Extracts - Oram, N. (1968) pp. 431-432. (Continuation from November 24) Capell (1943: 20, 276) has suggested that the Austronesian speaking peoples of the central coastal areas arrived in their present location no later than the thirteenth century and that the Motu were later arrivals. Dutton (1966) suggests that, on the basis of Lexico-statistical dating, Motu and Vulaa could have separated as early as some time between the seventh and the tenth century A.D. Available linguistic and other evidence relating to the origins of the Motu has already been fully set out by Dutton (1967: 33-36) and need not be repeated. I can only make the suggestion (already quoted by Dutton 1967: 32) that the fact that Motu are sea people with rights to a very small coastal area and an economy largely based on fishing and trading as well as agriculture, does not necessarily indicate that they are descendants of migrants who arrived later than land-based Austronesian-speaking people. Their story as recounted above is very similar to that of another sea people, the Vulaa, whose settlement extend from the Hood Peninsula to Chestnut Bay. They too hold very little land and until post contact times their economy was entirely based on fishing and trading. The different Vulaa groups appear to be descended from a single ancestral village, now called Alukuni, at Keapara point. Evidence relating to their origins suggests that they are descended from an Austronesian-speaking agricultural group who moved inland towards the head of Marshall Lagoon. This group was living on the top of a hillwhen the ancestors Vulaa group broke away from them. This similarity between the Motu and vulaa stories is immediately apparent. The oral traditions described above that suggest that the Motu did not first live by the sea but preferred to build their villages, often on hills, a little way inland. Gwamo, Manugava, and Tauata were situated on tops of hills, and Badihagwa was also inland. It seems possible as a shot in the dark, that both Motu and Vulaa were not descended from from late sea-bourne migrants, but instead were descended from Austronesian-speaking agricultural peoples already established in Central Papua. Linguistic evidence does not contradict this suggestion. The external origins of the lagatoi may be significant in this connection. Oram states (p 433) -The need for further research. To be posted next Sunday. Im hoping that I will be able to provide other resources to shed light on some of Duttons findings as mentioned in this post.
Posted on: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 13:09:53 +0000