Austronesians – ‘People of the Southern Lands’

Austronesian ‘People of the Southern Lands’

Some time during the 1780s Welsh linguist William Jones had an epiphany when he realised that languages such as English, Latin, Classical Greek and Sanskrit, (he was stationed in India at the time), shared clear commonalities. He was of course quite correct and today all these languages are considered to be branches of an original root language termed Proto-Indo-European, (or PIE), which is thought to have developed on the Pontic-Caspian Steppes some 6000 years ago. In his own particular area of interest, Dutch scholar Adriaan Reland had beaten Jones to it by some 70 years when he determined that ethnic groups from Madagascar to Polynesia also shared common linguistic roots. They were to become known as Austronesian people..

He too was proved to be correct and it was German anthropologist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach who subsequently coined the term Austronesian People or Peoples of the Southern Lands. (He also came up with the name Malay race which created confusion between Malay languages and the Malay ethnic group and is now seen as an oversimplification.) While Blumenbach’s theories were to be grossly distorted by 19th century Scientific Racism, he was what’s called a monogenist who considered all races derived from a common origin and were therefore fundamentally equal.

This Austronesian linguistic category stretching from the Indian Ocean to Hawaii covers literally, half of the planet but is more conveniently subdivided into the following groups: Formosan, Oceanic, (comprising Polynesia and Micronesia), Western and Central Malayo-Polynesian and the New Guinea linguistic group. Western Malayo-Polynesian includes much of Indonesia, the Philippines and Madagascar  – a lot of which is still beyond our area of relevance – so we’re paring it down further to certain areas of mainland Southeast Asia and certain islands of the Indonesian Archipelago. The former comprises modern-day West Malaysia along with Austronesian speaking minorities in Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam. The latter includes Sumatra, Java, Sulawesi and Kalimantan plus the Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak on the island of Borneo.

Before describing contemporary and historical Austronesian cultures of Southeast Asia we’ll refer back to the first in our list of sub-groups, Formosan. While some debate among linguists and anthropologists remains it is generally considered that the entire Austronesian diaspora originated on the island of Formosa, present-day Taiwan. The ‘out of Taiwan’ theory purports that waves of migration from 3000 BCE onwards, facilitated by early developments in shipbuilding technology, was responsible for the spread of Austronesian peoples and language. In our area of interest they spread from Formosa to Borneo via what is today the Philippines before crossing the South China Sea to mainland Southeast Asia as well as Java and Sumatra.

Today the official language of Malaysia is Bahasa Melayu (1) while the lingua franca of Indonesia is Bahasa Indonesia. Bahasa simply means language in Sanskrit and early contacts with the Indian subcontinent meant both versions of the language were heavily influenced by Sanskrit and Pali. In more recent times Indonesian inevitably saw significant Dutch influences and Malaysian, English. Not surprisingly the vast Indonesian archipelago also includes numerous linguistic subgroups such as Javanese etc. (Bahasa Indonesian is considered to be a modernised and simplified version of Javanese.)

Austronesians had been migrating into mainland Southeast Asia for millennia, either across the South China Sea from Borneo, or overland through southern China,  – as we said there is still some debate. However, in so far as their earliest recorded cultures in the region, such as the Sa Huynh, were situated in coastal areas of Vietnam, maritime migration seems logical. Sa Huynh culture is considered to predate the Chams who occupied much of the central Vietnamese coast from the 3rd to 4th centuries CE onwards. The Chams too were an Austronesian speaking group heavily involved in maritime trade between China and India. Culturally, they were also strongly influenced by the latter and adopted Hinduism and to a lesser extent Buddhism while their language absorbed many Sanskrit terms. They converted to Islam around the 17th century before eventually being absorbed by Vietnamese migration from the north. Today Cham people form an ethnic minority occupying areas of the Mekong Delta as well as parts of Cambodia. (Notably in Kampot and Kep, as well as Kampong Cham Province although smaller Cham communities today are found around the Tonle Sap Lake and tributaries as well as the Mekong Valley.)

Another important early civilisation was Funan, based in the Mekong Delta region of Vietnam and lower Cambodia. With their principal port of Oc Eo in today’s An Giang Province, The Funan culture grew wealthy and powerful in the early centuries of the first millennia due principally to their strategic location on trade routes between India and China. Travel from Chinese ports all the way to the Indian subcontinent entailed a very long and sometimes dangerous journey while varying monsoon periods in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean incurred lengthy stop-overs. A convenient, well-appointed entrepot located between the two was ideal. The pre-existing population of mainland Southeast Asia was Mon-Khmer or Austroasiatic people so while much of the population of Funan – and to some extent Champa –  was undoubtedly Mon-Khmer, it appears the nobility at least was ethnic Malay.  (Some evidence has been found from DNA analysis at burial sites.)

Funan was absorbed by landlocked Chenla, higher up the Mekong Valley, from the 7th century onwards. By then, improved maritime technology is thought to have reduced the need to make a stop in Oc Eo and Srivijayan ports in Sumatra gained prominence, (Travel between Oc Eo to India meant shipping still had to pass through the Straights of Malacca, increasingly dominated by expansionist Srivijaya, whereas Funan was much easier to bypass and so trade declined.) While some of Chenla’s aristocracy may well also have had Austronesian ancestry, the bulk of the population was again Mon-Khmer. Both Funan and Chenla were also highly influenced by Indian culture and were both predominantly Hindu. Chenla was to evolve into the Khmer, Angkor civilisation, Funan disappeared from the map. and the Chams of central Vietnam became the principal rivals of Angkor. (Numerous battle scenes between Khmers and Chams can be seen in reliefs at such temples as Angkor Wat, Banteay Chhmar and Bayon.)

