This article was downloaded by: [Australian National University]On: 30 July 2014, At: 03:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

World ArchaeologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwar20

Semiconductor theory in migration:population receivers, homelands andgateways in Taiwan and Island Southeast AsiaMike T. Carsona & Hsiao-chun Hungb

a University of Guamb Australian National UniversityPublished online: 30 Jun 2014.

To cite this article: Mike T. Carson & Hsiao-chun Hung (2014) Semiconductor theory in migration: populationreceivers, homelands and gateways in Taiwan and Island Southeast Asia, World Archaeology, 46:4, 502-515,DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2014.931819

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2014.931819

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Semiconductor theory in migration:population receivers, homelandsand gateways in Taiwan andIsland Southeast Asia

Mike T. Carson and Hsiao-chun Hung

Abstract

People migrate to, from and through regions that may be defined alternately as receivers, homelands orgateways. We propose to consider all three of these components as a unit, in an analogy with semiconductorsthat could amplify, alter or covert the flow of migrations. We examine two migrations related to Taiwan,beginning with a flow from coastal south-east China to Taiwan by 4000 BC and then continuing with anothermigration fromTaiwan into Island Southeast Asia by 2000 BC. Reasons for thesemigrations have been debatedin termsof their stemming frompopulation increase, land-dependent agricultural expansion, ambitious founderideology and environmental change or instability. Rather than dispute the authenticity of these prime movers,we consider the mechanics of migration through semiconductor theory that may be applied to any region interms of the energy flow of migrations interacting with other phenomena of the geographic and social context.

Keywords

Migration; Neolithic; Taiwan; Island Southeast Asia; Austronesian.

A semiconductor analogy, used towards illustrating the mechanical operations of migrations, isbased on the alternating conditions of energy flows, similar to the alternating flows of migratingpeople to, from and through different regions that act as receivers, homelands or gateways.A semiconductor’s physical properties allow switching of the conditions of the way in whichenergy can pass through its material, so that the same semiconductive material can operate indifferent modes when exposed to variable settings or influences. Similar switching of energyflow can occur in geographic regions and cultural settings, so that places can alternate in theirfunctions as homelands, gateways or receiving-zones.

The semiconductor analogy facilitates new ways of thinking about human migrations ascomplex phenomena, involving the inter-connected components of source, conduit and receiver.

World Archaeology Vol. 46(4): 502–515 Mobility & Migration© 2014 Taylor & Francis ISSN 0043-8243 print/1470-1375 online

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2014.931819

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:03

30

July

201

4

Within any given region, these three components always exist in variable forms and guises, buteach can alternate between inert and activated modes. Moreover, qualitatively different modesof population flow can co-occur in neighbouring regions or even simultaneously within a singleregion.

Here we consider how a semiconductor analogy can apply to human migrations in general,followed by practical illustration through archaeological examples in one part of the worldwhere migrations have influenced much of cultural history, namely in Taiwan and IslandSoutheast Asia. By identifying what we know about the behaviour of semiconductors in afactual mechanical sense, we can think more clearly about what we do not always comprehendso well regarding human migrations as complex cultural phenomena. This knowledge is thenapplied to archaeological examples of ancient migrations in Taiwan and Island Southeast Asiaover a long period of approximately 4000 through 1500 BC.

Semiconductor analogy

Semiconductors are mechanical devices that can modify energy flow in ways that areanalogous with flows of human migrations. Whereas migration-related regions are culturallyactivated entities with variable tangible and intangible qualities, electrical semiconductorsare physical materials whose properties can be altered when in contact with other influe-nces, resulting in modifications of the flow of energy through the material. These traits ofsemiconductors can produce an impressive range of potential results that make modernelectronics possible, and these variable results can illustrate the diverse operations of humanmigration flows.

Semiconductors achieve their most impressive effects through human agency, and this pointmust be remembered when conceptualizing migratory regions as analogous with semiconduc-tors. An electrical semiconductor will switch predictably from one mode of operation to anotherwhen exposed to certain conditions, but these conditions are controlled by human operators.Likewise, the material properties of a region do not spontaneously create migrations withouthuman input. Rather, a region’s multivalent physical, biotic and cultural properties are sensed,manipulated and processed by people in ways that enhance, diminish or otherwise alter thepotential for differential flows of migration.

What characteristics make a region more suitable or less suitable as a homeland, receiver orgateway of migration flow? This question of course has varied answers, depending on the waysin which people perceive a particular region and imagine its potential cultural utilities. In theory,people can live comfortably with a degree of change in their perceived natural and culturalenvironment, but at a certain point a threshold value may be crossed and thereby prompt a shiftin functional operation akin to the switching modes of a semiconductor. This threshold value issimply a matter of supplying enough energy through an electrical semiconductor, but it can varyconsiderably in regard to cultural behaviours such as human migrations that depend on amultitude of input factors.

If a migration is triggered by a set of factors reaching a threshold value, then inescapablywe must consider the balance among population size and density, form of economic lifestyleand available life-supporting resources. Mobile foragers, pastoralists and sea nomads maynever stop migrating through their home ranges that incorporate patchworks of homelands,

Semiconductor theory in migration 503

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:03

30

July

201

4

receivers and gateways. Sedentary village dwellers may be reluctant to migrate unless they areconfronted with compelling factors to exit their homeland and instead invest in new homeselsewhere, ultimately deciding that another destination at least in theory offers better oppor-tunities. In some cases, people migrate due to external pressure when they are threatened bytheir neighbours through military action, religious or other persecution, or aggressive modesof land use.

