One of the perennial preoccupations in Austronesian studies has been with tracing the origins of the Austronesians. Archaeologists, linguists and historians have all been concerned with this task. A less prominent concern has been to examine indigenous ideas of origin and how they function within Austronesian societies.

Ideas of origin are themselves a matter of concern in most Austronesian societies and hence a suitable subject for investigation. However, such indigenous ideas of origin involve a complex array of notions. Conceptions of ancestry are invariably important but rarely is ancestry alone a sufficient and exclusive criterion for defining origins. Recourse to notions of place is also critical in identifying persons and groups, and thus in tracing origins. Similarly, alliance, defined in the broad sense of relations of persons and groups to one another, is also an important element in defining origins. Together all of these notions imply an attitude to the past: that it is knowable and that such knowledge is of value, that what happened in the past has set a pattern for the present, and that it is essential to have access to the past in attempts to order the present. Origins may be conceived of as multiple and access to them may be provided by diverse means. Dreaming, contact with spirits, the recitation of formulaic wisdom, the witness of the elders, or the presentation of sacred objects as evidence of links to the past may each provide forms of access to the past.

Considered comparatively, ideas of origin may vary significantly among Austronesian populations but these ideas generally rely upon a combination of elements often phrased in terms of common metaphors based on recognizable cognate expressions. It is this discourse on origins that is distinctively Austronesian.

It is possible, in linguistic terms, to trace the use of cognate terms among different groups but much more is involved in this discourse. Frequently similar metaphors of origin persist even where the terms used in these metaphors are unrelated. Fictitious etymologies are also frequently devised and elaborated to support narrative claims about origin within this discourse. It is therefore not just a general concern with origins that is significant but a rich and complex discourse by which “origin structures” are created and disputed that is of primary interest. It is this discourse on origins and its relationship to social practice that is a focus of this volume.