Download - Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 1/29
Clues to the linguistic situation in Near Oceania
before agriculture
Malcolm Ross
1 Introduction
Near Oceania consists of mainland New Guinea, the Bismarck
Archipelago (New Britain, New Ireland and Manus), Bougainville and the
Solomon Islands. I divide Near Oceania into two regions which are
distinct in terms of their linguistic history. The first region is mainland
New Guinea. The second consists of the Bismarcks, Bougainville and the
Solomon Islands, which I refer to collectively as Northwest Island
Melanesia. All the larger islands of Near Oceania are mountainous, and
the highlands cordillera of the island of New Guinea, with peaks up to
nearly 5000 m, is particularly significant in the regionÕs settlement history
(see Map 1)
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 2/29
formed the land mass known as Sahul. Sumatra, Borneo and Java were
part of the extension of the Asian continent known as Sundaland.Bougainville, Choiseul, Santa Isabel and Guadalcanal formed a single
island known as Greater Bougainville (Map 1).
Insert Map 2 about here.
The prehistory of Near Oceania is conveniently divided into fourperiods (BP = before present):
1. Before 21,000 BP: settlement during the Pleistocene, before the Last
Glacial Maximum
2. 21,000Ð12,000 BP: the late Pleistocene, after the Last Glacial
Maximum
3. 12,000Ð3500 BP: early and mid Holocene4. from 3500 BP until European contact (1870Ð1965)
The Pleistocene was the period of the great Ice Ages, beginning around
1.8 million years ago and ending with the Younger Dryas, a short cold
period (roughly 13,400Ð12,000 BP) which followed a major retreat of the
i
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 3/29
1997:31Ð34, 61) interprets this as the beginning of what he calls wild-food
production, i.e. the deliberate tending of the forest environment byselective weeding or clearing and by transplanting, without the permanent
clearing of the forest which is entailed in agriculture and which
significantly alters the productivity patterns of the environment. In all
probability similar developments were occurring in New Guinea. In the
lowlands this included the initial domestication of the sago palm. Indeed,
foraging sedentism persists among a number of New Guinea communities
who depend on the sago palm for their starch intake. One may infer,
however, that such lifestyles only occurred in the coastal lowlands. In
Period 1, the grasslands of the central New Guinea Highlands were home
to megafauna, and there is archaeological evidence of seasonal hunting
and collecting (Evans & Mountain 2005), but the winter climate would
have been too severe for foraging. Early in Period 2, around 18,000 BP, asthe climate began to warm up, the highland grasslands were replaced by
dryland rain forest, principally Nothofagus (the Ôsouthern beechÕ), creating
an environment impossible for foragers except close to the forest edge
(Sillitoe 2002).
The early Holocene (Period 3), around 9000 BP, saw the beginnings of
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 4/29
territory is rather tempting. During this period, too, the distribution of sago
stands was probably extended by human intervention (Klappa 2006).
Insert Map 3 about here.
The 3500 BP boundary between Period 3 and Period 4 represents the
arrival from the west of Austronesian agriculturalists in Near Oceania (see
Map 4). There are Austronesian languages of the EasternMalayo-Polynesian in the west of New Guinea around the BirdÕs Head
and Cenderawasih Bay, but we have no archaeological evidence to date
their arrival. We can be reasonably certain, however, that speakers of the
language immediately ancestral to Proto Oceanic, itself the ancestor to allthe Austronesian languages of Oceania, arrived in the Bismarcks around
3500 BP. Early Oceanic speakers rapidly colonised NW Island Melanesia
and moved beyond it to Santa Cruz, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, Fiji, Tonga
and Samoa. Later they occupied Micronesia and the rest of Polynesia, andalso gained toeholds on the offshore islands and coasts of New Guinea
itself. Our confidence about this history is based on a widely accepted
correlation of the Proto Oceanic language with the archaeologically salient
Lapita culture (Pawley 2003). Proto Oceanic marks the beginning of a
remarkable linguistic tale culture (Pawley 2005) but one that it is not
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 5/29
history outlined in ¤2 is fairly typical. All Neolithic transitions have
occurred during the Holocene, and the New Guinea transition isexceptional mainly insofar as it is early. The worldÕs first Neolithic
transition took place with the cultivation of rye and barley in the Natufian
culture of the Levant by about 10,400 BP (Bar-Yosef 2002). The taro- and
banana-based transition of the New Guinea Highlands occurred from
about 9000 BP, perhaps almost simultaeously with the beginnings of rice
agriculture in the Middle Yangtze and Huai Valleys around 8500 BP
(Jones 2002) and the cultivation of millet on the North China plain at
about the same time (Driem 2002). The New Guinea transition is also somewhat exceptional because of its
limited geographic expansion (it did not spread beyond New Guinea). This
was largely due to New GuineaÕs physical geography, but Harris (2002),
proposing a typology of Neolithic transitions, also notes that those whichare based on root crops rather than cereals and which lack a pastoral
(animal herding) component are less likely to expand.
