Talk:Austronesian peoples

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Latticus97, Kevinsaeidian, Katiefarr55, Josieemadrii, Katherinedoty12588, Onikjeh. Peer reviewers: Adanayan, Katherinedoty12588, Guido00, Nicolehaiem.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Prehistory and history

This section provides no citations or any reliable resources so I think that section needs to be removed.

As stated here:

"This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (November 2008) " PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

needs work

Hey y'all, Your intro section leaves out Taiwan, which is not in Oceania or SE Asia.. it's in NE Asia.. and I'm not so sure the Filipinos are Formosan. I'll check. Later --Ling.Nut 01:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Info from the 1911 Encyc. Brit.? OK, now I see the prob. This article is new... and it needs more than a little work. Everything needs to be cited; I have doubts about many of the facts as presented. Are we sure that the subcategories given are valid & reflect a consensus among scholars? Are we sure we have other facts straight? I'll try to help, whenever I can. Cheers! --Ling.Nut 02:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan isn't NE Asia at all. It is the absolute southernmost area considered to be E Asia and not SE Asia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 133.19.126.5 (talk • contribs).

I added more stuff, but I'm sorry if its too rough at the moment. I'll probably gather alot of info from the other sections of existing articles related ot the austronesian people(the Malay, South east asians, the pacific islanders, hawaiians, polynesians, etc). I'll probably go ahead and borrow some pics from those articles as well. I need sleep at the moment so anybody is welcome to do this to-do list --Chicbicyclist 03:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Austronesian Peoples

Just trying to be helpful, but its kind of a red flag that this article refers to itself as Austronesian peoples, there is no such thing as Austronesian people. Austronesian is a language family, it isn't an ethnic group, I attempted to fix the intro to reflect that, but it's just a rough edit at the moment, and could definitely use more work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latticus97 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

follow the WikiProject Ethnic Groups template

When making new sections, I'd like to follow the template here, albeit disincluding some sections. For example, I would be very hesitant about putting an "appearance" section.(In fact, I removed that section). --Ling.Nut 12:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps changing the name of that section from "Appearance" to "Characteristic Features" in line with the caucasian page. I was actually trying to figure out a better name last night and figured somebody would come along and change it. I still feel it should be included because the austronesians are factually distcintive looking compared to the east asians, causcasians and the africans. I would assume a workable npov entry about it would work. --Chicbicyclist 02:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Population estimate

Thanks 23pootie. 380,000,000 sounds more plausible than either 350,000,000 or 400,000,000.--Chicbicyclist 00:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, welcome.:) 23prootie 00:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

...the aforementioned statement, and the untrustworthy negotiation of crucial figures in the background, thus proving the academia right: never trust wikipedia. cheers!

...uhm hi, I'm a college student, and i wonder if you could give me the list of some names of some authors(of the book) who wrote about or related to Austronesean ?? from TC 1-6gal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.224.45 (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

culture section

I doubt that headhunting or cannibalism are common in either Southeast Asia or Oceania, though these practices have been reported. The article should emphasize the past nature of the practices mentioned and/or cite references for a recent event. Makerowner 04:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Origins

I was reading about the demographics of the various countries listed and mentioned in this article and many of them still says the predominant(old and wrong?) version that states that their people came from Mainland southeast Asia, or that they originated from present day Malaysia. They contradict what is being said in this article, basically.

I would edit them to at least mention a competing theory but I don't want an edit war to ensue so I'll probably wait for an expert to touch this article and add more references. Speaking of references, how sure are we about the origins of the Austronesian people as south China-Taiwan-Philippines-the rest of Southeast Asia as opposed to Mainland Asia-Malay archipelago-Malay archipelago? We probably need better citations but what is the credibility of the current ones?--Chicbicyclist 06:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Austronesian Hinduism in Fiji?

I think your note on Hinduism being practised by Austronesians in Fiji is rather incorrect. Hinduism is mainly practised by the large Indian community in Fiji rather than the indigenous Austronesian population. Please correct this accordingly. FRM SYD 04:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Populations Wrong

i notice the population of Austronesians were marked as the actual estimated countries populations. For example in Malaysia the population of Austronesians would only be around 16-18 million, as there are many Chinese Malaysians and Indian Malaysians. Philippines is the same but to a much lesser extent, they also have many Chinese Filipinos, and Indonesia aswel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jandela (talk • contribs).

I agree. I'm about to add New Zealand to the list, using the total census population for the following groups: Maori, Pacific Peoples, Filipino, Indonesian, and Malay. I'll excluded groups such as Malaysian Chinese (because they're clearly out of scope), and also Vietnamese and Cambodian (because I'm not sure how many of them should count). I'll correct the Fijian number too. -- Avenue 10:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

New zealand should be added, but only if it says the maoris specificly Australian Jezza 03:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's room in the infobox to split out all the different groups. We could split the NZ total into Maori (565,000) and Other (290,000) if you like. This has reminded me about the original post. I'll try to fix the Malaysia problem now. -- Avenue 04:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The intro says: The Austronesian people are a population group in Oceania and Southeast Asia who speak or had ancestors who spoke one of the Austronesian languages.

Well it is not only a matter of ancestry. As for Indonesia, most Indonesian-Chinese do speak an Austronesian language. In fact colloquial Indonesian-Malay is based on Sino-Malay. This applies also to Malaysia but albeitly only to the younger generations as there are many older Chinese who doesn't speak Malay. Meursault2004 06:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I entirely agree with that definition. In a New Zealand context, for instance, does someone with a European heritage who speaks Maori count as Austronesian? -- Avenue 10:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

but what i mean is that is you just put New Zealand down, that could mean the europeans, the indians, the chinese, it should say New Zealand- Maori, i don't think for the philippines there should be alist because the majority is austronesian if you understand what i mean haha Australian Jezza 08:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we should count all New Zealanders (4.2 million), just the ones whose ethnicity is Austronesian. This includes not just Maori (565,000), but also people from other Polynesian cultures (about 265,000 people) and other Austronesian cultures (another 25,000 or so). Counting only Maori would be misleading. -- Avenue 10:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Then the intro should be changed or a note should be added. Meursault2004 10:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think Maoris, Fijians or Solomon Islanders should be include, plainly because htey are not Austronesians. They are Micronesians, Melnaesians and Polynesians. Am i right? anyone else think that?--Jandela 16:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you even know what Austronesians are? Read the text! Meursault2004 18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Jandela... Micronesians, melanesians and Polynesians are Austronesians......Australian Jezza 04:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed Solomon Islands, and Fiji

They are not Austronesians.

Yes they are... please also sign after you commentAustralian Jezza 04:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

actually no Fijians are not Austronesians, they are mostly a mix between Polynesian (partly Tongan) and Melanesian ancestry. So i'm removing it becuase they clearly arent, please research the particular ethnicitys before reverting anything. --Jandela 14:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jandela, I'm afraid you're wrong there. Polynesians are a subset of Austronesians, Melanesian is an old name for Oceanic Austronesian, now used more often used simply for "inhabitants of Melanesia" (and so includes the Papuan people of Melanesia as well). There's plenty of published evidence of this; see for example the table of contents of The Austronesians.

• Fijian phrasebook (search in book for "Austronesian", or just go to page 8)
• A genetics article discussing Fijian as Austronesian
• Comparative Austronesian dictionary including Fijian

Ngio 20:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

ok fair enough, i was under the wrong idea that polynesian, micronesian,melnaesian and austronesian were their own seperate groups. My mistake i apologise, and thank you for clearing that up.--Jandela 17:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries! -- Ngio 21:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Melanesians

Why are all Melanesians counted as Austronesian on this page? While there are some who might be considered Melanesians who do speak Austronesian languages, many do not. --Krsont 12:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Revision

No source that Malay race was obsolete term of Austronesian people. Austronesian people is linguistic(now sometimes include genetics)-based classification comparing to Malay race idea that is now rejected. So it the two terms are different. Ayrenz (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the terms are distinct. (Caniago (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Cultural Revision

Deleted association of cannibalism with Austronesians as this was a practice in Papuan, not Austronesian,culture. Based on carbon-dating, the Papuan-speaking peoples preceeded the arrival of the Austronesians by at least 30,000 years in Melanesia. Peer-reviewed genome data published by Jonathan Friedlaender, et al. of Temple University entitled "The Genetic Structure of Pacific Islanders"[1] indicates little genetic relation between Austronesian/Polynesian and Papuan/Melanesian groups. Ritualistic consumption of the human body as a rite of empowerment and passage is covered by anthropologist Gilbert Herdt in "Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia (Studies in Melanesian Anthropology)"Anthroaustro (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Austronesian peoples

“Austronesians” refers to groups of different peoples – they are not a singular group, but many. There is no such thing as *the* Austronesian ethnic group, rather there are numerous Austronesian ethnic groups. Hence the article’s name. Further, while “Austronesian peoples” is factually correct it is also grammatically fine. --Merbabu (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

PS, further: this document listed in the references section uses "Austronesian peoples". --Merbabu (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

most pictures of the "Austronesian people" less good...looked dark ~btw nice article~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.94.224.145 (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

How about we remove everything that is not Austronesian?

I'm sorry, I just wanted to propose a way to restructure the article. How about we remove everything that is not Austronesian? Since the article is mainly concerned about the Austronesian peoples, why don't we remove paragraphs about outside influences like Indian and Western cultures and Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism. So for example, we take out the writing subsection, because it's mostly a modification/descendent of the ancient Indian writing systems. On the other hand, the art of tattooing is a genuine product of the Austronesian peoples, so it should remain. And instead of having a paragraph on non-indigenous religions like Islam and Christianity, why not leave a simple sentence like for example, "Most Austronesians today have left traditional religions for Islam and Christianity" like the simple one sentence on Indian culture in the art subsection "Austronesian peoples living close to mainland Asia, are influenced by the native, Chinese, Indian, and Islamic art forms.", because if people wanted to know about the Indian and Chinese influence in Southeast Asia, they should look up the article 'Southeast Asia' and not 'Austronesian Peoples'. I know that the article would be much shorter than it is, but in my opinion as an article about Austronesian peoples, the article should overwhelmingly speak about indigenous arts, music and religions of the Austronesians and the similarities between them. I know that we can write so much about this, because this topic is huge ranging from Fijian traditional dances, traditional Taiwanese Aboriginal songs, to traditional Javanese games. Other things that are indigenous that we can write is for example, the way of life of the ancestor Austronesians with their bows and arrows, ship-building and navigating techniques, the roles of rice, pigs, dogs, chickens, coconuts, etc, their belief system, kinship, etc.

I would also think that recent history such as colonialism as not so important that we should go into details, considering that the whole world went through it. Colonialism is as unrelated to this article as the fact that many "Austronesian countries" joined the United Nations or that many Austronesians watch TV or that Austronesians are starting to go to supermarkets. If people wanted to read about it, they can find it in great detail in the articles 'History of Oceania', 'History of Southeast Asia', 'Colonialism', etc. Anyone else thinks this way?Senantiasa (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of what you say makes sense. Some text should be removed - but do you have reliable sources to add new material that is more relevant? --Merbabu (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Theoretical nature of the topic.

From what I can tell as an outside observer, the explanation presented is still a theory and has only been developed fairly recently. Earlier or conflicting theories probably still deserve mention. Here is one contrary source for example: Origins of the Filipinos and Their Languages by Wilhelm G. Solheim II Lambanog (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Where are Javanese?

