R. Needham Principles and Variations in the Social Classification of Komodo

R. Needham Principles and variations in the social classification of Komodo

In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 142 (1986), no: 1, Leiden, 52-68

This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access RODNEY NEEDHAM

PRINCIPLES AND VARIATIONS IN THE SOCIAL CLASSIFICATION OF KOMODO

i In recent years, thanks to the admirable linguistic studies carried out by Fr. J. A. J. Verheijen, it has become possible to make new progress in the plotting of prescriptive and composite systems of classification in western Flores, and then to set the findings within a scheme of possible transformations covering much of Nusa Tenggara Timur (Needham 1980b; 1984; forthcoming). The publication of Verheijen's monograph (1982) on the island of Komodo, at the western tip of Flores, permits an extension of the task of structural comparison, and an analysis of this work proves to implicate matters of unusual theoretical significance. The system has already been characterised in a simple formula (Needham 1984, sec. III), on the basis of a relationship terminology kindly made available by Fr. Verheijen in 1981, and the appearance of the full account has since provided the occasion for a deeper study of the Komodo case. The purposes of the present investigation are to justify the structural formula and to bring out from the new evidence some of the singular interest of this system. The crucial part of the exposition that follows is the formal analysis of the terminology of social classification, by reference to prescriptive criteria; but the historical factor has also a critical role, and we need therefore to start with a consideration of what can be reconstructed of the past of Komodo society. Verheijen, writing of a people with a distinct language and their own culture, alludes to a history of some 2000 years. Presumably this did not begin on Komodo, and what Verheijen has in mind is rather a possible connexion with the civilisation of Warloka in western Flores, on the Molo strait. This culture, testified to by archaeo- logical finds of coins and pottery in dispersed cemeteries, is held to have existed between the eleventh and the sixteenth centuries (Verheijen 1982:256). The latter date brings us close to historical events that are more exactly determinable, as well as more directly responsible for the present condition of Komodo.

RODNEY NEEDHAM, who is a Fellow of All Souls and Professor of social anthropology at Oxford, is the author of, among many other publications, Belief, Language and Expe- rience, Chicago 1972, and Against the Tranquility of Axioms, California 1983. Prof. Needham may be reached at All Souls College, Oxford, England.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access Principles and Variations in the Social Classification ofKomodo 53

Traders from southern Sulawesi were sailing to many parts of the Indonesian archipelago, including Sumbawa, from the middle of the fifteenth century (Andaya 1981:19). About 1530 the Makasarese state of Gowa began to conquer its neighbouring states, and by the mid-sixteenth century it was a major trading power in eastern Indonesia (Rick- lefs 1981:45). Between 1618 and 1623 Gowa also absorbed all of the tiny kingdoms in western Sumbawa, and in 1633 it conquered Bima (Andaya 1981:280). Gowa itself, however, came under attack from the Dutch and their formidable ally the Buginese prince Arung Palakka, and by mid-1669 it was decisively defeated (Ricklefs 1981:63). Arung Pa- lakka then waged a series of devastating campaigns in southern Sula- wesi, and in consequence large numbers of Makasarese and Buginese fled abroad during nis reign (Andaya 1981:3 et passim). In 1671 condi- tions of life had become so intolerable that many people from Wajo thus went overseas, some of them to Sumbawa, and by 1675 the Dutch were gravely concerned by the large numbers of Makasarese refugees roving through that island, where they now settled (Andaya 1981:142, 163). Already, in 1662, the Sultan of Bima had laid claim, against the Dutch, to the more distant island of Sumba (Roo van Alderwerelt 1906:5), and the Bimanese certainly included Komodo under their rule from this century on (Verheijen 1982:256). When Gronovius sailed to Sumba in 1846 (cf. Roo van Alderwerelt 1906:63), he found the Bimanese town of "Sapie" (Sapé) very populous and inhabited by Buginese and their descendants (Gronovius 1855: 297). He also reported pirates from the Komodo strait who from time to time attacked the coast of Sumba, where they captured as many people as they could and then took them away as slaves (Gronovius 1855:297). Presumably these pirates too were Buginese, or else Makasarese; in either case it was not only Sumba that they plundered. In a legend of the foundation of the village of Komodo it is related that this was attacked by pirates from Butung, southeastern Sulawesi, who returned to "the land of the pirates, called Butung" (Verheijen 1982:47,49). The harbour was probably used also by slave traders from Sumba and Endeh, who would have constituted an additional danger to the inhabitants of Komodo until at length, and not until the first decade of the present century, the slave trade in these waters was effectively suppressed (cf. Needham 1983). Historically, the people of Komodo did indeed come under attack by pirates until by 1847 the islanders - "a group of at most a hundred persons" - had left Komodo for Bima, where they settled. In 1855 Komodo was reported to be uninhabited, though its safe haven, lying as it did half-way between Manggarai and Bima, must at any time, and whether or not there were people there, have remained attractive to ships bearing either natural produce or slaves (Verheijen 1982:3,37, 72 n. 31; Zollinger 1850:53). Eventually, however, some at least of the Komodo people moved back to the island; we shall see below the

