Immanuel Ness (ed.), 2013, The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration

Online edition, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444351071.wbeghm583/full

Indigenous migrations, Southeast Asia Geoffrey Benjamin

This article was accidentally omitted from the printed edition of the Encyclopedia

despite having been formally accepted for publication.

There is an error on page 6 of the version posted on the above website.

The correct version has been inserted in the present copy.

The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration, Edited by Immanuel Ness.© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.DOI: 10.1002/9781444351071.wbeghm583

Indigenous migrations, Southeast AsiaGeoffrey Benjamin

Introduction

Southeast Asia – and the Malay World in par-ticular – is often characterized as the pathway through which the Indo-Pacific region was orig-inally populated. This idea has undoubtedly been influenced by the funnel-like shape of the Malay Peninsula, through which ancient migrants supposedly poured from a heavily populated Asian mainland into a presump-tively empty archipelago. One consequence has been the repeated assertion in the popular and semi-scholarly literature since the 19th century that the region has witnessed successive racial “waves” (such as “Negrito,” “Proto-Malay,” “Deutero-Malay”) of north to south migration at intervals of several millennia. The claimed number of such waves has varied with the num-ber of distinct “races” and “cultures” thought of as constituting the ethnically plural charac-ter of current Southeast Asian polities. On the basis of this “layer cake” approach, the present-day ethnic and “racial” differences in the region are still often regarded as the unaltered and stratified residue of differential migrations that took place in prehistoric times – a view that con-tinues to be presented in many of the textbooks studied in the region’s schools and universities.

However, this approach no longer finds favor among researchers who have dealt directly with the relevant data. The concept of “race” has lost any explanatory significance in the light of what is now known about the actual patterns of human genetic variation. Archae-ologists and linguists have demonstrated that any migrations that took place in early South-east Asia were more complicated and differ-ently orientated than claimed by the layered “wave” view. Social scientists have suggested

that the continued persistence of that view relates primarily to current political concerns.

Indigenous migrations

The term “migrations” is itself problematic. Much of the literature on the topic is con-cerned with very ancient population movements into Southeast Asia from elsewhere. These took place at much greater time-depths – between 500,000 and 10,000 years ago – than can be studied by the methods of conventional his-torical linguistics or ethnology, and are there-fore more properly treated under the rubrics of early “hominid dispersals” or later “peoplings.” Recent discussions of this topic with reference to Southeast Asia deal in one way or another with the consequences of the hypothesized out-of-Africa movement of Homo sapiens starting approximately 60,000 years ago.

Older theories assume that the various “Negrito” populations of the Philippines, the Malay Peninsula, and the Andaman Islands are the direct, unmodified descendants of that movement. But current opinion has shifted to the view that these so-called “Negritos” con-stitute neither a single population nor the unaltered remnant of a migration from Africa. Instead, they are now seen as deceptively similar-looking populations whose short-statured, dark-skinned somatotype has evolved and been maintained mostly through local processes involving a variety of genetic and epigenetic factors.

However, problems remain with regard to “indigenous migrations” even after the hypoth-esized out-of-Africa migrations are excluded from the discussion and attention directed to more recent developments. People who have migrated to a new area are, strictly speaking, no longer indigenous to the places they have come to inhabit. This applies especially to those situations, typical of the modern world, where knowledge of the migratory history

2 indigenous migrations, southeast asia

sarily to interpret) than the material culture studied by archaeologists or the cultural pat-terns revealed by ethnographic research.

It is often assumed that migration involves the movement of whole “peoples.” This ignores the fact that most such movements involve only individuals or small groups. Migration will therefore not necessarily cause an immedi-ate genetic, linguistic, or cultural rupture between those who moved away and those who stayed behind. The common assumption that migrations are unidirectional is also unfounded: the evidence suggests a much more compli-cated sequence in Southeast Asia, involving a significant amount of back-migration.

Attempts to map the findings of genetics, linguistics, and archaeology onto the region’s current ethnic categorizations come up against the shallow time-depth of these categoriza-tions. Tribal identities are rarely recognizable for more than six generations, and therefore cannot be mapped directly onto remoter times. The ethnic identities of such larger and non-tribal populations as the “Burmans,” “Thais,” “Vietnamese,” or “Malays” have displayed a complicated and variable history, involving not simply migration but also a considerable degree of linguistic and cultural assimilation of people who remained largely in situ. Conse-quently, the identifying of present-day ethnic categories with presumed ancient populations is problematic. The question of ethnogenesis – how recognizable “peoples” come into being – must therefore be regarded in principle as a separate issue from migration. This warning is especially relevant when attempting to under-stand the human diversity of Southeast Asia, which is home to more than 1,200 identifiable ethnolinguistic populations.

