TAIWAN, COASTAL SOUTH CHINA AND
NORTHERN VIET NAM AND
THE NUSANTAO MARITIME TRADING NETWORK
BY
WILHELM G. SOLHEIM II
(University of Hawai’i, Manoa)
Abstract
The primary concern of this essay is to present details of the development of the
Nusantao Maritime Trading Network between Taiwan, coastal South China and Northern Viet Nam from a bit before 7,000 B.P. until about 2,000 B.P. The Nusantao
Maritime Trading Network is seen as a very widespread trading and communication
network which came to cover all of the PaciŽ c Ocean, the coastal areas of the China
Sea and Japan, the coastal areas of the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean as far as
Madagascar, and Island Southeast Asia and the coastal area of Mainland Southeast
Asia. Having begun in eastern Island Southeast Asia a few hundred years before 5000
B.C., it expanded from there to the north through the Philippines to Taiwan and
coastal South China and then north along the coast of China to western and southern
Korea and Ž nally to Kyushu in Japan, starting here just before 3000 B.C., but becoming
best developed in Korea and Japan during the Ž rst millennium B.C.
The maritime culture of Southeast Asia has been a focus of my research
since 1949, but my Ž rst speciŽ c publications on the subject were in
1975 (Solheim 1975a, 1975b). In the Ž rst of these papers I referred to
the people who developed this culture as Austronesians or Austronesian
speakers (Solheim 1975a:151-157). I changed this to Nusantao for the
following reason:
The use of the word Austronesian and/or the compound MalayoPolynesian for a people and a culture is very awkward, and is incorrect as
well. Both terms are for a language family and should not be used for
other purposes. Because these people share both a basic culture and a
language, it should not be difŽ cult to coin a word for the people and
culture from reconstructed protoforms of the language. As these are the
people of the islands, I propose the term Nusantau for these people and
cultures. (I would like to thank George Grace for giving me the root words
nusa for island and tau for man or people) (Solheim 1975a:158).
© Brill, Leiden 2000
JEAA 2, 1–2
274
WILHELM G. SOLHEIM II
My concept of the Nusantao (and its proper spelling) has evolved
over time:
I now deŽ ne Nusantao as natives of Southeast Asia, and their descendants,
a maritime oriented culture from their beginnings, those beginnings
probably in southeastern Island Southeast Asia a bit before 5000 B.C. A
majority of the people with this culture, at any one time, probably spoke
a Malayo-Polynesian language but there was no doubt a varying sized
minority of them, from time to time, who did not speak a related language (Solheim 1975a:158).
The Nusantao were no doubt directly associated with the development and spread of Malayo-Polynesian languages. At any one time
there were also many other Malayo-Polynesian speakers living in the
interior of the larger islands who were not maritime oriented, and I
would not consider these as Nusantao. The Nusantao and the nonmaritime Malayo-Polynesian speakers no doubt were constantly mixing
genetically, culturally, and linguistically. Their genetic ancestry no doubt
varied from time to time and place to place to include Southern Mongoloid and I would suggest that this may well have been the case from
their very beginning (Solheim 1984-1985: 85-86 revised). My deŽ nition
of Southeast Asia for many years has included South China (Solheim
1967a: 3; 1973: 25; 1975a: 154; 1975b: 108; 1979: 200; 1984-1985: 13;
1992).
Nusantao culture
There are many examples of Nusantao ethnic groups living today and
in the recent past. Good examples of these in Island Southeast Asia are
the Bajao, Samal, and Tausug of Malaysia, Indonesia, and the
Philippines. I have written about their lifestyles, that their living on
boats, which no doubt evolved from their early history as Nusantao,
must therefore bear considerable resemblance to the early Nusantao
(Solheim 1990: 243-245). Similar groups have been reported from
coastal Viet Nam, South China, Okinawa, and Japan (Solheim 1995).