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access 54 Rodney Needham linguistic evidence that it must have been they. In 1930 they still num- bered only 143. When Verheijen visited Komodo in 1977 the village headman put the total at 505 (Verheijen 1982:2), meaning that in less than half a century, as Verheijen emphasizes, the population had trebled (Verheijen 1982:68 n. 11). This increase must largely be accounted for by the fact that "a great part of the population of Komodo originates from Manggarai, especially western Manggarai" (Verheijen 1982:38). It is immigration, in fact, rather than the overall number, that is the really important factor behind the present analysis. The population of Komodo, small though it may be, is very hetero- geneous in origin. Traditional indications of this are provided by the Komodo narrative of the establishment of the village Modo (Verheijen 1982:44-55). At first there were only Komodo people on the island; then there came a Sumbanese, followed in turn by a man from Mangga- rai, some Ambonese, people from Kapu (the western part of Bajo, in western Manggarai), Sapé, Bugis, and others from Wélak in the interior of Manggarai. Also the sultanate of Bima, until perhaps the beginning of this century, used Komodo as a place of exile (Bezemer 1921:254), possibly for political recalcitrants and criminals. Verheijen (1982:3) suggests that it may have been a settlement for slaves and debtors, and perhaps including convicts, under the supervision of a representative of the sultan of Bima. It does not appear whether any of these outsiders remained on the island after their period of banishment. The actual composition of the population, as counted by Verheijen (1982:3) and assorted by places of origin of male heads of family is as in Table 1. Eight of the family heads immigrated within the last thirty years, i.e. since about the end of the second world war and the subsequent independence of Indonesia. Four came from eastern Sumbawa (two in the last few years), two from Lénténg (the father of one was from Komodo), one from Endeh, and one was a Buginese from Labuanbajo in western Manggarai. Of the five women who immigrated during the same period, three were fluent in the Bajo language, one in Bimanese, and one in Manggarai. There are also, it should be mentioned, a few Komodo- speakers on the neighbouring island of Rinca, between Komodo and Manggarai (Verheijen 1982:3, 68 n. 12). The varied constitution of the population of Komodo is matched by a linguistic variety also. A number of officials who visited the island have reported that the language spoken there is a mixture of other tongues, but there exists nonetheless a distinct Komodo language (Verheijen 1982:35, 40, 42). The original and independent character of this language is demonstrated by the feasibility of discriminating the others from which words have been incorporated into it. In a list of 1615 words, Verheijen (1982:37,39) isolates 504 as demonstrably original Komodo, and in addition almost as many (393 words) that are specifically Ko- modo. Among the languages that have been incorporated into Komodo,

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access Principles and Variaüons in the Social Classification of Komodo 55

Table 1. Komodo Families by Places of Origin.

Origin No. of families Percentage

Manggarai Lo'ok 5 Lénténg 5 Kenari 1 Sésok 7 Tado 5 Munting 11 Wélak 2 (unknown) 4 40 47.0

Eastern Sumbawa Bima and Sapé 25 29.5

Sumba 6 7.0

Various places Solor 3 Bonerate 2 Ambon 2 Endeh (Flores) 1 Buginese places 2 Bajo villages 4 14 16.5 85 100.0

the largest contribution is made by Bima; as Verheijen writes (1982:37), this is readily comprehensible when we consider that the refugees from Komodo were socially and economically weak, as well as few in number, and that they lived, possibly dispersed, for several decades in Bima. The next largest source of alien vocabulary is Manggarai; this language accounts for 159 words, though given the "great affinity" between the two languages it is easy to accept that about half of these belong to both Komodo and Manggarai (Verheijen 1982:38-9). Then of course there are Malay or Indonesian words, and finally a scattering of words from languages of southern Sulawesi, though it is difficult to say whether they come from Makasarese, Buginese, Bajo, or some other language of that region. After the elimination from the word list of 144 duplicated forms, leaving a total of 1471 etymologically comparable words, Verheijen arrivés at a distribution by origin as in Table 2. It will be noted that 61 per

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access 56 Rodney Needham cent of the words are either proto-Komodo or specifically Komodo, well sustaining Verheijen's conclusion that Komodo is a distinct and independent language (Verheijen 1982:40). Furthermore, Verheijen has made another analysis, based on the Swadesh 100-word list, which confirms that Komodo is certainly a separate language and that it is most

