230 Research Bulletin Vol. 45

WHO ARE THE SIANG OF MURUNG RAYA? ETHNICITY, IDENTITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF CLASSIFICATORY SYSTEMS

Morgan Harrington University of Melbourne, Australia [email protected]

Introduction This article explores the identity of the Siang of the upper , in the present-day Regency of Murung Raya, Central , . Who are the Siang? What makes them a group? How are they different from, or related to, the other groups around them? As I explore the answers to these questions I consider the limits of traditional classificatory systems, particularly in the context of modern Kalimantan. Not only have scholars consistently noted the artificiality of “ethnic groups” in Kalimantan (King 1991, Rousseau 1990, Schiller 1997a, Sellato 2002, Sillander 2004a, Weinstock 1983), but the vast, rapid changes which have taken place in recent decades, including diffuse internal immigration and the proliferation of both the Indonesian state and pan- Indonesian , mean that “traditional” identities are even less clearly defined and arguably less important. I suggest that a polythetic classification (Needham 1983) which takes a broader, more opaque view of identity is better able to account for the ambiguities of ethnicity in Kalimantan. In my exploration of the identity of the Siang I consider origin , linguistic evidence, the relevance of “stratification,” and as markers of identity.

The geography, history and people of Murung Raya Kalimantan, the Barito, and the Müller Mountain Range The field research for my Ph.D. thesis from which this article stems was conducted in Kabupaten Murung Raya (I: Regency), the northernmost administrative district of Indonesia’s Province. Murung Raya is home to the headwaters of the Barito River, Borneo’s second largest, and several rivers that feed it. The Müller Mountain Range runs through the north of the regency, and indeed the entire regency is quite hilly. Murung Raya is bordered by Province to the east and north, and Province to the west. Its capital is Puruk Cahu. Murung Raya Regency was established in 2002 with the division of Barito Utara Regency. This is just one of the many new, smaller administrative divisions to have been created in the process of decentralization characteristic of the post- reformasi era. The ethnographic research for this project was conducted over a period of ten months in 2011 in a village on the Babuat River, a tributary of the Barito about 80 kilometers upriver from Puruk Cahu.

 The initial “I” is used to indicate translations from Bahasa Indonesia. Vol. 45 Borneo Research Bulletin 231

Figure 1: Central Kalimantan Province and Kabupaten Murung Raya.

According to local government figures from 2009, Murung Raya has a total of just under 100,000 people. Aside from the Siang, Murung Raya is home to at least five other Dayak groups including the Murung people in the east of the regency, the so-called Uut Danum (or Ot Danum) in the north and west, the nomadic (or at least formerly nomadic) Punan in the far north, and a small number of people in the south and west who are known locally as “Kapuas” and “Kahayan,” but whom the literature would most likely identify as “Nagju.” Below I will consider how the Siang relate to these other groups. These groups, which have inhabited the area for at least as long as the historical record and, according to local oral , forever, can be considered the “indigenous” people of Murung Raya. However, numerous groups from other parts of Kalimantan and Indonesia now also live in the regency in significant numbers. The largest and probably first group to have migrated to the area is the Bakumpai, Muslim Dayaks originally from the lower Barito and Kapuas basins. Related to the so- called Ngaju, they converted to in the 17th century, probably because of their

 Murung Raya Dalam Angka (Murung Raya in Figures) 2009. 232 Borneo Research Bulletin Vol. 45

Figure 2: The administrative divisions of Kabupaten Murung Raya with Sungai Babuat (center- left). proximity to the Sultanate of (Knapen 2001:92, Sjamsuddin 1989:224- 5). Historical sources indicate that the Bakumpai have been significant players in Barito River trade for centuries (see Knapen 2001; Schwaner in Sjamsuddin 1989:46), particularly after 1894, when the “Great Peace of Tumbang Anoi” curtailed traditional practices of warfare and , allowing traders to pass through the area more frequently. This trading led the Bakumpai to settle in large numbers up and down the banks of the Barito (Knapen 2001:359-360, 380), including in Murung Raya, where they are now probably the largest single . An exact number of any ethnic group can only be estimated as the Indonesian government does not collect data based on ethnic or linguistic identity. As religion is an important marker of identity in the area, I use statistics on religious affiliation to estimate the number of Bakumpai and other groups. There are over 60,000 Muslims in Murung Raya. Not all of these are Bakumpai, but even if only half were, then this group would account for nearly a third of the total population of Murung Raya. Brack (2007:19) states that there are 55,000 Bakumpai in Murung Raya, so it would be safe to say the number is somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000. Ethnic (from Banjarmasin),  This of course is not only due to migration. A large proportion of Bakumpai have masuk Bakumpai, or begun to self-identify as Bakumpai after conversion to Islam (see Weinstock 1983; Sillander 2040a and 2004b). Vol. 45 Borneo Research Bulletin 233

who are also Muslim, also live in Murung Raya in significant numbers, but when and why these people began to settle in the area is less clear. More recent immigrants to the area include a small number of people from other parts of Indonesia, most notably and , who have come to Murung Raya looking for economic opportunities as the area develops. Conversely with this inward migration, some people originally from Murung Raya now live outside of the regency and even the province, and hence the boundaries between all of these groups are less distinct than would likely have been the case prior to this increased movement. Having said that, these immigrant groups generally remain segregated from Murung Raya’s Dayak groups. Religious identity and economic activity are key points of distinction. The Muslim Bakumpai and Banjar are more likely to dwell in towns where they own businesses or work in the public service – the Bakumpai and the Banjar have come to dominate trade, business and the local bureaucracy in Murung Raya. The Christian or Siang, on the other hand, mostly reside in villages where they tap rubber, farm, or occasionally work in mines or logging concessions. Javanese migrants generally work as laborers for mining or logging companies, or as small-scale entrepreneurs. Puruk Cahu has experienced a population boom since the establishment of Murung Raya Regency in 2002, and is dominated by the Bakumpai and Banjar people; few Siang or other Dayak live there. Outside of the capital and a few other large towns, villages are generally dominated by, often even comprised entirely of, a single “ethnic” group. Marriage across religious lines is rare.

The Siang Broadly speaking, the land of the Siang extends from the Laung River in the east to the Joloi River in the west. The Barito River itself forms a southern boundary of their territory, although some do live on its southern banks. There are no Siang villages north of the Gunung Bondang area, which forms another natural border. The Siang generally live inland, away from the Barito, and are most highly concentrated in the area between Puruk Cahu and Gunung Bondang. Kecematan Tanah Siang (I: District), which covers a large part of this area, is named for the group. The Murung, with whom they are often conflated (as I will discuss below), live to their east, the Uut Danum to their north and west, and the Kapuas/Kahayan to their south. An exact number of the Siang can only be estimated for, as I have already mentioned, the Indonesian government does not collect data based on ethnic or linguistic identity. Again, here I use statistical data on religious affiliation to estimate a ball-park figure. Out of Murung Raya’s total population of 98,834, 61,290 are Muslim, some 20 thousand are either Catholic or Protestant, 27 are Buddhist, and 16,307 are Kaharingan. If we take the number of Catholics, Protestants and adherents of Kaharingan (there are very few Siang Muslims) from the districts in which the Siang predominantly live –

 Murung Raya Dalam Angka (2009:29).  “Kaharingan” is a term widely applied to the indigenous religious and of Kalimantan. A version of these traditions is officially recognized in Central Kalimantan Province as a “variant” of . See Baier (2007) for a concise history of the formation of Hindu Kaharingan. 234 Borneo Research Bulletin Vol. 45

Permata Intan, Sungai Babuat, Laung Tuhup, Tanah Siang, Tanah Siang Selatan and Sumber Barito – we get a figure of 25,448. This is close to the figure of 30 thousand offered by Brack (2007:19). Taking into account that not every Protestant, Catholic or adherent of Kaharingan in these areas is definitely a Siang, and that there could be Siang living in other areas, it is reasonable to assume there are between 20 and 30 thousand Siang people. With children fluent in the Siang language, using it to communicate with one another, there is apparently no danger of language loss at this stage.