For NW Island Melanesia Spriggs reconstructs a shift from mobile
foraging to foraging sedentism which occurred in Period 2, sometime after
20 000 BP (Spriggs 1997: 61Ð65) It seems that such a shift is a
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 6/29
history of the north Halmahera languages is less clear, but they are related
to languages of the BirdÕs Head (Voorhoeve 1987). Papuan languagesotherwise manifest no known relationship with any language outside Near
Oceania (despite GreenbergÕs 1971 proposed Indo-Pacific grouping).
There is no linguistic evidence that all Papuan languages are related to
each other. If we include isolates and small phylic groups, Map 5 shows22 seemingly unrelated phylogenetic units in New Guinea. The Papuan
languages in NW Island Melanesia provide another 8 such units (Map 6)(Ross 2001, 2005). New Guinea thus has the greatest phylogenetic
linguistic diversity on earth (Nettle 1999: 116Ð117,who notes that New
Guinea also has the greatest language diversity, i.e. the largest number of
different languages in a geographic area). I have suggested elsewhere that
there is some evidence of a deep phylogenetic relationship among some
Papuan groups. I return to this in ¤6.
Insert Map 5 about here.
The language map reflects the socio-economic history of Near Oceaniaand the effects of the different transitions to agriculture in New Guinea
and in NW Island Melanesia. Given that the focus of this paper is on the
l f f d th t th l tt bl
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 7/29
mountainous interiors of eastern New Britain and Bougainville do we find
small groups of contiguous Papuan languages. There is no evidence of aphylogenetic relationship among the eight groups, but there are
typological indicators that the Papuan languages of NW Island Melanesia
formed a linguistic area at the time of their first contact with Austronesian
speakers, and their length separation from one another has not eliminated
these typological signals (Ross 2001, Dunn, Reesink &Terrill 2002).5
Insert Map 6 about here.
The language map of New Guinea (Map 5) looks very different. Here,
Austronesian languages are hardly a significant feature. We know that ittook until 2000 BP for Austronesian-speaking communities to be
established along the south coast of New Guinea (Vanderwal 1973), and
that Austronesians probably occupied the offshore islands along the north
coast from 1600 ± 100 BP in the east to about 1200 BP in the SchoutenIslands further west (Lilley 1999:28, Lilley 2000:177, 187, In press). The
reasons for the slow speed of Austronesian settlement on mainland New
Guinea are probably rather complex, but one of them was certainly the
presence of well-established Papuan-speaking communities. As I noted
above it is possible that agriculture on part of the north coast predates its
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 8/29
spread of agriculture along the cordillera, across the RamuÐMarkham
divide into the mountains of the Huon Peninsula, and down the valleys ofthe cordilleraÕs southern flank towards the coast.
On this interpretation, the TNG family is an instance of farming-driven
language dispersal as predicted by Bellwood and RenfrewÕs
Ôfarming/language dispersal hypothesisÕ
(Renfrew
1991,
1992,
2000,
2002, Bellwood 1997, 2001, 2002), according to which the expansion of
many (but of course not all) of the worldÕs larger language families isattributable to a Neolithic transition. I suggested above that Highlands
agriculture may have begun somewhere to the south of the SepikÐRamu
inland sea. The archaeological evidence is consonant with this, as the
oldest signs of agriculture have been found at Kuk in the Western
Highlands Province. The linguistic evidence is also compatible with this
suggestion, as ceteris paribus we would expect the Proto TNG homelandto be located in the TNG familyÕs area of greatest internal phylogenetic
diversity, and this is roughly what we find: the putative homeland area lies
within the area of greatest diversity (Ross 2005: 34). The monolithic nature of the TNG family stands on Map 5 in stark
contrast to the utter heterogeneity of the large region along the north coast
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 9/29
The answer to the second half of Question 2 was also adumbrated
above. If the shores of the inland sea were the locus of the earliestcultivation of taro and bananas, then they would also have been relatively
densely populated and therefore unavailable to the Highlands
agriculturists. We know from the distribution of stone pestles and mortars
that there was significant early interaction between SepikÐRamu and
Highlands peoples (Swadling & Hide 2005), but the subsequent expansion
of the inland sea itself would have wiped out relevant archaeological
evidence. Today, the high population density of what was once the inland
sea is sustained by the lesser yam ( Dioscorea esculenta), but its
introduction postdates the introduction of taro to the Highlands. The
assumption of relatively dense population around the inland sea is thus
based on inference rather than direct evidence.