Table 2. Distribution of Komodo Words by Origin. Number Percentage

AN, IN, BS, MA (original Komodo) 504 34.3 specifically Komodo 393 26.7 Bimanese (loan) words 249 16.9 estimated loans from Manggarai 159 10.8 Malay/Indonesian 120 8.2 Buginese, Bajo, Makasarese 46 3.1 1471 100.0

Abbreviations: AN, Austronesian; BS, Bima-Sumba; IN, proto-Indonesian; MA, Manggarai language group. closely related to Manggarai (Verheijen 1982:40). The rates of cognate words in this special comparison are: Manggarai, 65.2 per cent; Bima- nese, 41.9; Indonesian, 37.8; Bajo, 35.9. Finally, there are in addition syntactic considerations which again demonstrate the distinct character of Komodo and the connection with Manggarai; in particular, there are no fewer than eleven features in which Komodo corresponds with the languages of the Manggarai group (Verheijen 1982:41-2).

II Verheijen lists the Komodo relationship terms in two ways: first in alphabetical order, with etymological indications of derivation or cognates, followed by genealogical specifications (1982:17-18); then in an English-Komodo list in which abbreviated genealogical specifications, also in alphabetical order, are followed by the terms (18-19). In addition, the terms are represented in the four vocabularies: Komodo-In- donesian-Dutch-English (76-136), Indonesian-Komodo (137-164), Dutch-Komodo (165-196), and English-Komodo (197-224). There is not a complete correspondence between the Consolidated lists and the Komodo vocabulary; in three instances further specifications are to be traced in the latter place, and one of these is crucial in the formal analysis. The complete terminology is as in Table 3. Let us first survey it by running through the terms individually. The intention is not to re- produce all the information that Verheijen provides in his first list, but to supply incidental comments that will clarify at certain points the inter-

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access Principles and Variations in the Social Classification ofKomodo 57

Table 3. Komodo Relationship Terms.

1. ama F ama-dua (-tua) FeB, MeZH ama-kia FyB, MyZH 2. anaq S, D, BC, WZC, ZC(w.s.), HBC 3. ari yB, yZ(w.s.), FByS, FByD(w.s.), FZyS, MZyS, MByD(w.s.), MZyD(w.s.) • WyZ, WyZH, yZH(w.s.), HyB, HyBW 4. ariana WP 5. bebéndé PPPP, CCCC 6. dua (=ama-dua) MeZ 7. ha (haha) eB, eZ(w.s.), FZeD(w.s.), MZeD(w.s.), eZH(w.s.), WeZH 8. ina M ina-dua MeZ, FeBW ina-kia MyZ, FyBW 9. ingkia MyZ, FyBW 10. ipah BW(w.s.), WBW, HZ, HZH, SWM(w.s.), DHM(w.s.) 11. fcafca eZ, eBW, FBeD, MZeD, WeZ, ?eZH(w.s.) 12. késa ZH, WB, SWF, DHF 13. fcoa ZC, DH, HZC 14. /ago WHZ 15. lahi H 16. mamo FZ, FZH, HP 17. na B(w.s.), FBS(w.s.), FZS(w.s.), MBS(w.s.), MZeS(w.s.), SWF(w.s.), DHF(w.s.) 18. ncawa Z, FByD, FZD, MBD, MZyD, SWM, DHM 19. pwa MB.MBW 20. na/w (=ariana) 21. wfca eB, FBeS, FZeS, MZeS, eZH 22. umpu PF,CC 23. UH CCC 24. wa/ PM, CC(w.s.) 25. wam PPP 26. w« W 27. woté SW, WBC, BC(w.s.)

pretation of the list. The terms examined will retain the numbers under which they appear in the table. 1. ama-tua. The alternative form (cf. ama-dua) is not found in the Komodo list (17) but appears under the specification FeB in the "English" list (18). 2. anaq. Can be qualified by adding the suffix -moné, male, to give S; -winé, female, D. 3. ari. The specifications FByS, MByD, etc. prompt a query. It is not usual that within FBS there should be distinguished terminologically the

