Chapter 18 Languages and Farming Dispersals: Austroasiatic ...

Chapter 18
Languages and Farming Dispersals:
Austroasiatic Languages and Rice Cultivation
There were two major transitions to agriculture in
the Old World. One took place in the Levant and
involved wheat, barley, cattle and sheep. The other
was centred in the Yangtze and Yellow River basins
of China, where rice and millet were brought under
cultivation in association with cattle and pig domestication.
Both took place at about the same time and
under parallel climatic changes. In the western centre,
much research has been devoted to exploring
possible links between the expansion of agricultural
communities from the Near East and the present
distribution of Indo-European languages. Archaeogenetic
research has been deployed as a testing
mechanism for the broad models generated. East
and Southeast Asia lag well behind this move, but
the region is important not only on its own terms,
but also as a means of seeking possible similarities
with the spread of Indo-European languages.
This paper identifies first a series of cognates
for rice cultivation which link the Austroasiatic languages
of Southeast Asia and eastern India. It then
seeks archaeological evidence for the expansion of
rice farmers south and west from the centre of domestication
in the Yangtze Valley, and finds an encouraging
conformity between the distribution of
Austroasiatic (AA) languages and the spread of
Neolithic settlement based on rice, and the raising of
domestic cattle, pigs and the dog. It then considers
the possible adoption of Austroasiatic languages by
indigenous hunter-gatherers. The concluding model
is proposed and means of testing it are explored.
AA languages fall into two major divisions,
Munda and Mon-Khmer, and are found from eastern
India to Vietnam, south to peninsular Malaysia
and the Nicobar Islands. The Kurku are the westernmost
group of AA speakers, living south of the
Narmada River in Maharashtra. Norman & Mei
(1976) have identified a possible AA substrate in
Charles Higham
223
southern China which suggests that this language
family once had an even wider distribution. The
most northerly known AA language is P'u-man, recognized
in 1899 in the village of Xiao Qin in Yunnan.
This is a particularly vital location, for it lies on the
strategic Mekong about 100 km south of lake Dali.
Apart from Vietnamese and Khmer, the national languages
of Vietnam and Cambodia, the distribution
of AA speakers consistently takes the form of isolated
enclaves. This is, at least in part, due to more
recent, historically-documented intrusions. The Thai,
for example, have taken up much of the Chao Phraya
Valley, thus isolating the speakers of Mon (an AA
language) to remote, usually upland enclaves. The
Kuay people of the lower Thai provinces of the
Khorat Plateau are islands surrounded by speakers
of Lao. The Burmese have marginalized the Mon,
while Munda languages persist as enclaves surrounded
by Indo-European languages. No AA speakers
survive in Lingnan (southern China) in the face
of the expansion of Sino-Tibetan.
AA languages have, for almost a century, been
linked in various ways with other language families.
Schmidt (1906) was foremost in suggesting that AA
and Austronesian (AN) languages belong to a phylum
he named Austric. This linkage was not widely
supported until Reid (1994) found evidence in the
Nancowry language of the Nicobar Islands for a link
based not so much on cognates, but on morphemes
in which conservative AN structures survived in AA
languages due probably to the remote island location.
The notion that the Munda languages were
intrusive to India was suggested by Heine-Geldern
(1932), who further linked their arrival from Southeast
Asia with the distribution of the polished shouldered
adze and the spread of agriculture. Wheeler
(1959) joined him in identifying an eastern source for
the Neolithic of eastern India.