The inland sea area, however, is only a small part of the northernregion of diversity. A glance at Map 7, showing the locations of
present-day sago-dependent sedentary foragers (see ¤5 below), tells us that
many of these communities are located in the northern region to the west
of the former inland sea. That is, the environments they occupy are largely
swampy and unsuitable for agriculture. Allen (2005) shows that the Sepik
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 10/29
languages (Ross 2005: 30), which may be a remainder of a more
widespread region of Pleistocene diversity that was neither inundated bythe sea nor, because of its distance from the cordillera, occupied by TNG
speakers. Further east around the Gulf of Papua, the lowland coastal strip
is much narrower and more accessible from the cordillera. According to
the map, this strip, which consists of river deltas, is today TNG-speaking,
but it is worth noting that the TNG subfamilies include the Kiwai and
Eleman groups, which are only tentatively attributable to TNG.
5 Are there foragers in present-day Near Oceania?
I remarked in the introduction above that the conventional negative answer
to this question has itself recently been questioned. OneÕs answer isdependent on oneÕs definition of Ôhunter-gathererÕ.
As I noted above, in Period 2 (the late Pleistocene) there was a gradual
shift from mobile foraging bands to foraging sedentism (¤2), and variants
of foraging sedentism have persisted in various parts of the world without
evolving into agriculture (¤3). One such variant is represented by
sago-dependent communities in New Guinea. According to Roscoe
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 11/29
sago-dependent groups to occasional sago-users. In any case, even
intensive agriculturalists in New Guinea traditionally practised someforaging, with differing patterns on the coast and inland. Men hunt birds
and animals or go fishing at sea, and women gather seafood on the reef at
low tide, trap fish in rivers, and collect greens in the forest. Tending large
fruit trees (but not necessarily planting them) is also common practice. We
can therefore say that sago-dependent communities are at one extreme on
a cline of New Guinea traditional societies which more usually have
mixed forager/agriculturalist economies.
If we re-examine the regions of phylogenetic diversity (Map 5) in thelight of RoscoeÕs map of sago-dependent communities (Map 7), clear
patterns emerge. Table ! 1 lists the communities named on the map, 7 together with the phylogenetic group to which they belong and any
available grammar or dictionary.8 As Roscoe uses accepted languagenames for the groups, assigning them to phylogenetic groups is
straightforward. The phylogenetic groups are those presented in Ross
(2005).9 A consequence of RoscoeÕs use of language names is that he
perhaps inflates the number of sago-dependent societies, sometimes
naming closely related neighbouring groups separately, when the
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 12/29
terms they reflect the late Pleistocene situation: sedentary foragers whose
languages display phenomenal phylogenetic diversity. By Ôin generaltermsÕ, I mean that the situation of diversity among sedentary foraging
societies probably characterised the late Pleistocene; I assume that there
has been an ongoing process of phylogenetic groups splitting and
disappearing in the past 12,000 years, and that todayÕs languages cannot
tell us anything specific about the languages of the late Pleistocene. Thisassumption is supported by the fact that three Austronesian languages
appear in Table 1, their speakers apparently having switched from
agriculture in the face of an environment that encouraged dependence on
sago.
All the sago-dependent communities south of the cordillera, however,
speak TNG or possible TNG languages. As the discussion earlier
indicates, those in the west represent communities of TNG speakers whomoved down to the new coastline after the sea had receded, adapting their
lifestyle to their new environment.
At least some of the listed languages further east around the Gulf of
Papua speak languages of doubtful TNG provenance, here labelled
ÔPerhaps Trans New GuineaÕ This means that at the moment the evidence
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 13/29
that there is little or no enforcement of linguistic norms, and languages can
change fast.
Whether the few remaining non-TNG groups on the south coast and
the questionably TNG groups on the Gulf of Papua also reflect the late
Pleistocene situation is a question that has yet to be answered even
tentatively.