The Siang according to the Siang The origin According to a Siang origin myth told to this researcher, everything in existence was created by the supreme known as Mohotara-Lobata. As Mohotara-Lobata created day and night, the sky and the earth, the upper world and the underworld, Mohotara- Lobata split in two, signifying the two aspects to this supreme deity. Mohotara came to reside in the upper world while Lobata came to reside in the underworld. They remain there, ensuring a cosmic balance is maintained. Such “dual symbolic classification” is commonly found among the people of interior Kalimantan (King 1985:126; Sellato 1992:35-36; Ave & King 1986:33). Ritual offerings are frequently (although not exclusively) directed toward Mohotara-Lobata, who can be addressed in either singular or dual aspects. Yet Mohotara-Lobata had no direct involvement in the creation of mankind, who instead originated from the union between a sangiyang (S: powerful being of the upper- world, or ancestor)10 and a being known as a gaib (a term probably from the Arabic, meaning ‘spirit’). Some informants explained that the endonym “Siang” is a corruption of sangiyang, although other explanations exist. The origin story goes like this: Seven siblings from the upper world came down to this world via a palangkabulo11

 Murung Raya Dalam Angka (2009:78).  Other sources give other numbers. Provinse (1937:80) estimates a population of 2,500 Siang in 1928. Wurm and Hattori (1981) estimate 60,000, but this seems far too many. The Joshua Project’s figure of 94,000 (http://joshuaproject.net/peoples.php?peo3=14933) is certainly a vast overestimate.  The cognates Lahatala (or Mahatala) and Ranying Pahatara (or Mahatara) are the names for the supreme of the Ngaju as reported by Schärer (1963:18-23); this is good evidence of a connection between the cosmologies of the two groups. The officially recognized supreme deity of the Hindu Kaharingan religion is known as Ranying Hatalla Langit/Jatha Balawang Bulau (Baier 2007:566).  For example, a ceremony known as a ngoko daja, in which a baby takes its first bath in the river, is directed toward Lobata. This is not surprising, given that Lobata is believed to dwell underwater. Most other address Mohotara-Lobata as a singular entity, but Mohotara is also sometime addressed exclusively. 10 The initial “S” is used to indicate translations from the Siang language. 11 According to informants, a palangkabulo is a “golden vessel” on which many great and valuable things travel. Bulo is the Siang word for gold. Couderc in Sillander (2006:327 fn.30) notes that the term palanka “is probably derived from the Sanskrit word paryanka, from which the English word palanquin is derived.” Vol. 45 Borneo Research Bulletin 235

which was connected to the earth with a line (I: tali) that led down to the peak of Puruk Kambang. These Sangiyang beings would come down to bathe at a spot on the mountain known as Telaka12, where the water is perfect and the rocks are very white. This is the same land, but not the same place as Earth. The youngest of these siblings was Sikan, a woman. The siblings would frequently come down to bathe naked in the perfect waters of Telaka. But on one occasion, Lanying , a mischievous gaib, which was like a human, but was not part of mankind, decided he wanted Sikan for himself. He decided to steal her clothes. When Sikan came out of the river she discovered her clothes had gone. She was too shy to return to the upper world naked, and was forced to stay behind. Lanying Suling and Sikan became a couple. They attempted to have a child, but were unsuccessful, their babies kept dying. Then, one day while Lanying Suling was asleep, a spirit visited him in a dream and told him that if he was willing to name their child Poking Asu (S: dog’s vagina) it would live. Sikan then gave birth to Poking Asu, the first human being, before ultimately returning to the upperworld. All of mankind is descended from Poking Asu.13 Mount Kambang14 (S: Puruk Kambang/I: Gunung Kambang), the birthplace of mankind, is a rather unassuming hillock located in modern-day district of Permata Intan. It is hard to see any geographical significance in the mountain, which lies in the southern corner of both Murung Raya and the traditional territory of the Siang people. It is certainly not the tallest mountain in the area – Gunung Bondang, on the opposite side of Siang territory, is far taller than Kambang (it has its own cosmological significance).15 Kambang is one of the area’s iconic volcanic plugs, the remnants of a geological era long past. Having said that, the position of Kambang places the Siang and their territory at the center of the human world; the origin myth does not involve migration, and it does not explain or even mention the existence of other groups in Kalimantan, as some other Dayak myths do (Rousseau 1990:68-69) – this origin myth is ethnocentric. It is therefore interesting to note that this localized myth is in the contemporary era used to explain the existence of the outsiders who have become increasingly present on Siang lands. Rather

12 This perhaps refers to water pools in general, rather than one specific place. 13 This myth is strongly reminiscent of the Javanese myth of Nawangwulan and Joko Tarub. The same theme of the theft of the clothes of a heavenly woman and her subsequent marriage to the thief is found in many parts of Indonesia. 14 In 2013 Mount Kambang was heritage listed by the government of Central Kalimantan after protests by local people in reaction to attempts by PT. IMK, which operates a gold mine owned by the Australian listed Straits Resources Limited, to mine the area. 15 Mount Bondang is the site of a myth involving the terrifying Aju Lomosi (S: Grandmother Leech) and the benevolent sangiyang Bura (S: white). In the past, Mount Bondang connected this world to the upperworld. Aju Lomosi would climb down to earth via Mount Bondang to feast on the blood and bodies of human beings. Bura tried to stop Aju Lomosi from preying on mankind by slicing the top off Mount Bondang with her machete (S: unkok). The next time Aju Lomosi wanted to come down to earth she saw that Mount Bondang had been cut in half, and was much further away than before. Undeterred, she tried to jump down to the top of Mount Bondang, but she fell and when she hit the top of what was now a mountain, she shattered into the millions of leeches that infest Mount Bondang to this day. 236 Borneo Research Bulletin Vol. 45

Photo 1: Gunung Kambang, as seen from the Barito River. than explaining the origin of the Siang people, informants explained that the myth shows all humans to be descended from Sikan and Lanying Suling. This ultimate origin of mankind was cited by informants as evidence of the unification of all ethnic groups in Indonesia and was used to support the nationalist rhetoric of unity of Indonesia’s myriad ethnic groups. The localized concern of a remote seeking to bolster their identification as “Indonesian” is not surprising given the persistence of state rhetoric centered around the motto “unity in diversity,” the and pressure to conform to markers of national identity.16 Meanwhile new, more encompassing identities, such as “Dayak” and “Indonesian” have come to engulf the label “Siang.”

The Siang and their neighbors The Siang of the Babuat River have rather strong ties to the people they called “Kahayan,” “Kapuas,” or “Kapuas-Kahayan,” and who I believe would be referred to in the literature as “Ngaju.” These are people from the Kahayan and basins, particularly the area between the headwaters of these two major rivers, and the southern banks of the Barito River. This area is less than 50 kilometers from the research site. It

16 Sillander (2004a: 71-73) notes the same anxiety to appear as “Indonesian” among the Luangan of East Kalimantan. Vol. 45 Borneo Research Bulletin 237

was common for Siang along the Babuat River to speak the “Kapuas-Kahayan” language and evidence of historical connection between these groups can be found in . The apparently longstanding connections between the Siang of the Babuat River and these “Ngaju” people are reinforced by regular intermarriage between the groups. According to the Siang legend of Terlawang Amainete, a Siang hero of the same name killed a snake (S: jelampe) which was feeding on the Kahayan people. “If it weren’t for the help of this Siang person, there would be no Kahayan people left,” said my informant, who explained that because of the heroic acts of Terlawang Amainete, there is peace between the groups of the area. “They paid Teralawang Amainete with gongs and guci (S: Chinese jars) to thank him for his help. Because we saved them, the Kahayan and the Siang-Murung and the Uut Danum, and the other groups of the area cannot have conflict.” Another legend, of the keturunan Nyipet, or the descendants of Niypet, links various groups of the area together. The story of Nyipet explains the origins of a taboo against eating forest deer (S: tolouh, I: kijang). Informants said that if you want to know who you are related to, you ask them if they are allowed to eat forest deer. As one informant said: It’s not just people from our village who can be descendants of Nyipet. All people, whether they are from Kolon, Apat [villages in Sungai Babuat] or wherever, could be descendants of Nyipet. Because people marry all over the place, so they take the descent line there. It’s not just our village; there are Kahayan and Uut Danum descendants of Nyipet. However it’s not that all of these people are descendants, not all Kapuas people, not all Kahayan people are. So perhaps, rather than thinking about language or other traditional criteria used to identify ethnic groups, looking at who is a descendent of Nyipet would be a better way of determining membership of this particular group. However, I argue that using one single classificatory criterion is simply inadequate to explain the relationship between the Siang and their neighbors. There are people along the Babuat River who are not from keturunan Nyipet, but who otherwise share much in common with their fellow villagers. In the story of Nyipet, a forest deer saves a man named Nyipet who is being chased by an evil spirit (I: iblis (devil) or hantu (ghost)). After bringing him to safety, the deer asks Nyipet to repay him by promising that he will never eat deer again and, moreover, that he will ensure that his descendants will not eat deer for seven generations. These seven generations (including Ego) are marked by the Siang terms anak (child), osu (grandchild), suno (great-grandchild), sonik (great-great grandchild), tit nining (great- great-great grandchild) and enta (great-great-great-great grandchild). These generations constitute one’s descent group (S: utuh). But even this measure of group membership is not black and white. When kijang meat was served for lunch one day, I asked if it was not taboo to eat this meat. “It’s already been seven generations,” I was assured. This may be a good excuse for an inconvenient taboo, but it does not mean this family was not from the keturunan Nyipet. Miles (1976:77-79) discusses the apparently similar Ngaju utus, in which membership can be fluid, multiple, and even voluntary. This highlights the problematic nature of trying to examine ego-centered relationships 238 Borneo Research Bulletin Vol. 45

to reckon , and thus identity, in Dayak societies, which other scholars have noted (Rousseau 1990, King 1991:16). Kinship, which is cognatic in “all” of Borneo’s traditional societies (Sellato 2002:67), is an indeterminate marker of social relations.