Chapter 18
This accumulating body of evidence indicates ing distance of all three. It has a deep stratigraphic
that the Yangtze Valley was one of the very few sequence, involving over four metres of accumuareas
in Eurasia that witnessed a Neolithic Revolu­ lated cultural material. The initial settlement has been
tion, the transition from hunting and gathering to dated to between 2400-2100 BC, and excavations over
agriculture. Population growth is a recurrent charac­ an area of 225 square metres have revealed the reteristic
of sedentary agricultural communities. As mains of eleven houses and a cemetery. Many of the
settlements grow, there is a strong incentive for a human remains were found with no cranium, and
segment to move and found a new community. This grave goods were also absent, but the pottery from
appears to have followed the establishment of such this phase was decorated with a distinctive series of
sites as Pengtoushan and Bashidang. Fenshanbao, patterns, incorporating parallel incised lines infilled
which was occupied within the period 8000-7500 BP, with impressions (YPM 1981). The nearby site of
lies east of Lake Dongting, and excavations have Dadunzi is rather later, the single radiocarbon date
revealed 50 burials and pottery tempered with rice. suggesting a mid second-millennium BC occupation.
To the west, we find agriculture spreading upstream Again, house plans were noted, often superimposed
to Chengbeixi in the Three Gorges. In an easterly over earlier structures, and 27 burials were encoundirection,
the famous site of Hemudu in Zhejiang tered. Adults were buried in extended positions with
Province was a base for lakeside rice cultivation by no preferred orientation, and infants were interred
7000 BP. in mortuary jars. The style of pottery decoration
This sequence has a strong bearing on the matched that found earlier at Baiyangcun.
Neolithic settlement of Southeast Asia, because it is Archaeological research in the major river valnow
possible to trace the expansion of agricultural leys of Southeast Asia has revealed a compelling
communities progressively further to the south. Sev­ pattern in which new agricultural villages were eseral
rivers provide access from the Yangtze Valley to tablished between 2500-2000 Be. In the Red River
the rich hot lowlands of Lingnan. The Gan and Xiang valley, this phase is seen in many sites of the Phung
flow north to Lakes Poyang and Dongting, while the Nguyen culture. In the Mekong catchment, we find
Bei flows south. The first evidence we have for the Neolithic phases of occupation at Ban Chiang, Non
establishment of rice farmers is, not unexpectedly, in Kao Noi, Ban Non Wat and Ban Lum Khao. In the
the headwaters of this last river, where the sites valley of the Chao Phraya River, Ban Kao, Non Pa
Shixia, Xincun, Chuangbanling and Niling date from Wai and Ban Tha Kae indicate settlement towards
the early third millennium Be. Shixia in its earliest the end of the third millennium Be. A common inhuphase
included a cemetery in which grave goods in­ mation burial ritual, the bones of domestic pigs, catcluded
jade cang (tubes) of a type known to have been tle and dogs, and a similar technique of decorating
of deep ritual significance in the Liangzhu culture to pottery vessels link these sites. In eastern India, rice
the north, as well as bracelets, pendants and split rings. remains and rice-tempered pottery have been found
The subsequent Nianyuzhuan culture sites reflect a at Chirand, dated probably to the third millennium BC,
further spread of agricultural settlement, but began while Allchin & Allchin (1982) have described sites
to encounter and interact with rich hunter-gatherer further east, such as Sarutaru and Daojali Hading,
groups commanding the delta of the Zhu River. which contain cord-marked pottery recalling wares
The Bei is just one of the rivers which ultimately from Southeast Asia and southern China. There is,
connects the Yangtze Valley with Southeast Asia. In therefore, a consistent horizon of third-millennium
general, these rivers flow south and radiate out from BC settlement sites incorporating evidence for rice
a hub in the eastern Himalayan foothills. From east cultivation, from southern China to Eastern India. It
to west, they include the Red, Mekong and Chao is difficult not to see this pattern as being similar to
Phraya systems. Further to the west, this configura­ the expansion of the Linearbandkeramik sites of the
tion is repeated in the form of the Irrawaddy, European loess lands.