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access 58 Rodney Needham younger/youngest member of the class of persons denoted, i.e. relative to the other members of the class. The normal distinction is between those who are older and those who are younger relative to Ego. In this case a useful convention is to qualify the entire specification of the class (e.g. FBS) by placing at the end of it either "e" (elder) or "y" (younger); e.g. FBSe, FBSy. There are numerous other specifications in Verheijen's list that would seem to call for this representation rather than for the internal distinctions of age that are literally reported. In the present analysis, however, it is the forms reported in the ethnography that must be kept to, though with the implicit suggestion in each case that the alternatives might well be kept in mind. 4. ariana. Cf. Bim. riyana, father-in-law, mother-in-law (Jonker 1893:86). 6. dua. Specified as MeZ in the Komodo vocabulary (85, 90). Cf. Bim. tuha, honoured (Jonker 1893:106). 7. ha. In view of the preponderance of w.s. specifications, the two m.s. specifications attract attention. The source is repeatedly clear, however, that ha is eB in relation to yB, not to yZ (88); also there is no doubt that a woman's elder brother is na to her. It is noteworthy, too, that the other m.s. specification, viz. WeZH, is similarly a masculine specification, i.e. one in which the final component denotes a masculine status. 8. ina. Cf. Bim. ina, mother (Jonker 1893:26). Verheijen also men- tions incidentally, without definition, the term emaq (19). It is not in the list of Komodo terms or in the "English" list. It is however to be found in the Komodo vocabulary (86), with the translation "mother", and also in the Indonesian-Komodo vocabulary (145, s.v. ibu), in the Dutch- Komodo (180, s.v. moeder), and in the English-Komodo (211, s.v. mother). In the Komodo vocabulary it is glossed as "bhs [bahasa] kanak-kanak", small children's talk (86). 8. ina-kia. Wherëas ina-dua is evidently the standard term for MeZ, ina-kia is "seldom" used for MyZ (17), and irigkia takes its place; thus there is no separate entry in the vocabulary under ina-kia (90). 12. késa. Described as a loan word from Manggarai (38). Verheijen comments: "The terms for 'brother-in-law' are readily borrowed; e.g. in Manggarai, in addition to the original késa, éja has been adopted from an eastern language and kéla from a western . .. The original Komodo was probably *héra" (72 n. 33). 13. koa. Contrast Bim. rido, son-in-law (Jonker 1893:86). 14. lago. Derived from Makasarese and Bajo (17), or else from Bajo alone (72 n. 33); "seldom used" (17). 16. mamo. The Komodo list specifies only HP (17); the crucial specifications FZ and FZH are supplied by the "English" list (18) and by the Komodo vocabulary (105). 18. ncawa. Cf. Bim. amantjawa [amancawa], sister (Jonker 1893:2).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access Principles and Variations in the Social Classification ofKomodo 59

19. pua. Cf. Bim. puwa (also Buginese puwang), master, mistress; "title by which a slave addresses his master" (Jonker 1893:83). 21. uba. Cf. Bim. uba (Bug. uwa), high form for ama, father (Jonker 1893:111). "Inaddress, insteadof wèaone can also sayfcéra" (Verheijen 1982:19). 22. umpu. Cf. Bim. ompu (Bug. opu, lord, master), grandfather; grandson, granddaughter (Jonker 1893:75-6). 24. wai. Cf. Bim. wai, grandmother; granddaughter (Jonker 1893: 114). 25. waro. Cf. Bim. waro, great-grandfather, great-grandmother (Jonker 1893:114). 26. wéi. Cf. Bim. wei, wife, spouse (female); kawèi, to marry, take as wife (Jonker 1893:115).

III With the above brief comments, comparisons, and minor consolidations, the Komodo terminology can be regarded as established. The next task is to carry out a formal analysis. There are enough lineal indications (e.g. FB ¥= MB; S ¥= ZS) to justify representing this as a lineal terminology. There are also indications of asymmetry (e.g. FZH =£ MB; WBS =É DH); and in addition there are equations (e.g. ZH = FZS; DH = ZS) that hint of prescriptive relations. Let us therefore directly represent the Komodo terminology in a scheme of asymmetrie prescriptive alliance, as in Figure 1, and take this scheme as the provisional basis for a systematic interpretation. The first point to strike the attention, in the second ascending genealogical level (+2), is the discrimination by sex between umpu and wai, and then correspondingly in the second descending level (—2) the appellation of CC as umpu by a man and as wai by a woman. These features have, however, no special connexion with an asymmetrie classification and are not structurally diagnostic in any other respect. In level +1 the distinction of the terms accords with asymmetry, but there are redundancies to a strictly prescriptive classification in the distinctions MB + WF and MBW ¥= WM. At the level of reference there are contrariant indications. The first is that MBD, which according to the articulation o.f the scheme presented in Fig. 1 ought to be the prescribed category, is denoted by the same term as Z. The second is that ZH and WB (késa) stand in a symmetrie relation. Nevertheless there remains what can be seen as an asymmetrie cast to the distribution of terms overall. The features in question are: Z = DHM; FZS = B; and FZD = Z. The three statuses in question are thus specified consistently with an asymmetrie (matrilateral) prescription. The incidence of ncawa as SWM is open to a simple explanation: given only the minimal three lines, as depicted, then SWM = FZD. The incidence of ipah at the same location, giving SWM ^ WBW, departs