The Siang according to the literature Prior studies Very little has been written about the Siang, and much of it is not in English.17 Generally speaking, they are relegated to passing mention or footnotes in studies which are concerned with other, larger groups. Alfred Hudson’s (1967) work on the “Barito ” represents the most comprehensive and authoritative survey of the languages of southeast Borneo. In this work, Hudson classifies the Siang as part of his “Northwest Barito Subgroup,” although Hudson did not conduct research in the Siang area. There are to date three scholars who have dealt explicitly with the Siang, all of whom were conducting post-graduate research. The first was John H. Provinse, an anthropologist who conducted three months’ research in the village of Nono Kliwon on the Toepoeh [sic] River in 1929. This study resulted in one academic paper (Provinse 1937). The second scholar to study the Siang was the historian Helius Sjamsuddin, who in 1989 submitted a Ph.D. thesis at Monash University, Australia, which detailed the intricacies of the Banjar War, the latter part of which unfolded in the upper reaches of the Barito River (the same conflict is also known as The Barito War). The so-called “chief” of the Dayak Siang, Temmengung Surapati, was a central figure in this war. The study is limited to specific individuals in a specific historical period and no research was actually conducted in the Siang area. The third was Swiss anthropologist Sarah Brack, who spent six months in the villages of Bentian and Muara Babuat in 2005, observing the impact of the Indomuro mine on local communities. However, it should be noted here that only Bentian is a Siang village (the majority of people in Muara Babuat are Bakumpai).

Polythetic classification Whatever criterion or criteria is used to define them, groups in Borneo do not lend themselves to taxonomic classification (e.g. in a branching tree diagram), but can be productively explored in terms of componential analysis as a (Tyler 1969). Tyler (1969:10) states that “features are paradigmatically arranged when they are: (1) multiple; (2) intersect.” I suggest that such a paradigm can help us understand the groups of interior Kalimantan, which cannot be easily isolated from one another and which share multiple, intersecting features. The complexity and fluidity of identity in interior

17 Including Brack (unpublished 2007), mentioned below. Colonial era sources include Nieuwenhuis (1900:10-11), but he only mentions the Siang in passing. Carl Lumholtz (2012) also passed through the Siang area in the colonial era. Jacob Mallinckrodt’s (1928) linguistic study of southeast Kalimantan is more comprehensive, classifying the “Ot Danum,” to which the Siang are said to belong, as a Ngadju (sic) subgroup (Ave 1972:188). Other early sources on the area include those by P.A. Leupe (1864), Salomon Müller (1857), and C.A.L.M. Schwaner (1853). These foreign language sources were, however, outside my reach because of the time and financial constraints of this project. Vol. 45 Borneo Research Bulletin 239

Kalimantan does not neatly conform to the rigidity of classical Western conceptions of ethnicity.18 Here I show that any attempt to define the “Siang” as a clearly demarcated group would mean artificially isolating population groups from one another in a way that ignores the historic and ongoing interactions between them. A polythetic classification (Needham 1983) which considers the Siang alongside related groups, not as distinct entities but parts of an intricate pattern, is better able to explain who the Siang are. A problem arises if one attempts to classify the Siang (or any other group) by a single feature - this would be monothetic classification. If the Siang have one thing that their neighbors down the river or across the mountains don’t have, then under a system of monothetic classification, in terms of the presence or absence of that feature, we should conclude that they are different things, i.e., different societies. The flaw in this thinking is that societies never consist of only one thing or feature. But why bother going to the effort of attempting to classify groups at all? Especially in a place like Kalimantan where scholars have routinely noted the arbitrary and artificial nature of ethnic labels in Kalimantan. “Borneo societies, varied and complex, have proved untraceable to any labelling,” states Sellato (2002:67). In recounting the difficulty of selecting a field site, Rousseau (1990), whose treatment of the problem of ethnic identity in “central Borneo” is probably the most extensive monograph on the subject, states that, “it was very difficult to identify recognizable ethnic units, because groups with the same name might speak different languages, while groups with distinct ethnic names seemed to be identical” (Rousseau 1990:1). He concludes that “ethnic groups cannot be the starting point of a study of central Borneo social organisation” and that “ethnic categories do not identify, except per accidens, social units, and ethnic groups cannot be the focus of analysis” (Rousseau 1990:4). The fact is that the people of interior Borneo did not use , at least not in the Western sense, prior to their imposition from outside. Geographic referents were the norm, with groups usually referring to themselves based on the river on which they lived (Wadley 2000:84 – I will consider the relevance of this to the Siang below). But most groups in Kalimantan now use the exonyms ascribed to them by outside observers. Examples include the Land Dayak, Ngaju and Bhuket (Sillander 1995:72; Sillander 2004a:43). Many of these exonyms originally had derogatory connotations, frequently meaning “upriver” and connoting rural backwardness. The paramount example of this is the term “Dayak,” which has come to serve as a general, referent for people of interior Borneo, who are generally defined in contrast to the Muslim, Malay peoples of coastal areas.19

18 The definition of the concept of identity is contested even within the anthropological literature. Sokolovskii and Tishkov (2010) identify three schools of thought including primordialist (ethnic identification is based on deep, “primordial” attachments to a group or culture), instrumentalist (ethnicity as a political instrument exploited by leaders and others in pragmatic pursuit of their own interests), and constructivist (which emphasizes the contingency and fluidity of ethnic identity). Perhaps most tellingly, these authors state that there was little mention of the term “ethnicity” in anthropological literature prior to the 1970s. 19 K. A. Adelaar, Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Melbourne, states that the term “Dayak” is of Malay origin, with a history that goes as far back as the Proto-Austronesian term daya, meaning ‘inland, or towards the interior’ (pers. comm., 9th December 2013). 240 Borneo Research Bulletin Vol. 45

The formation of ethnic identities such as these is a socio-political process which can and has, in places like Kalimantan, been influenced by the work of scholars and other outside observers. As groups have come to self-identify using the labels ascribed to them by such outsiders (which can been seen in the emergence of “Dayak” political organizations for example20), the political implications of the classifications made by “experts” must not be ignored. However, rather than follow the post-modern idea that ethnographers should refrain from “authoritative representation” and feign ignorance or disinterest in the identity of the people to whom they devote so much attention to in order to dodge the problem of political interference, we need instead to “engage”– that is, chose a conscious political position. This will allow us to counteract the increasing marginalization of groups such as the Siang by positively identifying them in ways which connect them to their customary territories, territories increasingly threatened by the encroachment of immigrants and industry.21 Of course, we should acknowledge that there may be limits to our objectivity and should openly discuss the steps we have taken to avoid bias. In this discussion of the identity of the Siang I have considered all available material (in English at least) to come to what I believe to be an accurate summation of the position of the Siang within the broader context of their relationship to other nearby groups. I do so using the strategy of polythetic classification because, although not perfect, it is better able to account for the complexity of identity in Kalimantan than other analytical approaches and because, in doing so, I actively address the differences between the peoples of Kalimantan, differences which are often the source of tension and conflict in modern Kalimantan. Polythetic classification is defined by Needham as a system in which “…no property is necessarily possessed by all members in a group, and no individual necessarily has all the properties generally characteristic of members of its group” (Needham 1983:60). Polythetic classification can be utilized to explain the relationship between the Siang and their neighbors – the Murung, Ngaju, and the Uut Danum most directly and, further away, the Luangan, the Punan, and the Kayan - by showing the range of interrelated features that can be identified among these groups. The Siang have particular traits in common with each of these groups, even though they may not possess all of the traits common among all people in the area. It is the relationship between the Siang and the Murung, or the Siang-Murung as they are sometimes referred to, that highlights the limitations of monothetic classification as identified by Needham and as manifest in the exonyms used to refer to groups in Kalimantan. The closest neighboring Dayak group to the Siang, the Murung, generally speaking, occupy the territory north of the Barito River between the Laung River and the Lahei River – the area directly to the east of the Siang. This is, simply speaking, southeastern Murung Raya. Murung Raya Regency is named after the group. Why the Siang and the Murung are sometimes referred to in the same breath, even by people who

20 For a detailed exploration of politics based on pan-Dayak identity see Schiller (2007) and Acciaioli (2011). 21 Reuter (1999 and 2002) has written about the inability of ethnographers, colonial or contemporary, to separate their classifications from the politics of identity in relation to the marginalization of the . Vol. 45 Borneo Research Bulletin 241

self-identify in this way as the “Siang-Murung,” is unclear. The Siang and the Murung speak different languages. Hudson (1967:14) lists two Murung language groups, or what he calls “isolects,” both of which are distinct from the Siang isolect, but one of which shares ninety percent of its vocabulary with the Siang isolect. All three fall under the same Northwest Barito “Minor Subgroup.” Rudimentary word lists I collected show obvious differences between Siang and Murung vocabulary. Informants also reported variations in the performance of Kaharingan rituals. So the distinction, or lack thereof, between the Siang and Murung seems arbitrary. It was readily asserted that the Siang and the Murung were “just the same” (I: sama aja) despite the differences in language, territory and ritual practice identified by the very same informants. Why then, are there two names for the groups? We can see here the limitations of conceiving of “ethnic groups” as distinct, bounded entities in the monothetic tradition of classification. However, the literature generally treats the subject in this way, and as I deal with these existing studies I will tease out who the Siang are – linguistically, cosmologically, religiously, historically and socially – before considering to what extent they are related to these other groups.

The Siang in a linguistic context I argue that attempts to definitively classify the Siang by any one criterion ignore both the complex of identity in Borneo as well as the significance of modern identities. Below I will present several examples of how attempts at various means of categorization fail to account for the full picture. The exception to this rule is linguistic data (scant though they may be) which is the most reliable form of evidence in what can otherwise be a sea of speculation. There are several reasons why linguistic classification has advantages over the other criteria identified below, prime among which is the fact that linguistics has a refined method for classifying. Furthermore, linguistic classification is exclusive – that is to say that with a rigorous application of the classification principles you are either A or B, and usually not “a bit of both,” or “somewhere in between,” or “with overlap.” Finally, with linguistics, the benefits and limitations are known. Linguistics may not explain much about a group of people beyond its linguistic relation to others, yet this is a far more concrete measuring tool than cultural complexes such as mythology, technology, stratification, ritual practice and ritual language, where the value and applicability of such criteria seem to sometimes be a matter of personal choice. So, what does the linguistic evidence say about the Siang? As stated above, Hudson (1967), the most authoritative author on the subject, classified the Siang as part of his “Northwest Barito Subgroup,” which was in turn part of the “West Barito Group,” which was half of the wider “Barito Family.” However, in a subsequent publication (Hudson 1978) he was unsure if West and East Barito are really part of one group or not. He also questions the link between the two halves of the West Barito Subgroup, stating that “it is not yet possible to point to any diagnostic phonological shared innovations that would demonstrate the immediate relationship of the Southwest and Northwest Barito subgroups” (Hudson 1978:22). This has important implications for my discussion of the relationship between the Siang and neighboring groups. Hudson’s (1978) Northwest Barito Subgroup includes the Siang, Dohoi, Ot Danum, and “several varieties of Murung.” The Southwest Barito Group includes the Kapuas, Katingan, Ba’amang and Kahayan 242 Borneo Research Bulletin Vol. 45

Dayak. This latter group includes those often referred to as “the Ngaju,” although Hudson is careful to avoid using this term himself, probably to avoid falling into the trap of this term’s vagueness. Hudson’s studies represent the most comprehensive to date, so I will leave my discussion of the linguistic evidence here, save to say that his work is inconclusive as a determinate of identity.

Religious identity Along with locality and descent, religion, or ritual practice, is a key defining marker of identity in Kalimantan (Schiller 1997b; Sillander 2004a:40, Sellato 2002:163-194), and religion is one important marker of Siang identity. Although the majority of Siang people are Christian, myths like that of Mt. Kambang remain important and many associated customs (I: adat) continue to be practiced by Christian Siang. There are few Siang Muslims and some point to the fact that more Murung have converted to Islam as a point of contrast between the two groups. For many Siang, particularly those with whom this research was conducted, practicing Kaharingan rituals is a key feature of Siang identity. That is to say that practicing the Siang version of Kaharingan is important. Kaharingan is the term given to the various traditional of Kalimantan. The term “Kaharingan” was not coined until 1945 (Baier 2007:567) and like the term Dayak, lumping all indigenous religions together as “Kaharingan” glosses over the nuances of a diverse array of related cosmological and ritual traditions.22 A form of Kaharingan was officially recognized by the government of Central Kalimantan in 1980, but only as a variant of Hinduism, in line with a national law that restricts religious recognition to six “” (Baier 2007:568). This “Hindu” Kaharingan is based on traditions of the people of the basin, something that has led to a sense of resentment and anxiety among groups such as the Siang, who have since been subject to the authority of the Great Council of the Hindu Kaharingan Religion (I: Majelis Besar Agama Hindu Kaharingan). There are official Hindu Kaharingan places of , known as Balai Basarah, scattered throughout Murung Raya, and Kaharingan school students are given officially sanctioned Hindu Kaharingan religious instruction. Officially, only ritual experts trained at the official Hindu Kaharingan school in Palangkaraya (I: Sekolah Tinggi Agama Hindu Kaharingan) are permitted to conduct Kaharingan rituals. The officialization and standardization of tradition under the banner of Hindu Kaharingan has important consequences for ritual practice, as major rituals must be approved by local governments, who expect conformity with official Hindu Kaharingan doctrine (Schiller 2002). “Other people practice Kaharingan rituals, but they are different from ours, Hindu Kaharingan rituals are different because they come from a different area and from different ancestors,” said one informant.23 Another informant remarked

22 Miles’ (1976:76) description of the Ngaju as a people “with no ‘great tradition’ but a host of ‘little traditions’” could be aptly applied to the case of Kaharingan as a pan-Dayak religion. 23 Wadley (2000:86) notes that the dominance of Hindu Kaharingan by Katingan and Kahayan River groups has led to a tendency to lump all Kaharingan groups into the category of “Ngaju Dayak”’ – the exonym used for Dayak groups of these two river systems. Vol. 45 Borneo Research Bulletin 243

that “the Kahayan and the Siang are different, they aren’t the same. There isn’t just one Kaharingan in Kalimantan, it’s just not like that. It’s like , there isn’t just one, there is a variety. If the group (I: suku) is different, the Kaharingan is different.” Based on personal observations, the majority of Siang people are Christian, but a substantial minority, perhaps even half, are Kaharingan.24 In Sungai Babuat, Kaharingan people constitute a majority (1,377 Kaharingan people, versus 1,264 others). In the village where this research was conducted specifically, all but three of the village’s 52 families were Kaharingan.

The Siang as “hill” people To the extent that groups of interior Borneo did have endonyms prior to colonization, they usually referred to a geographic feature, often a river along which the group lived (Rousseau 1990:4-11, 61). In many parts of the island the river is the traditional locus of much social activity including trade, transportation, communication and intermarriage. Its centrality to social life fostered a conceptualization of identity based on river systems for many . The term “Ngaju” is, for example, a derogatory exonym, meaning “upriver” (Schiller 1997a:16), imposed on a broad group of people in southern and central Kalimantan during the colonial era. Although it has gained some currency since then, it is much more common for people of the “Ngaju” area to refer to the river on which they live as a source of identity (Schiller 1997a:16, 134-5; Sillander 2004a:43). Yet this is not ethnicity in the Western sense (Sillander 1995). Rousseau (1990:75:118) states that while river-based identities can be useful, they are not cohesive enough to identify objects of study. The prevalence of topographic references means that it is rare for ethnonyms in Kalimantan to mean “human being” or to refer to cultural origins (Rousseau 1990:68). The Siang are thus unique in that their endonym – for I have no reason to believe that “Siang” is not an endonym – is not a geographic referent, as there is no Siang River or mountain. Nor is “Siang” a slight on an “upriver” people. The endonym “Siang” has at least two possible origins. As stated earlier, my field informants, at least those who claimed to know, reasoned that the name “Siang” derives from the term sangiayang, as the Siang are the descendants of the Sangiyang who descended to earth on Mt. Kambang. An alternative explanation, which I did not hear in the field but which is widespread on the internet,25 asserts that the name for the group of people comes from the siang tree, located at the source of the Mentiat Pari River near the village of Mentiat Pari in Kecamatan Tanah Siang. Either way it seems likely that the Siang are an exception to the rule that Dayak “ethnic groups” have been labelled and defined by colonial powers.26 It also seems to be the case that the “Siang” are identified not with a river, or river system, but with an inland or hill area.