Additionally, many of the ‘montagnard‘ minorities of Vietnam’s Central Highlands and northeastern Cambodia such as the Jarai and Ede also speak languages of the Austronesian family and represent earlier arrivals who were pushed into remoter areas by subsequent waves of migration into coastal areas and river valleys.

In Java early Hindu-Buddhist, Austronesian cultures such as the Saliendras – and subsequent Majapahit kingdom – also converted to Islam during the 15th to 16th centuries after prolongued contact with Arab traders. The Saliendras left behind the legacy of the spectacular 9th century Buddhist temple of Borobudur and the nearby Hindu complex of Prambanan. Borobudur is said to be the World’s largest Buddhist temple (2) while Prambanan is second only in size to Angkor Wat. Equally impressive Candi Sewu lies less than 1 kilometre from Prambanan and is also a Mahayana Buddhist temple. In Sumatra, Srivijaya and the aforementioned Melayu adopted Islam during a similar period and while their architectural heritage doesn’t reach the heights of Java. at their peak they controlled much of what is today West Malaysia and southern Thailand. Interestingly, certain Austronesian speaking groups in the interior such as the Batak of Lake Toba and northern Sumatra had only partially assimilated Hindu elements into what were fundamentally animist beliefs while also resisting subsequent conversion to Islam.

Peninsula Southeast Asia was also originally inhabited by Austroasiatic, Mon-Khmer, peoples before seeing waves of Austronesian, and in more recent times, Tai or Thai migration. Today, Austronesians, in the form of ethnic Malays, comprise the majority of the population of West Malaysia and Thailand’s southern provinces of Pattani, Narathiwat, Yala and Satun. (3) Significant Muslim, Malay speaking minorities also reside in adjacent provinces of Nakhon Si Thammarat, Trang and Krabi particularly on the islands and coasts.  Today, with the exception of a few Orang Asli groups in the interior, the Peninsula’s original Mon-Khmer inhabitants have been completely assimilated by the subsequent migrants.

In the early centuries of the first millennia Chinese records list a series of ports and polities on both coasts of the Peninsula involved in maritime trade between India and China. All of these Hindu and/or Buddhist entrepots appear heavily influenced by and probably intermittently controlled by Funan while many of the rulers had adopted Sanskrit titles. Although, once again, the bulk of the population would have been Mon-Khmer, as coastal maritime polities the ruling and merchant classes were likely to have been Austronesian settlers. Some of the Chinese recorded sites have been located – others remain unidentified. Langkasuka is located in present-day Pattani, Ligor, a predecessor of the powerful Tambralinga kingdom occupies today’s site of Nakorn Si Thammarat and possibly corresponds to ancient Panpan while additional important, early trading settlements have been identified at Chaiya and Takua Pa. Kedah, on Malaysia’s west coast, houses a significant number of ancient Buddhist and Hindu shrines.  All of these sites were at least intermittently controlled by Srivijaya, in particular Kedah which some historians describe as Srivijaya’s northern capital.

As long as the trade routes functioned most of these polities continued to exist in various forms even after the decline of Srivijaya from the 11th century onwards, although in subsequent centuries they were to find themselves squeezed between expansionist Siam to the north and the by now Peninsula’s Muslim, Malay majority. (The Mon-Khmer, as we said, are now long gone.)

Today Austronesian people are estimated to comprise some 280 million – or 95% – of the population of Indonesia and 22 million or 65-70% of the Malaysian population. Thai estimates are complicated as statistics include non-Austronesian Muslim groups such as those originating from China but in southern provinces they probably number around 5 million. No accurate figures are available for Cambodia although estimates of the Cham population stretch to at least 500,000 (4) along with a smaller number of Austronesian speaking montagnard groups. Estimates for Vietnam, including relic Cham populations, are some 1.5 million. Impressive figures if they all originated several millennia ago from the relatively small island of Formosa.

(1) The earliest records of the term Melayu (or Malayu) are from Chinese traders who described a 7th century, Buddhist kingdom located in present-day Jambi Province of Sumatra. It was initially short-lived, having been, at least temporarily, absorbed by its more powerful Srivijayan neighbours by the 8th century, However, mentions of Melayu embassies to China resurface in the 10th-11th centuries while an inscription records the Melayu ruler being joyful when an Indian – Cola – fleet sacked the Srivijayan capital in 1025. They were still around and still hadn’t forgiven their neighbours. Overall, little is known about this early Austronesian polity even though even though it went on to provide the modern name for the Malaysian nation and people.  

(2) Debatable and depends upon classifying sites such as Tibet’s Potala Palace as a collection of structures rather than a single building.  

(3) Pattani, Narathiwat and Yala have suffered several decades of civil strife driven by conflict between autonomist elements of the Muslim population and the Thai government. 

(4) Deliberate or otherwise we’d say this is a significant underestimate.