I know nothing about anthropology, archaeology nor history, but I think this article should mention Javanese/Java, particularly in the Geographic section. How could a region/ethic with more than 85 million people isn't mentioned here? aren't they also Austronesian? Guybrush1979 (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Javanese are definitely Austronesian Simon (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Javanese more austroasiatic in their genetic and culture but language still part with taiwan aborgine/malay polynesian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.194.37.114 (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Dravidians

Are Dravidian peoples Austronesian? If not what are they? 97.122.162.181 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, they're not Austronesian - they're, well, Dravidian. Simon (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Error in picture text (Atayal)

Text under picture of Taiwan aboriginal woman reads: "An Atayal tribal woman from southern Taiwan". The Atayal tribe inhabits the northern part of Taiwan, as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_aborigine. It is therefore unlikely this woman is from southern Taiwan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.134.194 (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan Origins in Doubt

• See [2] and [3]

It's not "in doubt", it's never been anything other than the reification of a language family. The languages came from Taiwan, but no-one that I know of thinks the people therefore did. All Central and Eastern MP languages show significant admixture form pre-AN languages, and it's always been accepted that the people mixed too, probably often more non-AN than AN. Western AN has always been more difficult to address, but was presumed to be mixed as well: Sumatra is grammatically similar to Mon-Khmer, for example. — kwami (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This issue is more complex than at first glance. To claim that all Austronesians and Polynesians originated from Taiwan is plain untrue. The first question is, how did the Austronesian population reach Taiwan in the first place? I have read a book on the indigenous tribes of Formosa and some of the stories recounted by their tribal elders. Firstly, the Taiwanese aborigines comprise of several different tribes which have mutually unintelligible languages and each tribe had migrated to Taiwan during different time periods. Some tribes migrated from what is now the Philippines whilst others arrived from what is now called Indonesia. Some Taiwanese aborigines may also have from the 'Chinese' mainland (At some point in history, the Austronesians did inhabit the eastern coasts of the Chinese mainland.) Some may have bypassed Taiwan and settled directly to present day Japan using the Kurishio current. The fact is, Taiwan was used as a stepping stone to 'island hop' to other regions such as POlynesia. But other Austronesian tribes had previously resided in the Philippines and Indonesia prior to arriving in Taiwan. The fact is, Austronesian presence existed (and still exist as minority groups) in what is now called Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, China, and Japan. --BrianJ34 (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have evidence for any of that? It appears to be complete nonsense, or least claims for things we have no knowledge of. — kwami (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. While, for example, Blench has compiled suggestions that Austronesian languages have spread further afield than where they are found now, that is not incompatible with the Out-of-Taiwan model at all and Blench does not claim so. In fact, he affirms the mainstream view.

Oppenheimer's and Gray's Out-of-Sundaland hypothesis is spammed all over Wikipedia, but people fail to notice that it is based on genetics, not linguistics. What is also generally not understood is that even if there was such a migration, Oppenheimer and Gray have (as far as I am aware) never produced any reason to think that their proposed migration is the migration that spread the Austronesian languages. It could well have been associated with a totally different language family that does not even exist anymore. (FWIW, it might have conceivably been associated with the spread of the larger, older family proposed by Blevins whose remainders would be Ongan and Austronesian as well as perhaps the Negrito substrata on the Philippines. But that would have been a far older migration. Indeed, any Sundaland migration is almost guaranteed to have been a far older migration than the Austronesian migration, as there is absolutely no reason to think that Sundaland even still existed at the time Proto-Austronesian was spoken, and it is extremely improbable that Proto-Austronesian is anywhere this old.) Hence, the OOT model has no serious contender so far.

This is comparable with the way Renfrew (like again, Gray) has never produced any credible reason for the identification of the spread of agriculture in Europe with the Indo-European expansion. It is entirely reasonable to propose that some language family did spread, but it is equally reasonable to assume that the Kurgan model is correct and the spread of agriculture precedes the Indo-European migrations – and hence, if a family did spread along with agriculture in Europe, it was a different family. This could well have been one of the substrata identified by Kuiper (mentioned here). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea

The number of Austronesians in Papua New Guinea is simply listed as its entire population. This is inaccurate, a large portion of the population is not ethnically Austronesian, nor do they speak an Austronesian language. With no objections I'll edit accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maayday (talk • contribs) 06:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Austronesian peoples

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Austronesian peoples's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "coco":

• From Hinduism: J. N. Nanda (1991), Conflicts and co-existence, India, Concept Publishing Company, p. 93, ISBN 9788170223023
• From Genomics of domestication: Gunn, Bee (2011). "Independent Origins of Cultivated Coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) in the Old World Tropics". PLoS One. 6 (6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021143. Retrieved 28 November 2011. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Cute bot — LlywelynII 08:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

io9 & Fujian

io9 has an article on how flooding in Fujian may have prompted the development of seafaring enabling the settlement of Taiwan, whence possibly the Austronesians. If the primary sources check out, it may be something to include in the background section. — LlywelynII 08:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a sentence

"Aside from European introgression found in Maritime Southeast Asia, Oceania, and Madagascar."

This is not a sentence but a subclause without a main clause. I'm not sure what is meant, so perhaps someone who does know what it should say can fix it? GeneCallahan (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Russel Crowe

His maternal great grandmother was Maori. Does that make him Austronesian?Wikirictor (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Not any more than having a Japanese great-grandmother makes you Japanese when all your other ancestors do not descend from Japanese – at most it makes you an eighth Japanese. (Actually it was his mother's father's grandmother, which is even a generation more distant.) Nor does Russell Crowe's Welsh grandfather make him Welsh. He does not seem to identify as Maori, speak Maori, have any level of immersion in or connection with Maori culture beyond any other White New Zealander, and does not even look non-white, so it is ridiculous to even suggest this. You need to subscribe to some sort of one-drop rule to even seriously entertain an idea like this. It's worse: Philipp Rösler was born in Vietnam to Vietnamese parents, but even he is not called Vietnamese by us because he does not identify as Vietnamese, does not speak one word of Vietnamese, has no connection to Vietnam, grew up in Germany in a German adoptive family, and has only German citizenship. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wikirictor: Seriously. Take a long hard look at your thought processes. While I do not want to imply that you consciously subscribe to an odious ideology, it is worrying that you would even think along these lines – examine the origins of a thinking that would lead one to classify individual human beings according to remote, insignificant ancestry rather than cultural identity and self-perception. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The so-called maori in the picture looks predominantly caucasian as well. I think people is getting fed up with this kind of posers claiming a native ancestry and expecting a reparatory behavior from others instead of getting a job and accepting they are white. One drop rule: once a stygma, now a privilege. Ironic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.58.137.23 (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Austronesian peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704025338/http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/c2000/indicators.pdf to http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/c2000/indicators.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104050222/http://www.hugo-international.org/blog/?p=123 to http://www.hugo-international.org/blog/?p=123
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cis.ndhu.edu.tw/zh/7_publish/%E5%AD%A3%E5%88%8A/2%5B1%5D.2--peterson.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223015224/http://www.stats.govt.nz:80/census/2006-census-data/national-highlights/2006-census-quickstats-national-highlights.htm?page=para025Master to http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2006-census-data/national-highlights/2006-census-quickstats-national-highlights.htm?page=para025Master
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403140105/http://www.fiji.gov.fj:80/uploads/FijiToday2005-06.pdf to http://www.fiji.gov.fj/uploads/FijiToday2005-06.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100214223039/http://hpgl.stanford.edu:80/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf to http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614013550/http://epress.anu.edu.au/titles/austronesians.html to http://epress.anu.edu.au/titles/austronesians.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Austronesian peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130207215244/http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/research/population-movement-pacific-perspective-future-prospects/05.asp to http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/research/population-movement-pacific-perspective-future-prospects/05.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403140105/http://www.fiji.gov.fj/uploads/FijiToday2005-06.pdf to http://www.fiji.gov.fj/uploads/FijiToday2005-06.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214115924/http://www.humpopgenfudan.cn/p/E/E3.pdf to http://www.humpopgenfudan.cn/p/E/E3.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Austronesian peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207232321/http://timor-leste.gov.tl/?p=13777&lang=en to https://timor-leste.gov.tl/?p=13777&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

General Comments about the first few sections of the article

- In the beginning introduction, o I would like to see what other ethnic groups are relatable to them, and how they sprung up to be primarily speaking languages from the Austronesian family - Prehistory and history o What exactly is meant by the quote “evidence has been interrupted as supporting a ‘northern’ origin.” Like for example, to explain the term “northern” more broader and actually distinguish which parts of Southeast Asia is being differed from one another. o Has the assimilation of the family of Austronesian languages, also been used elsewhere? o More detail in the indigenous origin for the Austronesian languages in Melanesia and Southeast Asia. o Have people tried to carry over the family of Austronesian languages elsewhere, outside of its original territories? o The section that speaks about Taiwan and the role it played on having a strong impact on culture and language of the people is written very well, and concludes the paragraph quite well. - Migration and Dispersion o How long has the pattern of the trading routes of Austronesian sailors lasted for, in order to get the coconuts from one region to the other, and possibly as far east all the way to the Americas? o Are there any other genetically distinct foods, plants, or etc. that have been traced from the Austronesians? - "Out of Taiwan" model o some characteristics of this section should be transferred to the prior section, Migration and Dispersion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinsaeidian (talk • contribs) 20:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Indian Ocean ethnic group

Do you think we should add this page to the category "Ethnic groups in the Indian Ocean"? I thought it would be a good idea to ask before I or somebody else added it.Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Maldivians

There is a footnote behind this statement, but the reference is invalid: "Austronesian" is not even mentioned once in this book. Without a page number, it is impossible to verify which statement in the book is supposed to support this information. Also, a book from 1980 may be outdated. Finally, the statement stands in obvious contradiction to the statement by Wilhelm Solheim (ref 14), that Austronesian is merely a linguistic group, not a genetic or cultural one. Genetic studies show that Austronesian-speaking peoples are genetically diverse, there is no genetic marker shared by all Austronesian peoples. --RJFF (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@RJFF:I totally agree here. Maloney's book actually does not deal with genetics at all. So, I invite the anonymous editor(s) who keep on defending this paragraph to leave a block-quote citation from Maloney's book here, with page and line number. Until this is done, I will delete the paragraph for the meantime and look forward to more precise infomation. As for the agressive comment "Don't remove information with sources! Reverted. Stop it!!!", well I think it is quite legitimate to remove stuff if the source does not match the proposed content. Austronesier (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The outdated assumption about a "gene flow" from the "Malay Arpichelago" to the Maldives keeps being inserted. However, a recent genetic study (which is also cited in the article about the Maledivians) found zero evidence for this assupmtion. No need to keep obsolete info in the lead or anywhere else in the article. —Austronesier (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

References

I wasn't reinserting it (and no, I'm not the anon nor the original author of the sentence). I inherited it from an earlier copy of the article when I expanded it in my sandbox, so I apologize if it got reinserted when I merged. No complaints with its removal. Although I do disagree with the OPs rationale that it should be removed because Solheim considers that it as "merely a linguistic group" per WP:DUE. Solheim is not the only specialist here, and his view is a minority one (as is his Nusantao hypothesis) given the amount of literature that do treat Austronesians as an ethnic and cultural grouping (including genetic studies). This is, however, already discussed in the article, and I've included their views as well (adequately, I hope).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Obsidian Soul: This must be a double misunderstanding because: 1. I haven't objected to any of your edits that you have made during the past days. 2. Here, I was solely referring to this and this; these edits are about Maledivians, not Solheim. They were done last year, and reappeared in the unreflected grand revert by Rantemario. So no need to apologize, because I haven't adressed my critique towards you and your recent edits.