In his conclusions about these people from Japan and Okinawa, Yanagita
Kunio (1976; Solheim 1995) wrote:
As far as our country is concerned, it appears that we have had people
living their lives on boats since the time of Emperor Onin or for about
2000 years. The history of boat people in some other parts of Asia seems
to be even earlier. With the Malay peninsula as center, an area including
the Dutch Indian Islands, the Burmese Islands, and the Andaman Islands
shows traces of similar people. There is a lot in common among the peoples
the nusantao maritime trading network
275
who live their lives on the water. However, almost no written documents
concerning them exist.
The development of the Nusantao concept
The Ž rst data which suggested to me a maritime trading network in
Southeast Asia were several pottery vessels from a site in the Philippines
and from another site on the west shore of the Gulf of Siam. These,
though unusual and distinctive in form and decoration, were almost
exactly similar in spite of the sites being about 2700 km apart by air
and considerably more by sea (Solheim 1964:200-205, Figs. 1-2). When
I Ž rst noted this striking similarity I did not think of the explanation in
terms of a maritime trading network.
Within Southeast Asia itself I feel the most compelling evidence for
a widespread maritime trading network during the Ž rst millennium
B.C. is the distribution of jade earrings, called lingling-o, and much rarer,
but related, a probable earring or pendant two-headed animal made in
jade. These jade objects are distinctive and have been found in Botel
Tobago off southern Taiwan, the northern Philippines, Palawan in
west central Philippines, Sarawak, coastal central and peninsular
Thailand, but most commonly in coastal Viet Nam (Loofs-Wissowa
1980-1981; Solheim 1982-1983). In addition, the considerable overlapping in time and space with the early distribution of carnelian and
early glass beads and bracelets in Southeast Asia, probably at Ž rst
brought in from India, seemed to me to strongly suggest a very widespread trade.
The early trade, or barter, did not make anyone wealthy, but provided
a living for many people of varying but similar cultures. It presented a
communication network that could pass around ideas, tool types, and
elements of many different shared technologies. It provided a method
of movement of portable luxury products and some relatively rare
materials needed for tools, such as obsidian, which was traded very
widely in Island Melanesia, and even into western Indonesia from
Melanesia, by the Lapita people from around 1500 to 500 B.C.
Relationships between Southeast Asia, Korea, and Japan
Physical anthropology, linguistics, and archaeology point to a close relationship between the peoples and cultures of prehistoric Japan and
Korea with the peoples and cultures of Southeast Asia. The best way
276
WILHELM G. SOLHEIM II
to explain how this relationship came about is, in part, through the
communication brought about by the Nusantao Maritime Trading
Network.
Christy Turner II (1976; 1979; 1985: 49-50; 1989) has proposed two
general and related tooth types for the Mongoloid peoples, these being
Sinodonty for the northern Mongoloids and American Indians and
Sundadonty for the southern Mongoloids, including the peoples of
Southeast Asia, Micronesia and Polynesia. The Sundadonts included
the Jomon
peoples of prehistoric Japan, from about 12,000 to
2000 years ago, after which dental types changed to Sinodont, like the
peoples of Korea, northern China, and Siberia (Turner 1989: 91;
Hanihara 1990a, 1990b). This development from Korea within Yayoi
Culture should be seen as connected with the Nusantao Maritime
Trading Network. While Turner, Hanihara, and others consider that
the relationship of the Ainu, Okinawans, and prehistoric Jomon with
the peoples of Southeast Asia resulted from a movement north towards
the end of the Pleistocene, long before the Nusantao Maritime Trading
Network, Brace (1990:341-343) thinks it more likely that the movement
went south and that the Jomon people were ancestral to the Micronesians and Polynesians. I agree with the former (Solheim 1993a).
The origins of the Japanese language are still controversial. The
most widely accepted opinion is that it is an Altaic language, probably
related in some way to Korean. Murayama (1976: 419), along with a
few other Japanese linguists, has hypothesized that Japanese is related
to Austronesian, which he usually refers to as Malayo-Polynesian.
Murayama (1976: 427) further suggests that the original location in
Japan where the language started was in the northern portion of Kyushu.