Genetic evidence

Despite the many positive results it has pro-duced, the use of genetic data in studying the population history of Southeast Asia is not without problems. Variations in gene frequen-cies between populations, and the presence or absence of certain genes, can result from a variety of factors other than migration. These

remains within the people’s memory or where that history continues to affect their cultural framework, which thereby takes on an “exog-enous” character. Contrariwise, the earlier the migration, the less salient becomes the issue of indigeny versus exogeny. Sociologically, true place-linked indigeny should not be confused with “indigeneity,” a form of modern political identity characteristic of culturally exogenous contexts; the overlap between them is only partial.

Further ambiguity results from the wide-spread fusing of the terms “indigenous” and “tribal,” which refer to distinct social situations rather than different types of people. In South-east Asia, most of the people who live in authentically indigenous circumstances (indig-eny) have been state-linked peasants rather than autonomous tribespeople – even though the peasants’ ancestors were themselves mostly tribespeople in earlier times. On the other hand, a few present-day tribal populations in the region are not strictly indigenous to the places they currently occupy.

In this article, therefore, “indigenous migra-tions” will instead be taken to refer to popula-tion movements that took place within Southeast Asia as a whole, as opposed to the more recent movements that brought people into the region from elsewhere, China and South Asia in particular. The latter, clearly exogenous, migrations have been well studied by historians and sociologists. The indigenous migrations within the region, on the other hand, have mostly remained undocumented and have had to be studied by different methods. The most important of these are human biology (including genetics), historical linguistics, and prehistoric archaeology (see, for example, Diffloth 2005; Bellwood 2006; Enfield 2011; Lansing et al. 2011). Cultural anthropology has also contributed, though to a lesser extent. Unfortunately, these various approaches have not always provided clear results, nor have they always matched each others’ findings. They also differ in the readi-ness with which they yield relevant informa-tion: linguistic and genetic data, where they exist, are easier to analyze (though not neces-

indigenous migrations, southeast asia 3

and within Asia. Sometimes this has generated findings that accord with non-genetic evi-dence, such as the known arrival of Austrone-sian languages on Madagascar more than a millennium ago. But it sometimes provides data that have no significant population-wide consequence. In northwestern Australia, for example, the isolated presence of haplogroup O results from the passing visits of male pearl-fishers from Southeast Asia just a century ago.

A further problem is that, while mitochon-drial DNA and Y-chromosome haplotypes may be useful for indicating the possible time-depths of presumed population differentia-tions, they cannot in themselves indicate where those differentiations occurred. Consequently, although genomic data provide some evidence of ancestry, and sometimes correspond reason-ably well with language relationships, they are not necessarily a reliable guide to migrational history. A significant positive finding of this research, however, is that males and females have often had different migratory histories. In some places males moved further afield than females, while at other places and times it was the females who moved more. Both patterns have been found in different parts of Southeast Asia, providing a glimpse into the possible social organizational patterns of earlier and current migrations.

Linguistic evidence

The 11 countries of Southeast Asia exhibit great linguistic and ethnic heterogeneity. Apart from the ten or so regional languages that have millions of speakers each, the region is also home to more than 1,200 local languages, many of which are endangered. Each of these languages is typically, though sometimes mis-leadingly, thought of as belonging to a distinct “people.”

As Table 1 illustrates, Southeast Asian lin-guistic heterogeneity incorporates more than six distinct stocks. Each of these stocks con-tains languages that are also found beyond Southeast Asia. (The so-called “Papuan” lan-guages are listed primarily because of Indone-sia’s annexation of the western half of New

include descent, interbreeding, natural selec-tion, and cultural selection. The latter, for example, often leads to endogamy, which results in reduced gene flow from outside along with an increased representation of some of the genes already present. Phenotypic charac-ters controlled by normal (autosomal) genes vary significantly in their expression, depend-ing on whether they are monogenic, such as blood groups (directly expressed, with fast-changing frequencies open to natural selec-tion) or polygenic, such as skin color or stature (phenotypically expressed, relatively slower to change frequency, but open to environmentally modified expression). On balance, however, it seems that since the first emergence of biologi-cally modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens), cultural and social selection has had a greater effect than natural selection on gene-frequency variations in human populations.