Motivational push and pull factors are insufficient without a means of transportation througha conduit or gateway that connects the homeland and receiving regions. Ocean-crossing migra-tions, for example, could not occur without navigational skills and serviceable water craft. Theability to transform an existing body of water into a migratory sea-lane neatly captures theessence of our analogy with semiconductors, but no such gateway can serve effectively unless itconnects a viable homeland and a receiving territory.

A migration flow cannot occur unless all three of the above-noted transformative processesare activated in concert, connecting a homeland, gateway and receiver each in active modes ofoperation. These three transformations could conceivably originate independently, but ulti-mately they need to be articulated as a unit for enabling the migration flow. No singlecomponent necessarily came first or caused the others. Further in our semiconductor analogy,the end product of an articulated unit may be seen as analogous to a completed electricalcircuit.

The culturally transformative qualities of a region are crucial for understanding our semi-conductor analogy of switching from one mode to another of energy flow. From one point ofview, a region may be perceived as ambiguously inert, especially if it happens to be removedfrom direct experience. The point of view can potentially change with new ways of thinking,experiments, accidents and other adventures. A faraway land may become recognized as morethan a mysterious fantasy, and enough knowledge or curiosity about it could very well attractvisitors or immigrants. An existing home may become intolerable for various reasons, acknowl-edged at least by some people as a place to exit rather than as a place to stay. A river or sea maybecome embraced as more than a short-range economic resource zone, capable, in fact, offacilitating long-distance transportation into a separate territory.

Illustrative examples in Taiwan and Island Southeast Asia

What is involved in the semiconductive conversion from inert to active modes of migrationflow? We cannot account for every case in world archaeology, but here we illustrate through anexamination of two of the world’s major migrations related to Taiwan (Fig. 1). We begin byconsidering the first time when sedentary groups were living in a few sites in Taiwan, by4000 BC or slightly earlier, requiring a movement from coastal China across the Taiwan Straitthat changed the region’s cultural history for ever. By 3000 BC, the descendants of the foundinggroups were established in several sites around Taiwan. Later, by 2000 BC, inhabitants ofTaiwan took advantage of the surrounding ocean as a gateway for migration into distantterritories of Island Southeast Asia, where the dynamics of migration flow were re-enacted indifferent conditions and led to the spread of the Austronesian language family through much ofthe Asia-Pacific region (Blust 1995, 2013).

504 Mike T. Carson and Hsiao-chun Hung

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:03

30

July

201

4

Taiwan as migration receiver

Taiwan was inhabited as early as 25,000 BC by hunter-gatherer groups, known through sites ofthe Palaeolithic Changbinian Culture (Tsang 2013). These sites contain evidence of a stone-pebble tool and flake industry in caves and rockshelters. The founding Palaeolithic populationsprobably crossed a Pleistocene land bridge or made a very short water crossing from China,perhaps at several times until a post-glacial rising sea level effectively separated Taiwan fromcoastal China. We do not yet know enough about this Palaeolithic Period to assess themigrations that must have occurred at some point, so currently we focus on the Early andMiddle Neolithic Periods (Table 1).

Taiwan’s Early Neolithic sites mark a sudden new horizon by 4000 BC (reviewed by Hungand Carson in press), diagnosed by coarse cord-marked pottery at residential habitations in‘open’ settings far removed from caves and rockshelters. The pottery has been regarded as thefirst in a series belonging to a Corded Ware Culture (after Kano 1946), or more specifically itdenoted the ‘TPK’ Culture (after Chang 1969). ‘TPK’ was K. C. Chang’s abbreviation forTapenkeng, where the pottery type was best defined, but today’s conventional Pinyin spelling isDabenkeng.

Figure 1 Asia-Pacific region, showing approximate limits of Taiwan-related Neolithic migrations.

Semiconductor theory in migration 505

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:03

30

July

201

4

By the time that people established Taiwan’s first TPK settlements, three semiconductor-transformative processes already had occurred (Table 2). First, the Taiwan Strait becamerecognized as a migratory gateway, overlaying its previously perceived properties as a fishingzone and possible territorial boundary. Second, south-east coastal China remained a home rangefor many people (Chang 1995; Hung 2008; Tsang 2005), yet it was acknowledged as a point ofdeparture for others seeking new homes elsewhere, not only in Taiwan but potentially in otherareas such as northern Vietnam. Third, Taiwan gained a new identity as a potential receivingzone for sea-crossing migrants, rather than as a distant land mass imagined ambiguously acrossthe Taiwan Strait.