Martin (1966; taken from Murayama 1976:428) has attempted to relate
Japanese to Korean. Concerning this Murayama (1976:419) says, “As
one rereads Martin’s work on this question, one is struck over and over
again by the presence of important Malayo-Polynesian elements in the
vocabularies of the two languages that he has compared.” He has further suggested that to study the relationship of Korean to Japanese it
will be necessary to include Austronesian in such a comparison.
I hypothesize that a major portion of the Austronesian element of
Korean and Japanese was brought north by the Nusantao traders, and
that this involved a long period of contact and intermarriage, from about
4000 B.C., of the Southeast Asian traders with peoples living along the
China and western and southern Korean coast. This continued strongly
until about 1000 years ago and no doubt to a lesser degree until the
recent past. Paul Benedict (1990) has gone in to this linguistic relationship in great detail proposing that Japanese is an Austro-Thai language,
and further believing that Japanese is not directly related to Korean.
the nusantao maritime trading network
277
Much of the archaeological evidence for this Korea/Japan-Southeast Asia relationship is in Solheim (1989), where I wrote:
The complex of artifacts associate with rice cultivation in Korea has been
noted before, in part (Kim Won-yong 1964; Kaneko 1966:18-21; Kim
Jeong-hak 1978:78-81; Solheim 1990, 1992) . . . Kim Won-Yong (1964)
brings together rice, the semi-lunar stone knife, and the stepped adze. . . .
The artifacts that appear to me to be a part of the rice associated complex
include: the table and capstone dolman, cist grave, double burial jar, semilunar or crescent stone knife, stepped adze, pediform adze, perforated
disk [probably a spindle whorl], stone dagger, concave based and longstemmed polished stone arrow- or spearhead, the so called plain pottery
of Korea, and relatively rarely carved-paddle pottery.
I hypothesize that rice agriculture was introduced into western Japan
from Korea, but also, the artifacts associated with the beginnings of
rice agriculture in both Korea and western Japan were, for the most
part, brought north from northern Mainland Southeast Asia (South
China in particular) by the Nusantao maritime traders not as a complex but element by element over one to two thousand years.
Mark Hudson (1990: 68-69) states that most Japanese archaeologists see rice agriculture coming from South China, and in particular
from around the mouth of the Yangtze River, either directly to Japan
or by way of Korea. “There can be no doubt, however, that most of
the concrete parallels are with Korea rather than coastal China (cf.
Harunari 1990; Wang 1989).” Hudson (1990:69) also feels that the
spread of rice agriculture east along the Japanese coast of the Japan
Sea during early Yayoi times was through the agency of a maritime
culture.
I propose that the east coast of China between the mouth of the
Yangtze and the eastern tip of the Shandong Peninsula was the homeland of the Yayoi Culture and that it was brought to Kyushu, Japan, by
the Nusantao Maritime Trading Network, not as a full-blown culture,
but element by element over several thousand years, forming the Yayoi
Culture in Japan.
Taiwan, coastal China, and northern Viet Nam
The Dapenkeng
Culture of Taiwan is the earliest Neolithic
culture to be found on Taiwan and as such is probably the culture of
the Ž rst proto-Austronesian speakers on Taiwan. The dating for the
Dapenkeng Culture on Taiwan is not yet solidly established, but it probably began considerably earlier than the following prehistoric culture,
securely dated as beginning around 2500 B.C.
278
WILHELM G. SOLHEIM II
Tsang Cheng-hwa (1992a) has recently reported on his extensive
excavations on the Penghu Islands
off the west coast of southern Taiwan. These would be a logical stepping stone between the south
coast of China and Taiwan. The earliest dating for the Dapenkeng on
the islands, however, is around 5000 B.P., following the lowering of
sea levels after the Middle Holocene Transgression. During the Middle
Holocene Transgression very little of these islands would have been
above sea level. It appears likely that the Ž rst Dapenkeng settlements
on Taiwan were earlier than this and in the southwestern coastal area
of Taiwan. It is most likely that the Ž rst contact with and settlement of
these islands came from this coastal area of Taiwan.