As for Solheim's term Nusantao, which actually was not the object of my above comment, I only object against his terminology appearing in the lead of the article. Even though many researchers of diverse fields agree with Solheim for diverse reasons that the use of "Austronesian" should be primarily restricted to linguistics, virtually none of these researchers has followed suit in using the term "Nusantao" coined by Solheim. Wilhelm Schmidt made his way into the OED, Wilhelm Solheim won't. So WP:DUE was primarily directed at the word Nusantao in the lead. WP is a big multiplicator of information and knowledge on the web, and the appearance of insular terminology (forgive my pun!) in the lead of an article will give the impression that it has gained some currency among experts, when it hasn't. Apart form this, Solheim's hypothesis of course must have its due place as an important critical voice in the section "Austronesian expansion". —Austronesier (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: No worries, I just wanted to clarify that it was actually my fault that the Maldivians thing reappeared. Heh. As for Solheim's Nusantao, I agree that it wasn't WP:DUE in the lead. Don't hesitate to correct my edits or improve them, however. Treat my edits as a rough go at trying to expand everything and source them. This is a massive topic and it's easy to overlook things, especially given the disagreements between the Taiwan and Sundaland sides. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul: I really appreciate your careful approach by adding sourced, structured and well-cited content. Thumbs up for that! You make the article grow equally in size and quality. I will take my time to go through the details. Btw, what do you think of splitting certain sections into separate main articles (e.g. section 2 to 4 into "Expansion of the Austronesian-speaking peoples")? Maybe we can discuss this when you are done with your major edits. —Austronesier (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Thanks. :) The Out of Taiwan section still needs to be expanded and improved, imo, which I might do later on after I've done a pass on the Culture section. It's a bit of a mishmash at the moment and has less content than the Out of Sundaland section, which is unfortunate given that it is, after all, the mainstream hypothesis. I separated the Out of Sundaland section and expanded it, a year or so ago, because it kept getting misrepresented as the main hypothesis. As for splitting them, I think it's best they remain here just so its easier to update them in one place. Plus they're kinda needed for context for the rest of the article. I also don't know if they have enough content for an article, without basically simply duplicating the content. The subtopics which do already have their own articles, like Polynesian navigation. That's just me, though.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Distribution

Hello, the part about distribution in the lead also exists word for word in the "geographic distribution" section. I think we can delete or shorten one of the two. Any suggestions?--AsadalEditor (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@AsadalEditor: Agree. We should keep the info in the lead to a minimum (or delete it altogether), and leave the details in "Geographic distribution". –Austronesier (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Done.--AsadalEditor (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Bahay kubo 3.jpg
• Torogan house.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead length

The lead is too short at the moment, read the guideline on lead length per MOS:LEADLENGTH for an idea what an appropriate lead should be. The article is nearly 200,000 bytes, readable prose of just under 80,000 characters or 12,000 words, ideally it should have three or four paragraphs in the lead. At the moment it is too uninformative for the general reader who might not want to read the whole article, but would like a summary of its content in the lead. Hzh (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Austronesian expansion section

Reading from all the new evidence, it seems like the 'Austronesian expansion' section should emphasize that the 'Out of Taiwan' model is the more likely scenario based on new data and analysis. A brief mention of the 'Out of Sundaland' model and that some scholarly disagreements still exist but having that section be longer than the more likely 'Out of Taiwan' model sub-section makes it seem like both models are on equal footing in academia.

Even the proponents of the 'Out of Sundaland' model acknowledges that the early Austronesian speakers likely came from Taiwan, it just wasn't monolithic. Their new analysis involved them refining their model and interpreting the new data from the Lipson et al. paper to better fit the data there instead of coming out with their own paper using whole genome sequencing.

I propose that both sub-sections be combined under the section 'Austronesian Expansion' with the sub-sections removed instead of having a dedicated sub-section for each model.

I'd love to hear everyone's input. Chicbicyclist (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chicbicyclist: I agree that the current division into two subsections indeed makes it appear as if the two hypotheses were on par with regards to their scholarly reception, which isn't the case. Another way to fix it would be to expand the 'Out of Taiwan'-section with the latest sources, and to rename the other section "Alternative views", which could then present the 'Out of Sundaland' model, aptly trimmed. @Obsidian Soul: What do you think? I remember you mainly had split the section into two subsections for the reason that the 'Out of Sundaland' was given undue weight in earlier versions of the article. –Austronesier (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chicbicyclist:, @Austronesier:, Sorry. Was trying to retire because I got fed up with content disputes, but I can't stay away from Wikipedia. I agree fully. I'll work on it right now.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul: Thank you for handling this! And please stay here, not away :)
While we're here: I have taken a look at "Prehistory", and this made me think about moving some of the material down to "Austronesian expansion", e.g. Simanjuntak (2017). And instead of giving two paragraphs to an unpublished and uncited paper by Blench (2014), we should have more info about the archaeological evidence for the expansion into ISEA (like this source: doi:10.1038/s41598-020-67747-3), faithful to the concept "there's more about Austronesian that the linguistic connection". What do you think? –Austronesier (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: If you're talking about the Austroasiatic substratum in western ISEA, then yes I agree, since this happened during the Austronesian expansion and not before, like the rest. If the Blench paragraphs are from an unpublished paper, I think those can be safely removed. It deals with the pre-Austronesian settlement of Taiwan anyway, which shouldn't affect the article much.

I also agree that the article still sorely needs to expand on the archaeological aspect, as well as have a better summary on evidence from cultigens (which I still haven't adequately summarized despite writing a separate article on it). Both should be more prominent sections. I've covered some aspects of it in the "Culture" section, but only partially. I didn't get to do much in the Indian Ocean direction (which incidentally, Blench wrote a chapter on in Anderson, Barrett, and Boyle, 2010). But as of right now, I don't have the time for another massive expansion. All I can do is add bits and pieces as I can, when I can.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The settlement of western and southern (= Nusa Tenggara) ISEA is often less well covered in overviews of the Austronesian expansion (maybe because it involves less spectacular distances), so we can make a difference here. I find this topic quite exciting, because in these areas, the Austronesian newcomers would encounter populations who apparently had means of subsistence that produced higher population densities than in Philippines (visible in the genetic non-Out-of-Taiwan components in present western and southern ISEA). Generally speaking about the expansion section, you already have a lot of material in the specialized sections (especially "Pottery") that could be used to expand the former. I'll also try to add bit-by-bit what I find about it. There is really good research out there which we can tap (like e.g. Scott Fitzpatrick's work about the settlement of Western Micronesia). –Austronesier (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Early stages of the Austronesian diaspora showing best-fit genomic proportions of Austronesian-speaking peoples in ISEA and their inferred population movements.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Australasian people :Andamanese tribe group

In the 2011census of India claimed that at Andaman and Nicobar islands were 326000+ tribal people living. They are all Australasian group brunch. Humfrey ozeil (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Humfrey ozeil: What is the connection between "Australasian people" and "Austronesian peoples"? –Austronesier (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Introduction and Title: Austronesian peoples

I really have a problem with this title and as an Anthropologist, there are so many false data in this page concerning Austronesian migration. First and foremost, the Austronesians came out of Africa and walked towards South Asia. They walked eastwards towards Southeast Asia. When they decided to cross over into the archipelagos of Sumatra, Java and other parts of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Papua New Guinea, only then did they become seaborne. In Science, we adhere to the scientific method and Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation tends to be the right one. It does not make sense that Austronesians would go all the way north when they reached the southernmost coast of either modern-day Vietnam or Malaysia and decide to walk all the way north to China and cross over to Taiwan by sailing. That's ludicrous! The fact is that Austronesians crossed unto the Philippines for example, after sailing from the coasts of Vietnam, Malaysia or Indonesia. They did not come from Taiwan! The origins of ancient Filipinos are African not Taiwanese people. Taiwan is not even part of Southeast Asia which is where most Austronesians settled before sailing towards Polynesia, Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii and perhaps, even South America. We need to work on the title and introduction badly. 70.184.82.39 (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Archangelo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.82.39 (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Provide reliable sources for your claims.

2. And don't remove sourced content. The indigenous population of Taiwan also belongs to the Austronesian peoples, which is supported by various sources in the body of the article.

3. All humans eventually come out of Africa, that's trivial. This page talks about the center of dispersal of Austronsians as bearers of a common (proto-)language and culture, and this is certainly not Africa. The mainstream view (Bellwood) locates it in Taiwan, and an alternative minority position (Solheim) in ISEA. Again, this is supported by various sources in the article. –Austronesier (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear admins

Please protect this article because someone is persistently vandalizing it. Rantemario (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Such protection was declined. CMD (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Last time, I had the IP blocked for disruptive editing, and they immediately started IP-hopping. Then I filed for RPP and mentioned the IP-hopping, which helped to get PP. –Austronesier (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I did mention the renewed disruption was due to the expiration of the previous pp. Oh well, I posted at AIV. CMD (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• I protected for two weeks. In addition, blocks and rangeblocks have been handed out so we should have a period of peace and quiet for now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for your cooperation. Rantemario (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

claim to be first maritime tech users is debatable

Noting the paragaph: "Austronesian reached the Philippines, specifically Batanes Islands at around 2200 BCE. They were the first people to invent maritime sailing technology (most notably catamarans, outrigger boats, lashed-lug boat building, and the crab claw sail) which enabled their rapid dispersal into the islands of the Indo-Pacific".

Does this mean that the Austronesians were the first people to invent maritime technology that specifically enabled rapid dispersal into the islands of the Pacfic

OR

Does it mean that the Austronesians were the first people to invent maritime technology generally?

The former claim is possibly supportable. The latter claim is debatable, possibly provably false. Researchers have found depictions on pottery of sail-propelled sailing in the Persian Gulf about as far back as 6,000 to 5,500 Before the Common Era. "Boat remains and maritime trade in the Persian Gulf during sixth and fifth millennia BC. March 2006Antiquity 80(307) DOI:10.1017/S0003598X0009325X https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30052546_Boat_remains_and_maritime_trade_in_the_Persian_Gulf_during_sixth_and_fifth_millennia_BC "

The Egyptians were at it by the early 3000s BCE "A Comeback ofWind Power in Shipping: An Economic and Operational Review on the Wind-Assisted Ship Propulsion Technology" https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041880 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.92.166 (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the working to specifying "oceangoing" instead of "maritime"... this is consistent with several other WP pages (like Maritime history#Ancient Times and Ancient_maritime_history. I think this is a fairly widely held consensus so I'm reluctant to add a source into the lede when it's not really required, but here's one for your own perusal: [4] Tobus (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Maritime Technologies claim is not supported by evidence and research

There was a claim that the Austronesian peoples were the first to invent a variety of maritime technologies; I've edited that statement slightly to say that they used said technologies to travel over the Pacific. There is evidence, and academic research, that the peoples of what is now the Northern part of the Persian Gulf were the first to invent those technologies about 8,000 years ago and dispersal of technology took place from there.