For several centuries prior to the Early Neolithic Period, the Taiwan Strait posed a barrierbetween coastal China and Taiwan, but eventually it was conceptualized as a potential gateway-conduit for the people who settled in Taiwan and made TPK pottery there. Archaeo-faunalmiddens at sites in coastal south-east China indicate that people routinely made short-rangevoyages near coastlines within their home-range catchment zones at least as early as 6000 BC

(Chen 2012; Ko et al. 2014). Longer-range voyages were rare, yet they may have beenencouraged by accessing small islands along the coast and further into the Taiwan Strait.Simple dug-out tree-log canoes were used in coastal China by 6000 BC, as seen in theremarkably preserved example at Kuahuqiao in Zhejiang (Zhejiangsheng Wenwu KaoguYanjiusuo and Xiaoshan Bowuguan 2004). Small offshore islets supported several fishingcamps and middens well prior to 4000 BC (Chen 2007; Chen 2012; Liu 2011), so active anddeliberate water crossings were certainly within the experience of coastal people in south-eastChina at least from 6000–4000 BC.

Table 2 Semiconductor-type transformations of Neolithic migrations related to Taiwan; descriptions are asperceived by the potential migrants

Region 5000 BC 4000 BC 2000 BC

Coastal south-eastChina

Home of several groups Home for many, but pointof departure for others

Zone of continued contactand exchange

Taiwan Strait Resource zone andterritorial barrier

Gateway Continued gateway

Taiwan Ambiguous territory Receiving zone Home for many, but point ofdeparture for others

Bashi Strait Perhaps unknown Resource zone andterritorial barrier

Gateway

Island SoutheastAsia

Perhaps unknown Ambiguous territory Receiving zone and gateway

Table 1 Cultural periods of Palaeolithic through Middle Neolithic in Taiwan

Cultural period Date range Archaeological culture Area

Palaeolithic 25,000–4000 BC Changbinian 長濱 Island-wideEarly Neolithic 4000–2500/2200 BC TPK (Dabenkeng) 大坌坑 Island-wideMiddle Neolithic 2500–1500 BC Xuntangpu 訊塘埔 North-west

Niumatou 牛罵頭 Central westNiuhcouzi 牛稠子 South-westFushan 富山 South-east

506 Mike T. Carson and Hsiao-chun Hung

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:03

30

July

201

4

Prior to and contemporary with the successful crossing of the Taiwan Strait by 4000 BC,several sites in coastal south-east China contain varieties of pottery and evidence of mixedgathering-hunting-fishing subsistence, but the role of plant-food production has been unclear(Lu 2007). At sites in the Fujian cultural area, rice grains and domesticated pigs were absentfrom the layers dated 4000–3000 BC, but these definite agricultural markers were found in laterlayers about 3000–2300 BC (Fujian Museum and Tanshishan Site Museum 2010). The faunalremains and stable isotopes of human and animal bones congruently suggest that marineforaging continued as a major subsistence strategy (Jiao 2013). Similarly, limited horticultureis evident by 3350–2470 cal. BC at the coastal site of Xincun in Guangdong, where starchresidues on stone tools indicate local processing of palms, bananas, freshwater roots and tubers,fern roots, acorns and Job’s tears, as well as a low frequency of rice that may or may not havebeen domesticated at this time (Yang et al. 2013).

While fisher-foragers thrived in coastal south-east China, they must have been aware of theswelling popularity of rice and millet farming among their inland and northern neighbours whowere becoming more and more dependent on land resources and expanding territories, effec-tively building pressure akin to increased energy value forced into a semiconductor. Land-basedagriculturalists lived in sedentary villages along the Yangtze River prior to 5000 BC (Zhang andHung 2008, 2010), yet rice farming did not dominate along the south-east coast of China untilabout 3000 BC (Zhang and Hung 2012). Perhaps the south-east coast remained on the peripheryof the ‘Neolithic Revolution’. The coastal dwellers may have had mixed feelings about the not-too-distant emergence of densely populated villages, walled settlements, ceremonial complexes,extravagantly furnished elite-class burials and overt signs of social inequalities steadily increas-ing over the centuries since 4000–3000 BC (Liu and Chen 2012).

While overcrowding and encroachment factors most likely pushed migrants away fromcoastal south-east China, an important shift occurred in the perception of Taiwan – not as avague distant place but rather as a suitable new home. Ancient migrants may have found Taiwanattractive for its non-utilized or under-utilized ecological niches and opportunities that werebecoming scarce in coastal south-east China. In Taiwan, the Early Neolithic TPK sites havenever been found in direct contact with Palaeolithic Changbinian deposits, and in fact a sharpdiscontinuity is noted in their types of artefacts and site locations. Their time ranges overlappedslightly (see Table 1), so the cultural groups must have known about each other. Nonetheless,the Early Neolithic TPK sites have consistently been found in settings entirely separated fromthe caves and rockshelters of Palaeolithic Changbinian sites, thus supporting the notion that theEarly Neolithic immigrants deliberately sought new opportunities in familiar ecological nicheswithout direct competition.

Further clues about Taiwan’s appeal to migrants can be found in an emerging recognition of thedifferences between the oldest and youngest TPK sites (Fig. 2). The oldest TPK sites containevidence of mixed fishing, foraging and at least some limited horticulture prior to 3000 BC (Chang1969; Chen 2006), situated on low ridges and other slightly elevated landforms that originallyoverlooked the ancient coastlines. Specific crops have not yet been identified in archaeo-botanicalrecords of the oldest TPK sites. By 2800 BC, however, the later TPK sites have disclosed abundantevidence of intensive rice and millet farming (Hsieh et al. 2011; Tsang, Li, and Chu 2006) in largevillage complexes that took advantage of newly formed alluvial plains and other coastal landforms.