In addition to recent findings based on autosome and whole-genome research, two special categories of gene have received close attention by researchers seeking to uncover our species’ migratory history, especially in South-east Asia. These are the distinctive haplotypes situated on the patrilineally inherited Y chro-mosome and the non-chromosomal DNA (mtDNA) carried by the matrilineally inher-ited mitochondria. Since these genes, unlike the normal autosomal genes, hardly ever undergo recombination, it has been assumed that their presence is due to ancestry alone, and that any mutations they have undergone can provide a molecular clock indicating the time-depths at which the various population diver-gences occurred. Some caution is necessary, however.

Mitochondrial DNA is now known to be not as selectively neutral as used to be thought, and it may therefore not represent the unmodi-fied consequences of remote ancestry. Genes on the Y-chromosome can spread rapidly, for it takes very few visiting males to introduce them into a population. This is relevant espe-cially to studies of haplogroup O, the varying mutants of which have been interpreted as indicating the remoter relations between human populations and their migrations into

4 indigenous migrations, southeast asia

gration was a major factor in the spread of all these languages, the ancestral varieties of which must frequently have moved with the people who spoke them, especially where agriculture-based demic expansion was involved. But lan-guage movements do not always result from large-scale migrations, for languages have also been taken up by nonmigrants who previously spoke other languages. In Southeast Asia this kind of language shift has happened in both modern and premodern times under a variety of circumstances, ranging from free adoption (usually involving multilingualism) to state-linked imposition. There has also been much mutual influence between neighboring lan-guages, sometimes to an extent that makes it difficult to classify them. Without a proper classification, it is not possible to assess the degree of diversity within the family, which in turn would make it impossible to identify a homeland in the first place.

Despite these potential drawbacks, histori-cal linguistics nevertheless provides the most easily formalized means of assessing varying degrees of language diversity and mutual rela-tionship. The underlying principle (not uni-versally accepted by linguists) has been the claim that the areas of greatest linguistic diver-sity must have been the homelands of the various language stocks, and consequently that the areas of lower diversity are those into which the languages moved. Historical linguistics has also proved valuable in recovering the lexicons available to speakers of the earlier stages of the languages. Careful attention to the recon-structed words for plants, animals, material culture, and environmental features has pro-vided key clues to the geographical locations through which the ancestral languages passed. The time-depths of the earlier language spreads are difficult to assess, and usually involve at-tempts to match them with parallel spreads of material culture as dated by archaeologists using modern laboratory techniques. This pro-cedure risks circularity, but it has produced some reasonably well-accepted results, especially for the spread of the Austronesian languages. Newer lexicostatistical methods involving Bayesian an-alysis also show some promise in this regard.

Guinea in 1969. They do not constitute a single stock, and “Papuan” simply refers to the non-Austronesian languages of the area.)

Austronesian languages are extensively pre-sent in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and a few places on the mainland. But they are also found in Taiwan, throughout the Pacific, and on some Indian Ocean islands near eastern Africa. The Mon-Khmer division of the Aus-troasiatic languages is concentrated in parts of Burma, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Peninsular Malaysia, and the Nicobar Islands, but Aus-troasiatic languages are also found in eastern India and southwest China. Tai-Kadai lan-guages are spoken in Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam, but the majority are spoken in southern China. Despite the presence of Tibeto- Burman languages in Burma and Thailand, the overwhelming majority are spoken in India, Nepal, Bangladesh, and southern China. Rela-tively little is known about the Hmong-Mien languages, but it is clear that the varieties spoken in Laos and Thailand number far fewer than those spoken in China.

As the distribution figures suggest, it is widely accepted that the Austronesian and Aus-troasiatic languages have had a longer history within Southeast Asia than the languages be-longing to the remaining three stocks (not counting “Papuan”), which are presumed to have moved in from further north. Clearly, mi-

Table 1 Numbers of languages

Language stockIn Southeast

AsiaWorld total

Austroasiatic (incl. Mon-Khmer)

133 79% 169

Austronesian 718 57% 1257Tai-Kadai (Kra-Dai) 43 47% 92“Papuan” 235 29% 822Tibeto-Burman 85 20% 435Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) 3 8% 38

Note: The table excludes languages belonging to the Dra-vidian, Sinitic, and Indo-European stocks, which add further complexity, but which arrived from elsewhere as part of the region’s recent history.Source: Lewis 2013.

indigenous migrations, southeast asia 5

they were once also spoken on the coasts of the Malay Peninsula. Later movements led to the spread of the Malayic languages out of Borneo to the Malay Peninsula and other parts of the mainland, beginning around 2,000 years ago, and probably replacing some of the Austrone-sian languages already spoken there. Malay eventually became the pre-eminent language of trade and Islamic writings throughout the archipelago; in modern times it has formed the national language of both Indonesia and Malaysia. Other first millennium voyages carried Austronesian speech from southern Borneo across the Indian Ocean to the Comoros and Madagascar, but contact was maintained with the Malay-speaking areas of Southeast Asia for several centuries afterwards.