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access o

« f. m. f. m. f. m. f. umpu, FF HW, FM umpu, MF tvai, MM

pua, MB pwa,MBW mamo, FZH mamo, FZ ami, F, FB, MZH ina, M, MZ, FBW ariana, WF ariana, WM uba, eZH, FZS wfta, eB, FBS, ipa/i, WBW I ncawa, FZD késa, ZH, DHF ncawa, Z, FBD, MZS ncawa, MBD tóa, WB, SWF «cawa, SWM ari, FZS MZD,DHM ari, yB, FBS, MZS f koa, ZD koa, ZS, DH anak, D anak, S woté, SW, WBD woté, WBS umpu, DD umpu, DS umpu, SD umpu, SS

Fig. 1. Komodo terminology arranged as in asymmetrie alliance.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access Principles and Variations in the Social Classification ofKomodo 61 from the simplest constitution of an asymmetrie classification but is not contradictory. The first descending Ievel presents a neatly consistent distribution of terms, with no duplication and no problematical denotations; they are consistent with an asymmetrie prescription and are incongruent with a symmetrie. The second descending Ievel presents no problems, and no diagnostic features either. A parallel examination of the terms used by a woman reveals corresponding features. (There is hence no need for a separate figure.) Within the same asymmetrie scheme, female Ego is married to FZS, and this status is denoted by the same term (na) as that for B and for MBS; in the Ievel of reference the terms can as well be accommodated in a symmetrie scheme. In the first descending Ievel the distribution of the terms is the same as in Fig. 1. The term in Ievel —2 is peculiar to a woman but is structurally uninformative. In purely formal respects, then, the outcome is that the Komodo terminology of social classification most nearly approximates the structure of an asymmetrie prescription. The formula already published (Needham 1984, sec. III and table) represents the Komodo system by the formula: A (S) A. That is, in the medial three genealogical Ievels (+1, 0, —1) respectively the definitive relations are: asymmetrie - (symmetrie) - asymmetrie. The definition of the Ievel of reference as symmetrie, in a qualified sense (the parentheses indicating that the relation is incomplete), derives from the equations FZD = MBD and ZH = WB. There is a case for defining this Ievel as (A), asymmetrie, by reason of the asymmetry imparted by the correspondence of collateral and patrilateral terms; but whether this feature should override the symmetrie component is a question that depends on criteria of comparison that are uncertain (Needham 1984, sec. V) and perhaps even inde- terminable. For the present, a reasonable decision is to register the Ievel of reference as (S). Certainly there is not an unqualified prescriptive symmetry: the status (FZD/MBD) that would be prescribed in a hypo- thetical two-Iine system is not distinguished from Z; in the affinal line there is a distinction between affinal and patrilateral cross-cousin (FZS) terms; and the registration is incomplete in that the denotation of MBS(m.s.) is lacking. As a general characterisation, then, it can be concluded that in the Komodo terminology we have a composite classification, preponderantly asymmetrie, in which at the Ievel of reference there is a strong symmetrie component.

IV With regard to institutions the ethnography is understandably not very detailed, and what is reported does not provide much guidance

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access 62 Rodney Needham in the elucidation of the structure of the terminology. In a special section devoted to relationship terms and alliances (19) Verheijen presents nevertheless some clear evidence of a wide dis- crepancy between classification and social action. He did not succeed in finding a specific designation for wife-givers or wife-takers. In ordinary intercourse the pattern of behaviour towards FB seemed not to differ from that with respect to MB or to FZH, "even though the terms lead one to expect a different attitude". Moreover, "marriages between all children of all brothers and sisters are both permitted and practised". Verheijen finds this unexpected, on the ground that marriages are between classificatory na (w.s.) and ncawa (m.s.), which are "primarily" (a false premise) B and Z; also the identical appellation koa for DH and for ZC(m.s.), and consistently woté for SW and for BC(w.s.), does not lead one to suppose that "marriages here are possible vice versa". A detail about the employment of the terminology is that the elder brother and elder sister, with their spouses, are addressed by both sexes with a separate, "and undoubtedly respectful", term uba or kaka. The ethnographer is not in a position to say how far a special social relationship is associated with this practice. He does however add the significant comment that in address késa is also said instead of uba. Apparently the inference to be drawn is that késa, in addition to being readily borrowed (72 n. 33), can be employed as a term of respectful address, probably among coevals, and not exclusively between affines. These particulars do not permit a systematic examination of the relation between terminology and alliance. The section devoted ex- plicitly to marriage (16-17) is no more decisive; Verheijen did not make a special investigation into marriage, but he does supply some interesting details. It seems that young people become engaged without the fore- knowledge of the parents; pre-marital sexual intercourse is not pun- ished, though if an unmarried girl becomes pregnant the putative father has to marry her. Bridewealth is paid by the groom's parents; it is used mainly for the expenses of the wedding. There exists "(still)" among old people "a quite weak preference for the marriage of one of their sons to the daughter of a brother of the mother, but neither the youth nor the girl is forced into it". The sororate, in the form of marriage with the deceased wife's younger sister, occurs, as also does the levirate (apparently in fact widow-inheritance). Verheijen was told that the marriage prohibitions are those of Islam. Incest (the word for which is not given) includes "intercourse" between relatives in the direct line; between step-brother and step-sister; with the spouse's sister, so long as the wife is alive; with the brother or sister of a parent; and between HZH and WBW, the spouses of a brother and sister. In fact there is one tolerated instance of a surviving marriage with the FyWD, the daughter of a later wife of the father, and thereby a step-sister.. A marriage that people found un- toward was that of a man with his ZDHZ, the sister of the husband of his