Chindwin and Brahmaputra Rivers. Given the dense There is, however, as in Europe, a need to concanopied
forests that would then have dominated sider the presence of established hunter-gatherer
the lowlands of Southeast Asia, the rivers were the communities long since settled in the area which
principal arteries for communication and movement. saw such proposed intrusive Neolithic peoples. There
Yunnan is a key area for documenting any ex­ are at least two aspects to the hunter-gatherer settlepansionary
movement of this nature, because it has ment of mainland Southeast Asia. The first involved
links with the Yangtze, the Mekong and the Red settlement in the interior, where the remains are
Rivers. Baiyangcun is a site which lies within strik- largely confined to rockshelters, such as Lang
228

Chapter 18
Rongrien in peninsular Thailand where the earliest working stone have been isolated. No evidence for
layers go back to about 38,000 BP. Recent investiga­ rice cultivation or animal domestication has been
tions, particularly in Vietnam, have identified nu­ found in this site, dated to about 2300 Be.
merous regional groups ofhunter-gatherers, the earlier The form and decoration on the pottery vessels,
ones having considerable time depth. The Nguom in­ as well as the adze and bone industry at Nong Nor,
dustry is older than 23,000 BP, the Dieu sites date from are virtually identical with those from the base of a
30,000 BP and the Son Vi from 23,000-13,000 BP. Very much larger estuarine settlement known as Khok
few sites are found in interior river valleys, but this Phanom Di, 14 km to the north. This enigmatic site
could be the result of subsequent environmental modi­ was occupied from about 2000-1500 BC, and its prefication.
The number of occupied inland rockshelters cise relationship to the intrusion of Neolithic groups
diminished markedly from the third millennium BC, into Central Thailand is not yet finally resolved. The
but some sites continued in occupation, and forest material culture of the basal layers in all respects
hunter-gatherers continue to occupy small tracts of follows the local fisher-hunter-gatherer tradition.
peninsular Thailand and Malaysia. These hunter­ Over the ensuing five centuries, however, there were
gatherers present an interesting biological question, many developments. Burials followed the same patbecause
in contrast to the agricultural population of tern as that seen in inland agricultural communities,
Southeast Asia they are short, dark and have a dis­ with extended inhumation replacing the former
tinctly Australo-Melanesian phenotype. seated, crouching position. Rice remains were found
The second hunter-gatherer adaptation was from fairly early in the sequence, but at a time when
coastal, and it has failed to survive into the present. local conditions would have either ruled out cultiva­
However, the raised beaches which mark the tion or made it highly marginal. A handful of sherds
Holocene high sea levels from southern China to the were tempered with rice chaff, but all were of exotic
Gulf of Siam harbour hundreds of former hunter­ origin. Initially, there were no dogs at the site, but
gatherer sites. The rich bio-productivity of the shore, these appeared after a century or so of occupation.
particularly where it forms an estuary, encourages Domestic dogs must have been derived from an ultipermanent
settlement, and some of these coastal sites mately exotic source that included native wolves.
are large and deeply stratified. However, none ante­ The closest such source of wolves to Thailand is in
dates about 4000 BC, because prior to that period the China.
sea level was lower than today, but rising fast. The During the third and fourth of the seven morarchaeological
record is therefore confronted with tuary phases, local conditions saw a reduction in sea
coastal hunter gatherers who made pottery vessels level and the formation of freshwater swamps. At
and polished adzes from the initial period of ar­ this juncture, the presence of hoes and reaping knives,
chaeological visibility. as well as changes in dental health, are compatible
Unfortunately, the situation has been confused with local rice cultivation. But a later rise in sea level
by the Vietnamese naming these groups 'coastal saw a return to marine conditions, and to the end of
Neolithic' on the basis of pottery making and ground­ the reaping knives and hoes. While the potters of
stone tools rather than any biological evidence for Khok Phanom Di fashioned outstanding burnished
food production. What emerges from a considera­ mortuary vessels, and decorated them with incised
tion of the relevant sites is a series of regional hunter­ banded designs not totally dissimilar from the ingatherer-fishers,
some of whom lived long enough land repertoire, the forms of pot are quite different
at their base for a considerable depth of cultural from those of the inland farmers.
