G. Benjamin Temiar Personal Names In: Bijdragen Tot De Taal

G. Benjamin Temiar personal names

In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 124 (1968), no: 1, Leiden, 99-134

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

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEMIAR PERSONAL NAMES

he immediate purpose of this paper is to serve as a response to Needham's suggestion (1964:124) that the confused topic of TTemiar names would be "worth investigation by a government anthro- pologist or a local resident". A copy of Needham's note reached me whüe I was actively engaged in fieldwork among the Temiar,1 providing a much-needed framework of ideas within which to integrate the investigation of names and naming that I had already begun. It had soon become evident that if my general anthropological enquiries were to get anywhere at all I would have to sort out all the complexities of the Temiar naming system. Otherwise it would seem as if names were changed almost daily — with capricious disregard for the ethnographer's difficulties. The apparently cavalier fashion in which Aborigines treat their names and the consequent difficulty in attempting to keep permanent records is a problem that most investigators and administrators come up against. As Williams-Hunt warned members of the Security Forces (1952:66):

One may ask the name of the headman in the next ladang and be met by blank stares there on asking for him by that name or one may employ an Aborigine and suspect him of giving a false name upon hearing him called something else or Aborigines will not answer to names on their identity cards — all difficult points for the Security Forces in the Emergency. More recently Carey, in an account of the Temiar written primarily for Administrative officers, acknowledged the confusion and set out to simplify matters by showing that Temiar names fall into several different

1 Fieldwork in Malaya from February 1964 to August 1965 was made possible by the award of a Homiman Anthropological Scholarship of the Royal Anthro- pological Institute, and latterly by a Studentship of the Ministry of Education and Science. A full set of acknowledgements appears in Benjamin 1966. While I agree that "Temer" is closer to the native tribal name (Tomlr), I use the form "Temiar" here as being more in accord with Standard usage. There is as yet no detailed account of the Temiar, but a fairly accurate picture of their social structure may be gained from Dentan 1964 and Benjamin 1966. Noone, H.D. 1936 and Carey 1961 are useful sources on other aspects of Temiar life.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 100 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN.

categories (with the implication that these categories are by no means mutually exclusive — hence the confusion) (1961:181). Since this paper is intended to add both to the ethnography of the Temiar and to the wider theoretical debate on the nature of naming systems, it will be as well to start by giving some examples of personal naming-histories. The examples come from the village of Hdtnij,2 otherwise known as Kuala Humid, the furthest downstream of the settlements on the Perlob river, which H. D. Noone (1936:19) charac- terises as the largest and most populous tributary of the Betis valley system. His map marks Hdmij as the S. Meik, a small stream arising from the western face of Gunong Ayam. More recently Hdmij has appeared in the literature as the village above Kuala Perolak (the Malay for Perlob) visited by Slimming (1958:151 ff.) on an Ad- ministrative survey. The "Senior Chief called Dalam" who was Slimming's host was one of the major sources of the information discussed in the present papers. Citation of verse and chapter should not lead the reader to imagine that I am describing a purely local state of affairs. Quite the contrary: the details may vary from place to place, but there is good reason to believe that the structural principles involved are valid not only for the Temiar as a whole but also for the other Senoi and Negrito (Semang) groups in northern Malaya. Let us now look at a few case-histories. 1. A married man of about thirty years with three children, of whom one was bom and another died during my stay. His "real name" is ?odêh, given him by his "grandfather". Later in his childhood he was named Paldêw by his father and was generally so called until he went to Kuala Lumpur to train as a worker in simple first-aid. He claims that since those who enrolled him at the hospital could neither pronounce nor write Paldêw they urged him to take a more manageable name! This he did, and chose the name — Malam (Malay, "night") — by which he is now known in the Perlöb area. Although he is still known as PaldEw in other valleys, Malam is what he prefers to be called. In direct address, however, he has been called Baleh since the birth of his first child, a girl. 2. A woman of about forty years, married for the second time but with no surviving children. For most of her life she was called fapjat), but her name changed to 9 a-was when her son died. 3. A man of about forty years, husband of the above. Originally he was known as fataah, ?abajl, or conjointly as fatyih ?abaji. In 1963 he was appointed to be village Wakil (headman's deputy) during the headman's long absence in hospital, and he became known simply as Wakil. His contemporaries, though, still address him as ?ab&ji. To confuse matters further, in earlier Government reports (Slim- ming's?) he is referred to as Angah Rako' (fatyih Rakoi).