Although few Papuan languages survive in NW Island Melanesia, it is
noteworthy that on the two larger islands with several Papuan languages,
namely New Britain and Bougainville, there are signs of considerable
pre-Austronesian diversity, in that even among the few survivals we findtwo phylogenetically unrelated groups on each island. This is hardly
conclusive evidence, but it suggests that foraging sedentism may also have
been accompanied by extreme phylogenetic diversity in NW Island
Melanesia.
If I am right that the diversity of at least the New Guinea northern
region languages is attributable to time depth, then I am at least allowingthe inference that non-TNG families may be phylogenetically related, but
at a time depth too great for us to detect their relationships. As we are
l ki t di ifi ti hi h h b i i b f 12 000 BP
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 14/29
Sprachbund. As for the languages of the sedentary foragers of New
Guinea, comparative study of the available grammars and dictionarieslisted in Table 1 is a project that awaits a researcher, but the descriptive
coverage is sparse and patchy.
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 15/29
Table 1: Foragers of New Guinea, according to Roscoe (2005) _______________________________________________________________________
Family/ Language Subfamily Grammar Dictionary
_______________________________________________________________________
Sepik
Kaunga (Yelogu) Ndu (Laycock 1965)
Sawos ( Malinguat) Ndu (Laycock 1965)
Kwoma (Washkuk) Nukuma Kooyers 1974 Bowden 1997Alamblak Sepik Hill Bruce 1984
Bahinemo Sepik Hill
Bisis Sepik Hill
Bitara (Berinomo) Sepik Hill
Kaningara Sepik Hill
Kapriman Sepik Hill
Mari Sepik Hill
Sanio (Saniyo-Hiyewe) Leonhard (R.K. Lewis 1972,
Schultze S.C. Lewis 1972)_______________________________________________________________________
RamuÐLower Sepik
Chambri Lower Sepik
Karawari (Tabriak) Lower Sepik
Murik Lower Sepik Schmidt 1953
Yimas Lower Sepik Foley 1991
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 16/29
Oguri 1976, 1985,
Oguri & Cochran 1976)
_______________________________________________________________________
Kwerba
Kwerba Ñ (Vries & Vries 1997)
_______________________________________________________________________
Lakes Plain
Girigiri (Kirikiri) West Tariku
Edopi Central Tariku
Iau Central Tariku Bateman 1986
Sikaritai East Tariku
_______________________________________________________________________
Extended West Papuan ?
Tause Ñ
_______________________________________________________________________
Trans New GuineaMimika (Kamoro) Asmat Drabbe 1953, Voorhoeve 1980
North Asmat Asmat Voorhoeve 1980
Causaurina Coast Asmat Voorhoeve 1965, 1980
Kombai Awyu-Dumut Vries 1993
Sawi (Sawuy) Awyu-Dumut
Siagha-Yenimu Awyu-Dumut
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 17/29
Bellwood, Peter, 1997. Prehistoric cultural explanations for the existence
of widespread language families. In Patrick McConvell & NicholasEvans, eds, Archaeology and linguistics: Aboriginal Australia in
global perspective, 123Ð134. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Ñ, 2001. Early agriculturalist population diasporas? Farming, languages
and genes. Annuual Review of Anthropology 30: 181Ð207.
Ñ, 2002. Farmers, foragers, languages, genes: the genesis of agriculturalsocieties. In Peter Bellwood & Colin Renfrew, eds, Examining the
farming/language dispersal hypothesis, 17Ð28. Cambridge:
McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research.
Bellwood, Peter & Peter Hiscock, 2005. Australia and the Austronesians.
In Christopher Scarre, ed., The Human Past , 264Ð305. London:
Thames & Hudson.
Bowden, Ross, 1997. A dictionary of Kwoma: a Papuan language of north-east New Guinea. Canberra: PaciÞc Linguistics. (PaciÞc
Linguistics C-134).
Briley, David, 1996. Four grammatical marking systems in Bauzi. PaciÞc
Linguistics A-85: 1Ð131.Bruce, Les, 1984. The Alamblak language of Papua New Guinea (East
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 18/29
84.4: 710Ð759.
Dunn, Michael, Ger Reesink & Angela Terrill, 2002. The East Papuanlanguages: a preliminary typological appraisal. Oceanic Linguistics
41: 28Ð62.
Dunn, Michael, Angela Terrill, Ger Reesink, Robert A. Foley & Stephen
C. Levinson, 2005. Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of
ancient language history. Science 309: 2072Ð2075.Ehret, Christopher, 2002. Language family expansions: broadening our
understandings of cause from an African perspective. In Bellwood,
2002: 163Ð176.
