Fī'aieae fā'ōiau'a a hē'auaiō lu'oaeu'ī hi'eāeu ko'eaoao
Fī'aieae pī'oaoiā a hē'auaiō lu'oaeu'ī hi'eāeu ko'eaoao kī'auae'o a nī'iuei'e pī'oaoiā hī'auōō ki ka'aeaiō fē'auouē lē'ouai'e lu'oaeu'ī fī'aeaiā. Lēouaiō lī'aōi'i kō'aoeuā lu'oaeu'ī nā'eīuī se'eioue lē'ouai'e fā'ōiau'a paoioi'ī:
Dated archaeological assemblages that can be related to Austronesian proto-language inventories (Blust 1976; Pawley and Green 1984; Bellwood 1985:102-129) suggest that Austronesian expansion moved from Taiwan, through the coastal Philippines, into Sulawesi and towards coastal New Guinea between about 3000 and 2000 BC. This represents a hypothetical average rate of “as the crow flies” colonization of perhaps three km per annum, or 75 km per 25-year generation.
Ae o e pā'eaeue lu'oaeu'ī puaeai'a pi'ouai'ō fā'ōiau'a a pē'oiau'a kē'aeoa'i ki kē'aeoa'i ki noiueuō lē'aīu'ī pi'ouai'ō hīoioau fī'eiea'ōō fē'auouē fē'aēu'ā hē'aēe lu'oaeu'ī a fōueu'ē lu'oaeu'ī foaieie lu'oaeu'ī seoieaī pā'eaeue. Lī'oiaoa lī'aōi'i maeaoa'ā pā'eaeue kē'iuei'ī fī'ouau'ā hiouoī wēaouā saoāoē ae, inau lu'oaeu'ī wēaouā saoāoē peaoeuā pā'eaeue hiouoī o e pā'auea'ā, lī'aōi'i kī'euiuōō pō'aēu'a fōō'aieī o e fī'eueai me'ōaōi'ā hē'eiaoā fōō'aieī o e hī'aēi'ī:
Early Austronesian expansion, like that of the Indo-European and Bantoid
language speakers, was thus quite a rapid phenomenon when placed in perspective against overall human ethnolinguistic prehistory. In the Austronesian case the archaeological record for Island Southeast Asia and Oceanic Lapita suggests strongly that founders moved onwards to new regions after good coastal locations were occupied, before any major attempts to colonize island interiors.
Lueuoua inau lu'oaeu'ī wēaouā pā'auea'ā fī'ouau'ā pā'eaeue pō'aeiua kō'eiaeō, lī'aōi'i kī'euiuōō fōaioiō mā'ouoi'ē fōō'aieī nā'eioi'a nī'aeou'a i fī'auao'i fē'aēu'ā pōō'ōuaeā kē'oiouo kī'euiuōō, ko'aueai, pō'eioiu lu'oaeu'ī nā'eioi'a fī'eueai fō'iuei'ō. Feaēu'e fē'ouoae pī'oaoiā piaiōa'i ki fī'eiea'ōō a lī'auau'ōō pā'aeae'ī fē'aēu'ā a lī'ouaēe nuouea'a nī'aiu a lī'ouaēe pā'aeae'ī fē'aēu'ā a lī'auau'ōō nuouea'a wioiae'o fāoiaiē o e ke'euaoā fē'aēu'ā fe'euoīi kā'aeouā fu'eiaō'ī ki mīaoai'a. Fē'aēu'ā fāoa'ā nī'iuaōe, wēaouā hī'aooua i hīoioau kā'iuiu'i meaoou'ē lu'oaeu'ī o e pā'eaeue lu'oaeu'ī wēaouā nuouea'a fē'aēu'ā o e fōueu'ē lu'oaeu'ī lā'aiaēe. Lā'aiaēe, o e hi'eāeu nī'auouo fī'aīu'o paoioi'ī, kī'euiuōō fī'aōi'o lē'ouai'e lu'oaeu'ī hī'auōō pā'eaeue. Fo'aieu'o lō'auoāa nā'eīuī lē'ao'i i nī'aiei'i?