2 Citations in the Temiar language are in phonemic script and the characters have approximately their usual phonetic values.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEMIAR PERSONAL NAMES. 101

4. A boy of about six years. He was first called ?alat$, but his father started calling him ?abur "because there were too many ?alat}s". When the time came for him to be entered in official records the (Malay) field officer decided to call him Jabal (i.e. the Malay (Arabic) name Jafar). This is the name he now much prefers and by which I was at first taught to call him. Nevertheless everyone still calls him ?abur. 5. A woman of about twenty-five years, mother of the above. Her "real name" is fatah, given by her father. But she is "ashamed" (seqeji) of this name and prefers to be called either fabon, or ?abur, the name of her son and only surviving child. 6. A man of about forty years, a widower with two young children being brought up by other women of the community. His father named him ïayaw ("for no particular reason; he just named me that!"). After the death of his wife people began calling him by the name of his son and first-born, Jidat, in the variant form ?adat. Recently the Aborigines Department put him in charge of cutting a good quality track to Hmnij from the Administrative post at Betis and he became generally known as Mandöh (Malay: mandor, "foreman"). His own view is that Mandöh is his "wage-receiving name", and that people will now be ashamed (saqep.) to call him fayaw. At the same time, he expects them to continue calling him ïadat as a "spare" or "play" name. 7. The fore-mentioned "Senior Chief", a man of about fifty-five with one wife but no surviving children. For most of his life he has been called faluj, but when some years ago he was appointed to the Government Senior Chiefship of the Betis valley it was thought (by whom is a point they still argue about) that he should take the title Panglima Dalam (Malay, "Chief of the Interior"). This was one of the traditional titles awarded, until the Japanese war, by the mixed Temiar-Malay headman (the so-called mikong; Noone, H.D. 1936:23) who resided at Kuala Betis. Nowadays he claims Dalam as his name, although most people in the village refer to him as Pahulüt (Malay: penghulu, "headman") or Tawat (Malay: (ke)tua, "village elder"). The former is used very much as a personal name, as when the children refer to him as Yak Pahulüt (Grandfather P.), just as they refer to Wakil (case 3) as Yak Baji (Grandfather fabap).

It is obvious even from these brief sketches that to gain a full understanding of Temiar naming one must first appreciate how the various names f all into different classes. To my knowledge the first published reference to differentiated classes of names among the Temiar is by Williams-Hunt (1952: 65). He described how they "name their children in order of birth in Roman fashion often irrespective of sex", and how the resulting confusion is obviated by the use of additional nicknames. Carey also recorded a set of birth-order names and remarked on the "casual" use of nicknames (1961: 181-2). He distinguished two further classes: "names denoting marital status", and "personal names", which latter he regarded as "not widely used". Slimming (1958: 58-9) reported a set of "status or label names — used by communities on both sides of the mountains — which indicate the person's family status", and it was the possibility that these might represent examples of "death-names"