Opinions differ as to the mechanisms involved in this spread of Austronesian. Cer-tainly, both agricultural demic expansion and maritime trade must have been involved. Questions have arisen, however, as to whether there was replacement or absorption of the non-Austronesian-speaking populations who must already have been present in the area. Non-Austronesian “Papuan” languages are still spoken in parts of eastern Indonesia, but the greater part of the archipelago, including the whole of the Philippines, is now solidly Austro-nesian in speech. Phenotypic differences exist, however, as for example with the “Negritos” found in many parts of the Philippines and the darker skinned people inhabiting eastern Indo-nesia, outwards into Melanesia. It is widely assumed that these populations – whether or not they are mutually related – represent the descendants of the people who were already present when the Austronesian speakers moved in. If that is the case, a significant part of the spread of the Austronesian languages must have occurred through processes other than migration.

As mentioned, “early” Austronesian lan-guages began to move northwards into the Malay Peninsula from Sumatra around 2,500 years ago, but have mostly since died out. Malay arrived later, probably around 1,500 to 2,000 years ago, as part of the political outreach of the Srivijayan kingdom centered in southern

Findings

What then are the current views about indig-enous migrations in Southeast Asia? Despite the conceptual and methodological problems mentioned above, it is certain that migrations have taken place, even if they are not the sole explanation for the region’s diversity. These migrations have varied in character, depend-ing on whether they were ancient or recent, large scale or small scale, and irreversible or reversible.

Ancient migrations

Much of the literature on Southeast Asian migrations has concerned prehistoric move-ments. The most closely studied of these has concerned the Austronesian-speaking popula-tions, who moved by both sea and land. (Unfortunately, there has been a tendency in the genomic literature to widen the definition of “Austronesian” to cover time-depths far earlier than this properly linguistic label will sustain.) The story of the Austronesian language stock can be traced for sure only as far as the island of Taiwan, where a widely divergent group (“Formosan”) of Austronesian languages are, or were recently, spoken by the non-Chinese Aboriginal populations. The most widely accepted model suggests that speakers of an early Austronesian subgroup (“Proto-Malayo-Polynesian”) moved into the northern Philippines between 4,500 and 4,000 years ago. The closely correlated archaeological and lexical evidence suggests that the people carried with them their pigs, dogs, and chick-ens, various cereal crops, and material culture. From there the movement proceeded south-wards, diverging around 3,500 years ago into eastern and western wings, in the general area of Borneo, Sulawesi, and Halmahera. The eastern wing then spread around the coasts of New Guinea and on into the Pacific, while the western wing moved through Indonesia, reach-ing Borneo and Sumatra around 3,000 years ago. Descendants of these earlier arriving Aus-tronesian languages are still spoken on the islands off the east coast of Sumatra as well as on the main island, and there is evidence that

6 indigenous migrations, southeast asia

there is no direct evidence that they ever spoke a prior language, and (as already mentioned) they appear not to bear any specific genetic relationship to the Negritos of the Philippines. Although it has been claimed that the Penin-sular Negritos display a distinctive mitochon-drial DNA profile, this probably relates to much earlier population linkages to other parts of the Old World than can be accounted for by changes in the last few millennia.

While the identity of the Aslian languages as a distinctive subgroup within Mon-Khmer is reasonably well established, the Mon-Khmer languages as a whole remain relatively unstud-ied. It is therefore not possible to state with much certainty on linguistic grounds alone where the homeland might be. It is generally accepted, however, that the degree of differen-tiation within the Mon-Khmer division of Austroasiatic is considerable, with around a dozen major subdivisions. Mon-Khmer must therefore constitute the “oldest” of the extant language families of mainland Southeast Asia, and have its homeland either there or in a closely neighboring territory. Lexical recon-struction suggests that the earliest Austroasi-atic speakers were familiar with such tropical animals as the peacock, elephant, buffalo, and monitor lizards, and that they cultivated rice. In principle therefore, the Mon-Khmer array should display a close connection with the region’s archaeological findings – and migra-tional history, if any.