Tsang (1992b) reports that the artifacts and dates of the Dapenkeng
Culture on Taiwan and the islands are much the same as those from
the sand dune sites on the opposite Fujian and Guangdong coasts, suggesting that the most likely source of the Dapenkeng Culture is in that
area: “By 7000 years B.P. or later, these cultures, characterized by cordmarked, basket-marked, shell-edge-impressed and painted coarse sandy
pottery, chipped pebble tools, and roughly polished axes and adzes,
were formed on the southeastern coast of China” (1992a: 269). Tsang
further writes that the Ž nds from these coastal sites, on shellmounds
and sand dunes, indicate that Ž shing, hunting, and gathering were the
most important economic activities, with some cultivation added to
these.
Tung Wan Tsai is a site of this sort in Hong Kong. “The variation in
the cultural deposits re ects the potential range from [sic!] use of the
site as a minimal short-term encampment to a longer-term base camp
by maritime adapted peoples under changing circumstances” (Rogers
et al. 1995). Concerning the material culture of the people using this
site, Rogers et al. (1995: 150) continue, “A maritime adapted toolkit
will be Ž ltered to suit a mobile lifestyle where numerous possessions
would be a burden, with a resulting material culture that is small, multipurpose and easily transportable.”
The pattern of this site has been found at numerous sites in Hong
Kong: “scattered and isolated deposits, often small and exhibiting a
high degree of maritime dependence; a conservative material culture
of unmodiŽ ed or minimally modiŽ ed pebbles and a tradition of continuing coarse ceramic types; and a lack of structural or midden features.
This pattern is found on sandbar sites dating from the mid Neolithic
onwards” (Rogers et al. 1995: 150). Starting in late Bronze Age times
and continuing well into the Han dynasty, Tung Wan Tsai’s “. . . evidence points to the casual and temporary structures characteristic of a
mobile boat-based population. . . .” (Rogers et al. 1995: 151).
the nusantao maritime trading network
279
I have been in disagreement with Peter Bellwood for some time on
the movement of Austronesian speakers from South China into southern Island Southeast Asia and the PaciŽ c. Bellwood (1984-1985:115)
proposed that a migration of people probably from Fujian crossed to
Taiwan during the Ž fth millennium B.C. These proto-Austronesian
speakers established cereal agriculture in which rice was of major
importance. I have previously argued against the importance of rice in
the movement of Austronesian speakers from coastal China to Taiwan
and south through the Philippines (Solheim 1984-1985: 84). If rice
came to Taiwan it would have been Oryza sativa japonica, the type of
rice grown in China at this time. I have shown that it is likely that the
earliest rice in Taiwan and the Philippines was javanica and not japonica
and that this rice not only came from Indonesia, but continued through
the Philippines and Taiwan to Japan where it amounts to 7% of the
rice grown today in Japan (Solheim 1993b).
Based on the current archaeological evidence mentioned above, I
do not agree with Bellwood (1979: 207) that “Taiwan is a potentially
vital area for the transmission of cultural innovations from the Asian
mainland into the islands,” because he chooses to emphasize the importance of the Corded Ware Yuanshan
cultural tradition. Since the
homeland of this tradition was most likely on the coast of the mainland between Fujian and Viet Nam, as I mentioned previously, I would
postulate that the Austronesian languages were probably transmitted
into insular Southeast Asia and the PaciŽ c Islands along the eastern
coast of the Southeast Asian mainland rather than through the island
of Taiwan.
Conclusions
I hypothesize that the Early Nusantao Maritime Trading Network, after
advancing from south to north through the Philippines, reached southern Taiwan and coastal southeastern China sometime shortly before
5000 B.C. Nusantao peoples made contact, cultural and genetic, with
the Middle Neolithic people of southeast China. This included the
peoples up the lower Yangtze River, for I hypothesize that any time
that maritime people in their explorations would come across the mouth
of a large river, they would have moved up the river making contact
with the local inhabitants and not have stayed totally along the coast.
Thus, it would have been these Nusantao maritime traders, who, while
continuing to have contact with southwestern Taiwan, brought back
the seeds of the Dapenkeng Culture to Taiwan.