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 102 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN. such as Needham has described for some Bornean tribes (1954b; 1959; 1965) that drew the latter's attention to the Temiar naming system in the first place. In proceeding with this discussion, however, I propose to categorise Temiar names into classes that correspond only in part to those set up by previous writers. For reasons that should become apparent later the classes employed here recur throughout a long line of anthropological writings, and particularly in the recent synthesis by Lévi-Strauss (1962:226-86). The intention is that the various name-classes should act not merely as descriptive terms but form a functionally and logically integrated set. Hopefully, we shall then be better placed to discern whatever meaning there inheres in the system as a whole. For the moment the classes will be limited in number to six: autonyms, birth-order names,3 teknonyms, necronyms, burial names and designations. None of these is particularly new as a concept, but some of the terms have not yet gained general currency and require explanation. Autonym is the anglicised form of the word used by Lévi-Strauss (1962:254) to refer to the proper name in systems, such as this, that incorporate also teknonyms and necronyms. The autonym, then, is that one of each person's names that defines him as an individual as opposed to all other individuals: in the Temiar system the autonym serves furthermore as a unique definition of the eponymous individual. With the exception of designations, the other classes of names are relational rather than oppositional: they define the eponymous individual by reference to other individuals (or "selfs", to echo Lévi-Strauss) instead of in contrast to them. Teknonyms have made frequent appearance in anthropological literature. For present purposes Needham's definition (1954:416) will suffice: a tekonym is "a name which indicates that the person designated by it is the parent of a child". Following Lévi-Strauss, necronym is used here as a more elegant and less am- biguous term for what Needham describes as a "death-name" (1954b). A necronym, then, is assumed on the death of certain relatives and expresses the bearer's relationship to the deceased. Birth-order names refer to the ordinal position by birth that the individual occupies relative to his parents' other children, and hence serve to define the individual by reference to his siblings. A burial name is the mode of reference employed towards a person after his (or her) death. Lastly, designation

3 "Postonym" has been suggested to me as a possible neologism for "birth-ordei name", but enough is enough! In any case, Lévi-Strauss' "fratronym" (see below) fits more meaningfully with the rest of the naming system.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEMIAR PERSONAL NAMES. 103 is used here as a provisional term covering all classes of names not included in the other five classes. Table 1 sets out the class membership for each of the names occurring in the case-histories in their order of appearance. TABLE 1

?odah b. Jabal d. Paldêw a. fatah a. Malam d. faboq d. Baleh t. fabur (2) t. fajijai) b. faydw a. fawas n. Jidar a. fataah b. fadat t. fabiji d. Mandöh d. Wakil d. faluj b. Rakot d. Dalam d. falat) b. Pohulüt d. fabur (1) a. Taw&t d. a. = autonym d. = designation b. = birth-order name n. = necronym t. = teknonvm Let us now look more closely at the internal constitution of each class of names. The Temiar autonym presents the would-be investigator with a serious problem: it is only with the greatest difficulty that a Temiar can be persuaded to divulge either his own or someone else's. I have already quoted Williams-Hunt's warning; but the problem is not new. One of the most perceptive of the earlier investigators remarked: It is a serious offence for a young Mai Darat [= Semai Senoi of Batang Padan] to address an elder by his personal name; such an address afflicts the person addressed with hydrocoele. This belief makes a Sakai very chary about revealing his true name to strangers who may misuse the knowledge. He prefers to describe himself by some Malay designation that means very little. Judging by the fictitious names given to Surveyor Williams on Gunong Korbu the Northern Sakai [= Temiar] show the same unwillingness and probably share the same belief (Wilkinson 1910: 50). My own field data neither deny nor confirm the belief in affliction with hydrocoele; but I can confirm that to address a person of higher generation by name is regarded as a heinous act, and a foolish one insofar as it tempts fate in some undefined way. Such fate-tempting acts are generally believed to bring danger upon the offended party rather than upon the person who offends (cf. the Land Dayak notion of panun, Geddes 1954:54), and in overall terms Wilkinson's account would fit the Temiar case. The important point, however, is that autonyms are