It has been suggested that proto-Austroasiatic may have emerged some seven thousand years ago, possibly somewhere in or near today’s Bangladesh. (The other major branch of Aus-troasiatic, constituted of the Munda languages, is spoken in India by populations that differ considerably in physical appearance from almost all the Mon-Khmer speakers of South-east Asia.) It is thought that the Mon-Khmer languages then emerged as a distinct subgroup around 6,000 years ago, presumably some-where in northern Southeast Asia. On this view the ancestors of the various subgroups known today, such as Vietnamese and its relatives, the Cambodian languages, and the Mon-Aslian languages, began to separate out between 4,000

Sumatra. Malay survives vigorously in Sumatra and the Peninsula in a variety of local dialects. Initially, the movement of the language into the Peninsula would have involved a mixture of demic spread and trading relations with the people who were already living there. The latter would almost certainly have been speaking ancestral forms of the approximately 20 Aslian languages that survive there today as the south-ernmost representatives of the Mon-Khmer division of Austroasiatic.

The considerable structural variety of the Aslian languages, coupled with their conserva-tive linguistic character, means that they must have arrived several millennia ago in the Penin-sula, before undergoing further differentiation. Several lines of evidence – genetic, archaeo-logical, and linguistic – strongly suggest that the ancestral form of Aslian separated off from the rest of the Mon-Khmer division of Aus-troasiatic some 3,300 years ago, probably in central Thailand. Pre-Aslian then probably moved down the west side of the Peninsula, and then by various inland routes across to the eastern side. The Malay Peninsula is thus of special interest as what might be called the “Austric marchland” – the territory where the two indigenous Southeast Asian language stocks, Austronesian and Austroasiatic, are still moving with respect to each other. One other such ter-ritory is in parts of Vietnam and Cambodia, where the Chamic division of Austronesian has interacted lexically with the Mon-Khmer lan-guages also spoken there.

While there is evidence that Chamic reached the mainland by maritime migration from northern Sumatra, the current interaction between the two language stocks in the Penin-sula and on the mainland probably involves only very small-scale local migrations. The Aslian languages and the populations who speak them appear to have differentiated from each other through a complicated mixture of local migrations within the Peninsula, coupled with in situ cultural differentiation. The presence of so-called “Negritos” as a minority (2–3%) among the Aslian speakers has attracted some discussion in the literature. Until recently they were mostly nomadic hunter-gatherers, but

indigenous migrations, southeast asia 7

from around 1200 ce, again with little popula-tion change. Burma too has experienced con-siderable language replacement, with Burmese (Tibeto-Burman) a relatively new imposition on populations that previously spoke various Mon-Khmer and Tai-Kadai languages. This his-tory of language suppletion has had enduring sociocultural consequences to the present day. (Popular and scholarly discourse in Thailand and Burma, however, mostly continues to repeat migration-based explanations for these shifts.)

Recent migrations

In recent decades, changes along the borders of modern nation-states and the incomplete inte-gration of the populations living there have acted as significant push factors for migration. These factors have led, for example, to move-ments of speakers of Tibeto-Burman, Hmong-Mien, and Austroasiatic languages from China into Laos, and from Laos and Burma into Thai-land. Many of these overland migrations have involved leapfrogging between sites lying at the same altitude as the places they moved from, resulting in a discontinuous distribution of otherwise rather closely related ethnolinguistic populations. Migrant Hmong-Mien speakers, for example, have tended to settle at higher altitudes than Austroasiatic (Mon-Khmer) speakers, who in turn often prefer to live at higher altitudes than the typically plains-dwelling Tibeto-Burman and Tai-speaking populations. Consequently, color-coded lan-guage maps of northern mainland Southeast Asia display a pointillistic effect rather than large patches of solid color. Although these recent migrants are often regarded as refugees, most of them are now settled permanently in their new sites.

Less permanent migrations also occur. Within Thailand, for example, large numbers of people in the drier northeast of the country migrate seasonally to work in central Thailand during the agricultural off period, but they mostly return home when farming resumes. A similar movement, international and longer term, has introduced large numbers of Indo-nesian men into Malaysia as laborers and many

and 3,000 years ago – that is, at roughly the same time as the major subgroups of Austro-nesian were emerging further east in the islands. The extent to which migration, as opposed to other possible processes, played a part in this language spread has yet to be researched. But it seems reasonable to assume that some demic population movements were involved, possibly connected with grain agri-culture. Genetic studies have sometimes pro-vided evidence of specific relatedness between Mon-Khmer-speaking populations. However, some of these shared markers, including hemo-globin E, are also known to be responsive to selection by such shared environmental factors as malaria. This would imply that common ancestry – and thus migration – may not be the whole of the Mon-Khmer story.

