reading it as a whole, he is clear that the crossing of the Wallace Line would have involved watercraft:
"The depauperate faunas to the east of Wallace’s Line argue against the efficacy of natural rafting, and neither were modern humans’ premodern predecessors rafted to the east of Flores as one would expect had natural rafting been a viable mechanism in the region."
He mentions pelagic fishing 43,400 BP in East Timor. He also discusses the New Britain obsidian trade, 24,000 BP and involving water transport. There are a number of statements by Jett that present a picture of a population with effective maritime technology, for instance:
"Again, watercraft would have been the only feasible means for colonizing these lands, and deep-sea fishing is evidenced in New Ireland at some 35,000 years ago. Most of these islands are intervisible, but to reach Buka from New Ireland required an 87-mile ocean voyage, one-third of which was out of sight of land."
I cannot reasonably quote them all, but Jett makes other remarks along the same lines. I suggest that the reader of this part of the Wikipedia article would take away a very different picture [than (missing word added 23 May 2024)]from the source: mostly migration on land, with some by water, much of which was accidental.
Looking elsewhere in the article, the last paragraph in the section titled "Migration from Taiwan" starts with: "In the Indian Ocean, they sailed west from Maritime Southeast Asia; the Austronesian peoples reached Madagascar by ca. 50–500 CE." The key fact in the sentence is the date (the article has already mentioned Madagascar as having received Austronesian settlers). Three sources are cited to support this. None of them mention the date in the article as a date for Austronesian settlement in Madagascar, nor do they reach a conclusion of any date for this.
The first reference is titled Genetic evidence and historical theories of the Asian and African origins of the present Malagasy population. The main emphasis is on the proportions of African, Austronesian and other components in the genetic makeup of the Malagasy people. It handles the date of the arrival of Austronesians only in passing, and with not much precision:
"Dating based on linguistic borrowings suggest a recent split of a proto-Malagasy population from other Indonesian populations within the first millennium of the Christian era";
"...it was possible to date their admixture with Austronesian-speaking population in the last two millennia".
There is no way that this reference can support the date given in the article.
The second reference is The Culture History of Madagascar. The closest statement to dating Austronesian arrival in the island is
"Dahl (1951) proposed A.D. 400 as an estimated date of departure of proto-Malagasy speakers from Indonesia, based on the limited number of Sanskrit loan words in Malagasy. Adelaar (1989) has argued in response that most of these Sanskrit loans were probably borrowed via Old Malay or Old Javanese, and not directly from an Indian language. He prefers to date the migration as seventh century or later."
Otherwise the paper lists a number of archaeological finds in the first millenium AD, but makes no association between any of them and Austronesian settlers. The closest is mention of a site with pottery similar to that found in modern Vezo villages (dated A.D. 650 with a range of A.D. 440-780) but discusses the inability to confirm that with additional work as the site was lost in a cyclone. The paper's conclusion focuses on the further work that needs to be done to understand the overall subject.
The third reference is A chronology for late prehistoric Madagascar. At an early stage it says:
"We do not even know for sure whether the earliest visitors to the island were Asians or Africans."
Dates of evidence of settlement are discussed, but none have any suggestion of who the settlers might be.
I find it particularly disturbing that an initial look at the references which supposedly support the text has found so many discrepancies between sources and article. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The issue of the date of Austronesian settlement of Madagascar has crept back into the article again. There are two mentions:
Estimates for when this occurred vary from the 1st century CE,[153] to as late as the 6th to 7th centuries CE.[154][155]
the Austronesian peoples reached Madagascar by ca. 50–500 CE
The only reference that supports the 1st century date is Herrera et al: East African origins for Madagascan chickens as indicated by mitochondrial DNA. The only mention of an early date is in the introduction to the paper. It says:
The cited sources in this paper (Herrera et al) are Dewar & Wright 1993: The culture history of Madagascar and Burney et al. 2004: A chronology for late prehistoric Madagascar. These are the two references discussed above and are used in the Wikipedia article. As discussed above, neither paper supports these early dates. Since the Herrera et al is all about the using genetics to determine the origin of chickens in Madagascar, the date of Austronesian settlement is almost a reference in passing. What is worrying is that the authors of this paper may have taken the date of settlement from an earlier version of this article, together with the references (which we can see from the earlier discussion, were supporting the incorrect date). If so, this is Wikipedia recycling its own error. At a minimum, Herrera et al provide a date that is not supported by the sources they cite.
The second mention in the article provides an extra reference: Gunn et al, 2011: Independent Origins of Cultivated Coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) in the Old World Tropics. This states:
Historical records suggest that 14–16 centuries ago, Austronesians and Arabs were trading along the oceanic route connecting Southeast Asia to southern coastal east Africa
So, this is not settlement, but trade to East Africa. Gunn et al support this with a reference, Allibert C. Austronesian migration and the establishment of the Malagasy civilisation: Contrasted readings in linguistics, archaeology, genetics and cultural anthropology. 2008. I don't have access to the full text of Allibert, but it says:
...leading to conclusions broadly supporting the thesis of Austronesian migrations directly to Madagascar from Kalimantan and Sulawesi around the 5th and 7th centuries CE. So in this instance, the Wikipedia article is supported by an additional reference
(Gunn et al) that does not support reached Madagascar by ca. 50–500 CE
(because by my maths, 14 centuries ago does not take us back to 50 CE, even if they were specifically talking about settlement) and tracing where Gunn source their numbers (Allibert) we get the 5th to 7th centuries AD range that is pretty much what
User:Austronesier corrected the article to beforehand.