An avoidance (or reduction) of competition may have been attractive in Taiwan about 4500–4000 BC, whereas other accessible areas did not offer such prospects further along the coastlines

Semiconductor theory in migration 507

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:03

30

July

201

4

Figure 2 Distribution of Early TPK, Late TPK and Middle Neolithic Sites in Taiwan, shown in relation tolandscape change. Circles mark approximate locations of the representative site areas, but not all are visibleat this scale. The number of Middle Neolithic sites is more than 300, and many cover areas twenty to thirtytimes larger than in earlier periods.

508 Mike T. Carson and Hsiao-chun Hung

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:03

30

July

201

4

of China. Moreover, Taiwan remained within a temperate to subtropical climate and had afamiliar seasonal monsoon weather pattern, as was known in coastal south-east China, notablyin Fujian and Guangdong. The first Neolithic (TPK-related) immigrants in Taiwan settled incoastal zones similar to those experienced in coastal south-east China, where people couldaccess a broad spectrum of shorelines, deeper-water zones, river systems and inland habitatswith productive soils and healthy native forests. Although Taiwan was already inhabited by thePalaeolithic Changbinian groups, no large-scale sedentary populations yet had establishedpermanent land-use patterns of villages and agricultural fields in the intrinsically limited space.

Taiwan as migration homeland

The transformations that made Taiwan a receiver of Neolithic populations by 4000 BC were laterre-enacted in a different regional configuration that made Taiwan a homeland of other migrantswho were moving into Island Southeast Asia by 2000 BC (see Table 2). Our semiconductoranalogy here gains extra interest, as Taiwan switched from one mode of operation to another,specifically from population receiver to dispersal centre. The new receiving zone in IslandSoutheast Asia brought immigrants into contact with somewhat different habitats than they hadexperienced in a home region of Taiwan or coastal south-east China. The enabling gateway-conduit of the Bashi Strait or the South China Sea required a new strategy of travel over longerdistance and across stronger currents than was previously the case for crossing the Taiwan Strait.

By the time of Neolithic departures into Island Southeast Asia, Taiwan already had witnessedan internal diversification of several Middle Neolithic social groups (see Table 1), partlyattributed to a burgeoning population base that encompassed more variation over time (Hung2008). A substantial population rise is reflected in the greater numbers of sites that emerged inmore diverse ecological zones during Taiwan’s Middle Neolithic (see Fig. 2), especially on theeastern coast where the number of sites suddenly increased about seven times and includedhabitations twenty to thirty times larger than in previous periods (Hung 2005). For at least somecenturies previously, since 2800 BC, the local population had relied increasingly on land-dependent rice and millet farming, in parallel with the escalating role of cereal farming incoastal south-east China since 3000 BC (Zhang and Hung 2010). In the confined space of theisland of Taiwan, the effects of population pressure were significantly amplified as compared toa larger continental setting such as coastal China.

By 2000 BC, sites with Taiwan-derived pottery forms, polished adzes and other Neolithicartefacts reveal a north-to-south route from Taiwan to the Philippines (Bellwood et al. 2011; Hung2005, 2008). Most convincing of this connection are the red-slipped bowls with ring-foot bases,found first on the eastern coast of Taiwan as early as 2200 BC (Hung 2008), next in smallerislands south-east of Taiwan (Ludao, Lanyu and the Batanes Islands in the Bashi Strait) slightlybefore 2000 BC (Bellwood and Dizon 2013) and in northern Luzon in the Philippines by 2000 BC

(Hung 2005, 2008). The specific link with eastern Taiwan is intriguing, given the influx of MiddleNeolithic sites there after 2500 BC and likelihood of mounting pressure on local resources.

Northern Luzon, as the largest island in the Philippines, offered the most opportunities andresources for new immigrants, and accordingly several pottery-bearing sites were inhabited by2000 BC in the Cagayan Valley, the largest river valley in this region (Hung 2005, 2008). Theseearly sedentary sites contained not only the diagnostic red-slipped pottery but also spindle

Semiconductor theory in migration 509

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:03

30

July

201

4

whorls, Taiwan nephrite ornaments, stone adzes and domestic pigs that all reinforce a homelandin Taiwan and most likely in the eastern coast of Taiwan. Prior to this time, no pottery making ofany kind had occurred in the Philippines, despite an extremely long sequence of Palaeolithichunter-gatherer occupation more than 60,000 years (Mijares et al. 2010).

The initial sea crossing into Island Southeast Asia required long-range voyaging against thepredominant (but naturally not 100 per cent constant) directions of winds and currents, yet thischallenge must have been overcome in order to account for the peopling of the Philippines bygroups making pottery derived from Taiwanese traditions. After reaching Island Southeast Asia,however, people could undertake comparatively easier seaborne travels in a veritable ‘voyagingnursery’ (Irwin 1989), with thousands of linear km of inter-visible coastlines and short-distancewater crossings mostly of 100km or less. Perhaps seafaring already had been developing in theregion prior to the contact with immigrants from Taiwan.