The Tai-Kadai, Tibeto-Burman, and Hmong- Mien languages moved into Southeast Asia more recently and from further north in main-land Asia than the Mon-Khmer languages. Indeed, languages of these families are still being carried into Burma, Laos, and Thailand through population movements from south-ern China that are under study by ethnogra-phers and sociologists. Migration has therefore undeniably played a part in the southward spread of these languages.

However, much of the present-day linguis-tic picture in mainland Southeast Asia results from language replacement or suppletion rather than migration. Vietnamese (Mon-Khmer) is now spoken by millions of people in the south of the country whose ancestors were speaking various Chamic (Austronesian) or other Mon-Khmer languages until recently. Central Thai (Tai-Kadai) is now spoken over a wide area that is known from inscriptional evidence dating from 400 ce onwards to have been Mon-speaking. There is no reason to assume that that this shift involved much more than the administrative imposition of the Thai language by Thai-speaking princes as they moved south. Related processes were probably responsible for the spread of Lao and Shan languages in Laos and Burma. Much the same appears to have happened further south in the Isthmian region, where Srivijayan Malay replaced Mon

8 indigenous migrations, southeast asia

women from both Indonesia and the Philip-pines into Singapore and Malaysia as domestic workers. Whether seasonal or not, such rural–urban migration within and between countries has tended to make contrastive awareness of ethnicity more marked in the cities than in the countryside. Most such migrations are volun-tary, but large-scale internal movements under government pressure have taken place as a result of Indonesia’s transmigration policy, aimed at reducing population pressure in Java and Bali by shifting people to less densely pop-ulated regions, Sumatra and Borneo in par-ticular. Javanese and Balinese are now the majority populations in parts of Indonesia outside their home islands.

SEE ALSO: 6 Pleistocene migrations in the Southeast Asian archipelagos; 33 Southeast Asian mainland: linguistic history; 34 Southeast Asian mainland: archaeology; 35 Southeast Asian islands and Oceania: Austronesian linguistic history; 36 Southeast Asian islands: archaeology; 37 Southeast Asian islands and Oceania: human genetics; Indigenous Mexican-origin immigration to the United States, historical and intersectional perspective; Indigenous migration: Americas, distinctiveness and scale; Indigenous migration: Otavalo diaspora in historical perspective; Indigenous migrations: the emergence of Maya America; Southeast Asia: migration, ASEAN, and regional agreements

References and further reading

Adelaar, A. (2006) The Indonesian migrations to Madagascar: making sense of the multidisciplinary evidence. In Simanjuntak, Pojoh, & Mohammad (2006), pp. 205–231.

Aguilar, F. V. (1999) The triumph of instrumental citizenship? Migrations, identities, and the nation-state in Southeast Asia. Asian Studies Review 23, 307–336.

Bellwood, P. (2006) The early movements of the Austronesian-speaking peoples. In Simanjuntak, Pojoh, & Mohammad (2006), pp. 61–82.

Benjamin, G. (2005) Consciousness and polity in Southeast Asia: the long view. In R. Hassan (ed.), Local and Global: Social Transformation in Southeast Asia. Leiden: Brill, pp. 261–289.

Benjamin, G. (2012) Why have the Peninsular “Negritos” remained distinct? Human Biology 84(6).

Blust, R. (1994) The Austronesian settlement of Mainland Southeast Asia. In K. L. Adams & T. J. Hudack (eds.), Papers from the Second Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. Tempe: Program for Southeast Asian Studies, Arizona State University, pp. 25–83.

Delfin, F., Salvador, J. M., Calacal, G. C., et al. (2011) The Y-chromosome landscape of the Philippines: extensive heterogeneity and varying genetic affinities of Negrito and non-Negrito groups. European Journal of Human Genetics 19, 224–230.

Diffloth, G. (2005) The contribution of linguistic palaeontology to the homeland of Austroasiatic. In Sagart, Blench, & Sanchez-Mazas (2005), pp. 77–80.

Donohue, M. & and Denham, T. (2011) ‘Languages and genes attest different histories in Island Southeast Asia.’ Oceanic Linguistics 50, 536–542.

