Yeh dude, very closely related. And well, amongst the chinese
language, history and culture, these 3 categories, I'm strongly
interested in the former two. Wonder what would have happened had I
pursued it back then. Then again, some years later in 2004, read in
ST that there are actually singaporeans who study this in China.
There were features and interviews with them.
I came across this chapter while reading the book The
Austronesian Languages (2009, Robert Blust):
It again links the importance of Archaeology and Historical
Linguistics to prove your point, through the discovery
of the Proto-Austronesian root words - *kuden, *SadiRi,
*busuR, *panaq, *bubu, and *tulani / *tulaNi matching with
the current archaeological research that the "Lapita" people passed
through New Guinea and the Bismarck Archipelago before spreading
into the rest of the Pacific Ocean.
(pg 336-339, Linguistic
Approaches to Austronesian culture history)
5.11.3.1 Historical
linguistics and archaeology
Linguistics and archaeology had little
contact in the first half of the twentieth century, but since the
1970s many scholars in both disciplines have come to see the
benefits of interdisciplinary cooperation. This is reflected in
such collaborative volumes as the June, 1976 number of World
Archaeology, devoted to the topic 'archaeology and
linguistics', the influential and provocative book Archaeology
and language: the puzzle of Indo-European origins (Renfrew
1987), the multi-volume proceedings of a 1994 conference on
Archaeology and Language (eg. Blench and Spriggs 1997),
the two-volume Time depth in historical linguistics hosted
by the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research at the
University of Cambridge (Renfrew, McMahon and Trask 2000), and in
Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia (Kirch and Green 2001), a
book written by two of the most prominent Pacific archaeologists,
but guided in its approach by the cultural riches of POLLEX, the
Proto Polynesian lexicon initiated by Walsh and Biggs (1966) and
expanded and refined continuously over the past 40 years. Not all
archaeologists have shared this vision, and some have reacted
almost with territorial defensiveness. Nonetheless it seems fair to
say that a working relationship has arisen between historical
linguists and archaeologists that is likely to continue into the
future to the benefit of both disciplines.
Given the material with which archaeologists
normally work, it is natural that the culture historical
contributions of linguistics that would be of greatest interest to
scholars in this field are those relating to material culture. The
following are a few examples that serve to illustrate how
linguistic evidence may corroborate, complement or contradict the
archaeological record:
Pottery
Pottery is one of the mainstays of Neolithic
archaeology for obvious reasons: it is often abundant, and is
durable under highly variable soil conditions. PAN *kuden 'clay
cooking pot' can be reconstructed on the basis of cognates
distributed from eastern Taiwan to Fiji. A sample cognate
distribution includes Vakon Amis kuren, Hununoo
kurun, Maranao koden, Kelabit kuden,
Toba Batak hudon, Kuruti kur, Likum kuh,
Lindrow kun, Nauna kul, Motu uro, Fijian
kuro, and Tongan kulo (lost in Tonga and then
reacquired from Fiji), all of which refer to clay cooking pots in
general. The archaeological record shows pottery of a distinctive
decorative style and set of cultural associations turning up
suddenly in the western Pacific around 3400-3500 BP (Kirch
2009:91). This 'Lapita ware' almost certainly was a continuation of
the tradition of pottery-making that can be traced back to PAN via
the cognate distribution given here, although the linguistic
evidence permits no more detail than the reconstructed meaning
'clay cooking pot' in association with the form *kude.
Pile
dwellings
With reference to PAN society Blust
(1976b:36) suggested that 'Dwelling units were evidently raised on
posts.' The basis for this inference was a cognate set that
reflects PAN *SadiRi 'housepost', seen in e.g. Nataoran Amis
salili 'houspost', Ilokano adigi, Tagalog
haligi 'post, pillar', Tiruray liley 'the main
posts in house constructions', Uma Juman Kayan jihi',
Mukah Melanau dii, Ma'anyan ari, Malagasy
andry, Mentawai arigi, Manggarai siri,
Atoni ni, Leti riri, Yamdena diri,
Asilulu lili, Numfor rir, Manam ariri,
Numbami alili, Lau lili 'house post'. Wherever
sufficient material is available regarding house types reflexes of
*SadiRi refer to the main house posts, which normally support the
entire structure two meters or more above the level of the ground.
In the better-known parts of the Pacific, such as Polynesia, houses
are built directly on the ground, and for Pacific archaeologists
with a Polynesian focus there thus was little expectation of
finding evidence that early Lapita-associated dwellings were raised
on piles. Nonetheless, Kirch (1997:171ff) was able to provide
archaeological confirmation of this linguistic inference during a
1985 excavation of waterlogged house sites at Talepakemalai in the
Mussau Islands north of New Ireland, dated to about 3,500 BP, and
hence near the beginning of the Lapita colonisation of the western
Pacific. The inference that PAN speakers used pile dwellings, and
that this house type continued in use as early AN speakers expanded
out into the Pacific implies that ladders were used to enter the
dwellings. Reflexes of PMP *haRezan 'notched log ladder' are
distributed from northern Luzon to south Halmahera, where they are
associated with pile dwellings that are entered vertically from the
ground. Reflexes of this term are unknown in Formosan and Oceanic
languages. In Taiwan this is because pile dwellings are uncommon.
In the Pacific, on the other hand, it may be because pile dwellings
are normally built in shallow lagoon waters, and entered by a
gradually sloping plank walkway that connects them to the beach
terrace (cf. Kirch 1997:174 for a Mussau example). This is
consistent with POC *tete 'ladder, bridge', a term that can be
reconstructed for PMP (*taytay) only in the meaning 'bamboo
suspension bridge', suggesting that in Proto Oceanic the earlier
meaning was extended to rickety plank walkways for entering pile
dwellings because of the similarity in general structure between
these and traditional suspension bridges.