Researchers have found depictions on pottery of sail-propelled sailing in the Persian Gulf about as far back as 6,000 to 5,500 Before the Common Era.

Incidentally, I note my previous edit to this effect was undone, as was the comment on the talk page, and no reasons or evidence were given. It would be courteous to leave a change note explaining why this material should be undone given there is solid physical evidence and academic research supporting it. 23/04/2021.

"Boat remains and maritime trade in the Persian Gulf during sixth and fifth millennia BC". March 2006 Antiquity 80(307) DOI:10.1017/S0003598X0009325X https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30052546_Boat_remains_and_maritime_trade_in_the_Persian_Gulf_during_sixth_and_fifth_millennia_BC— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.92.166 (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The text specifically says "oceangoing" - the Persian Gulf is not an ocean. There are boat remains going back at least 10,000 years and circumstantial evidence of water travel for up to 100,000 years - some people think boats must have existed even 900,000 year ago to get to Flores in Indonesia! Ocean travel however - days without seeing land - requires very different methods to coastal voyages and island hopping, and the list of technologies after the "invented" statement have not been seen anywhere previously. Tobus (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Infoboxflag Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Southeast Asian ancestry components.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Arab lateen

The statement "Early contact with Arab ships in the Indian Ocean during Austronesian voyages is also believed to have resulted in the development of the triangular Arabic lateen sail." is specifically contradicted by The Lateen Sail in World History I. C. Campbell (1995) [5]. The cited sources in the article include 2 criticisms/questions. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at another source, a better argument is that the Arabian lateen of the 14th century provided the technological inspiration for the Oceanic lateen. Evidence for this includes the linguistic analysis of the components of stayed masts. This is explained in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania (Oxford Handbooks) (p. 480-481). Oxford University Press. What is clear from Campbell's paper is that the author has a very limited understanding of how a sail actually works. (This is discussed in a paper by Nick Burningham, The Misunderstood Square Sail.) I have come to the conclusion that Campbell is not a reliable source in this case. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The lateen sail originated in the Mediterranean. This is well explained in that sail's article. I have therefore deleted the text referred to, which, incidentally, had two failed verifications. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Ships and sailing section

The ships and sailing section would benefit from being based on more recent sources. I suggest that SEAFARING IN REMOTE OCEANIA Traditionalism and Beyond in Maritime Technology and Migration in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania (Oxford Handbooks) Oxford University Press, is an important source which balances the traditionalist arguments given in Vaka Moana, voyages of the ancestors (which is another recent secondary source that is ignored by this section of the article). The article seems to suffer from extensive use of a number of fairly old primary sources (in the form of research papers that set out ideas) when a better approach would be to make greater use of secondary sources (which should take into account any of these old primary sources if they are of any importance).

The result would be that many facts currently stated in the article would need to be revised. At the very least, the article should make clear the complete lack of hard evidence for any of the early proposed forms of sailing technology. The whole article fails to mention the view put forward in the Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania that phases of migration happened when the prevailing winds changed due to a higher frequency of El Nino events in some periods of history.(p485-486) This fits with a model of largely downwind migration, which is at variance with Horridges' suggestion that the Austronesian expansion into the wider Pacific was carried out to windward. The phases of migration, however, fit well with these changes in prevailing winds due to El Nino. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Questionable statement

"They were the first humans with vessels capable of crossing vast distances of water, which enabled them to colonize the Indo-Pacific in prehistoric times." (Ships and sailing section).

This quoted sentence from the article seems wrong for several reasons. What is meant by "crossing vast distances of water"? Does this mean voyaging to the remotest islands in East Polynesia? The dates of settlement of these islands have not been clearly established, but for Hawaii, for example, was possibly 700 AD and New Zealand perhaps 1200 AD. There is a lack of clarity as, whilst 700 AD is pre-historic for Hawaii, it is not for many other places (so, an approximate date would help).

Or did the editor who wrote this mean travelling a good distance out of sight of land. That would represent crossing the boundary between near Oceania and remote Oceania, which happened c. 1200 BC. If so, that is not really a "vast distance of water". The distances involved to cross out of near Oceania are around 250 miles (see corrected distance below). For something roughly contemporary, that compares with the distance Minoans (2000 BC to 1450BC, at a minimum) would have travelled from Crete to Alexandria (about 350 miles) – a route that we know they travelled. There is reasonably good evidence of the appearance of Minoan ships dating to c. 1400 BC. They had sails and oars. So the "first humans with vessels capable..." seems somewhat reckless.

The "first humans" claim is also odd when you consider the sea crossing undertaken about 40,000 BP by those who settled Australia. Whilst sea levels were very different at the time, a significant water crossing was still needed.

The sentence also reads a bit like a marketing brochure – it certainly does not seem encylopaedic in tone.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Correction to the crossing distance in moving from near Oceania to remote Oceania. I gave this as 250 miles above. This should be 350 kilometres (220 mi), which is the distance to the small Reef/Santa Cruz Group in the southeast Solomons. This is the crossing that is not thought to have been made until 3000 years BP, as is evidenced by the arrival of Lapita ware (with no prior archaeological evidence). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• There is also some evidence that Crete was settled by Homo habilis, which would have similarly required a substantial water crossing -- and was welllllllll before anything described in our Austronesian peoples article.

C.f. https://www.google.com/search?q=crete+%22homo+habilis%22

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't the Homo habilis find at a time when the Mediterranean was largely dried out? That's why I have stuck to what we know for certain. The movement of humans to Australia around 40,000 years ago is well established. The Minoan images of ships are plentiful and reasonably well dated (and are not at the beginning of that civilisation, which, incidentally, being island based has to rely on sea transport). The whole problem with Austronesian maritime technology is that there are a number of ideas out there for which there is very little or zero evidence. The narrative proposed by Horridge is based on extrapolating back from what was known from the time of first European contact. That is a timespan of at least 3000 years. The ideas of Atholl Anderson, which even he states as not being the most accepted, are at least supported by a linguistic analysis. The most important thing for a Wikipedia article on the subject is to make clear the lack of evidence for any ideas and the level of uncertainty. (We don't even have a good date for the settlement of Hawaii!) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• @ThoughtIdRetired: Agreed that we don't have any solid dating for the claims of Austronesian sailing being the "first". Polynesian navigation is really very impressive, but it is clear that humans (and pre-humans) have a general knack for getting around.  :)

Re: the Mediterranean drying out, you're probably thinking of the Messinian salinity crisis. If our article is correct, the dating would presumably overlap with the arrival of Homo habilis, so good catch.  :) I had mis-remembered the Mediterranean dry-out as earlier than that.

That said, there are other archaeological finds on Crete that post-date the salinity crisis, and substantially pre-date anything in this Austronesian peoples article. See also History_of_Crete#Prehistoric_Crete, which mentions paleolithic stone tools dated to around 130,000 years ago. The Mediterranean basin was definitely watery by that point, so any hominids there must either be direct descendants of the earlier Homo habilis (which I think has been ruled out pretty definitively -- Homo habilis appears to have died out 1.65 million years ago), or they must have gotten to Crete by sea, a crossing of at least ~160km / ~100mi.

All that said, I agree that the article text you mention "reads a bit like a marketing brochure", and should be revised. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that superlatives and blanket statement are always problematic and should be toned down, especially when they are not direct based on statements in reliable sources. It's not that reliable sources do not also occasionally fall into an enthusiastic tone, as e.g. Peter Bellwood in his book First Islanders:

"...the Austronesian‐speaking peoples, who made absolutely incredible canoe voyages to reach places such as Guam, Madagascar, Easter Island, New Zealand, Hawai‘i, and even South America. These voyages occurred over a period of more than 4000 years, dating between 3000 BCE and 1250 CE if we begin in Neolithic Taiwan and end with the Maori settlement of New Zealand, but the sheer achievement demands great respect from all humanity..."

— Peter Bellood, First Islanders: Prehistory and Human Migration in Island Southeast Asia, Wiley Blackwell, 2017, p. 1.

But I don't think that encyclopedic writing needs to echo a scholar's enthusiasm, even if it's the leading archaeologist in the area of Southeast Asia and Oceania.

What I am missing in the above discussion, however, is the settlement of the Marianas, which took place around 1500 BCE (based on evidence from human artefacts; or maybe up to 8 centuries earlier, if we are to believe paleoecological evidence). From genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidence, scholars triangulate that the point of departure was Luzon which is 2500 km away; even if the Luzon hypothesis is wrong, the distance crossed must have exceeded 2000 km for any other potential starting point. –Austronesier (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the settlement of the Marianas is an early event. It is described as "roughly contemporaneous with the first expansion of Lapita peoples into Remote Oceania, if not earlier" . The opinion stated in this source as to exactly what happened is that further research is needed. Perhaps of note to a Wikipedia editor trying to understand the subject is the later settlement dates for, e.g. Yap, at 2000-1700 BP, but closer to the suggested point of origin in the Luzon hypothesis. Pugach et al is an interesting read, but is just one element on the melting pot of ideas that really needs to be summarised by a secondary source. If we were looking at primary sources, Austronesian sailing to the northern Marianas, a comment on Hung et al. (2011) Olaf Winter1∗ , Geoffrey Clark1, Atholl Anderson1 & Anders Lindahl2 September 2012Antiquity 86(333):pp. 898-910 DOI:10.1017/S0003598X00047992 states
"It is most unlikely, therefore, that the technology required for “a remarkable feat of ocean crossing” Hung et al. (2011: 910) existed at the very beginning of Austronesian dispersal to propel the longest passage against prevailing winds in all Remote Oceanic prehistory, only to disappear before the Lapita era and then reemerge millennia later. Longer passages occurred in East Polynesia after about 1200 BP as in Marquesas to Hawai‘i (3600km), and Rarotonga to New Zealand (2750km), but they were predominantly downwind in prevailing SE trade winds or subtropical easterlies."
We also perhaps need to consider the genetic evidence for a small founding population of the Marianas.

However, the key point is that if we take the date of the settlement of the Marianas as 3500 BP, then this was happening when the Minoan civilisation was well established. The fact that analysis of tin in the bronze found in Minoan sites originated in Britain raises the question of how it got there. Bronze age tin ingots have been found in shipwrecks off the Cornish coast. This editor needs to read up on that subject.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Nature of Austronesian farming

The presumed nature of Austronesian farming is called into question by Tim Denham's essay in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania. Some of the basic evidence used in the essay includes the late appearance of evidence of rice as a crop in Island South East Asia (circa 2000 BP). (There is even less evidence of millet being an integral part of the Austronesian expansion into ISEA.) Hence there is a substantial problem with the article saying:
"Nevertheless, based on linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence, Austronesians are most strongly associated with the early farming cultures of the Yangtze River basin that domesticated rice from around 13,500 to 8,200 BP."
Denham points to the evidence of Austronesians adopting the crops of the area into which they had moved.

Similarly there are complexities over the domesticated animals that are seen as a major part of the Austronesian expansion. The pig, dog and chicken do not appear consistently together in early archaeological sites in the Bismarcks (3470 to 325 BP). Early Lapita migrations varied in the makeup of these three domesticated species. Even the genetics of the pigs gives a complex picture, with the pigs that dispersed with Pacific settlement being descended from stock originating from mainland South East Asia, rather than Taiwan.