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 104 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN. used openly only in connection with young children. For the most part they are jealously guarded, and this is reflected in the various terms used to refer to the autonym: kdnüh karyed, "name one is miserly, ungenerous, with"; kdnüh henwot, "name one wishes to keep to oneself" ; kdnüh rit, "one's very own name"; kdnüh ?elas, "name to insult, offend, with". (These expressions are not formal terms; they are merely ways in which I heard Terniar informants refer to their autonyms during my many attempts to elicit them.) As case-histories 2., 3., and 7. show, I often failed entirely to elicit informants' own autonyms, nor did I receive enlightenment from their fellows. Only one of the cases (no. 4.) demonstrates open use of the autonym, and that concerns a young child. Adults generally claim to be ashamed {sdf},ep) of their autonym and show signs of real embarrassment on being asked it. Others when asked for the autonym of their elders comply, if at all, in private and in a whisper: "We are sdv>eji to utter our mother's or aunt's autonym", said one young man when asked for his step-mother's name. It is hardly surprising, then, that the young people should genuinely lose knowledge of their elders' names. fabur (case 4.) made a manful attempt to define more clearly for me an old man he was discussing, but failed: ~'?agöh, fayük Gas, yak jdrot juk ?dh — kdnüh td-to? ?i-let)lek; fambdh na-lek\", "Old what's-his-name, Grandpa Kurap,4 Grandpa with the long legs — I don't know his name; Father knows!" The Temiar have no consistent theory as tö why they should hide their autonyms, and most of them failed to proffer any explanation at all beyond reiterating that it was simply their custom (jadad). Never- theless, some made the attempt. One man, for example, claimed that he avoided using his wife's autonym because it had been given her by her parents; avoidance was part of the restraint and shame (seqeji) he feit in respect of his parenits-in-law. But this explanation was refuted by other informants, who preferred to associate the autonym in some way with the head-, or dream-, soul (f3w3y). The relation was never made explicit, and in view of the vagueness of the rsway concept this is hardly surprising. The essential vulnerable lability of one's rèway (in the absence of which life hangs on dazedly for a couple of days and then ceases) is feit to be further jeopardised by indiscriminate utterance of one's autonym. The autonym represents, even "is", the true self: the other classes of names represent the person in society, posing less

4 Kurap is the Malay name for the flaky skin infection, Tinea (imbricata?), that affects many Aborigines.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEMIAR PERSONAL NAMES. 105 of a threat to the autonomy and integrity of the individual.5 Similar ideologies have been reported from a wide range of societies (v. Frazer 1911: 318-334), but more details are required for a fuller understanding. I can only regret the paucity of my own data on this point. Nevertheless, my field data do reveal something of the mechanism through which a high degree of individuation is achieved:. the lingüistic structure of the autonym. The majority of autonyms consist of a mono- morphemic root and an optional vocative prefix, normally fa-. The root takes the canonic form CVC, and in Temiar the number of phonologically possible morphs of this form is 6210.6 An empirical item-by-item check showed that about 1500 of these possible forms are "occupied" by actual Temiar words ór by "starred-form" root morphemes from which actual Temiar words are derivable. The residual 4700-odd forms do not remain unoccupied, however. This became apparent when I ran alphabetically through the list of possible forms for my informants to state whether or not each was an actual Temiar morpheme. It often happened that certain forms, although they had no "meaning", were identified as the names of unique individuals: they responded frequently with such replies as "There's someone in Perak by that name!" In the series with initial /b/, for example, the following were stated to be the names of definite individuals, and to have no other meaning: ban, ba-w, bêh, bén, bdy, bog, bob, bom, etc. The total Temiar population is of the order of 10,000 (Carey 1961: 1, quotes 8500 as the then latest available figure) and the proportion of unoccupied CVC forms to persons is consequently about 1:2. This stock of unused name-forms is, furthermore, increased by vocative prefixes alternative to fa- and by the existence of autonyms with

