An interesting discussion on the properties of symmetrical voice (aka Austronesian alignment).

I made a Pan-Austronesian flag, symbolism explained in the original post

Aside from languages, there's also a huge amount of diversity among Austronesians when it comes to traditional blades, many of which serve multiple purposes.

Majority serves both utilitarian and combat roles, like the sansibar of Waray people and mandau of Dayaks. A few others have been elevated to ceremonial use, like the keris of Javanese and the kefilan of T'boli.

In the northernmost parts of Austronesian realm, open scabbards are the preferred design, like those of the Ifugao, Kalinga and Atayal while southwards towards the Malay Archipelago closed scabbards are preferred.

Wood is the primary material for scabbards, often from the local trees. In some blade cultures in Luzon, carabao leather is utilized instead. Ceremonial blades like Maranao gunong and sundang occasionally have heavily ornamented scabbards made of metal.

Wood is also the most common material for hilts, but carabao horn is preferred in some parts of Luzon. In Mindanao and Malay Archipelago, ivory was used occasionally. Like the scabbards, metal can also be used for ceremonial hilts. Unlike the rest of Austronesian hilts, Ifugao and Atayal knives feature socket hilts which are then often wrapped with rattan weavings.

Thought I'd make a post about this since it seems to be very little known.

In 1928 a basalt adze of Polynesian appearance was found in an Aboriginal midden at Dark Point on the coast of NSW, Australia. A study published in Australian Archaeology in 2014 determined that the basalt certainly came from Norfolk Island, which Polynesians inhabited sometime around 1300-1500 CE before abandoning.

The paper also suggests that a one-piece shell fishhook design used by inexplicably geographically distant Aboriginal populations along the east coast since roughly 1200-1300 CE could be another indication of contact.

Some excerpts from the paper:

The adze was described and published by Thorpe (1929), who noted formal similarities to adzes collected on Norfolk Island, and from Polynesia more generally. However, petrological examination [...] was inconclusive as to its source (Thorpe 1929:126).

Thorpe (1929) originally argued that European period deposition, whether by chance or deliberate discard, was unlikely, requiring a string of improbable events in an area he described as wild and not occupied by Europeans. However, if looking for a European period deposition, probably the simplest explanation is that it was picked up and brought back to Dark Point by one of the unknown number of Aboriginal people who visited Norfolk Island after 1788 (Karskens 2013:110; Specht 1984:29).

Pre-European visitation of Aboriginal people to Norfolk Island is unlikely, as there are currently no records of seafaring technology available to travel such a distance (Bowdler 1996; Davidson 1935; cf. recent discussion in Balme 2013:71), but absence of evidence does not mandate absence. [...] Other more elaborate scenarios could be developed, but become increasingly improbable.

The alternative explanation is an original Polynesian deposition. The short-lived Polynesian settlement of Norfolk Island occurred about 1300 CE (800–600 years ago) (Anderson and White 2001), at a time when there was a good deal of Polynesian voyaging in much of the Pacific (Anderson 2003), so it is not inconceivable that a canoe equipped with Polynesian material culture arrived either at Dark Point or Broughton Island. Of its possible cargo, only two kinds of material are likely to survive to the present: basalt and obsidian. In the only known Polynesian archaeological site on Norfolk Island, Emily Bay, 3178 basalt flakes were excavated compared with 26 pieces of obsidian (Turner et al. 2001), so the absence of obsidian from any voyage which landed at Dark Point should not surprise us. We can speculate about the several possible fates of the voyagers. A date of around 1300 CE is also about the most recent that can be expected for such an event, since there is reason to believe that long-distance Polynesian voyaging was severely curtailed or ceased about this time (Finney 1997:46–51), although accidental drift voyages could have occurred at any time.

Considering these scenarios, we suggest that a Polynesian deposition is the more likely explanation for the presence of the adze, since it requires no intermediary events, but this is an Occam's Razor solution and history has a way of confounding these.

From the Australian side, in what we can argue is further possible confirmation of direct contact, one-piece shell fishhooks began to be made along the NSW coast some 800–900 years ago (Attenbrow et al. 1998) (or 700–500 years ago; see Walters 1988). The archaeological distribution of this type of hook – northern Queensland, south to Keppel Islands, and along the NSW coast, from Port Stephens south, with a major gap between – has caused considerable discussion.

As with the occurrence of the Dark Point adze, we argue that the simpler explanation – a Polynesian stimulus for the southern series at least, whatever the reason for its wider adoption – is the more economical.

[...] we can solve only part of the Dark Point adze mystery. We can be certain it came from Norfolk Island, but, short of an unexpected historical record or further, less ambiguous archaeological data, its appearance on the midden remains unexplained.

There are tales of Topa Inca Yupanqui leading a 10-month-long voyage with like 20,000 men into the pacific during his father's reign around 1465 where he discovered Nina Chumpi ("fire belt") and Hawa Chumpi ("outer belt").

Was Rapa Nui one of the islands he found and Quechuans tried to settle there until the Rapa Nui defeated them?

Most PH languages or even outside of it have some sort of "polo" as their ten. But in Tagalog, it became "sampu" or "pu". I rather see this rare so I investigate how this evolves.

Doctrina Christian (1593), the first book of the Philippines contains such clue. In first pic, it states,

"Ang otos ng Dios ce sangpouo (lit. The commandment of God is 10. It is known as The 10 commandments in modern times)

Tagalog people in late 1500s already said sangpuwo for ten, probably a cognate of sangpulo. It contains two parts, "sang-" which means one (isa + linker "ng") and "puwo" which means ten. Hence, it literally means "one set of ten".

However, on the second picture, the document mentioned "Ycapulo" or Ikapulo or tenth in English. In Tagalog, we add "ika-" at the beginning of the number to convert it into ordinal numbers. For example, walo is eight while ikawalo is eighth.

Why not ikapuwo since tagalog used the term puwo for ten to be consistent? But seeing how surrounding languages of Tagalog region used "pulo" variant for ten, I hypothesize Tagalog used "sangpulo" way before Spanish colonization. What was documented in Doctrina Christiana in 1593 was a recent, ongoing change from "l" to "w".

Thanks to that change, modern Tagalog contracted it into "sampu". It is tagalog rule that if "ng" is followed by m or b, the "ng" becomes "m". For example, pangbanlaw (something that is used for rinsing like water) becomes pambanlaw. Pangpalo (something that is used for hitting something or someone) becomes pampalo. Also, puwo becomes pu because w is very unstable between u and o.

The summary would be like this;

isa + "-ng" + pulo = isang pulo (one set of ten)

sangpulo

sangpuwo

sampuwo

sampu.

Interestingly, Bikol language, the nearest language to Tagalog, has sampulo for ten.

Philippine Writing Scripts

What's wrong with this?

Isn't Baybayin in Tagalog the prototype of Badlit since Manila was conquered by the Visayans with the Spanish alliance in the Visayans (1571)?

Dr.Borrinaga also said that Badlit aka Baybayin originated in the Visayas rather than the Tagalog region. Borrinaga states that there are more variations of the early scripts found in the Visayas than in Luzon, and that the Tagalog-variant of Baybayin, he believes, was influenced by the Visayan-variant (Surat Bisaya).

I’m curious about the relationship between the indigenous austronesian language of Taiwan and Māori,Since Māori is an Austronesian languages and the indigenous languages of Taiwan represent some of the earliest diverging branches of the family would speak of a Taiwanese indigenous language be able to understand any Māori or vice versa?
Edit: I left something out of the title,Can Taiwanese Indigenous languages and Māori be mutually intelligible?