Enfield, N. J. (ed.) (2011) Dynamics of Human Diversity: The Case of Mainland Southeast Asia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Fix, A. (2011) Origin of genetic diversity among Malaysian Orang Asli: an alternative to the demic diffusion model. In Enfield (2011), pp. 277–291.

Glover, I. & Bellwood, P. (eds.) (2004) Southeast Asia: From Prehistory to History. London: RoutledgeCurzon.

Hill, C., Soares, P., Mormina, M., et al. (2007) A mitochondrial stratigraphy for Island Southeast Asia. The American Journal of Human Genetics 80, 29–43.

HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium (2009) Mapping human genetic diversity in Asia. Science 326, 1541–1545.

Ivanoff, J. (2010) Histoire des migrations et ethnicité à partir d’une réflexion en Asie du Sud-Est [The history of migrations and ethnicity from a Southeast Asian perspective.]. Transcontinentales 8/9. At http://transcontinentales.revues.org/791, accessed Feb. 21, 2013.

Jinam, T. A., Hong, L.-C., Phipps, M. E., et al. (2012) Evolutionary history of continental Southeast Asians: “early train” hypothesis based on genetic analysis of mitochondrial and autosomal DNA data. Molecular Biology and Evolution 29(11), 3513–3527.

indigenous migrations, southeast asia 9

Jonsson, H. (2011) Ethnology and the issue of human diversity in mainland Southeast Asia. In Enfield (2011), pp. 109–122.

Lansing, S. J., Cox, M. P., de Vet, T. A., et al. (2011) An ongoing Austronesian expansion in Island Southeast Asia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30, 262–272.

Lewis, M. P. (ed.) (2013) Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas: SIL International. At www.ethnologue.com, accessed Feb. 15, 2013.

Oppenheimer, S. (2004) The “express train from Taiwan to Polynesia”: on the congruence of proxy lines of evidence. World Archaeology 36, 591–600.

Perry, G. H. & Dominy, N. J. (2008) Evolution of the human pygmy phenotype. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24, 218–225.

Reid, L. A. (2012) Who are the Philippine Negritos? Evidence from language. Human Biology 84(6).

Ricaut, F.-X., Bellatti, M., & Lahr, M. M. (2006) Ancient mitochondrial DNA from Malaysian

hair samples: some indications of Southeast Asian population movements. American Journal of Human Biology 18, 654–667.

Sagart, L., Blench, R., & Sanchez-Mazas, A. (eds.) (2005) The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics. London: RoutledgeCurzon.

Simanjuntak, T., Pojoh, I. H. E., & Mohammad, H. (eds.) (2006) Austronesian Diaspora and the Ethnogeneses of People in Indonesian Archipelago. Jakarta: Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI).

Soares, P., Trejaut, J. A., Loo, J.-H., et al. (2008) Climate change and postglacial human dispersals in Southeast Asia. Molecular Biology and Evolution 25, 1209–1218.

Wurm, S. A. & Hattôri, S. (eds) (1983) Language Atlas of the Pacific Area, Part 2. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Republished (2011) as ECAI Digital Language Map of the Pacific. At http://ecai.org/austronesiaweb/LanguageAtlas.htm, accessed Feb. 21, 2013.

Corrected references and further reading

with Web-references

Adelaar, A. (2006) The Indonesian migrations to

Madagascar: making sense of the

multidisciplinary evidence. In Simanjuntak,

Pojoh, & Mohammad (2006), pp. 205–231.

Aguilar, F. V. (1999) The triumph of instrumental

citizenship? Migrations, identities, and the

nation-state in Southeast Asia. Asian Studies

Review 23, 307–336. CrossRef, Web of

Science® Times Cited: 40

Bellwood, P. (2006) The early movements of the

Austronesian-speaking peoples. In Simanjuntak,

Pojoh, & Mohammad (2006), pp. 61–82.

CrossRef

Benjamin, G. (2005) Consciousness and polity in

Southeast Asia: the long view. In R. Hassan

(ed.), Local and Global: Social Transformation

in Southeast Asia. Leiden: Brill, pp. 261–289.

Benjamin, G. (2012) Why have the Peninsular

“Negritos” remained distinct? Human Biology

85(1–3), 445–484. Web of Science® Times

Cited: 13

Blust, R. (1994) The Austronesian settlement of

Mainland Southeast Asia. In K. L. Adams & T.

J. Hudack (eds.), Papers from the Second

Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian

Linguistics Society. Tempe: Program for

Southeast Asian Studies, Arizona State

University, pp. 25–83.