The
bow
Linguistic evidence allows us to attribute
both pottery and pile dwellings to speakers of PAN, and to infer
that these cultural attributes were carried into the Pacific as
part of the AN expansion out of insular Southeast Asia. In both
cases archaeological corroboration is available (for decades with
regard to pottery, much more recently with regard to pile
dwellings). For some other features of material culture the
linguistic evidence continues to stand alone, and the chances of
archaeological corroboration are slim. It is cases such as these
that show with greatest clarity the need to combine linguistic
evidence with archaeological evidence in order to 'round out' the
picture of the life of prehistoric communities, since perishable
referents are rarely preserved in archaeological sites, and when
they are preserved they tend to be of certain types (large or
stationary objects such as beached canoes, or the posts of pile
dwellings).
In addition to practicing agriculture and
collecting wild plants PAN speakers hunted game, and perhaps fought
with the bow and arrow. Two terms are particularly important in
this complex: *busuR 'bow' and *panaq 'flight of an arrow'. The
first of these is reflected from northern Taiwan to Vanuatu, as
seen in Mayrinax Atayal buh-in-ug, Bunun busul,
Thao futulh, Casiguran Dumagat, Tagalog busog,
Malay busor, Yamdena busir, Asilulu
ha-husul, Paulohi husule, Buli pusi,
Mota us, Peterara usu, Wailengi fuhu
'bow and arrow'. In insular Southeast Asia reflexes of this form
can usually be glossed 'hunting bow', but in the Pacific there was
little to hunt, and the bow either became an instrument of warfare
(as in Vanuatu), or atrophied to a toy (as in Polynesia). What is
important in this comparison is the clear evidence it provides that
the 'Lapita people', as they are known to Pacific archaeologists,
were armed with bow and arrow as they sailed into the western
Pacific in their single-outrigger canoes to settle new lands on the
margins of territory that had been discovered at least 40,000 years
earlier by ancestral Papuans.
The reconstruction of PAN *busuR and the study
of its reflexes permits another useful inference. Hunting with bow
and arrow is not practical in dense jungle, where the profusion of
vegetation increases the risk of deflecting an arrow in its flight.
For this reason the bow disappeared over much of Borneo, even
though the hunting of wild pigs and sambhur deer was an important
part of traditional Dayak cultures. Here, in parts of Sulawesi, and
in a few other areas, the bow was replaced by the blowpipe, since
the smaller dart can more easily be directed at a target in thick
foliage without high risk of deflection. Reflexes of *sumpit
'blowpipe' are unknown in Taiwan, but are distributed from the
central Philippines to western Indonesia and parts of the Lesser
Sundas. In general this correlates with an increasingly tropical
environment, and suggest that the blowpipe may have been invented
as a supplement to the bow as AN speakers moved into areas with
denser jungle cover.
The *bubu fish
trap
Traditional AN-speaking societies hunted and
fished using a wide variety of methods. In addition to the bow and
arrow, the blowpipe, and fishing by line and hook, a number of
different types of traps were used in hunting for protein
foods. One of the most widespread and common of these is a conical
wickerwork cage trap about one meter in length with a mouth of
converging bamboo splints that can be pressed open by an entering
fish seeking the bait inside, but cannot be pressed open from
within. Very similar forms of this trap are found over much of the
AN-speaking world. Since closely similar traps are also found in
some other parts of the world a consideration of the distributional
evidence alone does not rule out the possibility of independent
invention. Here linguistic evidence plays a crucial role, as almost
all AN-speaking groups that use this type of trap call it by a
reflex of PAN *bubu: Kavalan bubu, Amis folo,
Tagalog bubo, Kelabit bubuh, Bintulu
buvew, Malagasy vovo, Malay bubu,
Javanese wuwu, Makasarese buwu, Palauan
bub, Savu wuwu, Roti bufu, Yamdena
bubu, Asilulu huhu, Lou pup, Raluana
vup, Manam u, Arosi huhu, Pohnpeian
uu, Chuukese wuu, Fijian vuvu.
Given this cognate distribution there is no
question that PAN speakers made and used this type of trap, and
that some of their descendents took it with them into the Pacific
as far as Polynesia (although surprisingly, given its stability in
other parts of the AN world, it appears to be called by a number of
lexical innovation in Polynesia). Like the bow, it is unlikely that
direct archaeological evidence of the *bubu fish trap will ever be
found in early settlement contexts, but in view of the linguistic
evidence such documentation, while welcome, would clearly be
redundant.
The bamboo nose
flute
In some cases the linguistic evidence for an
item of prehistoric material culture is tenous, but undeniable.
Words for the traditional bamboo nose flute are somewhat variable
in shape, but clearly point to the use of this musical instrument
by speakers of PAN, and to its transport into the Pacific at least
as far as Fiji. This is seen in Kavalan tulani, Ilokano
tulali, Toba Batak tulila, Bare'e
tuyali, Tae' tulali, Fijian dulali. The
Kavalan word points to PAN *tulani or *tulaNi, and all other forms
to PMP *tulali (with irregular *n/N > *l), if vocalic metathesis
is assumed in Toba Batak tulila. Some dictionaries gloss
this only as 'flute'. Where more information is available it
appears as 'nose flute', and where maximal information is available
it becomes clear that it is a bamboo nose flute. Fijian
dulali is the only known reflex in any Oceanic language,
but it alone provides unmistakeable evidence that the 'Lapita
peoples' who left an archaeologically highly visible trail of
pottery sherds in their colonisation of the Pacific also played the
bamboo nose flute.