This is another area where the confident statement of "fact" by the article does not seem to reflect the levels of uncertainty that now exists with the ideas of just a few years ago.

At a minimum, the article's suggestion that Austronesians (after starting their expansion into ISEA) have a strong association with rice farming should be removed. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Another with similar concerns about Bellwood's model of an agriculture-driven Austronesian expansion is Roger Blench - see [6] as an example of someone saying there are problems with the currently accepted model. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Origin of first settlement of Marianas

The article's suggestion (in the "pottery" section) that the Marianas was settled by voyaging from Luzon is systematically demolished by the paper: Austronesian sailing to the northern Marianas, a comment on Hung et al. (2011) Olaf Winter1∗ , Geoffrey Clark1, Atholl Anderson1 & Anders Lindahl2 September 2012Antiquity 86(333):pp. 898-910 DOI:10.1017/S0003598X00047992 . This states: "It is most unlikely, therefore, that the technology required for “a remarkable feat of ocean crossing” Hung et al. (2011: 910) existed at the very beginning of Austronesian dispersal to propel the longest passage against prevailing winds in all Remote Oceanic prehistory, only to disappear before the Lapita era and then reemerge millennia later. Longer passages occurred in East Polynesia after about 1200 BP as in Marquesas to Hawai‘i (3600km), and Rarotonga to New Zealand (2750km), but they were predominantly downwind in prevailing SE trade winds or subtropical easterlies."

The key point is that sailing direct from Luzon to the Marianas is extremely difficult even in a modern yacht. This is because of a strong opposing current and a contrary prevailing wind direction. The interpretation of Lapita pottery evidence is also examined in this paper, looking at the methods of manufacture. So the pottery evidence discussed in the article now has a later (and different) interpretation. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Araling panlipunan

Afro-Asiatic 119.111.139.108 (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

lakana

The photograph of a lakana seems to have a misleading caption. The edit summary[7] seems to completely miss the point. The issue is that the picture shows a four sided sail (i.e. the piece of cloth that makes up the sail has four sides to it). This is supported by a mast and a diagonal spar that goes from a position low on the mast to the top outer corner of the sail. Operationally, such a spar is a sprit, and the sail is a Spritsail. (Remember that this is English language Wikipedia - if a suitable English word is available, it should be used.) I do not see how this sail meets the definition of a square sail, when it appears to be identical to a spritsail. I think it is highly likely that this sail is used as a (European) spritsail – i.e. it is a fore and aft sail. Without a good RS to support this caption, this article content really needs to change.

The "explanation needed" tag has been restored and should not be removed without fully answering this question, or removing the questioned content. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Here are svg illustrations of the same rig from Melanesia and New Zealand. Both Austronesian regions.

• 
  Melanesian V-shaped square sail
• 
  New Zealand V-shaped square sail

This is a spritsail. How exactly is it "identical"? What does "highly likely that this sail is used as a European spritsail" supposed to mean? Are you saying it's European?

• 
  Melanesian V-shaped square sail

Just because some authors confusingly call it a "spritsail" doesn't mean we should lump them together when the articles clearly refer to two different things. The article on spritsail clearly says it was the first EUROPEAN fore-and-aft sail. After blocking me from including these sails in the square rig article because you said the latter only refers to European rigs, now you're trying to lump non-European sailing technology with articles that have nothing to do with them. I'm barely keeping civil right now. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Step away from the terminology, for a moment, and take a good look at the photograph. I don't know if you have any practical experience of sailing rigs of different sorts, but if you do, you will see that this is categorially not similar to the various computer-drawn diagrams of square sails (in the sense that they have a front and back face, and a left and right side). The photo is most similar to a (European) spritsail - it has a vang, a sheet, and as far as I can see the boat has two outriggers – it certainly has different ends (i.e. a bow and a stern). The sail is at rest, and is positioned largely along the fore and aft axis of the boat – so fitting with this being a fore and aft sail. There is no snotter, with the sprit being attached to the cross member for the outriggers. This also suggests that this is a fore and aft sail, as the lashing would not allow the sprit to move out to the side easily. Even if that lashing is adjustable, it is currently set up for, at least, sailing on a reach and with an arrangement that would allow the boat to tack without any adjustment of that lashing.

I suggest that this is a European spritsail fitted on an Austronesian boat. There are reports from various locations across Oceania, of local seafarers adopting European rigs within a few years of first seeing them (though I suspect that the availability of flax sailcloth very much helped with this). This picture shows a terylene (or whatever tradename it was sold under) sail, so we are half way there to adopting non-traditional technology already. But this thought is not suitable for inclusion in the article as we do not have an RS that addresses exactly what this picture shows. Nor do we have an RS to support any other contention.

This is the danger with pictures on commons – editors do not know the exact details of what is pictured. Even if the editor took the picture themselves, there are very many pictures of boats on commons that have completely incorrect captions which have been provided by the photographer. Commons is, for various reasons, totally careless about the verification of its content. Wikipedia is much stricter – if something is challenged, it must be supported by a source. In this case such a source would be a book with a very similar photo and a caption that matches that in Wikipedia. We still need to rely on an editor being able to understand the source sufficiently to judge that similarity, but how far can we go in getting things right? However, the consequences of getting things wrong are severe, because to someone who understands the subject, this accentuates the view that Wikipedia is unreliable. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I have sourced the picture. End of story. I have no interest in engaging in paragraphs of passive-aggressive bullshit like the last time we interacted. You chastise me for being "careless about verification" yet you couldn't even find out that the lakana is a SINGLE outrigger canoe. What was it you said about "someone who understands the subject"? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not the end of the story. I have posed valid questions. You have not answered them. The only evidence that we have that the boat pictured is a lakana is its appearance on Commons. Are you saying that you are the photographer? You certainly have not addressed the issue that it clearly has a different stern and bow – which suggests that it can sail with the outrigger to windward or leeward, further supporting the view that this is a fore and aft sail. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The picture is geotagged to Madagascar and is specifically identified as Madagascan in the original title. Like the source I gave said, there are no similar sail types outside of Madagascar in the immediate vicinity. Here are other pictures of the lakana in full sail, where they are clearly nothing like a European spritsail. Here is detailed explanation from an actual book (in French) that calls it a "square sail" and mentions that it can not go upwind, specifically in contrast to the fore-and-aft lateen. It does not shunt (the position of the base of the sail amidships should have made that obvious, not the shape of the bow or stern). Only Oceanian vessels shunt. You do realize that just because vessels are single-outrigger does not mean they are shunting, right? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The other pictures (given immediately above) provide a total explanation as to what is going on with this sort of sail. It is a pity that it is not available in Commons, as it is a much better picture. The article on the Lakana could do with some extra material based on the book referenced above. I still feel there is a problem with the caption in this article – whilst one can see the sense in the caption if one is fully involved in the subject, it needs rephrasing to have any meaning to the outsider. Similarly the Lakana article need a bit of fixing – it says the sail is a crab claw sail, which does not fit with Crab claw sail nor the view of this as a square sail. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Why do you insist on interpreting it as a spritsail, when I have already given you sources that clearly say (and SHOW) that it is V-shaped (The canoe carries a form of square sail set on two masts (sic) forming a V.)?! It has no masts, in the sense of a vertical fixed spar. The French source I gave you, do not mention a mast. Both of the "spars" are attached at the BASE, directly to the hull, they're both diagonal by default, like the SVG illustrations I gave you earlier of the same configuration. Here is another clearer image. You're not even attempting to do your own research. Just basing everything off the one single picture we have and then WP:OR-ing the rest. I've already tried accommodating some of your more constructive edits. But it's clear that's not what you're here for. I'm getting really angry right now. I should probably step back.

You're pretty much just disputing everything. Randomly. No matter how fatuous. How many fucking "challenges" have you already opened up right now? In multiple articles. With very limited knowledge of the topic (you seem to literally challenge something the moment you finish skimming another paper) and with a clear bias that you personally believe Austronesians were shit sailors with shit ships who just accidentally colonized islands spanning two-thirds of the world. Originating from your initial disbelief that non-Europeans built sailing ships independently and crossed vast distances of water long before Europeans did. Despite the fucking multiple studies that say so (this isn't anything groundbreaking, it's been known since the colonial era). You apparently had no idea independent sailing traditions even existed before our last interaction, and all of these is somehow threatening your worldview. Hence your insistence on these "challenges" putting into question the expansion itself. Deja vu.

Coupled with veiled insults on my competence phrased as infuriatingly patronizing missives on the "dangers" that "editors" face. Why don't you compare our editing history before passive-aggressively "teaching" me how you know so much more about WP policies. All of this, incidentally, only started happening after our interaction in Talk:Square rig, in which I bowed to the consensus. This is WP:WIKIHOUNDING in a nutshell, and I'm too fucking old to engage in this childish bullshit. Do you enjoy this? Is this what you came to Wikipedia for? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a discrepancy between boat pictured here in the article as a Lakana and other information provided (above) on this type of boat.

1. This picture shows a sail supported by spars in a V-shaped configuration[8]
2. The sixth picture in this article[9] also shows a V-shaped arrangement of spars.
3. The diagram in this book[10] which probably shows a V configuration of spars, but the angle of view makes this diagram slightly ambiguous.
4. However, these pictures are most similar to the one in this article[11] and seem to have the same rig arrangement.

The image of the lakana in this article and the pictures numbered 4 seem to show boats with a vertical mast and a diagonal spar, with the head of the sail extended between them. This is very different from pictures 1 and 2. These show very clearly a V-shaped arrangement that is quite distinctive. This takes us back to the original question as to whether the article's picture is correctly sourced. If it is, the picture in the article suggests that there is a rig variant. We already know from the text in item 3, above, that the lakana can have a lateen rig. In that case, there is no doubt that there is a mast and a yard. I do not dispute that there is a version that has the mastless rig with a sail set between two spars in a V-shaped configuration. What this article's photo and the images in item 4, above, show is that there is a rig configuration with a mast and a diagonal spar. To be clear, after seeing the pictures in item 4, I do not describe this as a spritsail rig. However, it really does look different from the mastless, V-configuration of spars. There is even a sheave at the masthead for a halyard.

There may or may not be an answer to this apparent discrepancy. I do wonder if the fifth picture in item 2 is the rig version that is photographed in the article. This is not a normal way to furl a lateen, so if it isn't that, what is it beyond the masted rig depicted in this article? I am sorry if this makes User:Obsidian Soul angry, but we do have an unresolved issue here. The route out of this is to see if we can get this right. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking for pictures, this is of interest[12] in helping to understand the photo in the article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

...and also this[13], and this without a sail, showing a vertical mast[14]. By way of contrast, here is the V-sparred, mastless version[15] ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

There are also videos: at 0:08 here[16] one is being rigged (very brief, but it shows a vertical mast) and at 2:51 there is a glimpse of the mast step, which does not appear to be the one with a large number of step holes available, as described by James Hornell when he was explaining how the mastless, V-sparred boats worked. There appear to be three rig types for the lakana, but only two are described historically. The photo in this article and in Lakana appear to be of the third type, which we do not have described in an RS. What would be definitive is if we had footage of this "type 3" rig changing tack. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I have finally found a picture on commons of the type of rig described in the caption. (I have rejigged the caption a little to say what is intended.) The removed picture is of a different type of rig, as per external link photos given above, and these pictures on commons:

• 
• 
• 

The first photo shows one of these boats being rigged. It is clear that this is a "Common Sprit" – terminology is as per Haddon and Hornell, diagram 'B', as shown on page 40 of Wangka, Austronesian Canoe Origins by Edwin Doran. Doran's summary of the distribution of the Common Sprit over the Austronesian geographic range does not include Madagascar, but the survey work was done around 100 years ago. This basic type of Common Sprit has some distinctive characteristics. When reaching, the tack is taken round the mast and fastened low down on the sprit. When running, it is taken out to the end of the outrigger or the "other" stub end of the outrigger. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Great. Now are you still trying to push it as a European gaff rig? I have no objections to the replacement picture.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Obsidian Soul, please calm down and stop putting words into my mouth. The first mention on this page of gaff rig is from you. The replacement picture is of a different type of rig.

