The term Austronesian—alternatively known as Malayo-Polynesian—encompasses the linguistic and cultural affiliations of island communities situated in the southern part of the Asian continent, as recognized by academics worldwide. Linguistic research reveals that these groups collectively speak an estimated 1,000 to 1,200 distinct languages, representing a population of more than 300 million. Scholarly inquiry into the Austronesian peoples originated in linguistics and subsequently expanded to intersect with archaeology, anthropology, and genetics. Regarding their provenance, academics have advanced theories such as the "Southern Origin Theory" and the "Mainland Origin Theory."

Though the study of Austronesian origins is intrinsically an academic pursuit, it has later been co-opted and politicized by separatists seeking "Taiwan independence." These factions assert the Austronesian identity of Taiwan's Indigenous peoples while conspicuously disregarding scholarly arguments positing the Chinese mainland as the cradle of Austronesian culture. By attempting to supplant the Chinese nation with Austronesian lineage as the foundational identity of Taiwan's population, they endeavor to sever Taiwan's historical and cultural connections to the Chinese nation. This strategy aligns with broader efforts toward "de-Sinicization," particularly in framing narratives of ethnic origins.

"Southern Origin Theory" or "Mainland Origin Theory"?

Scholarly interest in the Austronesian language family began with early 18th century linguistics. In 1706, Dutch scholar Adriaan Reland identified striking linguistic similarities between the languages of Madagascar, the East Indies, and the Cocos Islands. By 1841, the term Malayo-Polynesian languages had been introduced to encapsulate these connections.

Building on this linguistic foundation, anthropologists entered the discourse in the late 19th century. In 1899, Austrian ethnologist W. Schmidt coined the term Austronesian (from the Latin for "southern" and the Greek for "islands"), to describe these peoples. Since then, a multidisciplinary approach—encompassing linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, and genetics—has yielded diverse theories concerning Austronesian origins, the most important of which are the "Southern Origin Theory" and the "Mainland Origin Theory."

Early Western linguists and anthropologists, including Hendrik Kern, C.E. Fox, and Isidore Dyen, largely championed the "Southern Origin Theory":

Hendrik Kern, through an analysis of over 100 modern Austronesian languages, postulated a likely ancestral homeland in coastal tropical regions, potentially in Indonesia or along the eastern Indochinese Peninsula. He suggested a northern boundary extending to southern part and Yunnan-Guizhou in China, with a southern limit at Java.

C.E. Fox theorized central Micronesia as the Austronesian cradle, proposing that rising sea levels or land subsidence forced migration westward, southward, and ultimately eastward.

Isidore Dyen, analyzing 371 linguistic datasets, identified three linguistically divergent regions: New Guinea-Melanesia, Taiwan, and Sumatra with its surrounding islands. Of these, he deemed western New Guinea's languages the most diverse, concluding it as a probable origin point.

The "Mainland Origin Theory" gained momentum in the 1970s. Historical linguists highlighted the linguistic antiquity of Taiwan's Indigenous languages, positioning Taiwan as an early Austronesian homeland, inferring that southeastern China was another pivotal center of Austronesian development.

Despite extensive research, the precise origins of the Austronesian peoples remain unresolved. Theories abound, yet definitive evidence is lacking. Summarizing the prevailing scholarly consensus, Taiwanese linguist Li Jen-kuei asserts: "With our current knowledge, we can only surmise that the most probable origin of the Austronesian peoples lies along the coastal regions of the Indochinese Peninsula. The evidence consistently points to the Indochinese Peninsula and southern China, a conclusion shared by most leading scholars in the field."

Mainstream perspective: Austronesian origins rooted in the Chinese Mainland

The Southern Origin Theory lacks rigorous academic substantiation and has not garnered broad endorsement within scholarly circles. Conversely, the "Mainland Origin Theory," positing that Taiwan's earliest inhabitants originated from the Chinese mainland, is the mainstream view in international academia.

Introduced to Taiwan by Japanese researchers in 1896, the "Mainland Origin Theory" has been buttressed by over a century of archaeological discoveries, forming a robust framework for understanding the genesis of Taiwan's Indigenous peoples.

Archaeological evidence establishes a significant linkage between Taiwan and the Chinese mainland. Fossils and Paleolithic sites in Taiwan, which are concentrated primarily in the island's southern regions, parallel similar findings in southern Fujian. These connections date back to the Late Pleistocene, when the Last Glacial Period exposed the Dongshan Land Bridge. This natural corridor enabled early humans from Fujian's coastal zones, particularly around Zhangzhou, to traverse the land bridge, reach the Penghu Islands, and eventually arrive in southern Taiwan, likely using bamboo rafts or comparable watercraft.

The earliest Neolithic culture unearthed in Taiwan is the Dabenkeng Culture, which exhibits pronounced similarities with the Fuguodun Culture of Fujian. In the 1970s, American archaeologist Richard Shulter Jr., alongside others, hypothesized that the Dabenkeng Culture derived from a Neolithic migration from southeastern China's coast to Taiwan. They further posited that this culture served as the nucleus for the Austronesian peoples' later dispersion into Island Southeast Asia and Oceania.