280
WILHELM G. SOLHEIM II
I would also hypothesize that these people were very adaptable to
new conditions. With their knowledge both of the ocean and of landbased economic activities such as hunting, gathering, and horticulture,
they quickly incorporated the new cultural elements they came into
contact with, forming a somewhat new and different culture in their
sand dune and shell mound located sites. I hypothesize that these Middle
Neolithic sites along the China coast were the land portion settlements
of the Nusantao. Due to their rapid amalgamation with the local cultures with which they came into contact, their material culture in their
land settlements would have varied from site to site as they moved north
and south from southeastern coastal China. This Nusantao combination of land settlement and expanding maritime trading network is, to
my knowledge, unique in the world, so there is no existing model which
can be looked to, except for the no doubt much evolved maritime cultures still in existence in Asia and the PaciŽ c.
Furthermore, I agree with Tsang that the movement of Austronesian
speakers, now Malayo-Polynesian speaking Nusantao, from southeastern China was along the coast of Viet Nam. To present my reasoning
for this, I must move to the PaciŽ c and the earliest, widespread pottery
tradition there, the Lapita Pottery Tradition.
On the basis of linguistics, physical anthropology, and archaeology
it is now generally agreed that the ancestors of the Polynesian peoples
were the bearers of the Lapita Culture of Melanesia and that the ancestry
of the Lapita peoples came from eastern Island Southeast Asia somewhat before the middle of the second millennium B.C. It is argued that
an important element of the Lapita Culture that led to the colonization
of the PaciŽ c islands was the extensive long distance trade carried on
by the Lapita peoples (Kirch 1988; Wickler 1990). It has generally been
felt that this long distance trade developed in the islands of the Bismark
Archipelago. While I have not expressed it in this way before, I would
say that this long distance trade element of Lapita Culture came with
the ancestors of the Lapita people from Island Southeast Asia carried
by their Nusantao ancestors (Solheim 1976; 1984-1985: 84-85).
For many years in the study of the Lapita Culture, the primary identifying archaeologically recovered artifact was the Lapita pottery. I have
noted the relationship of Lapita pottery to the Sa-huynh-Kalanay
Pottery Tradition of Island Southeast Asia (Solheim 1976: 35-36). Before
the Lapita pottery was classiŽ ed as such, I had pointed out the relationship of this pottery to that of the Sa-huynh-Kalanay Pottery Tradition
of the Philippines and Viet Nam (1964: 206-209; 1967b: 167) and proposed that it belonged to the same tradition. As soon as radiocarbon
dating became somewhat common in the archaeology of the PaciŽ c
and Southeast Asia, it became apparent that this could not be so, as
the nusantao maritime trading network
281
Lapita pottery had somewhat earlier dates than the Sa-huynh-Kalanay
pottery. They were so similar, however, that I pointed out that the two
pottery traditions must have a common ancestor (Solheim et al. 1979:
126-129). Though no one else has remarked on this, I still support this
contention, as while the two traditions are distinct, they share a great
majority of their forms and decoration. Both the forms and patterns
of decoration were present in both north and south Viet Nam well
before 2000 B.C. This strongly suggests, at least to me, that the ancestry
of the Lapita pottery came from Viet Nam (Solheim 1976: 145-146),
brought by Nusantao traders, who were probably also the ancestors of
the Lapita people (Solheim 1979:197). This would mean that the
Nusantao Maritime Trading Network developed towards the south from
southeastern China along the coast of the China Sea, across to Borneo
and either around the north coast or the south coast of Borneo, or
both, into eastern Indonesia and then out to the Bismark archipelago.
On the other hand, Micronesia would appear to have been settled from
the Philippines by a different variant of the Nusantao Maritime Trading
Network.
References Cited
Bellwood, Peter (1979). Man’s Conquest of the PaciŽc. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bellwood, Peter (1984-1985). “A hypothesis for Austronesian origins.”
Asian Perspectives 26(1): 107-117.