ThoughtIdRetired
TIR
19:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
It would seem obvious to me that a new sub-topic is needed: fauna and flora links. The genetics of the paper mulberry, for example, lead straight back to TAIWAN, Polynesian pig are genetically linked to Yunnan Province, China (' northern peninsular Southeast Asia', specifically southern China’s Yunnan Province.) The 'kura' dog is linked to middle Indonesia via China, the Polynesian rat originated in Southeast Asia, the chicken is from the Philippines, etc. 2001:8003:1D9E:9400:F564:E8C3:BB2E:1716 ( talk) 08:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I have no idea where you all got the idea that we should only link terms that readers do not understand. See MOS:UNDERLINK. Do I need to discuss the individual histories of the crops here to make it obvious why they need to be linked? They are relevant to the article. Not a random word that just happened to be there.
The previous section in this talk page is literally complaining about the inadequate coverage of Austronesian domesticates. OBSIDIAN† SOUL 15:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
These don't all need to be wikilinks in the lead section. I think the WP:Easter egg links from "rice" to History of rice cultivation should also be removed from the lead. Walsh90210 ( talk) 02:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
User:Revirvlkodlaku, more important than the presentational point of whether or not to link (topic above) is whether the article makes too-confident assertions about Austronesians being involved in the translocation of all the plant and animal species discussed in the article. The supporting references contain a substantial amount of hesitancy over who exactly was responsible for the entire journey of the species mentioned. For instance, the language used by Fuller et al in The archaeobiology of Indian Ocean translocations: Current outlines of cultural exchanges by proto-historic seafarers is much more guarded than this Wikipedia article: [referring to transfer of the banana] "...could indicate an early westward diffusion of bananas by sea from insular Southeast Asia to the Indus as early as 2000 BC"; [in a later part of the discussion] "...which might have involved seafarers speaking Austronesian languages" [bold added in each case]. Fuller goes on to discuss the evidence of the arrival of the banana in Africa being associated with the Austronesian settlement of Madagascar but then points out recent evidence of phytoliths dated to 500 BC in West Africa – so pretty much torpedoing that idea. The discussion then goes on to mention Blench's "daring continental circumnavigation hypothesis". There is no conclusion on the matter.
It is a lengthy process reading the supporting references for each of the species involved, but if (1) the banana is the best studied example (Fuller et al) and (2) reading his work on this, the reasonable conclusion is that we do not even approach any certainty as to what happened, then one has to worry whether all the other translocations that are boldly attributed to Austronesians are actually clearly supported by the cited sources. It would be entirely wrong for a reader of the article to take away the absoluteness of the claims as they are currently made. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 21:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
@ ThoughtIdRetired: I will probably continue this discussion from my perspective as an active researcher in this field when time allows (you know by now my slow pace of doing things, I guess). There are certainly a couple of points where I disagree with you, but I was repelled by the toxic atmosphere and erratic behavior here and in the bizarre ANI thread; I can't breathe in a toxic enviromnent, so I preferred not even to watch this discussion. But "gone are the clouds" now, and in a clean and sober debate, I will happily explain where both of you have made good points and not-so-good points. – Austronesier ( talk) 20:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I find it strange that this article does not use Donohue, Mark; Denham, Tim (April 2010). "Farming and Language in Island Southeast Asia: Reframing Austronesian History". Current Anthropology. 51 (2): 223–256. doi: 10.1086/650991. ISSN 0011-3204. in stating the nuanced counter arguments to Bellwood's theories. This seems to be a pivotal paper, widely cited, which also includes an addendum of useful comments from those working in the field – including Bellwood. If nothing else, it gives a clear statement of the existing academic consensus on the Austronesian dispersal (which it is, of course, challenging).
Is there any explanation as to why this paper is not used as a source for the article? ThoughtIdRetired TIR 15:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Genetic studies do not demonstrate that the dispersal of Austronesian languages through ISEA was associated with large‐scale displacement, replacement, or absorption of preexisting populationsor
Linguistic phylogenies for Austronesian languages do not support staged movement from Taiwan through the Philippines into Indo‐Malaysia. The first statement has been proven wrong with the emergence of population genetics based on the autosomal genome (starting with Lipson et al. (2014)), the second ignores the fact that while Blust's classification was flawed, there is still clear evidence for a structured classification of the Malayo-Polynesian languages with intermediate layers.
There is an almost complete lack of domesticated rice dating to 4,000–3,000 years ago in archaeological contexts associated with food processing and consumption across the whole regionis outdated. They have taken absence of archeological evidence as evidence of absence (which was mildly speaking unwise in the light of linguistic evidence), but the works of archeologists like Hsiao-chun Hung and Mike Carson have unearthed clear evidence in support of the Out-of-Taiwan expansion as agriculture-driven.
multiple studies demonstrate that the Taiwanese contribution to the genetics of ISEA populations, both Austronesian and non‐Austronesian, is relatively minor. – Austronesier ( talk) 12:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Island Southeast Asia was settled by modern humans in the Paleolithic following coastal migration routes, presumably starting before 70,000 BP from Africa, long before the development of Austronesian cultures.[100][101][102][bold added] The "coastal migration routes" is unsupported by any of the (now) three sources cited. The phraseology of the sentence is also confusing: what date for the arrival of modern humans in ISEA would the reader infer? Though no such date is given in the article, I suggest many would take away 70,000 BP from their reading of this.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)) The short story on early sailing technology in ISEA (as one of the world's two "nursery" areas for the development of watercraft – McGrail is one of many who propose this two nursery concept) is that nobody really knows. If you have access to Anderson's paper, look at his opening remarks "...no other major topic in Oceanic prehistory has proven so intractable...". I think that is a suitable warning on much of the early maritime technology content of the article.
ThoughtIdRetired
TIR
14:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)