5 This concern for the autonomy of the individual is not restricted to human beings. There is a striking and significant parallelism in this respect with the way in which animals are referred to in Temiar. Most species possess both a "true name", kanüh mun, and one or more (often many) other names. It is regarded as dangerous to utter the animal's true name in the context of its death (especially as meat), and some of the other names (which generally allude, in a subtle manner, to various aspects of its appearance or behaviour) are employed instead (cf. Dentan 1964:179). The same applies to certain cultivated plants such as banana and sugar-cane, and to a slight extent to certain artifacts. In terms of Temiar religion these customs form a logically integrated set. 6 Temiar possesses 19 consonantal, C, phonemes and 18 vocalic, V, phonemes. In forms CTC2 there is a restriction such that where C1 is any of the four . nasals C2. cannpt be any of the four voiceless stops. The total number of phonologically possible CVC forms is therefore (19 x 18 x 19) — (4 x 18 x 4), i.e. 6210.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 106 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN. a polysyllabic structure (e.g. Paldëw, table 1). Since, as we have seen, autonyms tend to drop out of everyday use, and are in any case tabooed after the bearer's death, the unambiguous association of each autonym with a unique individual becomes possible. Viewed against the dispersion of the Temiar in small, self-sufficient communities throüghout an area of over 2500 square miles, what was possible becomes highly probable: that no two Temiar have in practice the same autonym. Complete individuation through autonyms is viabie. Only the young and unmarried are at all likely to be called openly by their autonyms, and even in their case are more likely to be called by birth-order names as they grow older. It is to the latter, relatively well-documented, class of names that we now turn. One of the features that drew Needham's attention to Temiar names was that whereas some Bornean peoples distinguish by name the individual's birth-order after his death, the Temiar do so during his lifetime (1964:121). Needham's accounts suggest that in the Bornean systems the relevant (death-) names state unambiguously the ordinal position by birth of the deceased: among the Penan, for example, Sawang is the name taken on the death of one's fourth-born child, and no other. It has generally been assumed that the Temiar birth-order names are similarly ascribed according to the absolute birth-order position of the eponymous individuals, and the published accounts accordingly arrange them in paradigms of up to nine terms (table 2). My own data are similarly

TABLE 2: BIRTH-ORDER NAMES

SOURCE: Benjamin Williams-Hunt: Carey: (field data) 65 181-2 Perolak (Betis) Sungei Plus Lower Full Short Men Women Betis

?alut) Lu*) Long 1 Andah Along fafyah ryih Alang 2 Teh Angah falcm, Lat} Ngah 3 Uda Adik Pandat m. fandar f. nDa> Pandah 4 Ngah Ashuu fajljaq "Ja*} Itam 5 Anjang Pandak ?adit m. fateh f. Anjang 6 Alig Aluiid ?odsh Udah 7 Itam — Busüt Busu 8 — faluj Luj Alig 9 — arranged, not because I believe the terms represent an absolute order, but because that is the way the Temiar themselves presented the

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEMIAR PERSONAL NAMES. 107 information to me. Indeed, such a paradigmatic exposition of the data is an unavoidable result of the way in which such information is elicited — a result serving only to distort the principles by which the terms are actually applied. As Needham notices, previous accounts recognise the inconsistency between various statements from valley to valley of the forms and order of the birth-order names. But since the names were probably elicited in each valley either from a single informant (as Williams-Hunt explicitly states; 1952:65) or by recording the version agreed upon after discussion among a group of informants (as I did myself), the chances are that an appearance of valley-to-valley variation has been foisted upon an essential lack of definition in the native usage of the terms. A detailed examination of the many sibling sets in the genealogies I collected shows that the birth-order names are ascribed according to the relative, and not the absolute, order of birth. Two further points must be made. Williams-Hunt's account suggests that some communities have different sets of birth-order names for the two sexes. I can only surmise that his Sungei Plus informant was more muddled than most. Although some of the terms have variant female forms the series as a whole does not distinguish between the sexes. Needham's concern over "the apparent confusion and inconsistency between the two series of names" (1964: 122) is seen then to result from faulty reporting by Williams-Hunt. Carey clearly states that "these names indicate order of birth irrespective of sex" (1961: 181) ; but I found no evidence for his contention that they "appear to be important primarily among elders, headmen and chiefs". True, Carey goes on to say that they "are also employed among some commoners", but this would suggest, wrongly, that Temiar society is ranked and that the birth-order names are unevenly applied. Headmanship and chieftainship are not Aboriginal institutions, and in any case have relevance ony to relations with the outside world, especially Govern- ment. IVithin the society authority resides in age and knowledge, not in any status ascribed on the basis of birth. Besides, according to my records the choice of headmen by Government does not proceed by any such rule as primogeniture, nor are headmen necessarily the oldest surviving members of their sibling groups. The evidence is overwhel- ming that birth-order names are of general application in Temiar society: everyone possesses one in theory although in practice many may not be so called. As exemplification Noone's genealogy of the Temiar village of Rening (i?e»jwê»j), Pahang (1936: opp. 21) serves well. An analysis of

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 108 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN.