Benedict, Paul (1990) Japanese/Austro-Tai. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Karoma Publishers.
Brace, C. Loring (1990) “Micronesians, Asians, Thais and relations: A
craniofacial and odontometric perspective.” Micronesica Supplement No.
2: 323-348.
Hanihara, Tsunehiko (1990a). “Dental anthropological evidence of
afŽ nities among the Oceania and the Pan-PaciŽ c populations: The
basic populations in East Asia, II.” Journal of the Anthropological Society
of Nippon 98 (3): 233-346,
Hanihara, Tsunehiko (1990b). “Studies on the afŽ nities of Sakhalin
Ainu based on dental characters: The basic populations in East Asia,
III.” Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon 98 (4): 425-437.
Harunari Hideji
(1990). Yayoi jidai no hajimari
(The beginning of the Yayoi Period). Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.
Hudson, Mark J. (1990). “From Toro to Yoshinogari: changing perspectives on Yayoi archaeology.” In Gina L. Barnes (editor), Hoabinhian,
Jomon, Yayoi, Early Korean States, pp. 63-111. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
282
WILHELM G. SOLHEIM II
Kaneko, Erika (1966). “Japan, a review of Yayoi period burial practices.”
Asian Perspectives 9:1-26.
Kim, Jeong-hak (1978). The Prehistory of Korea. Translated and edited by
Richard J. Pearson and Kazue Pearson. Honolulu: University Press
of Hawaii.
Kim, Won-Yong (1964) The Beginning of Rice Cultivation in Korea. Paper
No. 15 presented at the International Conference on Asian History,
University of Hong Kong.
Kirch, Patrick V. (1988). “Long distance exchange and island colonization: the Lapita case.” Norwegian Archaeological Review 21: 103-117.
Loofs-Wissowa, H.H.E. (l980-1981). “Prehistoric and protohistoric links
between the Indochinese peninsula and the Philippines, as exempliŽ ed by two types of ear-ornaments. Journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological Society 9: 57-76.
Martin, S.P. (1966). “Lexical evidence relating Korean to Japanese.”
Language 42:185-251.
Murayama Schichiro (1976). “The Malayo-Polynesian component in
the Japanese language.” Journal of Japanese Studies 2: 413-436.
Rogers, Pamela Rumball, Nan W. Leiniager, Sophia Mirchaniani, Julie
Van Den Bergh, and Ellen A. Widiowson (1995). Tung Wan Tsai: A
Bronze Age and Tian Period Coastal Site. Antiquities and Monuments
OfŽ ce Occasional Paper No. 3, Hong Kong.
Solheim, Wilhelm G., II (1964). “Further relationships of the Sa-huynhKalanay Pottery Tradition.” Asian Perspectives 8(1): 196-211.
Solheim, Wilhelm G., II (1967a). “International congresses and symposia.” Asian Perspectives 10: 1-8.
Solheim, Wilhelm G., II (1967b). “The Sa-huynh-Kalanay Pottery
Tradition: Past and future research.” In Mario D. Zamorah (editor),
Studies in Philippine Anthropology, pp. 151-174. Quezon City, the
Philippines: Alemar Phoenix.
Solheim, Wilhelm G., II (1973). “Remarks on the Neolithic in South
China and Southeast Asia.” Journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological
Society 4: 25-29.
Solheim, Wilhelm G., II (1975a). “Re ections on the new data of Southeast Asian prehistory: Austronesian origin and consequence. Asian
Perspectives 18(2): 146-160.
Solheim, Wilhelm G., II (1975b). “The Nusantao and South China.”
Journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological Society 6: 108-115.
Solheim, Wilhelm G., II (1976). “Coastal Irian Jaya and the origin of
the Nusantao (Austronesian speaking people).” In Chosuke Serizawa
(editor), Colloquium 18 Le Premier Peuplement de 1’Archipel Nippon et les
Iles du PaciŽgue: Chronologie, Paleogeographie, Industries, pp. 32-42. Proceed-
the nusantao maritime trading network
283
ings of the International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric
Sciences, Nice.
