The Dispersal of the Formosan Aborigines in Taiwan by Li Jen-kuei (2011)

When preparing for my presentation at the Institute of Diplomacy and International Affairs on November 11th, I reviewed this collection of articles by Taiwanese Linguist Paul Jen-kuei Li. It first came out in 1996, was revised until September 2010 and reprinted in 2011. 

One major difference between these versions is, as the author said in his Foreword 'Rebirth through Fires', rather than taking that proto-Austronesian speakers migrated to Taiwan in separate batches, he revises himself based on new linguistic and archaeological evidences and prefers to think that they actually moved to Taiwan at the same time and gradually split up into the dozens of group that we now know of (pp. 9-10). 

Besides, rather than taking Nantou in the center of Taiwan as the place where the first split occurred according to previous judgement, the author shows by his map that proto-Austronesian speakers migrated first to Tainan on the southwest plain of Taiwan at around 5,000 BP (before present) and branched out from there in different periods. See the book cover and the map attached at the end. 

While the origin of  proto-Austronesian speakers is still contested among various theories such as chronologically Indo-China Peninsula (by H. A. Kern in 1889), Micronesian (by C. E. Fox in 1947), Continent China (by Ling Chun-sheng in the 1950s),  New Guinea-Melanesia (by Isidore Dyen in 1965) or Taiwan (by Richard Shutler and Jeffrey Marck in 1975), it is well accepted by scholars from various fields that they settled in Taiwan as early as 6,000 BP, and gradually left the island according to the following stages (Peter Bellwood in 1991, p. 65):

3,000 BCE (before common era)  Taiwan -> the Philippines

2,500 BCE                                               -> Borneo, Sulawesi, Java and Timor

1,200 BCE                                               -> Mariana Islands, Sumatra, New Guinea, Fiji, Tonga

200 BCE                                                  -> East Micronesia, Central Polynesia

300-400 AD (anno domini)                       -> Hawaii, Easter Island

700-800 AD                                             -> Madagascar, New Zealand

My various encounters with Pacific islanders show that indeed many enjoy recounting these Austronesian connections such as shared vocabulary, traditional community house, similar appearances or even common taste for fruit like betel nuts. It helped us get around in the Pacific quite well. Also, the most recent trip to the land of Maori has opened our eyes to the connections via written history and creative writing, which is very exciting and has been included in my presentation at the Institute. 

(Contemporary Austronesian speakers from various islands in the Pacific at the Institute of Diplomacy and International Affairs in Taipei Taiwan. Our faces appear to be written over with tattoos.

My gratitude to this first batch of Pacific Islands Leadership Program With Taiwan [PILP with Taiwan], who are  in no way less appropriate than I am to present about Austronesians. The insights I got from this lecture will be shared later this month in the CIP 172 Indigenous Forum with my colleagues from the Council of Indigenous Peoples Executive Yuan.)

If we the descendants of early Austronesian speakers have shared what we find common to us now, what were our ancestors like four or five thousands years ago? Based on reconstructed vocabulary, David Zorc (1994) attempted to picture the life of early Austronesian speakers. His paper was quoted by the author in this collection: 

"The earliest Austronesian speakers can be traced back to 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. Their original living quarter was located by the sea in the tropical zone. They were excellent navigators with superb skills and equipment such as canoes. Living close to the sea makes fishing one of their means of livelihood, but they also farmed, ate cultivated plants (including rice) and collected wild plants. Besides, they knew how to make appliances for daily use. Their source of meat included placental mammals like domesticated pigs, wild boars or deer. At this time, they already had dogs trained to help hunting, so they also ate birds and animals in the forest. Later, they developed various hunting skills including the use of different types of trap and birdlime. They had names for organs and had learned several recipes as time went by...Proto-Austronesian speakers counted with decimal system and were involved in commerce. They believed in ghosts and spirits, and already recognized  family members by a system of appellations understood as the Hawaiian type" (pp. 135-136, my translation). 

This reconstruction of the life of early Austronesian speakers rings a bell of the life I experienced in indigenous villages, and I believe many Pacific islanders will also find echo. 

(Simplified Austronesian tree diagram in Taiwan, p. 99)

Another major contribution of this collection lies with the author's study of the dispersal of proto-Austronesian speakers in Taiwan. According to his tree diagram on the left-hand side, it has gone as followed: 

5,000 BP Austronesian came toTaiwan

4,500 BP Austronesian -> Puyuma, Rukai, Tsou and Others

4,000 BP Others -> East Taiwan, Bunun, Paiwan and Others

3,500 BP East Taiwan -> Basay-Kavalan, Amis and Siraya

3,000 BP Basay-Kavalan -> Basay, Kavalan

                Amis-Siraya -> Amis, Siraya

In addition to linguistic evidences, the author has borrowed from Mabuchi Toichi's study of Dutch archives, archaeological excavates, anthropological field research, oral literature and history in order to construct the picture of proto-Austronesian speakers branching out on the island of Taiwan before they paddled away to other Pacific islands. 

A comparison of the author's tree diagram with Peter Bellwood's migration map (see above) shows Austronesian as a language has divided itself into dozens of indigenous languages for at least two thousands years in Taiwan before the speakers settled on other islands. These languages are so different from each other in sound, syntax and semantics that the island is known to be the region "in which the largest number of primary branches of the language family [i.e. Austronesian] is represented" (Robert Blust, 'The Austronesian Dispersion' paper presented at the 2008 Austronesian Forum, p. 5). That, understood as 'the principle of least moves' in linguistics, determines Taiwan to be the homeland of this Austronesian language family. From here we get the 'Formosan Homeland Hypothesis'. In my point of view, this is the core theme of the collection. 

As a linguist, the author has used his study to support the hypothesis. As a historian and a literature reader, I attempted with the first batch of PILP with Taiwan to reconnect my island with Pacific via shared colonial history and common challenges ahead. We have at least the following three types of connection:

The past connection has been solidly established by many Taiwanese and international linguists or archaeologists. This collection is a strong piece of evidence. The present connection has been diligently constructed at least from the Taiwanese side, though also highly politicized and thus inevitably conditioned by many fluctuations.  My paper on the Austronesian Forum published in 2012 has dealt with the issue. It could still be developed further. The future connection, finally, is to me the untapped resource of history and literature. Who will tell the story?

The author said he was driven to this life-long study of Austronesian languages really by a sense of mission. If he does not do it, who else will? I admire his courage and concentration. A few years ago, I met the author and his wife in Slovenia when we shared a van from the hotel to airport. We went for a conference. In the van, upon hearing I was studying history in Leiden, this gentle elder suddenly grew excited and said many words to me, which all boiled down to one sentence alone: "Publish the sources. Publish!" There is the love for truth and knowledge. There is the desire to go deep in life.

True, to go wide is not the same as to go deep, and I am finding the story teller in me.