TABLE 3: ANALYSIS OF NOONE'S GENEALOGY

Birth-order name Autonym Other Long Anga Sawed +1 Along Leut Anda Anjang Angah Andor Soong Aong Pa Bot Uda Along Trawed Ache Abun Abong Along Ateh Aiu Anjou Yenang Atau 0 Anda Alig Achoh Aher Awang Baleh Alig Along Berdei Areg Angah Alang Aong Aboi Abong Tabong Ade Abun -1 Morsi Ameh Aio Ageh

Noone's genealogy (table 3) shows that of the forty-six names it contains no less than seyenteen are birth-order names. The eighteen autonyms are present in approximately the same proportion, so far as it is possible at this distance in time to judge precisely which of the names are truly autonyms.7 However, as table 3 clearly shows, in terms of generational (genealogical level) structure autonyms and birth-order names are inversely distributed: the former predominate in the middle and first descending generations and the latter in the middle and first ascending generations. (The category "other" includes teknonyms and designations). No great statistical validity is claimed for these figures, but they do allow us to see that the distribution of names within the community is interestingly patterned. I shall discuss the significance of this pattern later; suffice it to note here how the analysis bears out that children increasingly as they grow older tend to be called by birth-order names rather than autonyms, and that (allowing for the case of young children) birth-order names are not restricted to certain sections of the community.

7 Noone's. orthography is inaccurate, and my attempts at reading out the names he recorded to the present-day inhabitants of Rening did not always meet with recoghition.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEMIAR PERSONAL NAMES. 109

Birth-order names are not, of course, mutually exdusive with other classes of names, and therein lies a possible source of difficulty for the analyst. It is for this reason that I have concentrated on Noone's genealogy. Both internal and independent evidence suggest that at the time (c. 1933) Noone collected the genealogy he was not aware of the significance of the various names. Since with only one exception he recorded just one name for each individual it is a reasonable assumption that the names are those that first sprang to the minds of his informants, and therefore those that were in common use at the time. From the analytical point of view Noone's "defective" account is of more value than my own attempts to obtain as many as possible of each person's names; by the time my informants had worked out their replies they had become too confused to make an objective statement of the names used preferentially in day-to-day affairs. I was able to record actual usage only in the three or four villages I lived in for any length of time. My many records of other villages must from this point of view be regarded as accounts of potentialities rather than actualities or preferences. There are further complications. Birth-order names are not even mutually exclusive with other birth-order names. On Noone's genealogy, for example, we read that Angah and Ketua Along 8 are one and the same person: a rigid view of the birth-order naming system would lead to the contradiction that "Second-born" was also "Headman First- born"! I have several records of individuals changing from one birth- order name to another, and the Temiar openly admit that this can occur. But despite this overall vagueness in the meaning of the terms three of them have relatively limited significations. ?O/M»J may occasionally be borne by someone not strictly a first-born child (especially in such variant forms as Silut)) but there is no doubt that "first-born" is its root meaning. Such expressions as kgwSs luv, fsh, "his first-born child", and the Temiarised Malay metaphor moldf luiy, "the very

8 This headman's naming-history is in fact very complicated. At various times he seems to have been regarded by outsiders as a Semai rather than a Temiar. In Noone's 1936 genealogy he is unequivocally a Temiar with the alternative names of Angah and Ketua Along; in Noone's note of 1955, however, he appears under the Semai name of Bah Sain (Bah Söji). In the enumeration by the Protector of Aborigines 1953 (no. 34 in P of A 34/53) he is referred to as Batin Kechik (or Kechil), the name by which he is now generally known and which impliës that he is a Temiar headman. In Batin Kechik's possession (carefully preserved in a tube of bamboo) is a letter of reference by the then District Officer of Cameron's Highlands (D.O., C/H 31/10/50) in which he is called Bah Pengasul and regarded explicitly as the leader of a group of Semai Aborigines.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 110 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN.