Over time, sea crossing became increasingly utilized as a migration conduit, at first limited tothe Taiwan Strait, later expanded across the Bashi Strait and eventually extending into multipleroutes through Island Southeast Asia and farther into the remote Pacific. For all of theAustronesian-speaking groups outside Taiwan, strong seafaring traditions are reinforced inshared vocabulary and expressions about canoe parts and navigational knowledge (Pawleyand Pawley 1994; Zorc 1994). The aboriginal Austronesian languages in Taiwan appear toretain the oldest linguistic features of the Austronesian family (Blust 1995, 2013). Outrigger-equipped sailing canoes and other long-distance seafaring traits are not clearly attested withinTaiwan as compared to the solid evidence in all other Austronesian groups, classified asMalayo-Polynesian, outside Taiwan (Pawley 2007).

The new receiving zone in Island Southeast Asia possessed characteristics that made itsuitable as a gateway-conduit for further migration flow. As their ancestors had done inTaiwan much earlier, immigrants in the northern Philippines about 2000 BC found non-utilizedor under-utilized coastal zones with links to resources both in land and at sea, but these resourcezones were immeasurably more extensive in Island Southeast Asia than was possible within theconfines of Taiwan. Migration flow could continue rapidly among the several dozens of inter-visible islands, although the strength and direction of movement must have been influenced bythe pre-existing hunter-gatherer groups throughout the region.

Continued migration flow can be traced through a ‘pottery trail’, especially noting the traditionsof red-slipped and finely decorated earthenware that appeared abruptly in new locations where nopottery at all previously had been made (Carson et al. 2013). Several such pottery-bearing sites innorthern Luzon of the Philippines were occupied about 2000–1800 BC (Aoyagi et al. 1993; Hung2008; Peterson 1974a, 1974b; Thiel 1987; Tsang, Santiago, and Hung 2002). This occurrence wasfollowed by a generally southward-moving flow, evidenced in sites with similar red-slipped anddecorated pottery in scattered parts of Indonesia by 1500 BC (Simanjuntak 2008).

A migration flow of intrusive people is difficult to prove for the full extent of the geographicspread of red-slipped pottery, because some communities may have adopted the pottery-makingthrough indirect contact. For instance, the pre-established local populations in Island SoutheastAsia may have been involved in receiving new people, materials and ideas and facilitatingfurther network connections throughout the region. Coastal linkages were probably abundantand far-reaching through the gateway-conduits of the regional ‘voyaging nursery’, although theyneeded an impetus for activation, such as was likely the case with the arrival of more people,Neolithic technologies and associated lifestyles.

510 Mike T. Carson and Hsiao-chun Hung

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:03

30

July

201

4

By 1500 BC, a definite migration of people was responsible for the red-slipped and distinctivelydecorated pottery in at least eight sites of three separate islands of the exceptionally remoteMarianasArchipelago (Carson 2014; Carson and Kurashina 2012). No human beings ever lived in theseislands previously, so the presence of finely decorated pottery reflects an incursion of people fromthe region where this pottery was made at or prior to 1500 BC. Moreover, this occurrence in theMarianas required the longest ocean crossing of its time in human history, in excess of 2,000kmfrom the nearest contemporaneously inhabited potential homeland (Craib 1999; Hung et al. 2011).

Given the rapid spread of new Neolithic settlements in Island Southeast Asia, some form ofland-dependent lifestyle must have been operating, perhaps simply to accommodate new groupsof people or possibly to provide territories suitable for residential habitations and plant-foodcultivation plots. This issue cannot yet be addressed in full, because evidence of the land-useeconomy has not yet been examined in much detail beyond awareness of dense shell middensnear seashores and rivers. Rice was known to the first Neolithic settlers, as evidenced in ricehusks in red-slipped pottery dated about 2000–1500 BC in the Philippines (Snow et al. 1986),but no formal rice-growing fields, harvesting tools or other indications of intensive rice farminghave been identified in Island Southeast Asia in this early date range. The limited availableevidence so far points to a mixed subsistence economy of fishing, foraging, limited harvestingof root-tubers and tree crops and possibly small-scale informal rice cultivation (Denham 2013;Hung and Carson in press; Paz 2005) much as was the case among the earliest Neolithic settlersin Taiwan and their predecessors in coastal China several centuries previously. Spectacularwetland rice-terrace landscaping, such as at the world heritage Ifugao complex in thePhilippines, post-dated AD 1300 and overprinted older layers of taro farming (Acabado 2012).

Conclusions

In our semiconductor analogy, any migration flow must follow the transformation of three equallyimportant components into active modes of a homeland, a receiving territory and a connectingconduit between the end-point nodes. Each of these components needs to be activated as part ofthe migration flow, although they very likely already existed previously in inert modes. Forinstance, the Early Neolithic (TPK) migration flow into Taiwan by 4000 BC was possible by wayof a three-part solution of accepting coastal south-east China as a potential departure homeland, ofrecognizing Taiwan as an appealing place for receiving new immigrants and of converting theTaiwan Strait into a navigable sea-lane. Similar transformative processes later enabled anothermigration flow across the Bashi Strait from Taiwan to the Philippines by 2000 BC.