24 According to 2009 census data, Murung Raya has 16,307 Kaharingan people and 21,209 Catholics and Protestants, but not all of these are Siang. (Murung Raya Dalam Angka 2009). 25 See for example Wanly (2011); http://budayakalteng.blogspot.com.au/p/suku-dan-bahasa. html; http://protomalayans.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/suku-dayak-siang.html 26 In the siang means ‘daytime,’ or ‘late morning and early afternoon.’ However, the Siang word for ‘daytime’ is mono, so the connection between these terms is coincidental. 244 Borneo Research Bulletin Vol. 45

The fact that there is no River Siang is perhaps the best evidence there is that the Siang are not, or at least were not traditionally, riverine people. The Barito River was known in the past as the Dusun (Sjamsuddin 1989) and, in the Siang/Murung area, as the Murung River because, according to informants, it was the Murung who inhabited its banks (at least in this local area). The Siang meanwhile, lived away from the Barito, in the hills to the north. This history is reflected in the establishment of modern day Kecematan Tanah Siang in this location. Other evidence that the Siang were “hill people” can be derived from the relative lack of importance of the river as a point of orientation for the Siang, which is somewhat unusual in river-centric Kalimantan.27 Yet there is no apparent system for the orientation of a Siang in relation to kinship, rivers or the broader organization of the village – at least in the modern day. Furthermore, although “upstream” (S: buoi) and “downstream” (S: boi) are common directional referents in Siang villages, plenty of villages are located a substantial distance from any significant waterway, and these terms are of little use in such places. That is not to suggest that the Siang are unfamiliar with rivers - Kalimantan is of course covered with them. Historical evidence that the Siang generally lived in mountainous areas, away from major watercourses, can be found in the relocation and concentration of Siang people into villages along waterways. This policy, first enacted by the Dutch, and probably beginning in the Siang area in the 1910s, was intended to control what had been rebellious Dayak groups and to ensure free access to the land and resources they were forced to vacate (Knapen 2001). The village in which this research was conducted was established by the Dutch, who relocated people from the surrounding hills as part of this process. This history is known through oral tradition, according to which the people of the Babuat River originated from the area around Mount Monangin, some 20 kilometers to the west, but were forced to settle along the banks of the river by the Dutch. Other scholars have noted the possibility that the Siang were originally nomads of the highlands. Knapen (2001:94) suggests that they were “the commercial intermediaries between the Uut Danum and Punan,” two groups who occupy higher altitude positions further inland, north of the Barito, in the Muller mountain range. Sellato (2002:125) suggests that the Siang may have adopted rice agriculture relatively late in comparison to other groups, before which he they were tuber-growing horticulturalists. Another possibility is that the Siang were once nomadic hunter-gatherers – a practice generally associated with far inland, mountainous groups such as the Punan. Knapen (2001:217- 218) cites sources which suggest the adoption of rice by the Siang could have been as late as the 19th century. Hoffman (1983:30 in Rousseau 1990:73) states that a group he calls the “Punan Murung” “alternatively refer to themselves as ‘Siang’ and ‘Punan’” and Rousseau suggests this shift in identity relates to the adoption of agriculture. This is also evidence that the Siang may have originated from the nomadic Punan. Whether or not the Siang ultimately descended from hunter-gatherers, there were until the turn of the twentieth century many small groups called “Ot” followed by a local designation such as Tuhup, Baloi, etc. who spoke Siang-related languages and then settled; many of these people likely identify as Siang today (Sillander 2015 pers. comm., 6 January; Helbig 1983).

27 For example Sather (1993:74) reports the significance of river orientation for Iban social organization, something that is reflected in the orientation of Iban . Vol. 45 Borneo Research Bulletin 245

The Siang, an Uut Danum or Ngaju “subgroup”? The Siang are frequently subsumed as a “sub-category” of the Uut Danum28 (Ave 1972, Sjamsuddin 1989, Knapen 2001, Sillander 2004a). As part of Hudson’s Northwest Barito Subgroup, the two are obviously related. However, the point I want to make here is that one (i.e. the Siang) is not “part” of the other (i.e. the Uut Danum), but rather, that the two are interrelated as in a paradigm (Tyler 1969). “Uut Danum” is another example of a pejorative exonym meaning “upriver,” which in this case has come to refer to groups north of the Ngaju, but south of the nomadic Punan. Hudson (1967:7) states that the term is not used by any group to refer to itself, but this has since changed (Couderc 2012), and I myself met people who self-identified as Uut Danum. The term was commonly used by Siang to refer to this group, and this is key: the Siang are fully aware of a group of people known as the Uut Danum, but they do not identify themselves as part of it and, therefore, we in the scholarly community should not classify them as a “subgroup” of the Uut Danum. The Uut Danum have also been considered as a Ngaju “subgroup” themselves by some scholars (Kennedy 1923 and Malinckrodt 1928 in Ave 197229). However, insufficient justification is given for claiming such a hierarchical relationship - this is the problem of taxonomic classification (Tyler 1969). These groups are classified together because they are linguistically related and share similarities in ritual practice and cosmological . The Siang, the Uut Danum, the Ngaju, all the related “subgroups,” and probably others share a range of features only some of which are possessed by each group. The analytical category “Ot Danum” thus forms an archetypical polythetic classification (Needham 1983), and it should be seen in this way. It is however incorrect to say that one group is “part” of the other. But there are limits to what looking at these groups polythetically can achieve. Needham (1983:61) admitted that “…in the realm of social facts...the real, distinct and independent character of the qualities being analysed, as in the natural sciences...is hardly to be found.” To illustrate this point I will return to origin myths, this time those reported by other scholars. Pascal Couderc, who has researched with self-identified Uut Danum groups in West Kalimantan, also recounts the story of Lanying Suling. Only according to this story, it is Lanying Suling who descends from the sky, with his sister Kasiang (aka “Drongo”) (Couderc 2012:169). There is no mention of anyone named Sikan, and aside from involving siblings who descend from the sky on a “tray of offerings” to give birth to mankind, the two stories are otherwise very different. The “distinct, independent character” of these “facts” is indeed a problem when it comes to the fluid nature of story telling. Ave (1972) also conducted fieldwork with Ot Danum [sic] groups. The origin myth he recorded also involves siblings descending to earth on a golden palangka. According to this story, there are four siblings, two male and two female. They land in different

28 Actually called the “Ot Danum” by most scholars, I have chosen to use the spelling used by Pascal Couderc, the scholar who has done the most extensive and most recent research with the group. An exception is made when directly referring to the work of other authors. 29 Kennedy (1935, in Ave 1972) classifies the Ot Danum as a Ngaju subgroup even as he states that the Ot Danum are the only member of this “group” to extensively practice headhunting and have a “developed social hierarchy.” 246 Borneo Research Bulletin Vol. 45

areas - the brothers at the headwaters of the Kahayan River, the sisters in the upper Barito region. After finding each other again, the siblings marry. The younger pair, who stay in the Barito basin, are the primogenitors of the Siang, while the elder two, who go to live in the headwaters of the Kahayan River, become the ancestors of the Dohoi, Tabahoi, and Pananjoi (Ave 1972:193). These four subgroups, according to Ave, together formed the “traditional” Ot Danum group (although it is important to note that this exonym is not used in the story itself). Ave notes that the Siang, “occupy a distinct position within their atypical origin as recounted in the ” and “speak a relatively aberrant dialect of Ot Danum” (Ave 1972:186). Be this as it may, it does not explain why the Siang – who have a clearly distinct endonym – should be said to be speaking a “dialect” of the , especially when “Ot Danum” is a generic exonym. They can be more constructively understood as an example of Tyler’s (1969) paradigm. It is noteworthy that neither of these stories, as recounted by the researchers, make explicit mention of the Sangiyang. These upper-worldly beings do, however, feature in the cosmology of Uut Danum as well as several other nearby groups, including the Ngaju (Schiller 1997a:13) and the Bentian (Sillander 2006:327 fn. 29). The Sangiyang (or a nearby cognate) are invoked by ritual experts by the Siang, the Uut Danum (Couderc unpublished 2013), the Ngaju (Schärer 1963:10; Schiller 1997a:13) as well as the Luangan, the exonym given to a complex of interrelated language groups located largely in East Kalimantan (Sillander 2004a:202-208).30 To go even further, the term sang is pan Indonesian, meaning ‘grandparent’ or ‘ancestral deity’ (hence Bahasa Sangiyang, ‘the language of the ancestors’) and is used by many groups across the archipelago.31 So where does one draw the line of inclusion and exclusion? Couderc (unpublished 2013) suggests that there may be a connection between the use of the ritual language songiang [sic] by the Uut Danum of West Kalimantan and the ritual language of the Ngaju, known as sangiyang. In Siang communities, ritual experts known as Basir Siang also use a ritual language known as sangiyang, or kandang in the performance of various lifecycle rituals, including the totoh/wara, the largest and most important ritual in Siang Kaharingan, which is intended to send the of the deceased to the highest level of a seven-layered universe. This is one of two ritual languages used by the Siang, the other being belian, a language used only in curing rituals. All of these groups practice curing rites that are known as belian to the Siang and the Luangan and by cognates to the Ngaju (Schiller 1997a: 41-42) and Uut Danum (Couderc unpublished 2013). Sillander (1995:76, 2004a, 2004b:39) reports that the ritual language of a particular kind of belian known as a belian bawo is the everyday language of the Bawo, a Luangan subgroup from the upper