Delfin, F., Salvador, J. M., Calacal, G. C., et al.

(2011) The Y-chromosome landscape of the

Philippines: extensive heterogeneity and

varying genetic affinities of Negrito and non-

Negrito groups. European Journal of Human

Genetics 19, 224–230. CrossRef

Diffloth, G. (2005) The contribution of linguistic

palaeontology to the homeland of Austroasiatic.

In Sagart, Blench, & Sanchez-Mazas (2005),

pp. 77–80.

Donohue, M. & and Denham, T. (2011) ‘Languages

and genes attest different histories in Island

Southeast Asia.’ Oceanic Linguistics 50, 536–

542. CrossRef

Enfield, N. J. (ed.) (2011) Dynamics of Human

Diversity: The Case of Mainland Southeast

Asia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Fix, A. (2011) Origin of genetic diversity among

Malaysian Orang Asli: an alternative to the

demic diffusion model. In Enfield (2011), pp.

277–291.

Glover, I. & Bellwood, P. (eds.) (2004) Southeast

Asia: From Prehistory to History. London:

RoutledgeCurzon.

Hill, C., Soares, P., Mormina, M., et al. (2007) A

mitochondrial stratigraphy for Island Southeast

Asia. The American Journal of Human Genetics

80, 29–43. CrossRef, PubMed, CAS

HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium (2009)

Mapping human genetic diversity in Asia.

Science 326, 1541–1545. CrossRef, CAS, ADS

Ivanoff, J. (2010) Histoire des migrations et

ethnicité à partir d'une réflexion en Asie du

Sud-Est [The history of migrations and

ethnicity from a Southeast Asian perspective.].

Transcontinentales 8/9. At

http://transcontinentales.revues.org/791,

accessed Feb. 21, 2013.

Jinam, T. A., Hong, L.-C., Phipps, M. E., et al.

(2012) Evolutionary history of continental

Southeast Asians: “early train” hypothesis

based on genetic analysis of mitochondrial and

autosomal DNA data. Molecular Biology and

Evolution 29(11), 3513–3527. CrossRef, CAS

Jonsson, H. (2011) Ethnology and the issue of

human diversity in mainland Southeast Asia. In

Enfield (2011), pp. 109–122.

Lansing, S. J., Cox, M. P., de Vet, T. A., et al.

(2011) An ongoing Austronesian expansion in

Island Southeast Asia. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 30, 262–272.

CrossRef

Lewis, M. P. (ed.) (2013) Ethnologue: Languages

of the World. Dallas: SIL International. At

www.ethnologue.com, accessed Feb. 15, 2013.

Oppenheimer, S. (2004) The “express train from

Taiwan to Polynesia”: on the congruence of

proxy lines of evidence. World Archaeology 36,

591–600. CrossRef

Perry, G. H. & Dominy, N. J. (2008) Evolution of

the human pygmy phenotype. Trends in

Ecology and Evolution 24, 218–225. CrossRef

Reid, L. A. (2012) Who are the Philippine

Negritos? Evidence from language. Human

Biology 85(1–3): 401–416.

Ricaut, F.-X., Bellatti, M., & Lahr, M. M. (2006)

Ancient mitochondrial DNA from Malaysian

hair samples: some indications of Southeast

Asian population movements. American

Journal of Human Biology 18, 654–667. Direct

Link: Abstract, PDF(187K), References

Sagart, L., Blench, R., & Sanchez-Mazas, A. (eds.)

(2005) The Peopling of East Asia: Putting

Together Archaeology, Linguistics and

Genetics. London: RoutledgeCurzon.

Simanjuntak, T., Pojoh, I. H. E., & Mohammad, H.

(eds.) (2006) Austronesian Diaspora and the

Ethnogeneses of People in Indonesian

Archipelago. Jakarta: Indonesian Institute of

Sciences (LIPI).

Soares, P., Trejaut, J. A., Loo, J.-H., et al. (2008)

Climate change and postglacial human

dispersals in Southeast Asia. Molecular Biology

and Evolution 25, 1209–1218. CrossRef,

PubMed, CAS

Wurm, S. A. & Hattôri, S. (eds) (1983) Language

Atlas of the Pacific Area, Part 2. Canberra:

Pacific Linguistics. Republished (2011) as

ECAI Digital Language Map of the Pacific. At

http://ecai.org/austronesiaweb/LanguageAtlas.h

tm, accessed Feb. 21, 2013.