The three noted transformative processes needed to be activated in unison for a successfulmigration flow, but they may have originated at different times and for unrelated reasons.Pressure for people to exit coastal China may have been mounting for several centuries priorto the attested migration across the Taiwan Strait, at one point reaching a threshold valueanalogous to the energy force needed for switching a semiconductor from one mode to another.Meanwhile, the land-mass of Taiwan was surely known on the horizon, but only later was itconceptualized as a potential new home. Similarly, the Taiwan Strait had been used as animportant resource zone for several centuries and perhaps perceived as a territorial boundary, yeteventually it became the gateway for migration flow into Taiwan.

Semiconductor theory in migration 511

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:03

30

July

201

4

In the semiconductor analogy, a single region or zone can be switched from inert to active modes,and it can also perform alternately as homeland, receiver or gateway under different conditions.In our review, we illustrate how Taiwan was first a population receiver about 4000 BC, yet later itacted as a homeland region for migrants moving to Island Southeast Asia by 2000 BC. Further, theregion of Island Southeast Asia acted initially as a receiving zone, but quickly became a gateway-conduit in itself for rapid dispersal of Neolithic people and lifestyles by 1500 BC. These findingsmayhelp to clarify some previously curious findings, such as in the Penghu Islands of the Taiwan Strait,where Early Neolithic TPK habitations probably encouraged use of the Taiwan Strait as a migrationconduit, but then these islands were suddenly de-populated about 2000–1700 BC (Tsang and Ye2000), curiously coincident with a shift in migration flow by this time into Island Southeast Asia.

Once a gateway-conduit was activated, it could facilitate flows of people, materials and ideasin different ways over time. The altered state of flow may be viewed as yet another semicon-ductor type of transformation. One good example is the migration flow from Taiwan to thePhilippines across the Bashi Strait, followed by persistent exchange of precious-stone ear-ringsand other ornaments made from the Fengtian nephrite source in eastern Taiwan after 2000 BC

(Hung et al. 2007; Hung and Iizuka 2013). This network later expanded to connect coastalcommunities on multiple sides of the South China Sea in Taiwan, the Philippines, southernVietnam and Peninsular Thailand by 500 BC (Hung et al. 2013).

In the simplest terms, people migrate in order to seek new opportunities in a different placewith appealing conditions, but our semiconductor model does not directly address thesemotivations. Rather, it illustrates mechanically how a migration flow can occur, and thereby itcan be applied in any setting regardless of what the motivating factors may have been. At leastsome outcomes of migration flows transpired through accident or experiment, as has certainlybeen the case with developing semiconductor technologies, but human agency is required forunifying the multiple components in a meaningful way.

Acknowledgements

This work was improved with thanks to anonymous reviewers and editorial guidance. Themanuscript grew from our joint research about Austronesian Neolithic origins and relations,funded by the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation in Taiwan, 2011–13.

Funding

Manuscript preparation was supported in part by Visiting Scholar Grant 23714 at the ResearchSchool of Asian and Pacific Studies, Australian National University.

Mike T. CarsonUniversity of Guam

mtcarson@uguam.uog.edu

Hsiao-chun HungAustralian National University

512 Mike T. Carson and Hsiao-chun Hung

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:03

30

July

201

4

References

Acabado, S. 2012. “Taro Before Rice Terraces: Implications of Radiocarbon Determinations, EthnohistoricReconstructions, and Ethnography in Dating the Ifugao Rice Terraces.” In Irrigated Taro (Colocasiaesculenta) in the Indo-Pacific, edited by M. Spriggs, D. Addison, and P. J. Matthews, 285–305. SenriEthnological Studies 78. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology (Minpaku).

Aoyagi, Y., M. Aguilera Jr, H. Ogawa, and K. Tanaka. 1993. “Excavation of Hill Top Site, Magapit ShellMidden in Lal-lo Shell Middens, Northern Luzon, Philippines.” Man and Culture in Oceania 9: 127–55.

Bellwood, P., G. Chambers, M. Ross, and H. C. Hung. 2011. “Are ‘Cultures’ Inherited? MultidisciplinaryPerspectives on the Origins and Migrations of Austronesian-Speaking Peoples Prior To 1000 BC.” InIn investigating Archaeological Cultures: Material Culture, Variability, and Transmission, edited byB. W. Roberts and M. vander Linden, 321–54. New York: Springer.

Bellwood, P., and E. Dizon, eds. 2013. 4000 Years of Migration and Cultural Exchange: The Archaeologyof the Batanes Islands, Northern Philippines. Terra Australis 40. Canberra: Australian National UniversityE-Press.

Blust, R. 1995. “The Prehistory of the Austronesian-Speaking Peoples: A View from Language.” Journalof World Prehistory 9: 453–510. doi:10.1007/BF02221119.

Blust, R. 2013. The Austronesian Languages. Revised ed. Asia-Pacific Linguistics Open AccessMonographs. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.

Carson, M. T. 2014. First Settlement of Remote Oceania: Earliest Sites in the Mariana Islands. New York:Springer.