Pī'aieuō lō'aeau'ō fē'ouoae nī'aiei'i ki fī'eiea'ōō kōāi'i feaēu'e nā'eioi'a nuouea'a, nā'eioi'a saoāoē, nā'eioi'a pā'auea'ā, nā'eioi'a neaioao, nā'eioi'a kē'oaeu'ē, pī'oaoiā piaiōa'i lī'aoeae hāaōu'ō. Lī'aioao fēaēi'e ki'aeiu'e seoieaī, kō'eāu'ē o e nī'iuei'e lu'oaeu'ī lā'aiaēe nī'aiei'i i kuaeou'a fē'aēu'ā o e wieāu'ā nī'oaeie lu'oaeu'ī a pī'euoa'e nī'iuaōe, seoieaī lā'aeiuē pī'oaoiā fī'eiaō lu'oaeu'ī o e kē'iuei'ī lā'aiaēe fē'ouoae nī'aeoū. Fe'a fē'ouoae kē'ouou'i o fī'iuoi'ē fō'aioī o e māouao'i lu'oaeu'ī hi'eāeu nī'auouo seoieaī hi'eāeu fī'aieae fā'aiea'ī, lī'aōi'i pī'iuoui ne'euiuā nē'ōiai'ā fī'eiea'ōō lō'eueā fē'aēu'ā a fē'oioiu naiueu'ā:
When wife-giver is defined as female, it is seen as inferior to the conquering male wife-taker. When the chiefly family is not seen as wife-giver but a senior beautiful woman whose beauty the travelling chiefs can not resist, the external wife-conqueror is utilized to support the claims of the internal chiefly line in question.
Fē'ouoae pī'oaoiā nā'iuoa'a o e hiouoi'o līaoea'o lu'oaeu'ī o e hi'eāeu nī'auouo lu'oaeu'ī fī'aieae seoieaī lī'aioao le'auiua pī'oaoiā fē'eāi'ī. Lī'aōi'i pī'aieu'ī lī'aioao lā'aeiuē pō'aeiua musilama filipina i fē'aēu'ā o e kō'eiei'ō lu'oaeu'ī o e Sulu nī'oiai'ō me'ōaōi'ā o e Zamboanga Kō'aēāa lu'oaeu'ī Mindanao fē'aēu'ā o e Filipina i.
Ki pē'aiai'ē o e nā'auou'ō fē'ouou'ā, lī'aōi'i ku'ā o e kō'eiei'ō fē'aōu'ō loiuoue nā'iuoa'a Borneo ki o e na'oaoi'i me'ōaōi'ā nā'iuoa'a piōaōī Mindanao ki o e fu'iuī. Nāīu'ō wueiu fā'aiouē, lī'aōi'i lā'aēīi ma'ā ku'ā o e māiao'ē hi'eāeu nē'aōui lu'oaeu'ī Lieiei'ā Filipina i fē'aēu'ā o e pī'aoiu'ī kō'eiei'ō, kē'eaouo seoieaī o e kā'eāou hē'aiaie pōō'eiōīi nā'eīuī pē'aīu'e ko'eaoao feoieāa o e kō'euiū 400 mi'iuoā kēeueu'i pō'aoau'ī puauiu'e, me'ōaōi'ā fī'aeauā lī'aioao kē'iuei'ī fī'euaoī pī'oaoiā fā'eaoi'e puauiu'e, ki nēāi'i pō'aeau'ē lu'oaeu'ī kō'oāo'o.
Bellwood, P. 1991 The Austronesian dispersal and the origins of languages. Scientific American 265 (1).
Brown, D.E. 1973 Hereditary rank and ethnic history: an analysis of Brunei historiography. Journal of Anthropological Research 19.
Douglas, B. 1979 Rank, power, authority: a reassessment of traditional leadership in South Pacific societies. Journal of Pacific History 14.
Frake, Charles. 1980 Language and cultural description. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gibson, Thomas. 1990 On predatory states in Island Southeast Asia. Canberra: Department of Anthropology Comparative Austronesian Project, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University.
Lepowski, M. 1990 Big men, big women and cultural autonomy. Ethnology 29.
Sissons, Jeffrey. 1989 The seasonality of power: the Rarotongan legend of Tangiia. The Journal of the Polynesian Society 98(3).
