 |
| The History of Dayak is the first book in the world to present a comprehensive history of the Dayak people, an opus magnum of Dayak scholarship for this century. |
“Deep Skull” and Its Affinities with Contemporary Bornean Populations
Further analysis of the so-called “Deep Skull” discovered in the Niah Caves indicates that its cranial morphology shares notable affinities with present-day indigenous populations of Borneo, particularly the Dayak, as well as with Negrito populations in the Philippines. The Deep Skull, unearthed in 1958 by Tom Harrisson, consists of a partial cranium belonging to an adolescent female aged approximately sixteen to seventeen years. Radiocarbon dating places the specimen at around 37,000 to 40,000 years before present (Curnoe et al., 2016).
Morphologically, the skull exhibits traits more closely aligned with Australo-Melanesian populations than with modern East Asian groups. These include a relatively small cranial size, a low frontal bone, and a robust mandible. The observed similarities with contemporary Dayak populations are most plausibly explained through genetic assimilation, whereby later Austronesian migrants interbred with local pre-Neolithic inhabitants of Borneo (Lipson et al., 2018). Morphometric studies employing three-dimensional scanning techniques further confirm that the Deep Skull does not conform to the “two-layer” population replacement model, which assumes a complete demographic turnover. Instead, the evidence points toward biological continuity with indigenous Bornean populations (Curnoe et al., 2016).
These findings support the hypothesis that early human ancestors in Borneo arrived via mainland East Asia, though not directly from Yunnan (Curnoe et al., 2016). At the same time, Austronesian migration theory proposes a later dispersal originating from Taiwan approximately 5,000 years ago, with Proto-Austronesian roots possibly extending into southern China, including Yunnan (Bellwood, 2007). This suggests that Dayak ancestry incorporates migratory components, but not through a direct Yunnan-to-Borneo migration. Rather, it reflects Neolithic waves that introduced agriculture and Austronesian languages, subsequently mixing with long-established local populations such as those represented by the Deep Skull.
Linguistic evidence assembled by Robert Blust situates Dayak languages within the Austronesian family, particularly the Barito and Land Dayak subgroups, which developed in Borneo following Austronesian expansion (Blust, 1995). Other studies indicate that prior to deglaciation, Borneo was already inhabited by human groups later identified as Dayak (Blust, 1984). Additional prehistoric research reinforces the view that the Dayak constitute indigenous populations of Borneo with occupation histories spanning tens of thousands of years, rather than recent migrants from Yunnan.
During the Late Pleistocene, Borneo formed part of Sundaland, a vast landmass linking much of Southeast Asia. Early populations likely arrived via overland migrations from the Asian mainland, but not specifically from Yunnan. More plausible routes point toward southern Vietnam or the Philippines, consistent with morphological similarities observed between the Deep Skull and Negrito populations (Matsumura et al., 2018). Archaeological evidence from sites such as the Madai Caves in Sabah demonstrates comparable settlement patterns dating to approximately 30,000 years ago, along with lithic assemblages resembling those from Niah (Bellwood, 1985).
To date, no credible academic authority can be cited as offering robust scientific support for a direct Yunnan–Dayak migration model. Most assertions linking Dayak origins to Yunnan derive from early speculative hypotheses lacking strong archaeological verification. There is no concrete evidence in the form of material culture, settlement remains, or securely dated artifacts demonstrating a direct migratory trajectory from Yunnan to Borneo attributable to Dayak ancestors. Available sources indicate that Yunnan-related theories are more appropriately associated with Proto-Malay or generalized Austronesian dispersals, rather than specifically with the Dayak (Ryan, 1976). Archaeological data from Borneo instead point to admixture between local pre-Neolithic populations and Neolithic migrants from Taiwan and the Philippines (Bellwood, 2007).
At present, scholarly conclusions remain cautiously framed as “it may be inferred” or “it can be suggested.” There is a conspicuous absence of definitive academic statements asserting evidence, dates, locations, discoverers, radiocarbon results, or paleontological proof establishing a direct Yunnan origin. This critique is valid, as migration theories often rely heavily on linguistic and genetic inference rather than direct archaeological data. Recent genomic studies indicate that Dayak populations derive approximately seventy percent of their ancestry from Austronesian sources linked to Taiwan, combined with roughly thirty percent from local pre-Neolithic populations (Lipson et al., 2014). This pattern supports assimilation rather than wholesale population replacement.
Moreover, linguistic relationships, which should form a cornerstone in tracing ethnic origins, have yet to be comprehensively examined in this context. Comparisons between Dayak languages and linguistic families in Yunnan often remain generalized, lacking systematic analyses of phonological, morphological, and semantic change necessary to establish precise historical connections. Austronesian linguistic research by Blust demonstrates that Dayak languages are more closely related to languages in the Philippines than to those in Yunnan, reinforcing the out-of-Taiwan model (Blust, 1995). While Proto-Austronesian may have roots in southern China, including Yunnan, direct evidence remains weak (Sagart, 2005).
Fundamental questions central to migration studies therefore remain insufficiently answered. Who were the principal actors in these migrations? When did they occur within a clearly defined historical chronology? What were the driving forces, whether climatic shifts, conflict, or economic pressures? Where did migrants first arrive, and how did they interact with established communities in Borneo? Without empirically grounded answers, claims of a Yunnan origin for the Dayak must remain untested assumptions.
The Austronesian migration model provides partial clarification, proposing movements between approximately 3000 and 1500 BCE from Taiwan through the Philippines and into Borneo, driven by agricultural expansion and maritime technology (Bellwood, 2017). Interaction with indigenous populations subsequently generated the ethnic diversity observed among Dayak groups today.
Accordingly, there is an urgent need for more rigorous and methodologically sound research so that Dayak history rests not on conjecture, but on a scientifically defensible foundation. Recent initiatives, such as the Niah Caves Project conducted between 2000 and 2004 under Graeme Barker, have yielded new insights into the transition from foraging to farming, suggesting that cultural transformation in Borneo was largely internal rather than the result of large-scale population replacement (Barker, 2013).
Assertions of a Dayak origin in Yunnan have also been critically reassessed by archaeological scholarship. Research associated with Jessica Manser has revealed unexpected continuities between Pleistocene and Neolithic populations at Niah, indicating that Neolithic individuals were likely descendants of local inhabitants rather than incoming migrants. While Manser does not reject Austronesian migration outright, her analyses of skeletal remains and mortuary practices emphasize continuity and admixture rather than replacement (Manser, 2005; 2016). This body of evidence lends further support to an assimilation model over a simplistic migration narrative.
(More to come)
Readers who wish to obtain a copy of this book may contact:
