| Abstract: |
The relationships between the Austroasiatic languages of eastern India and Southeast Asia and the Austronesian languages have been in doubt for almost a century. Schmidt's (1906) hypothesis that they have a common ancestor in the Austric phylum has neither been confirmed, nor rejected. Two recent papers, however, have lent strong support to the Austric hypothesis and they have profound implications for the prehistory of Southeast Asia. The assumption that Austroasiatic and Austronesian are separate would support more than one transition to rice cultivation and Neolithic expansion, perhaps one in the Yangzi Valley and the other in tropical Southeast Asia. A common origin for Austroasiatic and Austronesian would favor a single origin and expansion. Blust has argued in favor of the latter: an origin in the Yunnan-Burma border area and movement of rice farmers down the Brahmaputra into eastern India (Munda languages), the Mekong (Mon-Khmer languages) and the Red River valley (Viet languages). This paper finds general agreement with this view and explores the archaeological implications. The widespread dentate impressed pottery assemblages found at Baiyangcun, Phung Nguyen, Samrong Sen, Ban Chiang, Non Pa Wai and Khok Phanom Di are most simply explained as resulting from the expansion of rice cultivators into Southeast Asia during the third and second millennia BC.
|