The origin of all this difficulty is that the work done by Haddon and Hornell has a few errors in its recording. Hornell even picks up some of the errors in later work. It is understood by many that they did not necessarily see boats under sail and therefore did not understand how the rigs worked. Some of their work is even based on sketches and accounts from others, so giving additional variability in the data capture. For the Madagascan work, photographs that Hornell worked from can be seen in his 1944 paper in the Mariners Mirror - none show these craft with their sails set. It is unfortunate that Haddon and Hornell are generally such an authoritative source that few have added to their work. I have been able to obtain just one recommendation of a reference that has mention of these Madagascan rigs: it is in French and is out of print, but I am working on that. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I meant a European spritsail. Can you tell I've completely lost track of what you're on about?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Pottery section

This section has got over-long and over-complicated for the summary style that this encyclopaedia should have (WP:SS). The problem is that after insertion of the repudiation of Hung et al's theory on the settlement of the Mariana's, the article now attempts to give a blow by blow account of the academic debate on the matter. All of this (the debate) should be deleted and replaced with simple language that says that the colonisation of the Marianas is disputed. Whether that belongs in the pottery section is another matter.

The article needs to wait until there is a subject review article or book that tries to give a balanced view of the subject. This is almost provided by the Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania, but I feel that one may need to be a specialist reader to understand, for instance: "The redundancy of this suite of dates has been used as an implicit measure of accuracy for the colonization estimate, though no statistical analyses have been undertaken (p141)" needs to be understood as taking the numerous early radiocarbon dates from the Marianas as, at this stage, not fully investigated and understood. This quote is illustrative of the need to have a rounded understanding of all the evidence: linguistic, genetic, oceanographic/climatic, ceramic technology, maritime technology, paleoenvironmental, etc., etc.

Picking individual research papers, which are in themselves primary sources for Wikipedia, does nothing for the quality of this article – and their interpretation is WP:OR. It is, I feel, OK to use a primary source to illustrate that something is disputed, but giving anything approaching an analysis of the ensuing academic argument from these primary sources is OR. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

"Too long" arguments are irrelevant. This is the balanced view, with the appropriate WP:DUE WEIGHT. Whereas you simply replaced and mischaracterized the other study in your previous edit (at no part does Winter et al. claim an origin of the Bismarcks). Hung et al. includes some of the foremost experts on Austronesian studies. Including Bellwood, the originator of the current scientific consensus. There's a reason it's included, and a reason for the relative due weight. Simply saying "it's disputed" gives false equivalence to the viewpoints.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Also you managed to give a completely different meaning to a sentence picked out of context. That sentence doesn't say what you claim it says. If you think the relative dates of the pottery assemblages of the Marianas and the Lapita culture are not reliable. Provide a study. I'm not going to chase every single nitpick you have on semantics like last time.

The thing in dispute is the origin of the first voyage to the Marianas. NOT the dating of the archaeological sites, which are already pretty solid and corroborated in numerous independent studies. Furthermore, BOTH studies propose a likely origin somewhere in the eastern Philippines and Indonesia (specifically Maluku). None of them propose a Lapita origin (Bismarcks/Northern New Guinea), so I have no idea why you're now angling for that. You seem to be just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You are not addressing the requirement for a good secondary source on this. Until that arrives, I think we are all at risk of over-interpreting the research papers, which are, for Wikipedia purposes, primary sources.

A secondary source on what issue specifically? You can't even properly outline what the "dispute" actually is. The origin? The dates? The seaworthiness of Austronesian voyaging ships? These are peer-reviewed scientific articles by the foremost experts on the topic. You'd know that if you actually know the bare minimum on these articles.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Any article can be over-long, however good the content. If we had good referenced content, I would be recommending a separate article with a summary in this one. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Stop patronizing. I've been on Wikipedia longer than you. You've written three entire articles, and yet here you are with veiled insults on my ability to comprehend scientific articles and follow Wikipedia policies. If this is you WP:WIKIHOUNDING me for barging on your maritime articles, there's a Wikipedia policy against doing that too, since we're apparently WP:Wikilawyering here. These are obviously not the usual articles you edit, is it? Stop. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I apologise if you think I am being patronising. My only object is getting this right for the article. I will leave this matter for a while now, but this and other points still need fixing. I ask the you apply a bit of WP:GF here. For my part, I find it very frustrating when I am accused of anything other than trying to get Wikipedia content correct – which is the purpose of much of my activity here, over a wide range of subjects. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Due weight still applies. If one paper puts the Philippines as place of origin for the Marianas into question, that does not mean that the mainstream has followed suit. I have personally proposed a different place of origin (in a paper which is cited in around a dozen of references cited here), but I know that this is a minority position against the Blust/Bellwood/Hung narrative. The latter still dominates the literature and therefore has to be reflected in WP.

Likewise, Denham's critique of the Bellwood-Blust model is only about the eastern route of the Austronesian expansion, and also about the simplistc view that food production was brought to ISAE/Oceania by Austronesians only. But this doesn't support fringe views like Blench's that sees early Austronesian seafarers as maritime hunter-gatherers. This goes against linguistic and archeological evidence and is not echoed in the relevant mainstream sources. The thing is, one novel idea does not mean that current mainstream views are "debunked". –Austronesier (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

And @Obsidian Soul, please tone down. While I agree with you content-wise, I am certain that @ThoughtIdRetired like all of us just wants to improve WP from their perspective on the topic and the sources. That's why we discuss and strive to achieve consensus. –Austronesier (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I apologize. His changes on other articles that Austronesian maritime tech isn't indigenous but borrowed from Europeans made me too angry to assume good faith. Given the background of our past interactions on the same topic. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I take back what I said. I don't apologize. I've tried to compromise. I've tried incorporating some of the changes that makes sense. I haven't touched the good changes he's made. But he moves the goalposts with every reply. Changes the issue just as frequently. He never acknowledges any mistakes with his own flawed reading of the handful of papers he's read so far, just gaslights you on it (case in point: his misreading of Winter et al. above). As soon as you deal with one of his "issues", he opens another. When he can't get something to say what he wants, he then tries to obfuscate it with false equivalence. If you provide a reference, even peer-reviewed papers, he questions their reliability (even going so far as to judge authors based on their background, as if HE was a fucking peer reviewer). That or he suddenly insists we should all be just using secondary sources, or that (like in this case), the discussion is suddenly too long and detailed and needs to be hidden (never mind that he was the one who fucking expanded on it). Oh and when all else fails, he falls back on his "actually, some things are disputed, so let's assume everything is" (like his sudden claim that the dates of the archaeological sites in the Marianas are not reliable).

All with a grating air of condescension that is too much for me to handle right now. I have written more than 7 HUNDRED articles on Wikipedia, in the 11 years I've been here. Expanded even more. He's written THREE. I have libraries of references each time I write or expand a scientific article. For this article alone, I have read hundreds of sources. He has read like three papers on this topic, latched on one that matched his viewpoints the closest, and suddenly he's demanding everything to be changed.

And let's be honest. I'm probably the only one here who will actually engage him. Most of these are too technical or too fucking long-winded for anyone else to try and hop in. His changes have stood for months with no one challenging it. Even something as ridiculous as writing an "ALTERNATIVE history" section in a key article on Austronesian maritime technology, filled with nothing but a flagrant misuse of his handful of sources to basically say "everything is actually probably not true maybe because some scientists are fighting perhaps". Is that the same thing as "Alternative facts"? Because if it is, I wouldn't be fucking surprised. The fact that I know I'm the only one doing that, probably because I'm the only one who actually cares, is already pushing me past my stress levels.

Count how many subtopics he's opened in this talk page so far. And then tell me again to assume good faith. Wikipedia has long ceased to be enjoyable for me. And this. This is rage-inducing. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I maintain the view that this section has too much of a blow by blow account of competing ideas on the first settlement of the Marianas. To state the obvious, some of that superfluous content is due to my input. I think the section needs a substantial thin down, largely taking out that argument (it is, after all, a section on pottery), but hopefully not making an absolute statement about the starting point of that sea crossing. There are clearly a lot of puzzles and uncertainties about the settlement of the Marianas, so it is wrong for the article to imply that there is a confident consensus.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

More WP:WEASEL WORDS.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Minyue - what do we say?

I have changed "Minyue, present-day Fujian, South China" (or something very similar), that, inelegantly, occured more than 10 times in the article, into just "Minyue", except for the first occurence.

Actually, I made that change in February 2022, and again in January 2023. user:Esiymbro reverted the first change, and I see now that they made what seems to be a valid point in the edit summary for the revert: Minuye was a historical kingdom that existed many centuries after the Austronesian expansion. Thus, there's little point in identifying the area by that name in the context of the present article.

So: What is an appropriate designation in the present article for the area in question (or culture, domain, state, or whatever it is)?

We may want a long version, to use on first occurence and possibly once or twice later in the article, and a short version to use more frequently.

Is the area we want to reference actually coextant with the historic Minyue kingdom? Is it coextant with present-day Fujian? Do the sources that link Austronesian to the area actually use the name Minyue? If so, could the long version be

the area later making up the Minyue kingdom, in present-day Fujian in South China

and the short version

the Minyue area

? Nø (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nø: I think we can get rid of most if not all mentions of "Minyue" here. There is an IP who is very keen on adding it excessively, and usually I revert it on the spot. I must have missed the latest spree.

The migration of (pre-)Austronesians from the mainland to Taiwan occurred in prehistoric times millenia before the actual polity of "Minyue" is mentioned in Chinese annals, so using the term in this context is an anachronism which is very, very rarely found in the literature, probably based on the assumption that the people of Minyue were the descendants of the "stay-at-home" sister population of the departing pre-Austronesians. Since the language of Minyue is unattested, this is entirely speculative.

For our readers, we just need a recognizable geographic pointer; "(present-day) southern China" and—more precise—"(present-day) Fujian" do the job perfectly. This is how most relevant sources (by Bellwood, Blust, Hung and many others) describe the hypothesized location of the pre-Austronesian point of departure. –Austronesier (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier:Thanks! Does that mean that writing e.g. "an area in present-day Fujian, South China" the first time, and e.g "from the Fujian area" subsequently, would be much better than the present version? (Feel free ... but otherwise, that may be what I'll do). Nø (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nø: Here's an earlier "clean" version of the article from Jan 2021[17]. The original text was just "southern China" and also "mainland China". Let's just restore the original wording. To pin the location further down to Fujian is in fact too speculative (e.g. Bellwood 1988 generally speaks of "southern China" and in one instance adds "probably Fujian"). –Austronesier (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier:Great; done! I have basically copy-pasted the wording from that version for each instance of "Minyue" - except one more recent instance that I have changed to Fujian based on another recent version of our article.

