Paper short abstract:

The last decade has seen a reassessment of the Neolithic in ISEA, with many authors proposing alternatives to the conventional model of a Neolithic transition driven by movement of Austronesian-speaking farmers out of Taiwan into ISEA. Here evaluate these models in the light new data from Timor-Leste.

Paper long abstract:

The last few years have seen what can only be described as a radical overhaul of the 'Neolithic' in Island Southeast Asia. This has come about as researchers have critiqued the orthodox model of Neolithisation against new data and found it wanting. The orthodox model is primarily derived from Peter Bellwood's vision of an expansion of Austronesian-speaking farming communities out of Taiwan about 4500 years ago. These early farmers supposedly transported pottery, rice and millet, the domestic pig, dog and chicken, stone adzes, bark cloth beaters and net sinkers and a suite of shell artefacts such as fish hooks, arm rings and beads into ISEA, and ultimately out into the Pacific. While recent evaluations of the archaeological, linguistic and biological evidence accommodate aspects of the orthodox model, such as an Austronesian linguistic homeland in Taiwan and subsequent expansion of Malayo-Polynesian into ISEA, they are united in questioning the agricultural impetus for expansion and the movement of a suite of Neolithic material culture. The researchers questioning an agriculturally-driven expansion and package of traits have also proposed a number of alternate visions of 'a Neolithic' or 'Neolithics' for the island archipelago. These have included an emphasis on advanced maritime capacity as the facilitator, if not the driver, of the migration from Taiwan, and a charismatic ideology for accomplishing the rapidity and reach of Austronesian colonisation. Here I evaluate some of these ideas through the lens of the archaeological evidence from Timor-Leste.