Carson, M. T., and H. Kurashina. 2012. “Re-envisioning Long-Distance Oceanic Migration: Early Dates inthe Mariana Islands.” World Archaeology 44: 409–35. doi:10.1080/00438243.2012.727342

Carson, M. T., H. C. Hung, G. Summerhayes, and P. Bellwood. 2013. “The Pottery Trail from SoutheastAsia to Remote Oceania.” The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 8: 17–36. doi:10.1080/15564894.2012.726941

Chang, K. C. 1969. Fengpitou, Tapenkeng and the Prehistory of Taiwan. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Chang, K. C. 1995. “Taiwan Strait Archaeology and Protoaustronesian.” In Papers for InternationalSymposium on Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan, edited by J. K. P. Li, C. H. Tsang, and Y. K. Huang,56–81. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.

Chen, C. Y. 2012. Excavation at Daowei-I, Liangdao, Matzu. Taipei: Academia Sinica (in Chinese).

Chen, W. C. 2007. “The Importance and Cultural Significance of the Jinguishan Shellmound Site, Jinmen.”Field Archaeology of Taiwan 11: 75–108 (in Chinese).

Chen, Y. B. 2006. “TPK’s Subsistence Pattern: An Analysis of Phytoliths Found in Pottery.” Bulletin of theDepartment of Anthropology 66: 125–54. (in Chinese).

Craib, J. L. 1999. “Colonisation of the Mariana Islands: New Evidence and Implications for HumanMovements in the Western Pacific.” In Le Pacifique de 5000 à 2000 avant le Present: Suppléments àl’histoire d’une Colonisation, edited by J. C. Galipaud and I. Lilley, 477–85. Paris: Institut de Recherchepour le Développement.

Denham, T. 2013. “Early Farming in Island Southeast Asia: An Alternative Hypothesis.” Antiquity 87:250–257.

Fujian Museum and Tanshishan Site Museum. 2010. “Report on Excavation of the Tanshishan Site inMinhou in 2004.” Fujian Wenbo 2004: 1–12. (in Chinese).

Hsieh, J. S., Y. C. Hsing, T. F. Hsu, P. J. K. Li, K. T. Li, and C. H. Tsang. 2011. “Studies on Ancient Rice:Where Botanists, Agronomists, Archaeologists, Linguists, and Ethnologists Meet.” Rice 2011: 178–83.

Semiconductor theory in migration 513

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:03

30

July

201

4

Hung, H. C. 2005. “Neolithic Interaction Between Taiwan and Northern Luzon: The Pottery and JadeEvidence from the Cagayan Valley.” Journal of Austronesian Studies 1: 109–33.

Hung, H. C. 2008. Migration an Cultural Interaction in Southern Coastal China, Taiwan and the NorthernPhilippines, 3000 BC to AD 100: The Early History of the Austronesian-Speaking Populations. Doctoraldissertation. Canberra: Department of Archaeology and Natural History, Australian National University.

Hung, H. C., and M. T. Carson. in press. “Foragers, Fishers and Farmers: Origins of the Taiwan Neolithic.”Antiquity (accepted 6 February 2014).

Hung, H. C., M. T. Carson, P. Bellwood, F. Camps, P. J. Piper, E. Dizon, M. J. L. A. Bolunia,M. Oxenham, and C. Zhang. 2011. “The First Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Philippines to theMarianas.” Antiquity 85: 909–26.

Hung, H. C., and Y. Iizuka. 2013. “The Batanes Nephrite Artefacts.” In 4000 Years of Migration andCultural Exchange: The Archaeology of the Batanes Islands, Northern Philippines, edited by P. Bellwood,and E. Dizon, 149–68. Terra Australis 40. Canberra: Australian National University E-Press.

Hung, H. C., Y. Iizuka, P. Bellwood, K. D. Nguyen, B. B. Silapanth, E. Dizon, R. Santiago, and I. Datan,J. H. Manton. 2007. “Ancient Jades Map 3000 Years of Prehistoric Exchange in Southeast Asia.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 19745–50. doi:10.1073/pnas.0707304104.

Hung, H. C., K. D. Nguyen, P. Bellwood, and M. T. Carson. 2013. “Coastal Connectivity: Long-TermTrading Networks Across the South China Sea.” The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 8: 384–404. doi:10.1080/15564894.2013.781085.

Irwin, G. 1989. “Against, Across and Down the Wind: A Case for the Systematic Exploration of theRemote Pacific Islands.” Journal of the Polynesian Society 98: 167–206.

Jiao, T. L. 2013. “The Neolithic Archaeology of Southeast China.” In A Companion to ChineseArchaeology, edited by A. P. Underhill, 599–611. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Kano, T. 1946. Studies in the Ethnology and Prehistory of Southeast Asia, Volume II. Tokyo: Yajima Shoboand Company (in Japanese).

Ko, A. M. S., C. H. Chen, Q. Fu, F. Delfin, M. Li, H. L. Chiu, M. Stoneking, and Y. C. Ko. 2014. “EarlyAustronesians: Into and out of Taiwan.” The American Journal of Human Genetics 94: 426–36.doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.02.003.

Liu, L., and X. Chen. 2012. The Archaeology of China: From the Late Paleolithic to the Early Bronze Age.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Liu, Y. C. 2011. “The Interaction Between the Early Peoples of Taiwan Strait: Reconsidering K.C. Chang’sTheory.” In 2011 International Symposium on Maritime Environment and Culture of the MatzuArchipelago, edited by C. H. Tsang and C. Y. Chen, 109–24. Lianjian: Lianjian Government of FujianProvince (in Chinese).