The "long pause" with a possible maritime technology explanation

Just wanted to point out The sailing performance of ancient Polynesian canoes and the early settlement of East Polynesia [18] To me, this gives a possible extra technological explanation of the "long pause" in eastward colonisation into the Pacific. That explanation is an improved hull shape, with v-sectioned planked hulls for the canoes used. It is an occasional failing of maritime historians to concentrate too much of sailing rig design and forget the equal importance of hull design. This paper's summary states:
"The paper identifies a package of technological innovations involved in the settlement of East Polynesia following the “long pause” in Pacific settlement in West Polynesia. Two innovations previously suggested by linguistics were the Oceanic spritsail and the double canoe, and a third was the development of complex composite planked hulls and V-shaped underwater hull forms."
This implies agreement with part of the statement of Lape et al "It is possible that most or all boats and rig‐types used in prehistoric times in the South‐East Asia‐Pacific region have completely disappeared from the record, and that those recorded by Europeans in the 17th century may have been relatively recent innovations."[19] in that more extensive voyaging and settlement had to wait for technological change that occurred some hundreds of years before Europeans arrived in the region.

As a comment on the article, the "long pause" in eastward settlement does not appear to be addressed with anything more than one sentence, which does seem strange when it really begs an explanation – which this paper might provide.

The paper also contains substantial comment on Atholl Anderson's work, including "These remarks bear scrutiny." Even though the conclusions are contra to Anderson's work, his ideas are treated with appropriate respect. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

References

WP:SYNTHESIS. As I've said in the other discussion, the quote you got from Lape et al. discusses a limitation of a study in the introduction. It is not part of their conclusions. Irwin et al., Lape et al., and Anderson, do not support each other. In fact, Irwin literally disproves Anderson when it comes to Anderson's views on sailing performance of Oceanian vessels. Which you're couching in your usual out-of-context WP:WEASEL WORDS or "bears scrutiny" and "contra" when they in fact pointed out exactly what is wrong with his assumptions. You're just taking sentences out of context from them to build your own conclusion in an effort to legitimize a minority viewpoint for WP:UNDUE inclusion. This is the third shit you've thrown at the wall now. And it still doesn't stick. My assumption of good faith is long gone. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

As for explanations of the "long pause", they remain highly contentious. With NO majority viewpoints that have yet to emerge. Discussing one, would mean discussing all. And the hypotheses range from overpopulation, to climate shifts, cultural shifts, technological shifts, or simply the fact that the rest of Polynesia involved far longer distances than the relatively shorter distances between Melanesia and Tonga/Samoa.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

A quick answer for now:

• All I have done is alert editors working on this article to a paper that I feel is relevant to the article.
• I have highlighted how the paper deals with V-sectioned hulls and made the comment that maritime historians sometimes forget hull shape and concentrate on rigs – this is a human failing that is well-known in that field.
• I have pointed out that the article does not really deal with the long pause, which seems an omission. Wikipedia can still cover a subject even if there is no conclusion to the questions involved. The notable fact is that the question has no answer.
• It is common for a paper to give a background summary in its introduction. This is useful to a Wikipedia editor as it is a summary that has been through peer review.
• "bears scrutiny" is a quote from the paper.
• "contra" states that Irwin's conclusions are opposite to those of Anderson. (You seem to suggest that I do not think that.) Neither of these are weasel words.
• Peter Lape is actually the person who first drew my attention to the work of Atholl Anderson, in some private correspondence. At the very least, he seems to think Anderson asks some important questions, and re-reading the e-mail, he is keen to highlight Anderson's paper on the subject. As an aside, he also put me in touch with Nick Burningham on the terminology of square rig (Nick has been involved in designing and sailing various replicas of ancient vessels).
• I have not suggested that there is any definitive answer to questions over the long pause. I am just offering a paper that adds a technological explanation to those on offer. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No you didn't. You read one paper and immediately linked it to a statement from another paper. Despite them not referencing each other. And with a childish understanding of the distances and dates involved. The quote from Lape is talking about ships immediately pre-15th century in Southeast Asia, and it's merely a caveat on how their study is going to be interpreted. The "long pause" happened in Tonga/Samoa, which had no contact with western shipping (or any other shipping). From 1300 BCE to around 700 CE. Long before the 15th century. How the fuck is that supposed to be "agreement in part" with Lape? THAT IS LITERAL WP:SYNTHESIS. In fact, ask Lape that. You're literally admitting you're just finding out about these facts paper-by-paper, and already you're insisting you know exactly what happened. Wait till you find out ALL THE OTHER PAPERS with wildly different ideas on why the long pause happened. Do you think no one here knows about that? Our article on Polynesia says as much, in their summary. Which also does not posit a specific hypothesis, because none is widely accepted. I'm sure you'll open up another dispute each time you find out yet another angle to question the maritime capabilities of Austronesian ships.

And frankly, I just realized I have a life. Fuck off, sincerely. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Substitute paragraph

In the Prehistory section, the subsection headed Paleolithic, the second paragraph (starting "These early population groups originally lacked watercraft technology...) is the only part of the subsection that addresses what bodies of water had to be crossed and how it was done. Despite having reverted a prior edit back to (almost) the current version, I find it an unsatisfactory brief capture of the essentials. The key points about this, to my mind, are
(1) raised sea levels, but still some substantial bodies of water to cross
(2) the early dates of these crossings
(3) "Substantial water crossings do not imply elaborate watercraft or navigational techniques, but do reflect exploitation of winds and currents during opportune climatic periods." (quote from The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania (pp. 41-42))
(4) Over this long time period, there is suggestion of improvements in technology, which should get some mention.

A first draft of an alternative paragraph follows:

Whilst the lowered sea levels of the last glacial period allowed colonisation of many parts of Island South East Asia without any sea crossing, the deep waters around the Wallace line, in particular, required some sort of maritime technology to cross. This probably involved rafts: bamboo being an ideal material. (Sea-going boats required woodworking technology that is not thought to have existed in the paleolithic.) No clear consensus exists on whether sail was used, but if it was, this was only in a downwind direction. Many of the colonising voyages were between islands which were mutually intervisible. Significant exceptions include the crossing to Sahul (greater Australia), which would have been at least 55 miles (Jett pg 169) and occurred before 50,000 to 55,000 years BP. (There is no evidence of return voyaging by that colonising population.) A later paleolithic long sea crossing , which may suggest improving maritime technology, is the settlement of Buka in the northern Solomons by 32.000 BP. This is a 180 km trip, with much of it well out of the sight of land.

I particularly dislike the original "These early population groups originally lacked watercraft technology" because (a) it is not totally clear which population groups are referred to; (b) there are various theories on how humans progressed out of Africa. One is that they followed coastal routes. To do this you need to be able to cross rivers where they meet the sea; (c) even if (b) is wrong, there are still rivers to cross. wherever you are.

On sail use, Jett is "pro", McGrail (Early Ships and Seafaring) is "against" and O'Connor and Hiscock leave the question open.

The previous text had a footnote which does not seem particularly relevant to sea crossings, etc. Should that footnote be somewhere else?

Any thoughts on this? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

They do not have a single name that encompasses all the groups. That is literally discussed further in the section, with proposals from various authors on a collective term. What terminology would you propose then? "Australo-Melanesians" is outdated and inaccurate. Negrito/Papuans/Orang Asli/Indigenous Australians is too specific. "Basal Asians" is too vague. "Basal Asians with Denisovan admixture" is again too specific.

"Watercraft technology" specifically excludes rafts, which are just flotation devices, and very likely lacked the ability to steer (as is mentioned multiple times, there are no evidence of back voyages, pre-Holocene, with the possible exception of the Bismarck Archipelago). The sources discuss this, including O'Connor. If there's a better term distinguishing them, feel free to find it. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The proposed alternative paragraph is too long and devotes too much detail to technical details. With all due respect, it betrays its writer's main interests here (seafaring, maritime technology), while the focus of this article is anthropological ("... peoples"). Also the article is about the Austronesian peoples and their early migrations. The paragraph as is it stands now merely intends (at least this is how I see it) to provide some background, conveying that most parts of ISEA and Oceania were already inhabited before the Austronesian expansion, and that the technology behind these earlier population movements significantly differed from the one that enabled/triggered the Neolithic Austronesian expansion. –Austronesier (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree, this paragraph is intended to be background. However, water transport is so integral to the Austronesian expansion, I find it surprising that the "before" does not mention the deduced previous levels of technology. (As an aside, water transport and Austronesians is comparable to the wheeled transport invented/exploited by early Indo-Europeans - the history of both groups would be fundamentally different without the respective technologies.)

I think the background should touch on the Wallace line. If you have groups of people who migrate across a barrier that has kept out the vast majority of species, that has to be notable. It also affects the viability of living in these places, not only from the point of view of prey animals, but also plant species. Both Austronesians and the prior migrants into this area solved these problems.

The other regionally specific point is that with the ISEA region being comfortably between latitude 40 north and 40 south allows the use of rafts in particular (having a "flow through" construction) but also outrigger canoes etc. This makes the region a major "nursery" for the development of maritime technology. I appreciate that this may be one point too many for you, but it is part of the mechanics of how the Austronesian expansion happened.

The comment that "Watercraft technology" specifically excludes rafts, which are just flotation devices is mistaken. McGrail is a widely-quoted source on these things. He describes, for instance the sailing rafts found in Vietnam, which used guares for steering (pg 117) and also the sailing rafts that took stone money from Palau to Yap (pg 165). See also Horridge on this. It is the belief of many that Australia was first settled using sailing rafts. The detail may be debated, but there is little doubt that the raft was a means of transport. That makes it a watercraft. (The definition of the term is a lengthy subject, but I can give it if you need it.) Rafts have a particular relevance as they are seen by some as the route through which outrigger and twin hulled canoes evolved. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Do the sources say they used sailing rafts with rudders, outrigger canoes, or catamarans? No. They say they either crossed by accident (by being washed away), through simple rafts, or some other flotation device, across islands in visible range of each other (regardless of how deep the water is between them). I can add more sources saying exactly that, if you want, so we can pointlessly over-reference this article even more. Neither is it likely they did. Again, there are no back migrations. Cave art prior to the arrival of Austronesians do not depict boats. The isolated populations do not display a cohesive boatbuilding tradition, if they even have any. That is the deduction of sources. OUR OPINION is irrelevant. What do the rafts of Vietnam or the Yapese have anything to do with them? Or are you once again trying to make this imply something else based on terminology and synthesizing multiple sources that do not actually conclude the things you are trying to push?