30 Certain Luangan myths that describe the origin of particular “local Luangan groups,” also tell of sangiyang beings descending to earth on palangka (Sillander 2006). 31 Sillander (2006:327 fn.29) notes that sangiyang is apparently a cognate of Sang Hyang, also used as a title for the highest in Indonesian Hinduism –Sang Hyang Widhi. Cognates of the term can be found not only in Balinese cosmology but also in the indigenous religions of Java (, Kejawen) and beyond, which suggests the terms and associated concepts predate the introduction of Hinduism to the Indonesian archipelago. Sillander suggests the term sangiyang is probably the result of Indic borrowing, but Adelaar disagrees, stating that the term is clearly from old Malay (pers. comm 2013, also see Adelaar 1992:96, 109). Vol. 45 Borneo Research Bulletin 247

Teweh River area in East Kalimantan.32 My sources confirmed that languages used in Siang belian rites include the Taboyan, Benuaq, Benua, Dusun languages – all names of Luangan subgroups. A folktale conveys the idea that a bird from the Dusun area spread the belian language, and places the origins of this ritual with this Luangan group. It seems that all these ritual languages used in belian curing rites are originally from one or more Luangan group.33 There is a clear relationship between these groups, but why are some considered part of the same group – Uut Danum, Luangan or Ngaju – and others not? A brief look at other commonalities between the groups might help clarify things. Sillander (2004a) notes that Dayaks in the south and southeast of the island differ in some significant aspects from their counterparts in central and northern Borneo. He cites specifically “the lack of longhouse residence, a relatively restricted engagement in headhunting, a comparatively extensive interaction with coastal polities, and a seemingly undistinctive and Malay-like physical appearance and cultural profile” (2004:48). Yet, by these criteria, the Siang are more like their northern neighbors. The Siang built longhouses as recently as the 1950s and stories of headhunting still abound. Furthermore, they probably remained outside of the direct influence of coastal sultanates until the 20th century and the light-skinned, non- Malay appearance of the Siang is frequently noted by members of other ethnic groups in their area; it is popularly believed by non-Siang that the Siang are in fact somehow related to Chinese people, as evidenced by their light complexion. But this evidence seems particularly superficial. These traits (longhouse building and headhunting) could possibly be attributed to an historic influence by Kayanic groups, which I will discuss in a moment, but the point here is that any attempt to classify the Siang as part of one group, and therefore not part of another, means focusing on certain cultural traits and ignoring others – in other words falling into the trap of monothetic classification. There are obvious similarities among the Siang, Uut Danum, Luangan, and Ngaju. All of these groups fall within Hudson’s (1967) Barito language family, so modern linguistic evidence adds weight to the connections suggested by the similarity in indigenous origin myths and belief in the Sangiyang.34 Other connections can be seen

32 There is another connection with the Luangan. In Luangan societies, “death shamans” are called warah or pengewarah (Sillander 2004a:40). In Siang society a similar position is known as a Basir Siang, although the penultimate mortuary rite of the Siang is known as a wara. This possible connection to the Luangan, however, seems less significant. 33 Ave (1972:193) states that the Ngadju Dayaks regard the Ot Danum as their cultural forbears and that the Ot Danum themselves remember migrating across the Schwaner mountain range before settling on the headwaters of the Kahayan, before migrating down its length (to what is now the Ngaju area). But links in ritual language could suggest migration in the opposite direction, from the southern and eastern area of the Ngaju and Luangan to the northern area of the Uut Danum and the Siang. Couderc (unpublished 2013) offers evidence which might support this theory. He states that for the Uut Danum, Bahasa Sangiyang closely resembles a primitive “old speech” stratum common to Dohoi and Ngaju. 34 Wurm and Hattori’s (1981) comment that “The number of different isolects (or communalects) [in Borneo] is very considerable, but that of distinct languages comparatively small, and widespread dialect clusters and chains are the norm in many areas,” could aptly describe this situation and, if cosmology is substituted in the place of language, perhaps other continuities. 248 Borneo Research Bulletin Vol. 45

in agricultural and ritual practices, art and music, but the point is: why should any one group be a “subgroup” of another? Instead, a polythetic classification of these groups would represent something closer to the actual links between these groups. It might look something like this:

Origin Myth Use a ritual involves Use the language to Sangiyang people Longhouse Head- Slave “group Group address the beings descending builders hunters holders name” Name Sangiyang feature in from the sky (formerly) (formerly) (formerly) as an (or a cosmology on a special endonym cognate) vehicle Only in Uut Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes recent Danum decades Rarely/ In certain only in Luangan Yes Yes instances No Rarely Yes recent decades Rarely/ To an Only in Ngaju Yes Yes Yes Occasionally extent Yes recent decades To an Kayan No No No Yes Yes Yes extent Siang Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Figure 3: Polythetic classification of the major groups of southeast Borneo.

Figure 3 is a good example of Tyler’s (1969) paradigm. The Siang are not a “kind of” Uut Danum (as would be the case in what Tyler terms a taxonomy) but rather share multiple intersecting features with them and other groups.

The issue of stratification We can see from both the Siang stories I collected in the field as well as from the published literature that the Siang have links with many of their immediate neighbors including the Kapuas, Kahayan, Murung, and Uut Danum (all of whom fall within Hudson’s (1978) Northwest Barito Subgroup). It was common for Siang informants to speak these languages. Other scholars have classified these groups of southern central Borneo together as “non-stratified” or “egalitarian” societies (Sellato 2002), contrasting them to those groups further to the north, such as the Kenyah and Kayan, in which stratification was once formally encoded (Rousseau 1990). Given the weakness of kinship as a basis for ethnic classification in Borneo, stratification has often been considered a key marker for distinguishing identity. However, the use of stratification as a measure of identity has been challenged in recent years and the longstanding assumption that societies in Borneo can be defined as either “egalitarian” or “stratified” has come into Vol. 45 Borneo Research Bulletin 249

fairly widespread disrepute (Armstrong 1992; Helliwell 1994; Rousseau 1980, Sillander 2006:334). Yet, in the interests of thorough investigation, I will briefly consider how the Siang might fit into the stratified–egalitarian dichotomy. Sellato (2002:69) defines “non-stratified” societies as those which “display a social hierarchy in various forms, either functional without being ideologically formalized, or ideal without being functional.” However this definition is problematic as, even if not “ideologically formalized” or “functional,” the existence of any social hierarchy would seem to preclude truly “egalitarian” societies and thus renders the distinction between stratified and egalitarian unclear. Perhaps this ambiguity is telling of the arbitrariness of the distinction between these two artificial categories. Whatever the case, as Sellato includes in this category all members of what he terms the “Barito Group,” (not to be confused with Hudson’s Barito Language Family) including the Ngaju, Uut Danum, and Ma’aanyan and, by extension, the Siang, I shall consider the Siang within this definition. Although they are “non-stratified,” many of these groups, including the Siang, once held slaves. This suggests there was, at least in the past, a degree of stratification in these communities, although perhaps not to the extent of those truly stratified groups (Sellato 2002:74; Rousseau 1990). The notion of egalitarianism among the “non-stratified” groups is problematic, as while stratification might not be formally encoded, a social hierarchy based on wealth is often found (Sellato 2002:70), so the distinction is not clear-cut. Sellato notes that “[non-stratified] societies appear hierarchised into upper and lower categories, on the basis of a unique criterion, that of wealth…In all these ‘non- stratified’ societies, it seems sound to contemplate a unique class, within which an unstable hierarchy between the rich and poor develops” (Sellato 2002:77-78). Miles (1976) similarly notes the importance of wealth for status in Ngaju society. Sellato states that this wealth-based stratification, which he terms “quasi stratification” (2002:70), could be the result of interaction between the Siang and stratified groups from the north. Sellato notes that stratified groups, particularly the Kayan and Kenyah, “have passed their stratification system (or part of it) on to some of their neighbors” (Sellato 2002:74) and that the classes and ranks of “non-stratified” groups is probably the result of borrowing from other groups (Sellato 2002:70). If Sellato is correct, it could be that the slave-holding and social classes once found among the Siang may be the result of contact with the Kayan, a stratified group originally from the upper in (Rousseau 1990:15). Other clues to this possibility exist. Kayan society is divided into four categories, the lowest of which, the slave class, is known as dipen (Sellato 2002: 74). The Siang word for slave is jipen. Aside from this linguistic connection, there is evidence of hostilities between the Kayan and groups in the upper Mahakam and Barito areas. Knapen (2001:169) notes that the Dutch were active in stopping headhunting on the Barito, and that “in 1789 W. Kruysweg led an expedition to fight the intruding Kayan in Siang and Murung.” He also states that harassment from other groups forced the Uut Danum to relocate in the 19th century (Knapen 2001:95). Also from Sellato (2002:147-8) we know that the Kayan coalition army under Liju Li – the chief of the Long-Gelat group, known as the “Dayak Napoleon” in the Dutch literature – came from the upper around 1830 to wage war on the Taman and Uut Danum groups of the upper Kapuas. He further refers 250 Borneo Research Bulletin Vol. 45