Lu, T. L. D. 2007. “Natural Resources and Subsistence Strategies in the Prehistoric Hong Kong.” Kaogu 6:36–45 (in Chinese).

Mijares, A. S., F. Détroit, P. Piper, R. Grün, P. Bellwood, M. Aubert, G. Champion, N. Cuevas, A. DeLeon, and E. Dizon. 2010. “New Evidence for a 67,000-year-old Human Presence at Callao Cave, Luzon,Philippines.” Journal of Human Evolution 59: 123–32. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.04.008.

Pawley, A. 2007. “The Origins of Early Lapita Culture: The Testimony of Historical Linguistics.” InOceanic Explorations: Lapita and Western Pacific Settlement, edited by S. Bedford, C. Sand, and S. P.Connaughton, Terra Australis 26, 17–49. Canberra: Australian National University E-Press.

Pawley, A., and M. Pawley. 1994. “Early Austronesian Terms for Canoe Parts and Seafaring.” InAustronesian Terminologies: Continuity and Change, edited by A. Pawley and M. Ross, 329–61.Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

514 Mike T. Carson and Hsiao-chun Hung

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:03

30

July

201

4

Paz, V. 2005. “Rockshelters, Caves, and Archaeobotany in Island Southeast Asia.” Asian Perspectives 44:107–18. doi:10.1353/asi.2005.0012.

Peterson, W. E. 1974a. Anomalous Archaeology Sites of Northern Luzon and Models of Southeast AsianPrehistory. Doctoral dissertation. Honolulu: Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii.

Peterson, W. E. 1974b. “Summary Report of Two Archaeological Sites From Northern-Eastern Luzon.”Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 9: 26–35.

Simanjuntak, T., ed. 2008. Austronesian in Sulawesi. Yogyakarta: Center for Prehistoric and AustronesianStudies.

Snow, B. E., R. Shutler Jr, D. E. Nelson, J. S. Vogel, and J. R. Southon. 1986. “Evidence of Early RiceCultivation in the Philippines.” Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 14: 3–11.

Thiel, B. 1987. “Excavations at the Lal-Lo Shellmiddens, Northeast Luzon, Philippines.” AsianPerspectives 27: 71–94.

Tsang, C. H. 2005. “Recent Discoveries at the Tapenkeng Culture Sites in Taiwan: Implications for theProblem of Austronesian Origins.” In The Peopling of East Asia, edited by L. Sagart, R. Blench, andA. Sanchez-Mazas, 63–73. London: Routledge Curzon.

Tsang, C. H. 2013. “New Archaeological Discoveries at Baxiandong and the Issues of Related to theChronology and the Affinities of the Palaeolithic Culture in Taiwan.” In New Lights on East AsianArchaeology, edited by K. T. Chen and C. H. Tsang, 379–416. Taipei: Academia Sinica (in Chinese).

Tsang, C. H., K. T. Li, and Y. C. Chu. 2006. Footprints of Ancestors: Archaeological Discoveries in TainanScience-Based Industrial Park. Tainan: Tainan County Government (in Chinese).

Tsang, C. H., R. Santiago, and H. C. Hung. 2002. Report of Archaeological Exploration in NorthernLuzon, Philippines, 1996–2002. Annual report for the Program of Asian and Pacific Study. Taipei:Academia Sinica (in Chinese).

Tsang, C. H., and M. C. Ye. 2000. Archaeological Sites in Penghu County. Taipei: Ministry of InteriorAffairs, Republic of China (in Chinese).

Yang, X., H. J. Barton, Z. Wan, Q. Li, Z. Ma, M. Li, D. Zhang, and J. Wei. 2013. “Sago-Type Palms Werean Important Plant Food Prior To Rice in Southern Subtropical China.” PLoS ONE 8: e63148. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063148.

Zhang, C., and H. C. Hung. 2008. “The Neolithic of Southern China–Origin, Development, andDispersal.” Asian Perspectives 47: 299–329. doi:10.1353/asi.0.0004.

Zhang, C., and H. C. Hung. 2010. “The Emergence of Agriculture in Southern China.” Antiquity 84: 11–25.

Zhang, C., and H. C. Hung. 2012. “Later Hunter-Gatherers in Southern China, 18000–3000 BC.” Antiquity86: 11–29.

Zhejiangsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Xiaoshan Bowuguan, eds. 2004. Kuahuqiao. Beijing:Wenwu Chubanshe (in Chinese).

Zorc, D. 1994. “Austronesian Culture History Through Reconstructed Vocabulary (An Overview).” InAustronesian Terminologies: Continuity and Change, edited by A. Pawley and M. Ross, 595–624.Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Mike T. Carson investigates multiple perspectives of archaeology, geoarchaeology andenthoarchaeology in the Asia-Pacific region. He authored the book First Settlement of RemoteOceania: Earliest Sites in the Mariana Islands, published by Springer, 2014.

Hsiao-chun Hung concentrates on human migrations and trading networks in the regions ofsouthern China, Taiwan, Mainland and Island Southeast Asia and the Mariana Islands.

Semiconductor theory in migration 515

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:03

30

July

201

4