The main point of that section is to distinguish the earlier overland and short island hops of the Paleolithic migrations from the much more recent Neolithic fully maritime Austronesian migrations, which led to population assimilations. Whether or not these earlier migrations used rafts with sails to cross to the Sahul Shelf (which in itself is highly putative) is not relevant here, and should be discussed elsewhere. Austronesians never colonized the Australian mainland.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's take this step by step:

1. In this discussion, mention of the first settlement of Australia is relevant because those settlers originated from the pre-Austronesian inhabitants of ISEA. Since Australia was settled at least 50,000 years ago, ISEA must have had a resident population of at least that age from which those settlers came.
2. Even if those that settled in Australia arrived there by accident (which is not a given – see O'Connor and Hiscock, below), they had to be in watercraft of some description for that accident to happen.
3. Throughout all these discussions, on this article and others Obsidian Soul appears to suggest that the maritime technology of ISEA is only, or perhaps is predominantly associated with Austronesians. This completely ignores the movement to and settling of a huge number of islands separated by water over the 46,000+ years in which modern humans lived in this area prior to the start of the Austronesian expansion.
4. Like much of the study of the prehistory of this area, more work is required to put together with certainty exactly what happened. For the Wikipedia editor, the best sort of source to get current on academic thinking on this is a review article in a peer reviewed journal, or a review book from a noted academic publisher. (WP:HISTRW).
5. One such article is Pawlik, A., & Piper, P. (2019). The Philippines from c. 14,000 to 4,000 cal. bp in Regional Context. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 29(1), 1-22. doi:10.1017/S0959774318000306 This article includes:
   "Current research suggests that the Philippines were possibly embedded in larger maritime networks from the Late Pleistocene onwards."
   "The emergence and geographic spread of complex burial traditions implies maritime mobility and connectivity between communities inhabiting the mainland and the archipelagos of the region"
   The references include articles that discuss whether or not these pre-Austronesian inhabitants used pelagic fishing, which obviously requires a watercraft that can get out to sea and return to the same place with the catch. To be clear, this article is primarily discussing the latter part of the pre-Austronesian period – but this is still the "background" to the Austronesian expansion.
6. A quote from a subject review book: [about the first settlement of Australia, considering how those settlers got to their departure point] "First, it required the development of sufficient maritime capacity to navigate the multiple water crossings separating islands along the way." Sue O'Connor and Peter Hiscock in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania (Oxford Handbooks) (p. 26). Oxford University Press.
7. The relevance of rafts is that boats are not thought to have been constructed until the Neolithic. We know that they continued in use in the region until recent history.

I have put forward explanations and two good quality RSs to demonstrate that disparaging the maritime capabilities of the pre-Austronesian population, despite the level of doubt that remains, is not based on current thinking. We do not know what that level of technology was, but we know that it was capable of effective use within the region. Mention of this is important for understanding the later progression in near and remote Oceania. Adopting any other approach would short-change the encyclopedia reader who is the target audience of this editing. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The sentence specifically said they originally lacked watercraft technology, as in the original migrations weren't seafarers. This does not preclude them acquiring it afterwards, especially when the sea levels started abruptly rising at the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene. Dugouts and bark canoes, in particular, seem to exist before Austronesians, like in almost every other human group near a body of water. Tasmanian islanders (and some cave art in Western Australia, 20k BP) also had reed-bundle rafts. As I've said, the lack of cohesion on the technologies, indicate they are innovations post-initial settlement. They were not part of the original technological package of the first migrations. Jett discusses this in detail, but it's not relevant here, so it's not included.

Nowhere does the text (nor my replies here) state that Austronesians had a monopoly on maritime technology. They were, however, the first people who were capable of transoceanic voyaging. And their migrations, in contrast, were fully seaborne, relatively far more rapid, and extended well beyond the reach of the Paleolithic migrations. That is the significant point of contrast here, and is the only reason this section even exists, in addition to contrasting the original inhabitants of ISEA with the later Austronesian arrivals. The differences in their agricultural packages should even be included here (Kuk Swamp vs Austronesian cultigens/domesticates), but hasn't yet for one reason or another. This isn't simply about watercraft, like you are treating it as.

And for the zillionth time: It is not me who is saying this. It is the sources. I am not disparaging their maritime technology (most Austronesian-speakers are also their partial descendants). I am not a source. Neither are you. Why do you keep pushing your personal opinions into this?

Moreover, why do you keep stitching together out-of-context sentences from multiple different sources to create a conclusion that is not actually stated by, nor within the scope, of the study? I have repeatedly told you this is WP:SYNTHESIS. Both sources you've given state something very vague. They both do not actually discuss what kind of "maritime capacity"/"maritime mobility" they had (I read Pawlik et al., but I have no access to that Oxford Handbook you seem to be heavily relying on). Because that is not actually what they were studying.

This is a recurring thing from you. You don't really know how to use sources, do you? State what they state. Don't use them to state what YOU want them to state. Don't editorialize. Don't push your own hypotheses into the gaps in the "maybes" and "possiblys".

All of this seems to stem from your objection at the use of "watercraft", since you insist rafts belong to that category. I changed it to "sophisticated watercraft". I doubt that's enough for you. You'll repeat what you say ad infinitum until everyone quits engaging. I have never seen you acknowledge anything different from your original assertions in any of our past discussions. You just move the goalposts. Because you're not here on good faith.

Everything else, like the settlement of Australia or the development of pelagic fishing or the obsidian trade between New Guinea and Borneo/Philippines or the diffusion of burial practices in Palawan and Borneo/Sundaland, is not within the scope of this article, discuss them instead in the Peopling of Southeast Asia, History of Southeast Asia, Aboriginal Australians, Indigenous Australians, etc. I'd actually love to start an article on them, if the nomenclature isn't so unstable as to make it almost impossible to treat them as a single topic. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Obsidian Soul I am not sure that I follow your logic. Are you saying that a brief mention of the seafaring capability of the pre-Austronesian population of ISEA is not relevant in a section headed "Paleolithic". We might not know what sort of craft they used, but we know the result: effective travel over water. This is the environment into which the Austronesians moved at a later date.

Both sources you've given state something very vague – this is the reality of the subject. Do you expect Wikipedia to be silent over anything which is not absolutely certain? If a source says "probably" – or some other similar qualification, that is the state of current knowledge and that is how it should be represented.

...especially when the sea levels started abruptly rising at the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene Whatever the sea level due to glacial variation, Wallacea had/has about 17,000 islands, which the paleolithic inhabitants of the region apparently had little difficulty reaching. Yes, there is a huge shortage of archaeological work in this area, but the overall picture is clear: a big area that could only be colonised by seafaring. Added to that is the evidence (note, evidence, not proof) of maritime networks developing before Austronesian arrival.

The issue of "talking up" Austronesian maritime capacity is possibly a case of choice of words. For example: the first people who were capable of transoceanic voyaging. There are two main problems with this example statement. First, "transoceanic" refers to the crossing of an ocean. They sailed into the Pacific Ocean, but they did not cross it – certainly from one side to another. A feature of the long Polynesian journeys into the Pacific is that they were limited by what supplies they could carry. Whichever traditional craft you choose, they could not carry enough food or water for journeys longer that the ones they did perform. Secondly, we are at the mercy of two versions of the English language here. In British English, "ocean" means a body of water that has the word "ocean" attached to its name: Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, etc. In American English, it means a body of salt water, and that includes something that one might call a "sea": South China Sea, Timor Sea, Coral Sea etc. If the American English meaning is applied (and this article is written in American English), then the statement is not really true, since early Mediterranean seafarers were making significant journeys out of sight of land at earlier dates. An RS might make that statement, but in which language version was the source written? I think it would help if these statements were looked at from this point of view: work out what is meant and then say it without the ambiguity of English versions causing a problem.

I have tried my utmost to answer this in a non-confrontational manner, which means not addressing some of the points made. At risk of breaking that self-restraint, I note that you now acknowledge not having read the most recent academic review of the subject (The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania). That has obvious implications regarding the interpretation of sources. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It is already mentioned. You want to expound more on "we don't know"? LOL You mention uncertainty when it is relevant, but you don't fucking make up stories to fill uncertainty, like you are doing. Or use uncertainty to imply something that isn't there. How many fucking times do I have to tell that's original research?

As per "transoceanic", here we are at the crux of your disruptive fuckery in these articles. And the reason why you're so desperate to attribute advanced maritime skills to any other people but Austronesians. From your repeated attempts to claim Austronesians simply borrowed European sailing tech, to now the claim that hunter-gatherers in ISEA were expert seafarers 50,000 years ago. You still really don't want to believe Austronesians were the first people to sail the oceans, since you found out they existed a year ago. Do you? Now you're grasping at semantics, still sure in your belief that the Old Europe (they're not even Indo-European) Neolithic sailors in the placid shallow pond of the Mediterranean were the only ones that matter. Because they were the only ones you were aware of in your English maritime textbooks, and you simply can not let go of WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS. What about the Indian Ocean crossing then? That's more or less the entire ocean. Or did you forget Austronesians colonized Madagascar? The Mediterranean is not an ocean. It's an enclosed sea, with very different conditions to a real ocean. And no amount of your whining about English will redefine that, when you yourself blocked me from general maritime articles on the same excuse that this was the English language Wikipedia, and our maritime tech weren't English.

And oh no. I don't have the entire Oxford Handbook on the prehistory of Oceania. LOL. A book which more or less focuses on individual archaeology in specific islands in Oceania and the settlement of Polynesia, with only a few chapters being more general in nature. Have you read the HUNDREDS of all other sources that I have over the years? See the reference list on this article alone? It's a bit hilarious seeing you try to claim expertise based on the ONLY source that you seem to have which even touches this topic. The topic of Austronesians isn't just Oceania, which you've consistently failed to understand. Not even I would claim expertise. It's an interest. We are just Wikipedia editors, which you also seem to consistently forget with your repeated attempts at drawing your own conclusions and your arrogance at acting like a peer-reviewer for RS.

And non-confrontational, my ass. All of what you have been doing has been confrontational. Just because you hide behind your condescending facade doesn't make your hostility, or the fact that you have a fucking agenda to push regardless of the sources, less apparent. Everything you are doing right now is DISRUPTIVE and TENDENTIOUS. The tagging, the multiple topics you've opened not only here but across several articles, the deliberate obfuscation of mainstream accepted views, the constant veiled insults, and the pursuit of a very specific personal viewpoint. Neither of us are new editors. You've been on Wikipedia for how many years? And you still pretend to not understand why I've lost my temper? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Misrepresentation of references

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

• the method by which modern humans spread out of Africa to ISEA ("coastal migration")
• the date that ISEA was settled by these first settlers ("70,000 BP")

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 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)

I have fixed the Madagascar issue with a source by Alexander Adelaar, the expert on the linguistic history of Madagascar. The date 50–500 CE was indeed unsupported and also way too early. I will supplement this information later with sources from other disciplines (geneticists arrive at similar dates as Adelaar). –Austronesier (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Dates for domestic pigs, dogs and chickens as part of the "Austronesian package"

This is just a note on the more complex inclusion of domesticated pigs, dogs and chickens in the "Austronesian package" – more complex that the view one could get from reading the article. These species did not travel continuously, from the outset (in Taiwan), with the migration front of the Austronesian dispersal. See, for instance, The Origins and Arrival of the Earliest Domestic Animals in Mainland and Island Southeast Asia: A Developing Story of Complexity Philip J. Piper (2017) in New Perspectives in Southeast Asian and Pacific Prehistory Edited by Philip J. Piper, Hirofumi Matsumura and David Bulbeck[20]

Is this something that other editors in the subject have picked up on in other sources? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)