Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Palm Weaving Products in Some Austronesian Languages of Timor Regioni

Language Documentation: Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Palm Weaving Products in Some Austronesian Languages of Timor Regioni June Jacob Artha Wacana Christian University [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper explores Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) used by the Rikou, Amarasi and Uab Meto indigenous language communities, especially in palm weaving products. The aims of this paper are to document: 1)the TEK of palm weaving products in the Rikou, Amarasi and Uab Meto languages, 2)ways that TEK of palm weaving products are transmitted intergenerationally, and 3)whether some parts of the TEK of palm weaving products are shared by several indigenous communities. As an exercise in language documentation, this study hopes to preserve and promote TEK in many ways, especially through the “local content” part of the educational curriculum. Nusa Tenggara Timur Province (NTT) is well known for its palm weaving products. At every important occasion, indigenous communities in NTT use palm weaving products, often for everyday activities as well as to show their identities. In a Timorese marriage ceremony, for example, it is a must to use oko mama (betelnut container) as part of proposing to a woman. Oko mama is presented by the speaker of the man’s family to the speaker of the woman’s family.When it is accepted, then the marriage can proceed. Many palm weaving products are also used in the houses, gardens, plantations, rice fields and elsewhere. However, many modern products such as plastics, are recentlyreplacing these traditional products. According to Ross (2002), education, too, can also be a threat. Thus, younger generations who have been increasingly exposed to modern commerce and schooling may be more likely to engage in independent discovery than their older counterparts who live a more traditional lifestyle and may be more likely to engage in collective (interdependent) learning activities. Regarding the speciﬁc domain of ecological knowledge acquisition, several studies have reported indigenous perceptions of TEK loss, providing evidence of it, but they have not examined changes in the actual process of TEK transmission that might have led to such loss. Keywords: language documentation, palm weaving products, traditional ecological knowledge, Timor, Rote, Amarasi, Uab Meto, Rikou, lontar, Borassus 1. BACKGROUND The urgent need to document a language and the traditional ecological knowledge of its speakers has come about due to the increasing awareness regarding the speed of language loss within the last century. This movement provides great insight about the linguistic issues in documenting a language, as well as documenting the complex non-linguistic factors that allowed the emergence of ecological knowledge in indigenous communities’ respective experiences to allow a simple modeling of efforts. 1 Any model for documenting a language has to encompass the interdependency between linguistic and ecological factors. Indigenous communities around the world have always understood their knowledge of the environment to be important and valuable. They have developed, enhanced, and protected their knowledge forms, and, hopefully, have transmitted them to younger generations. Language documenters and ecologists need to recognise that there is one issue that is of mutual concern to both, that is the relationship between ethnic groups and the natural environment in which these groups live. Linguists are well aware that the preservation of an endangered language depends on the preservation of the community that speaks the language. A community’s culture develops in relation to its biological environment. Language and culture are closely linked in that language encodes and expresses culture, while culture provides the social context in which language is used. Therefore, when a minority community’s cultural traditions are endangered by disruption of their relations with their traditional environment, these threats to their culture can be expected to affect their use of language. Linguists, therefore, have reason to take an interest in the relationship between ethnic groups and their biological environment, and to work with ecologists in designing environment conservation programs that respect and address the needs of indigenous groups whose livelihood depends upon the areas that needed to be conserved(Coelho, 2005). This paper explores traditional ecological knowledge used by the Rikou, Amarasi and Uab Meto indigenous language communities especially in palm weavingproducts, as well as aiming to preserve and promote them in many ways, especially in the “local content” part of the educational curriculum. The research problems explored here are: 1. What is the current TEK of palm weaving products in Rotenese, Amarasi and Uab Meto languages? 