to the “great Kayan Expedition” of 1863 (Sellato 2002:148) and suggests that the Siang may be the descendants of a group known as the Pin, who were forced out of their home in the area of the upper Mahakam region by Kayan raiders (Sellato 2002:149, 168-170). Ave (1972:188) also argues that Ot Danum social hierarchy is probably due to Kayan- Kenyah influence, and notes the similarity between the sword blades and wooden shields made by the two groups. As anecdotal evidence we can see that the “Uut Danum” were longhouse builders – something done as a defense against raiders – while most other groups in southern and eastern Borneo were not (Knapen 2001:85; Sillander 2002:82). This possible connection is, however, not certain or documented beyond these scant sources. It is also not something contemporary informants ever suggested. An alternative to consider would be the possibility that hierarchies developed as a result of trade and tributary relationships with coastal sultanates (see Sillander 2006). Whatever their origins, historic slave-holding practices are widely remembered in contemporary Siang society. These slaves were either the victims of raids or debt slaves– people who had become overly indebted to “rich” people (Sellato 2002:70). They were generally made to do domestic work before being sacrificed at particularly important ritual occasions such as secondary funerals, or wara (S). However, was abolished by the Dutch and is not a factor in modern social relations. Slavery was not practiced by the time Provinse (1937) conducted his research in the Murung Raya area. Provinse does, however, note an important distinction between rich and poor, stating that the rich had a greater ability to hold collective work parties, thus increasing the size of their fields and harvests and therefore allowing them to entrench a “class” divide. Although he notes that this power was limited, and that “the wealthy, though their additional resources made it easier for them to live than was the case for some of the less well-to-do, were no more exempt from work in replenishing their rice bins than was the poorest individual in the village” (Provinse 1937:93). In contemporary Siang villages there is a significant gap between the richest and poorest people. Here a possible connection to “stratification” can be identified, although I argue that the wealth distinctions that can be identified in villages today have more to do with modern economic systems than with a longer- standing system of stratification. The “rich” are those who hold wage-paying jobs or who are successful traders and there is nothing structural preventing “poor” people from becoming upwardly mobile, except that associated with capitalism anywhere and which is not a traditional part of Siang society. Contemporary Siang society lacks formal stratification, although it is widely known that the Siang formerly held slaves. Arguments in favor of stratification or egalitarianism could therefore be made. I do not wish to reinforce the stratification–egalitarian distinction, which seems as artificial as ethnic categories. Helliwell (1994), for example, not only refutes the dichotomy but explains how anthropologists have read it into their data because of enlightenment ideals which favor individual liberty and equality. My concern here is with how the Siang are understood according to the available literature, and since much of this is concerned with stratification, I have addressed this point. Ultimately though, it seems unnecessary and unwise to attempt to define Siang in this way, especially as modern social, economic, and governmental relationships have come to eclipse many of the traditional practices that may have marked stratification. Vol. 45 Borneo Research Bulletin 251

So, who are the Siang? The Siang are the descendants of Poking Asu, the first human, who was mothered by the Sangiyang being, Sikan, who descended to this world via a palankabulo connected to Puruk Kambang, and fathered by the gaib, Lanying Suling. They speak the Siang language, which is part of Hudson’s (1967; 1978) Northwest Barito subgroup of the Barito language family. They traditionally occupy the area north and east of the Barito River, between Gunung Bondang in the north and the Luang River in the east, along which live the Murung. This is in between the nomadic Punan and sedentary Uut Danum to the north and west, the so-called “Ngaju” groups to the south, and the Murung to the east. The complex web of relationships between these groups reflects the “constant fluidity” of ethnohistories in Borneo (Sillander 1995:84). Many classical methods of identifying groups of people are not able to adequately account for the complex and fluid nature of identity in Kalimantan, where significant overlaps in language, cosmology and other cultural markers frustrate attempts to draw boundaries. I have argued that taking a polythetic (Needham 1983) or paradigmatic (Tyler 1969) approach to classification helps make analytical sense of these complexities. In this paper I have done my best to explain who the Siang are based on my own original field research and the few scholarly sources available. How these people identify themselves is another question. In asking the question “who are the Siang” I am also asking how we as scholars identify and classify other groups. Some of the things I have pointed to as markers of identity – longhouse building, slaveholding and headhunting – would not conventionally be considered “ethnic traits.” But this only further underlines my point that using a single criterion – even “ethnicity” – to define identity and the relationships between different groups of people, is a flawed strategy. What I have done in this paper is organized differences, not classified ethnic groups. But the artificiality of notions of ethnicity in relation to identity in Kalimantan (and in general) is not my only concern here. The of contemporary Indonesia mean that making rigid distinctions between these groups is particularly problematic. The traits used to classify these groups have often not been practiced for generations. Modern transportation and communication means there is now unprecedented contact between different language groups across Kalimantan and, indeed, the world. Siang, Kahayan and Bakumpai people may well attend school, work in the same place or live in the same village. The Indonesian national curriculum, media and language have now influenced all of these groups for decades. It is not surprising then, that other identities, religious or national, are often emphasized over specific regional ones, and I argue that these modern identities are much more significant than researchers often acknowledge. Today, in an Indonesian regency populated by people from across the archipelago (and even some foreigners), local Dayaks share experiences and challenges which cross the boundaries that may have once them apart from their neighbors. The task for contemporary researchers is to acknowledge these changes while continuing to respect the nuances of a given group of people, however they might be identified. This is important because in Kalimantan identification can be the difference between power and powerlessness. 252 Borneo Research Bulletin Vol. 45

References Acciaioli, G. 2011 From ‘Masuk Melayu’ to ‘Dayak Islam’: The increasing profile of Islam in pan-Dayakism, unpublished paper presented at the conference, “The Vicissitudes of Identity: Ethnicity, Culture, and Religion in the 21st Century,” at the University of Malaya, 29th-30th September 2011. Adelaar, K, A. 1992 Proto Malayic: The Reconstruction of its Phonology and Parts of Its Lexicon and Morphology, Pacific Linguistics, ANU Press, Australia. Armstrong, R. 1992 The Cultural Construction of Hierarchy among the Kenyah Badeng. Oceania 62(3): 194-206. Ave, J.B. 1972 Kalimantan Dayaks. In: Frank Lebar, ed., Ethnic Groups of Insular Vol. 1, New Haven: Human Relations Area Files Press, pp. 185-197. Ave, J. and V. King 1986 Borneo: The People of the Weeping Forest: Tradition and change in Borneo. Leiden, Netherlands: National Museum of . Baier, M. 2007 The development of the Hindu Kaharingan religion: A New Dayak Religion in Central Kalimantan. Anthropos 102(2): 566-570. Bock, C. 1985) [1882] The Head-Hunters of Borneo: A Narrative of Travel Up the Mahakam and down the Barito. London: Oxford University Press. Brack, S. 2007 Kollektive Aktion der Dayak im Konfliktfeld der mining area von Murung Raya, Zentralkalimantan, Indonesien, Thesis (Lizenziatsarbeit), University of Zurich, Switzerland. Cleary, M. and F.J. Lian, F.J. 1991 On the Geography of Borneo. in Human Geography 15(2):163- 177. Couderc, P, 2012 Separated Dead and Transformed Ancestors: Two Facets of Ancestorship among the Uut Danum of West Kalimantan. In: P. Couderc and K. Sillander, eds., Ancestors in Borneo Societies, Copenhagen: NIAS Press, pp. 153- 206. 2013 Kandan, the Uut Danum “Language of Spirits”: A traditional oral genre and its use in shamanic rituals, unpublished paper presented at the conference the “International Workshop on ‘Special Genres’ in and Around Indonesia,” at the Institute for Language and of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), 17th-19th February 2013. Vol. 45 Borneo Research Bulletin 253