Solheim, Wilhelm G., II (1979). “A look at ‘L’Art préboudhique de la
Chine et le l’Asie du Sudest et son in uence en Océanie’ forty years
after.” Asian Perspectives 22 (2): 165-205.
Solheim, Wilhelm G., II (1982-1983). “Remarks on ‘The lingling-o
and bi-cephalous ornaments.’” Journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological
Society 10: 107- 111.
Solheim, Wilhelm G., II (1984-1985). “The Nusantao hypothesis: the
origin and spread of Austronesian speakers.” Asian Perspectives 26 (1):
77-88.
Solheim, Wilhelm G., II (1989). “A proposed prehistoric maritime network from Southeast Asia to Korea and Japan.” Paper presented at
the Circum-PaciŽ c Prehistory Conference, Seattle.
Solheim, Wilhelm G., II (1990). “Thoughts on land and sea peoples in
Southeast Asia and their possible relationship to initial settlement
of Micronesia.” Micronesica Supplement 2: 241-246.
Solheim, Wilhelm G., II (1992). “Nusantao traders beyond Southeast
Asia.” In Ian Glover, Pornchai Suchitta, and John Villiers (eds.),
Early Metallurgy, Trade and Urban Centres in Thailand and Southeast Asia,
pp. 199-212. Bangkok: White Lotus.
Solheim, Wilhelm G., II (1993a). “The Son Vi and ‘Hoabinhian’ in
Japan.” Paper presented at the Hoabinhian Conference, Ha Noi,
Viet Nam.
Solheim, Wilhelm G., II (1993b). “Four lobes of the Nusantao Maritime
Trading Network.” Paper presented at the 34th Congress of Asian
and North African Studies, Hong Kong.
Solheim, Wilhelm G., II (1995). “The Nusantao and north south
dispersals.” Bulletin of the Indo-PaciŽc Prehistory Association, in press.
Solheim, Wilhelm G. II, Avelino Legaspi, and Jaime Neri, S.J. (1979).
Archaeological Survey in Southeastern Mindanao. National Museum Monograph No. 8, Manila.
Tsang Cheng-hwa (1992a). Archaeology of the P’eng-Hu Islands. Taibei:
Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica Special Publications Number 95.
Tsang Cheng-hwa (1992b). “New archaeological data from both sides
of the Taiwan Strait and their implications for the controversy about
the Austronesian origins and expansion.” Paper presented at the
International Symposium on Austronesian Studies Relating to
Taiwan, Nangang, Taibei, Taiwan.
Turner, Christy G. II (1976). “Dental evidence on the origins of the
Ainu and Japanese.” Science 193: 911-913.
284
WILHELM G. SOLHEIM II
Turner, Christy G. II (1979). “Sinodonty and Sundadonty: A dental
anthropological view of Mongoloid microevolution, origin, and
dispersal into the PaciŽ c Basin, Siberia, and the Americas.” Paper
presented at the XIV PaciŽ c Science Congress, Khabarovsk, USSR.
Turner, Christy G. II (1985). “The dental search for native American
origins.” In Robert Kirk and Emoke Szathmary (eds.), Out of Asia:
Peopling the Americas and the PaciŽc, pp. 31-78. Canberra: The Journal
of PaciŽ c History.
Turner, Christy G. II (1989). “Teeth and prehistory in Asia.” ScientiŽc
American 260(2): 88-96.
Wang Wei
(1989). “Chgoku enkai chih˜ no n˜k˜ bunka no t˜den
(Eastward transmission of agriculture of the coastal region of China”. K˜kogaku zasshi
75:
108.
Wickler, Stephen (1990). “Prehistoric Melanesian exchange and
interaction: recent evidence from the northern Solomon Islands.”
Asian Perspectives 29: 135-154.
Yanagita, Kunio (1976). “Ebune.” Translated by Douglas Fuqua and
Toshiyuki Minami. Ethnos 6: 92-96.
Address:
Department of Anthropology
University of Hawai’i, Manoa
2424 Maile Way
Honolulu, HI 96734S