2. How are TEK of palm weaving products transmitted intergenerationally? 3. Are some parts of the TEK of palm weaving products shared by several indigenous communities? If so, what is the relationship between these groups? 2 2. TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE It is important to understand what Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is. In general, TEK is part of the oral tradition; passed from generation to generation and nurtured with experience. Johnson (1991) presents a functional explanation that encompasses some of its nuances: “Traditional environmental knowledge, or TEK, can generally be defined as a body of knowledge built up by a group of people through generations of living in close contact with nature. It includes a system of classification, a set of empirical observations about the local environment, and a system of self-management that governs resource use. The quantity and quality of traditional environmental knowledge varies among community members, depending upon gender, age, social status, intellectual capability, and profession (hunter, spiritual leader, healer, etc.). With its roots firmly in the past, traditional environmental knowledge is both cumulative and dynamic, building upon the experience of earlier generations and adapting to the new technological and socioeconomic changes in the present.” According to Inglis (1993) in A Teacher’s Guide for the Video Sila Alangotok—Inuit Observations on Climate Change, TEK has been defined as: “…the knowledge base acquired by indigenous and local people over many hundreds of years through direct contact with the environment. It includes an intimate and detailed knowledge of plants, animals, and natural phenomena, the development and use of appropriate technologies for hunting, fishing, trapping, agriculture, and forestry and a holistic knowledge, or ‘worldview’ which parallels the scientific disciplines of ecology.” Berkes (2008) stated that TEK is “...a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationships of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environments.” TEK or indigenous knowledge uses the information, advice and wisdom that has evolved over centuries of living as part of the environment or ecology. TEK is a valuable source of environmental or ecological information that allows communities to realize their own expertise, and apply their own knowledge and practices to help protect their way of life. 3. THE RESEARCH AND THE DATA COLLECTED The writercollected data relating to TEK in three different villages, from three different communities speaking Austronesian languages. They are: the village of Kota 3 Dale for the Rikou language in East Rote, Nekmese for the Amarasi language in the mountains west of Kupang, and Supul near Niki-Niki in South Central Timor. All data have been obtained through observation and interview of the palm weavers themselves and some elders. 3.1. Sociolinguistic Profile Map of Rikou, Amarasi and Uab Meto Uab Meto Rikou Amarasi 1. Rikou According to Ethnologue 2014(www.ethnologue.com) Rikou (rgu) has 12,000 speakers, with a vigorous use of languagespoken in all domains by all ages. Rikou has several alternate names such as Eastern Rote, Ringgou, Roti. The speakers are spread in the Rikou, Landu and Oe Pao traditional kingships of Rote Island. It is classified as Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian,CEMP, Timor-Babar, Nuclear Timor, Rote, with three different dialects: Landu, Oe Pao, and Rikou. Rikou is part of the Rote cluster of closely related languages and dialects. 2. Amarasi The Ethnologue2014 (www.ethnologue.com) notes that Amarasi [aaz] has 70,000 speakers. There are 80 villages in Amarasi with several dialects: Kotos is central and east, Ro’is is west, Ro’is Tais Nonof is south, Ro’is Hero is surrounded by Helong [heg] speakers. Amarasi is also part of larger Uab Meto cluster of closely related languages and dialects. Amarasi shows differences in phonology, vocabulary and 4 discourse, with semantic shift, structural differences, intelligibility problems from other varieties of Uab Meto. 3. Uab Meto The Ethnologue 2014 (www.ethnologue.com) mentioned that according to 2009 cencus, the number of Uab Meto speakers is around 700,000. The language classification: Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian, CEMP, Timor-Babar, Nuclear Timor, Uab Meto. There are many varieties vary from intelligible dialects, to non-intelligible but closely related languages: Amanuban-Amanatun (Amanatun, Amanuban, Amanubang), Amfoan-Fatule’u-Amabi (Amabi, Amfoan, Amfuang, Fatule’u), Biboki- Insana (Biboki, Insanao), Kusa Manlea (Kusa, Manea, Manlea), Mollo-Miamafo (Miomafo, Mollo). Much

Load more