Cribb, R. 2010 Digital Atlas of Indonesian History. Copenhagen: NIAS Press. De Koninck, R., S. Bernard, and J.F. Bissonnette 2011 Borneo Transformed. : NUS Press. Dove, M. 2011 The Banana Tree at the Gate: A History of Marginal People and Global Markets in Borneo. Singapore: NUS Press. Felbab-Brown, V. 2013 Indonesia Field Report III - The ’s Road: Illegal Logging and Mining in Indonesia, Brookings Institute Foreign Policy Trip Reports, No. 50, Feb 7. Harrington, M. 2014 Changing Exchanges: A modern Siang village amidst resource extraction in regional Indonesia, Ph.D. thesis, University of Melbourne, Australia. Helbig, K. 1982 Eine Durchquerung der Insel Borneo (Kalimantan): Nach den Tagebüchern aus dem Jahre 1937. Reimer, Germany. Helliwell, C. 1994 “A just precedency”: The notion of equality in anthropological discourse. History and 7(1-4): 362-375. Hudson, A. 1967 The Barito Isolects of Borneo, Cornell University Press. 1978 Linguistic Relations Among Bornean Peoples with Special Reference to Sarawak: An Interim Report. Studies in Third World Societies 3: 1-44. King, V. 1985 Symbols of Social Differentiation: A Comparative Investigation of Signs, the Signified and Symbolic Meanings in Borneo. Anthropos 80: 125-152. 1991 Cognition and Rank in Borneo. In: Frans Hűsken and Jeremy Kemp, eds., Cognation and Social Organisation in Southeast Asia. Leiden: KITLV Press, pp. 15-32. Knapen, H. 2001 Forests of Fortune? The Environmental History of Southeast Borneo, 1600-1880. Leiden: KITLV Press. Leupe, P.A. 1864 Beschrijving van eenen togt naar de bovenlanden van Banjermassing enz., in het jaar 1790. Kronijk van het Historisch Genootschap 20-5 (vierde serie): 331-404. Linblad, T. 1988 Between Dutch and Dayak. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Lumholtz, C. 2012 [1920] Through Central Borneo: An Account of Two Years’ Travel in the Land of the Head-Hunters Between the Years 1913 and 1917. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 254 Borneo Research Bulletin Vol. 45

Mackie, J. 1974 Konfrontasi – The Indonesia- Dispute 1963-1966. London: Oxford University Press. Mallinckrodt, J. 1928 Het Adatrecht van Borneo. Leiden: Dubbeldeman. McCarthy, J. 2004 Changing to Grey: Decentralisation and the Emergence of Volatile Soio-Legal Configurations in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. World Development, 32(7): 1199-1223. Miles, D. 1976 Cultass and Crescent Moon: A Case Study in Social and Political Change in Outer Indonesia. Sydney: University of Sydney Press. Müller, S. 1857 Reizen en Onderzoekingen in den Indischen Archipel. vol. 1, Amsterdam: Frederik Müller. Needham, R. 1983 Against the Tranquillity of Axioms. Berkeley: University of California Press. Nieuenhuis, A.W. 1900 In Centraal Borneo: Reis van naar . Leiden: E.J. Brill. Provinse, J. 1937 Cooperative Ricefield Cultivation among the Siang Dyaks of Central Borneo. American Anthropologist, 39(1): 77-102. Reuter, T. 1999 People of the Mountains, People of the Sea: Negotiating the Local and the Foreign in Bali. In: R. Rubinstein and H. Connor, eds., Staying Local in the Global Village: Bali in the twentieth century. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. 2002 Custodians of the Sacred Mountain: Culture and Society in the Highlands of Bali. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Rousseau, J. 1980 Iban Inequality. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 136(1):52- 63. 1990 Central Borneo. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sather, C. 1993 Posts, Hearths and Thresholds: The Iban Longhouse as a Ritual Structure. In: J.J Fox, ed., Inside Austronesian Houses. Canberra: ANU Press, pp 67- 121. Schärer, H. 1963 [1946] Nagju Religion: The concept of god among a south Borneo people. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, Vol. 45 Borneo Research Bulletin 255

Schiller, A. 1997a Small . New York: Oxford University Press. 1997b Religion and Identity in Central Kalimantan: The Case of the Ngaju Dayaks. In: Robert Winzeler, ed., and the State: politics, land, and ethnicity in the Malayan Peninsula and Borneo. New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 180-200. 2002 How to hold a tiwah: the potency of the dead and deathways among Ngaju Dayaks. In: Henri Chambert-Loir and Anthony Reid, eds., The Potent Dead: Ancestors, Saints and Heroes in Contemporary Indonesia. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, pp. 17-31. 2007 Activism and Identities in an East Kalimantan Dayak Organization. The Journal of Asian Studies 66(1):63-95. Schwaner, C.A.L.M. 1853 Borneo, vol 1: Bescrijving van het Stroomgebied van den Borneo. Amsterdam: P.N. van Kampen. Sellato, B. 1992 Hornbill and : Arts and Culture of Borneo. Singapore: Sun Tree Publishing. 2002 Innermost Borneo: Studies in Dayak Cultures. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Sillander, K. 1995 Local Identity and Regional Variation: Notes on the Lack of Significance of Ethnicity Among the Luangan and the Bentian. Borneo Research Bulletin 26: 69-95. 2002 Houses and Social Organization among the Bentian of East Kalimantan. Borneo Research Bulletin 33: 82-99. 2004a Acting Authoritatively: How authority is expressed through social action among the Bentian of Indonesian Borneo. Ph.D., University of Helsinki, Finland. 2004b “Dayak” and “Malay” in Southeast Borneo: Some materials contesting the dichotomy. Suomen Antropologi 24(4): 35-47. 2006 Local Integration and Coastal Connections in Interior Kalimantan: The case of the Nalin Taun ritual among the Bentian. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 37(2):315-334. Sjamsuddin, H. 1989 Fighting Dutch Rule in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries: The social, political, ethnic and dynastic roots of resistance in South and Central Kalimantan 1859-1906. Ph.D. Dissertation, Monash University, Melbourne. Sokolovskii, S, Valery, T. 2010 Ethnicity. In: A. Barnard and J. Spencer, eds., The Routledge Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. New York: Routledge, pp. 240-243. 256 Borneo Research Bulletin Vol. 45

Tyler, S. ed. 1969 Cognitive Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Van Klinken, G. 2006 Colonizing Borneo: State-Building and Ethnicity in Central Kalimantan. Indonesia 81: 23-49. Wadley, R. 2000 Reconsidering an Ethnic Label in Borneo; The Maloh of West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 156 (1): 83-101. Wanly, T. 2011 Mengenal dan Memahami Sejarah Asal Usul Suku Dayak Siang di Kabupaten Murung Raya Kalimantan Tengah, Cerita Dayak, http://www. ceritadayak.com/2012/01/mengenal-dan-memahami-sejarah-asal-usul. html, accessed 25/8/2014. Weinstock, J. 1983 Kaharingan and the Luangan Dayaks: Religion and identity in central-east Borneo. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University. Wilkinson, R. J. 1959 A Malay-English Dictionary. London: Macmillan. Wurm S. and S. Hattori 1981-1983 Map 42: “Southern Part of Kalimantan,” Language Atlas of the Pacific Area, Australian Academy of the Humanities in collaboration with the Japan Academy.

Unattributed Sources: Budaya Dayak – Suku dan Bahasa (Dayak Culture – Ethnicity and Lanaguage), http:// budayakalteng.blogspot.com.au/p/suku-dan-bahasa.html, accessed 25/8/2014. Murung Raya Dalam Angka 2009 (Murung Raya in Figures 2009), a publication of the government of Murung Raya Regency, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Kalimantan Tengah Dalam Angka 2013 (Central Kalimantan in Figures 2013), a publication of the government of Central Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. Siang in Indonesia, The Joshua Project http://joshuaproject.net/peoples.php?peo3=14933, accessed 24/10/12. Suku Dayak Siang (Dayak Siang Ethnic Group), http://protomalayans.blogspot.com. au/2012/07/suku-dayak-siang.html, accessed 25/8/2014. Copyright of Borneo Research Bulletin is the property of Borneo Research Council and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.