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access Principles and Variations in the Social Classification of Komodo 63 sister's daughter; Verheijen was enjoined that one should better keep quiet about such things. Polygyny is evidently permitted, but in 1977 no man had two wives. Divorce seldom occurs; if it does, "the children are always considered in the first instance as belonging to the husband" (16). Finally, in practice all those who marry remain in the village; a man from outside who marries a girl from the village is supposed to stay there; only very seldom is a woman brought in from outside (17). There is very little in these reports that is reminiscent of prescriptive alliance. It is interesting, however, that there is a slight preference for MBD marriage, which accords with the scheme of interpretation pro- posed in section III above. The prohibition on marriage with WBW also agrees, for within a three-line classification WBW = FZD. The repre- hensible union with ZDHZ would have meant marriage with a woté, but there is no indication of the reason for which such a marriage is blamed. In a strictly prescriptive system this status would be prohibited by reason of the genealogical level (-1), but a prohibition on this ground is not a secure diagnostic and cannot be taken as evidence. for a prescriptive system on Komodo. For that matter, it is not even clear what sort of descent system is in force or therefore what institutions may correspond to the descent lines that frame Figure 1. The only groups for which there 'is specific evidence are the "families", which appear indeed to be house - holds (2-3). The English-Komodo vocabulary includes the word "clan", glossed as turuna (201); but there is no corresponding suku in the Indonesian-Komodo vocabulary (160); and Kmd. turuna is traced to Bimanese and translated merely by Ind. turunan, descent (131). Ver- heijen does indeed write of a "clan" called Komodo, and also of "founding clans" from Sumba and elsewhere (4), but he explains in a nbte that he uses the term "clan" in a wide sense (68 n. 17) and thus not strictly to denote a unilineal descent group. References to ancestors (forefathers) of the clan on Komodo, together with the right of the father over his children in case of divorce, conduce to the impression that descent is patrilineal. Also, the people of Komodo are all Muslim (13), which accords, though not necessarily, with the inference. But definite evidence is lacking. It is therefore not feasible to establish a correlation between the classification and the organisation of social life, or even to estimate the degree of.significant association. Yet in the end this does not matter for the purpose in hand. The present investigation is concerned with the mode of social classification, and, even if this is not completely consistent, we possess enough evidence for an analysis of it.

V A notable aspect of the Komodo terminology is that it is composed of terms from a number of different languages. Verheijen discriminates the derivations of such terms (19) as follows:

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access 64 Rodney Needham

(a) original Komodo: ama, anaq, ari, bebéndé, haha (ha), ina, ipah, lahi, mamo, na, and usi; (b) Bimanese: dua, ncawa, pua, riana, uba, umpu, wai, waro, and wéi; (c) Manggarai: késa, koa, and woté; (d) Makasarese: kaka; and from Makasarese or Bajo: probably emaq and lago. Let us accept the derivations as they stand, even if there are etymological considerations that could be gone into. For instance, Kmd. mamo (FZ, FZH) reminds one of Lamba-Léda Tenggara mama (MB) and Rembong mama (MB, FZH, WF), at the eastern limits of the Manggarai linguistic area (Verheijen 1967:308; 1978, 3:100, 101; cf. Needham 1985, sec. II), and also of Ngadha mamé, "uncle" (Arndt 1961:312). There is also Ind. mamak, (maternal) uncle, to take into account, not to mention Proto-Austronesian *mama', maternal uncle (Wurm and Wilson 1975:228 s.v. uncle, maternal). Sirnilarly, Verheijen notes that it is not to be excluded that ncawa (Z etc.) is to be traced back directly to IN and PN *tawa, which is also represented in the Bima-Sumba grouping (Verheijen 1982:70 n. 42); cf. Dempwolff (1938:149), [f]ava[% spouse; Wurm and Wilson (1975:199) s.v. spouse. More comprehensive derivations, such as these, are indeed fundamentally important, especially in Iarge-scale AN comparisons of lexical items and their fluctu- ating senses, but for the present it is the closer and more recent linguistic influences that call for examination. From a structural point of view it is clear that the original Komodo terms alone are not sufficient to compose a system of any kind. Likewise, the Bimanese terms, though numerous and in important locations, neither compose nor indicate a system. The Manggarai terms, although critical in levels 0 and — 1, are inconsistent as between these two levels, at any rate with their current specifications. Moreover, in spite of the positive report that the greater part of the present population originates from Manggarai, there are only these three Manggarai terms in use. The Makasarese or Bajo terms appear to have no systematic importance, even ïflago (WZH) must have had some social significance in order to be adopted and to survive at all. In the main, then, it is the Bimanese terms that are numerically preponderant and that occupy the largest number of locations in the matrix (Fig. 1). On historical grounds this is readily understandable. Western Flores was under Bimanese control or influence from before 1750, and Bimanese sway extended as far as Réo, which was fortified in 1776. Notwithstanding political competition by Gowa, an uprising by the people of Manggarai in 1819, and the establishment of a Dutch presence in 1907/8, Manggarai remained under Bimanese authority until 1929 (Nooteboom 1950:207-09, 211). The use of Komodo as a safe haven and staging post between Bima and Flores could thus have exerted a more or less continuous Bimanese influence on Komodo for well over two centuries. This influence is

