Quote:
Re: the map, it seems to resonate with any/every anthro class (read: both) I took. In that one static image, you can almost envision the waves of migration of different peoples over millennia, with each successive "invader" more often than not pushing the previously settled people further from the coast.
At a glance, based on the map it would appear as if the (Austronesian?) Igorot were the original inhabitants, followed by Negrito migrations (from PNG or Melanesia?), followed by the comparably "recent" migrations from elsewhere in SE Asia. Is this even remotely accurate?
|
The "waves of migration" espoused by the eminent anthropologist Henry Otley Beyer, as it refers to the Philippines, has been rejected by later scholars based on new evidence.
The "out-of-Taiwan" theory of migration is popular and there are strong evidences supporting it. However, that is not the whole picture in my opinion. Surely there were migrations from elsewhere too, as proposed by other eminent scholars who have a differing opinion. In the study of weaponry, IMHO, the consideration of migrations while important has its severe limitations. Instead, the study of trading routes (instead of migratory routes) will provide more leads.
I also would like to think out of the box and consider the possibility that "original" inhabitants were living in elevated areas (e.g. mountains) instead of the coast in order to avoid malaria. Thus, the push into the mountans may have happened only later - i.e. after people had already started living along the coasts in order to take advantage of trade. Before the period of trade, the inhabitants settled the mountains, not lowland coastal areas. I could be wrong though.