In 1987, the distinguished Chinese-American archaeologist Kwang-Chih Chang conducted a seminal analysis of the Dabenkeng Culture, focusing on its pottery, stone tools, and site patterns. He identified it as the foundational culture of Taiwan's Indigenous peoples and the ancestral cradle of the Austronesian population. Chang underscored the profound connections between the Dabenkeng and Fuguodun cultures, theorizing that around 5,000–6,000 years ago, populations from the mainland's Fuguodun Culture crossed the strait to Taiwan's western coastline, giving rise to the Dabenkeng Culture.

Further archaeological investigations have revealed that the Dabenkeng Culture shares partial affinities with the lower layers of the Keqiutou Site, the lower strata of the Tanshishan Site, and other cultural remains in southern Fujian. These findings suggest a staged migration of ancient populations from Fujian's coastal regions via Kinmen and Penghu to southern Taiwan.

Linguistic perspectives on the "Mainland Origin Theory"

While some scholars have postulated Taiwan as the Austronesian peoples' original homeland based on linguistic evidence, even these perspectives concede undeniable linguistic ties between Taiwan's early inhabitants and the mainland.

In 1991, Australian archaeologist Peter Bellwood acknowledged this complexity, stating in an article: "Given the complexity of assimilation and interaction processes among Austronesian peoples, it is difficult to accept the notion that South China or Taiwan is the sole origin of all Austronesian peoples." This statement marked a revision of his earlier assertion positioning Taiwan as the original home of the Austronesian language family.

For decades, the "Austro-Tai Hypothesis" advanced by American linguist Paul K. Benedict held sway in Western academia. Benedict posited a genetic relationship between the Austronesian language family and the Tai-Kadai language family of the Chinese mainland. Supporting this view, in 1985, Lawrence A. Reid identified significant parallels in vocabulary between the two families, suggesting a shared linguistic lineage. However, in 1994, American scholar Graham Thurgood contested this interpretation, proposing that these lexical similarities were not inherited from a common ancestor but rather the result of linguistic borrowing. Thurgood's hypothesis implies that over 7,000 years ago, Austronesian and Tai-Kadai-speaking populations in Southwest China engaged in close and sustained interaction.

Chinese linguist Deng Xiaohua further explored these connections in the 1990s, identifying cognates between Tai-Kadai and Austronesian languages. Deng theorized that between 5000 and 3000 BCE, the Taiwan Strait and the southern coastal regions of the Chinese mainland were inhabited by speakers of proto-languages associated with the Dabenkeng and Fuguodun cultures. By 3000 BCE, the Chinese mainland underwent significant cultural shifts under the influence of the Longshan transitional phase, while Taiwan retained its earlier linguistic and cultural heritage.

The linguistic arguments for the "Mainland Origin Theory" are bolstered by genetic evidence. In 2021, a research team led by Wang Chuanchao at Xiamen University published groundbreaking findings in Nature, analyzing genomes from 166 ancient East Asian human remains dating back 8,000–1,000 years. DNA extracted from bones unearthed at Taiwan's Hanben and Gongguan archaeological sites revealed genetic links between Taiwan's early inhabitants and Tai-Kadai-speaking populations of the mainland.

The misleading "Austronesian" narrative

The first point of contention lies with the term "Austronesian" itself. Both domestic and international scholarly consensus predominantly supports the "Mainland Origin Theory," which asserts that the Austronesian peoples originally migrated from China's coastal regions to Taiwan before expanding across the Pacific and Indian Ocean territories. In this context, it would be more accurate to categorize Taiwan's early inhabitants and their culture within the framework of "South China Minority Cultures" or "Southern Chinese Minority Cultures." The term "Austronesian" no longer adequately reflects the true origins of this group or their cultural heritage.

From an academic standpoint, the Austronesian domain encompasses vast temporal and spatial dimensions, incorporating over a thousand languages. However, the linguistic datasets compiled by various researchers often diverge significantly, yielding inconsistent conclusions. Consequently, linguistic analysis alone is insufficient to definitively ascertain the origins of the Austronesian peoples. Many meticulous scholars advocate integrating archaeological evidence to either substantiate or challenge linguistic hypotheses. Yet, archaeologists and anthropologists frequently operate within paradigms shaped by linguistic preconceptions, rendering it challenging to transcend established theoretical frameworks.

From a political perspective, separatists seeking "Taiwan independence" have deliberately distorted the Austronesian narrative to advance separatist agendas. Selectively citing fragmented research, they misrepresent Taiwan—a mere "transit point"—as the origin of the Austronesian peoples. This misrepresentation is amplified by segments of the Taiwan media, which propagate claims such as "Taiwan is the homeland of the Austronesian peoples" and "Taiwan is part of the Austronesian community, sharing kinship with South Pacific nations." These narratives are strategically disseminated to cultivate a "Taiwan Subject Consciousness" and to legitimize "de-Sinicization" efforts under the guise of cultural and historical identity. Such politicized manipulations have not only skewed public perception but have also derailed objective academic discourse on Austronesian origins.

The author is Chen Zhiping, professor at the Academy of Guoxue, Xiamen University

Liu Xian /Editor    Li Minjie /Translator

Yang Xinhua /Chief Editor    Liu Xian /Coordination Editor

Liu Li /Reviewer

Zhang Weiwei /Copyeditor    Tan Yujie /Image Editor

The views don't necessarily reflect those of DeepChina.