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access Principles and Variations in the Social Classification of Komodo 65 testified to culturally by the proportion of nearly 17 per cent of Bima- nese words in Verheijen's vocabulary (Table 2) and also, no doubt, by the conversion of the islanders to Islam. In addition to all this, moreover, the people of Komodo actually removed to Bima itself, where they lived among Bimanese for possibly some decades. It is against this back- ground that we can speculate on the introduction of Bimanese and also Manggarai terms into Komodo social classification. This exercise cannot be at all conclusive, but it is a line of analysis that has nonetheless to be followed up. Let us start at the top genealogical level and work rapidly down. The form umpu is hardly significant as an adoption from Bimanese ompu, since it is so close to Manggarai empo (cf. Needham 1980b:67, table 7), but wai is a clear intruder. In the first ascending level there seem to have been crucial changes in what must have been the original Komodo classification. To judge by the apparent cognates of mamo throughout western Flores, it looks as though this term, as MB, was displaced by Bim. pua and reallocated to patrilateral locations; under the specification FZH, it could have signalled or even introduced a third descent line. In the level of reference, Bim. ncawa has clearly displaced Komodo terms; cf. weta in Manggarai. Bim. uba (cf. M. ka'é) complements Kmd. ari, a term which in any case is also Bimanese. The crucial Manggarai term késa probably had a Kmd. predecessor *héra, according to Ver- heijen, but there is no evident means of reconstructing the systematic functions of this latter term; M. késa is used in the symmetrie termi-. nology of central Manggarai (cf. Needham 1980b:62, table 5) and also in the mainly asymmetrie terminology of western Manggarai (cf. Needham 1980b:67, table 7). In the first descending level the terms woté and koa are both taken to be Manggarai; the former term extends throughout this linguistic area as far to the east as Rembong (Rmb. wotéq), and the latter, as DH, is part of the common Manggarai terminology and specifically of the otherwise symmetrie classification of central Manggarai (cf. Needham 1980b:56, table 1; 62, table 5). Although this pair of terms best accords with an asymmetrie classification, they are not diagnostic in this sense and they provide no clue as to the original Komodo terminology - if indeed this was different. If they did replace Komodo terms, there is still no means of reconstructing what the specifications of these might have been, let alone the type of system to which they belonged. Finally, in the second descending level, the Bim. umpu is a reciprocal (m.s.) of PF and is undiagnostic; it could form part of a symmetrie or of an asymmetrie classification. In the outcome, then, the only sign of structural change, or at least of a change with structural concomitants, is the inferred displacement of Kmd. mamo by Bim. pua. Since there is no evident way of deciding in what sequence the individual foreign terms were introduced, it cannot be inferred whether or not the present distribution of woté and koa is a