material to accumulate, who buried their dead by Again, parallels can be drawn with the situainhumation
in a seated, crouched position, in asso­ tion in Northwest Europe, where expanding agriculciation
with mortuary offerings. Very little is known tural groups met local hunter-gatherers. At present,
of the spatial organization within these sites, except Khok Phanom Di could be interpreted as a site where
for the site of Nong Nor, which has been almost there was a vigorous exchange in valued goods becompletely
excavated (Higham & Thosarat 1998). tween coastal hunter-gatherers and inland farmers,
This site was located on the shore of an extensive an exchange which certainly involved shell jewelmarine
embayment of the Gulf of Siam. The faunal lery, stone adzes and ceramic vessels, but which
remains indicate deep-water fishing for large sharks could equally have incorporated people. The anvil,
and eagle rays, hunting marine mammals, as well as for example, associated with the richest female potfishing
for smaller species and the collection of shell­ ter interred there, was made of an exotic clay and
fish. Specific areas for making pottery vessels and was inscribed with an owner's mark. Her presumed
230

daughter buried in an adjacent grave, aged 18 months
at death, was accompanied by a miniature anvil made
of the local clay (Vincent pers. comm.). It would be
unusual if there were not such interactions at the
contact between two such different groups of people.
The intriguing question posed concerns the
course of language change under such circumstances.
Geoffrey Benjamin (1976) has reported on a detailed
study of the languages spoken by the Aslian
(AA-speaking) hunter-gatherers of Malaysia. The
Semang are a group of Negrito hunter-gatherers
adapted to the inland forested habitat. They speak
AA languages (Aslian subgroup), and in particular,
their vocabularies for domesticated plants and animals
are derived from AA. Benjamin has suggested
that their ancestors originally would have spoken a
language related to Andamanese, and adopted their
AA languages from intrusive agriculturalists, with
whom they would have been in exchange contact.
He turned to archaeology for the dating evidence
that suggests a beginning in the third millennium Be.
Reid (1994) adopted a similar interpretation for the
Nicobarese AA languages when he identified Nancowry
as a conservative relic language, into which
the original Negrito inhabitants contributed much of
the non AA lexical component before being completelyassimilated.
Conclusions
Bellwood (1993) has proposed a characteristically
succinct interpretation of a complex issue by suggesting
that the original hunter-gatherers of Southeast
Asia now survive as Negrito groups in the
Andaman Islands, the Philippines and peninsula
Thailand and Malaysia. They may even be descended
from Hoabinhian occupants of the very caves where
to this day, hunter-gatherers still gather seasonally.
Their ancestral language is not known but possibly
related ones could be investigated on the Andamans.
The intrusive agriculturalists were of southern Mongoloid
biological stock and introduced AA languages.
Acculturation in much of Southeast Asia then saw
the Widespread adoption of AA. A broad swathe of
interacting groups of AA agriculturalists, whose settlements
stretched from Lingnan to Orissa, and from
Yunnan to southern Thailand, were later themselves
overtakenby other intrusive groups, including the Thais
(Austro-Tai languages), the Chams (Austronesian), the
Burmese (Sino-Tibetan) and the speakers of Indo­
Aryan languages in India. Thus developed the kaleidoscope
of languages spoken in Southeast Asia today,
a mix first noted by Simon de la Loubere in 1693.
Austroasiatic Languages and Rice Cultivation
231
This model stands for testing. It has brought
some opprobrium on the author of this paper, but it
results from a genuine attempt to seek a consistent
and logical pattern. Critics are invited to provide an
alternative. However, testing must proceed, and the
most promising avenue is seen in the new subject of
archaeogenetics. Already, the study of dog DNA
hints at links between the prehistoric Southeast Asian
and Chinese canids. A research initiative to study
ancient human DNA is being planned.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Colin Renfrew and Peter Bellwood
for inviting me to attend this meeting.