Erickson, Carol J. & Evelyn G. Pike, 1976. Semantic and grammatical
structures in an Isirawa narrative. In Suharno & Pike, 1976: 63Ð93.
Evans, Benjamin & Mary-Jane Mountain, 2005. Pasin bilong tumbuna:
archaeological evidence for early human activity in the highlands ofPapua New Guinea. In Pawley, Attenborough, Golson & Hide, 2005:
363Ð386.
Foley, William A., 1991. The Yimas language of New Guinea. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.Ñ, 2005. Linguistic prehistory in the SepikÐRamu basin. In Pawley,
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 19/29
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 20/29
Andrew Pawley & Meredith Osmond, eds, The lexicon of Proto
Oceanic: The culture and environment of ancestral Oceanic society.Vol. 1: The lexicon of Proto Oceanic: The culture and environment of
ancestral Oceanic society, 115Ð171. Canberra: PaciÞc Linguistics.
(PaciÞc Linguistics C-152).
Pawley, Andrew, 2003. The Austronesian dispersal: Languages,
technologies and people. In Peter Bellwood & Colin Renfrew, eds, Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis, 251Ð273.
Cambridge: MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,
University of Cambridge.
Ñ, 2005a. The chequered career of the Trans New Guinea hypothesis:
recent research and its implications. In Pawley, Attenborough, Golson
& Hide, 2005: 67Ð107.
Ñ, 2005b. The origins of Early Lapita culture: the testimony of historicallinguistics. Paper presented at Oceanic Explorations Conference,
NukuÕalofa, Tonga, August.
Ñ, 2008a. Recent research on the historical relationships of the Papuan
languages, or, what does linguistics say about the prehistory ofMelanesia? In Jonathan Friedlaender, ed., Population genetics,
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 21/29
Roscoe, Paul, 2005. Foraging, ethnographic analogy, and Papuan pasts:
contemporary models for the SepikÐRamu past. In Pawley,Attenborough, Golson & Hide, 2005: 555Ð584.
Rosman, Abraham & Paula J. Rubel, 1989. Stalking the wild pig: hunting
and horticulture in New Guinea. In Susan Kent, ed., Farmers as
hunters: the implications of sedentism, 27Ð36. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.Ross, Malcolm, 1988. Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian languages of
western Melanesia. Canberra: PaciÞc Linguistics. (PaciÞc Linguistics
C-98).
Ñ, 2001. Is there an East Papuan phylum? Evidence from pronouns. In
Andrew Pawley, Malcolm Ross & Darrell Tryon, eds, The boy from
Bundaberg: Studies in Melanesian linguistics in honour of Tom
Dutton, 301Ð321. Canberra: PaciÞc Linguistics. (PaciÞc Linguistics 514).
Ñ, 2005. Pronouns as a preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuan
languages. In Pawley, Attenborough, Golson & Hide, 2005: 15Ð66.
Ñ, 2008a. Nut and fruit trees. In Ross, Pawley & Osmond, 2008:311Ð353.
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 22/29
524Ð537. London: University College London Press.
Ñ, 1997. The island Melanesians. Oxford: Blackwell.Suharno, Ignatius & Kenneth L. Pike, eds, 1976. From Baudi to
Indonesian. Jayapura: Cenderawasih University & Summer Institute
of Linguistics.
Swadling, Pamela & Robin Hide, 2005. Changing landscape and social
interaction: looking at agricultural history from a SepikÐRamuperspective. In Pawley, Attenborough, Golson & Hide, 2005:
289Ð327.
Terrill, Angela, 2002. Systems of nominal classiÞcation in East Papuan
languages. Oceanic Linguistics 41: 63Ð88.
Vanderwal, R., 1973. Prehistoric studies in central coastal Papua. PhD
dissertation. Australian National University.
Voorhoeve, C.L., 1965. The Flamingo Bay dialect of the Asmat language.Leiden: KITLV Press. (Verhandelingen van het Koninkl!k Instituut
voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 46).
Ñ, 1980. The Asmat languages of Irian Jaya. Canberra: PaciÞc
Linguistics. (PaciÞc Linguistics B-64).Ñ, 1987. Worming oneÕs way through New Guinea: the chase of the
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 23/29
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 24/29
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 25/29
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 26/29
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 27/29
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 28/29
8/12/2019 Ross HuntGath Ppr w Maps-libre
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ross-huntgath-ppr-w-maps-libre 29/29