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access 66 Rodney Needham consequence of the asymmetrie funetion of mamo after its supposed displacement. The original Komodo classification could have been either symmetrie or asymmetrie, though possibly not consistently so in either case. Taken structurally, it was perhaps a composite system, i.e. one eomposed of unlike preseriptive relations (cf. Needham 1984), just as is the present terminology. Making due allowance for the linguistic singularity of Komodo, the form of social classification on the island may well have been congruent with the preponderantly asymmetrie terminology of western Manggarai. But of course much depends on how far back the conjecture is carried. Just as it can be argued that both systems of classification in Manggarai are transformations of a consistently symmetrie classification (Needham 1980b:74; cf. 1984), so it can well be conceived that the Komodo classification also was previously symmetrie. Lastly there remains to be emphasised the remarkable tenacity of the structure of this classification. Despite the dominance of Bima for possibly as long as three centuries (Verheijén 1982:256), the introduction of numerous terms from Bimanese and Manggarai, and migrations away from and back to the island, there has eventuated (perhaps persisted) a structure that is recognizably cognate with others in this region of Nusa Tenggara Timur. This outcome cannot wholly be ascribed to the reihforcement effected by immigrants and their institutions. The Sumbanese who by tradition were early arrivals on Komodo may not have come from parts of Sumba where asymmetrie preseriptive systems prevailed; if they came from anywhere to the west of Mamboru their own1 classification would have been non-prescriptive (Needham 1980a), and all they would have con- tributed would be a commitment to the practice of asymmetrie (matrilateral) alliance that is common throughout Nusa Tenggara Timur (Needham 1984). In any event, there are no distinctly Sumbanese terms in the Komodo vocabulary. The Bimanese would not have imported preseriptive modes of classification. It is the immigrants from western Manggarai, if anyone, who would have effected a continuity between their own form of classification and that of Komodo; but if that is what took place they did so through the medium of a terminology that was in fair part alien to them. A more likely course of events is that there was already a continuity of structure between western Manggarai and Komodo, together with the linguistic continuity that Verheijén has demonstrated. In the sphere of social classification, however, the Komodo categories were replaced or displaced in the respects that have been examined above, until in time there evolved the medley of terms that now compose the classification. It is this historical amalgam that nevertheless exhibits the structure which has been isolated in the present analysis.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access Principles and Variations in the Social Classification ofKomodo 67

REFERENCES

Andaya, Leonard Y. 1981 The Heritage ofArung Palakka: A History of South Sulawesi (Celebes) in the Seventeenth Century, Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 91, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Arndt, Paul 1961 Wörterbuch der Ngadhasprache, Studia Instituti Anthropos 15, Posieux, Fri- bourg. Bezemer, T. J. (ed.) 1921 Beknopte Encydopaedie van Nederlandsch-Indië, Leiden: Brill; The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff; Batavia: Kolff. Dempwolff, Otto 1938 Austronesisches Wörterverzeichnis, Berlin: Dietrich Reimer; Hamburg: Frie- derichsen, De Gruyter. Gronovius, D. J. van Dungen 1855 'Beschrijving van het eiland Soemba of Sandelhout', Tijdschrift voor Neder- landsch Indië 17, pp. 277-312. Jonker, J.C.G. 1893 Bimaneesch-Hollandsch Woordenboek, Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen 48, pt. 1. Needham, Rodney 1980a 'Principles and variations in the structure of Sumbanese society', in: James J. Fox (ed.), The Flow of Life, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, chap. 1. 1980b 'Diversity, structure, and aspect in Manggarai social classification', in: R. Sche- fold et al. (eds.), Man, Meaning, and History, Verhandelingen van het Konink- lijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 89, pp. 53-81, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. 1983 Sumba and the Slave Trade, Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, Working Paper 31, Melbourne: Monash University. 1984 'The transformation of prescriptive systems in eastern Indonesia', in: P. E. de Josselin de Jong (ed.), Unity in Diversity, Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 103, pp. 221-233, Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 1985 'Prescription and variation in Rembong, western Flores', BKI 141 II/III, pp. 275-287. Nooteboom, C. 1950 'Enkele feiten uit de geschiedenis van Manggarai (West-Flores)', Bingkisan Budi, Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff, pp. 207-11. Ricklefs, M. C. 1981 A History of Modern Indonesia: ca. 1300 to the Present, London and Basing- stoke: The Macmillan Press. Roo van Alderwerelt, J. de 1906 'Historische aanteekeningen over Soemba', Tijdschrift van het Bataviaasch Ge- nootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen 48, pp. 185-316. (Cited from sepa- rately paginated offprint, Batavia: Albrecht.) Verheijen, Jilis A. J. 1967 Kamus Manggarai, I: Manggarai-lndonesia, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. 1977/78 Bahasa Rembong di Flores Barat, 3 vols., Ruteng: S.V.D. 1982 Komodo: het eiland, het volk en de taal, Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 96, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access 68 Rodney Needham

Wurm, S. A., and B. Wilson 1975 English Finderlist of Reconstructions in Austronesian Languages (post-Brand- stettef), Pacific Linguistics, Series C, 33, Canberra: Australian National Uni- versity. Zollinger, H. 1850 Verslag eener reis naar Bima en Soembawa, en naar eenige plaatsen op Celebes, Saleijer en Floris, gedurende de maanden Mei tot December 1847, Verhande- lingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen 23, pp. 1-224.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 12:22:03AM via free access