References
Allchin, R & B. Allchin, 1982. The Rise of Civilization in
India and Pakistan. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bellwood, P., 1993. Cultural and biological differentiation
in peninsular Malaysia: the last 10,000 years. Asian
Perspectives 32, 37-60.
Benjamin, G., 1976. Austroasiatic sUbgroupings and prehistory
in the Malay Peninsula, in Jenner et al. (eds.),
37-128.
Blench, R & M. Spriggs (eds.), 1998. Archaeology and Language,
vol. II: Correlating Archaeological and Linguistic
Hypotheses. London: Routledge.
Blust, R, 1996. Beyond the Austronesian homeland: the
Austric hypothesis and its implications for archaeology,
in Prehistoric Settlement of the Pacific, ed. W.H.
Goodenough. (Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society 86.) Philadelphia (PA): American
Philosophical Society, 117-40.
Crawford, G.W. & Chen 5.,1998. The origins of rice agriculture:
recent progress in East Asia. Antiquity 72,
858-66.
De la Loubere, 5., 1693. A New Historical Relation of the
Kingdom of Siam. London: Tho. Horne.
Heine-Geldern, R von, 1932. Urheimat und fruheste
wanderungen der Austronesier. Anthropos 27, 543­
619.
Higham, CF.W. & T.L.-D. Lu, 1998. The origins and dispersal
of rice cultivation. Antiquity 72, 867-77.
Higham, CF.W. & R Thosarat (eds.), 1998. The Excavation
of Nong Nor: a Prehistoric Site in Central Thailand.
Oxford: Otago University Anthropology Department
and Oxbow Books.
Jenner, P.N., L.C Thompson & S. Starosta (eds.), 1976.
Austroasiatic Studies, vol. II. (Oceanic Linguistics Special
Publication 13.) Honolulu (HI): University Press
of Hawaii.
Luce, G.H., 1985. Phases of Pre-Pagan Burma. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Mahdi, W., 1998. Linguistic data on transmission of South­

east Asian cultigens to India and Sri Lanka, in Blench
& Spriggs (eds.), 390-415.
Norman, J. & T. Mei, 1976. The Austroasiatics in ancient
South China; some lexical evidence. Monumenta
Serica 32, 274-301.
Pei, A., 1998. Notes on new advancements and revelations
in the agricultural archaeology of early rice domestication
in the Dongting Lake region. Antiquity 72,
878-85.
Pejros,1. & V. Schirelman, 1998. Rice in Southeast Asia: a
regional interdisciplinary approach, in Blench &
Spriggs (eds.), 379-89.
Reid, L.A., 1994. Morphological evidence for Austric. Oceanic
Linguistics 33,323-44.
Schmidt, W., 1906. Die Mon-Khmer Volker: ein Bindeglied
Zwischen V61kern Zentralasiens und Austronesiens.
Archiv der Anthropologie (Braunschweig) n.s. 5, 59-109.
Chapter 18
232
Wheeler, R.E.M., 1959. Early India and Pakistan to Asboka.
London: Thames & Hudson.
YPM (Yunnan Provincial Museum), 1981. The Baiyangcun
site at Binchuan County, Yunnan Province. Kaogu
Xuebuo 1981, 349-68. [In Chinese.]
Yuan, J. & C. Zhang, 1999: The origins of pottery and rice
cultivation in China. Newsletter of the Grant-in-Aid
Program for COE Research Foundation of the Ministry
of Education. Science, Sports and Culture in Japan 2(1),
3-4.
Zhao, Z., 1998. The middle Yangtze region in China is one
place where rice was domesticated: phytolith evidence
from Diaotonghuan cave, northern Jiangxi.
Antiquity 72, 885-97.
Zide, A.R.K. & N.H. Zide, 1976. Proto-Munda cultural
vocabulary: evidence for early agriculture, in Jenner
et al. (eds.), 1295-334.