beginning", show this quite clearly. ?adif derives from the Temiar word pddit, "middle", and is correspondingly applied to someone falling by order of birth in the middle range of his sibling group. ?aluj has a quite definite meaning, its root being the Temiar adjective luj, lejluj, "last by birth", and indicates that the eponymous child marks the end of child-bearing for its parents. {?aluj is also the Temiar culture-hero or First Man, equivalent to Peluig {pd? Luj, "younger sibling Luj" ?) and Ple {Pdlëh) in the writings of I. H. N. Evans and Father Schebesta on the Malayan Negritos. He is "last-born" in relation to his elder sibling Karey or ?eijM?, the Senoi and Negrito thunder-deity.) ?<üuj, with its inbuilt reference both to parenthood and to siblingship, would appear to be not fully homologous with the other birth-order names — a point I shall return to funther on. It seems, then, that in indicating relative rather than absolute serial position the birth-order names are applied to the members of a sibling group with due regard to some ideal, if variable, paradigmatic order, but with little regard to paradigmatic completeness. The naming of a group of siblings may reveal apparent "gaps" which do not however lead to ordinal reversal of the terms. It is also conceivable that the death in early childhood of a since long-forgotten sibling may cause apparent linear shifts in the set of names. The foregoing discussion leaves several problems unbroached, but they are best dealt with in relation to the naming system as a whole. To that end I now proceed to describe the remaining classes of Temiar names, before attempting to interrelate them in an overall synthesis. Three examples of teknonyms occur in the case-histories earlier in this paper, demonstrating between them the two basic kinds of this dass of names. Baleh 9 (case 1.) means "parent of a daughter", whereas ?abur (2) (case 5.) and ?adaf (case 6.) are little more than expropriations of their children's autonyms by their parents. We have here a distinction between a name expressing just the status of parenthood and names expressing the parenthood of a specific child. Paired with Baleh is the name Litow, "parent of a son", and both are applied equally to men and women. Linguistically they derive from the roots leh and tyw, the basic meaning of which seems to be respectively "female..." and "male not senior to oneself". There is a further tekonym of this kind, namely ?akö?, "expectant parent", applied to a pregnant woman and her hus-

9 In Pahang Kaleh is a common (Semai?) variant of Baleh when applied to the mother; the father would still be called Baleh.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEMIAR PERSONAL NAMES. 111 band. At first glance these names might seem to have the character of status labels rather than names proper, but there is no doubt that it is as the laitter that the Temiar regard them. They are classed unambiguously as kanüh, "names" (the term used, as we have already seen and as we shall see again later, for all those classes of words which I treated as "names" in the introduction to this paper), rather than as kswnyw, "appellations", or some other term. Balsh, Litow, and ?akö> are all used regularly in direct address as well as in reference. Noone's genealogy contains one example of Balsh used referentially as a woman's name, and we are provided with no further names by which to define her. An important point is that for as long as their children are still dependent on them there is a very strong preference — one might say, an unformulated rule — f or a married couple to call each other Balsh or Litow. The choice of teknonym will normally follow the sex of the eldest surviving child: Litow if a boy, and Balsh if a girl (cf. case-history 1.). For the mother this expectation extends beyond her husband, and she has a marked preference for being called teknony- mously by everyone.10 One may occasionally use her birth-order name (especially if one is her senior) or a designation, but she would feel considerable embarrassment at being called by her autonym (cf. case- history 5.). In any case her juniors would hardly call her by other names even on the few occasions when they dispense with the proper kin appellation. For the mother especially, it is just as likely that the second kind of teknonym will be used. We have already seen how fatah avoids being so called, taking instead her son ?abur's name as her own teknonym; and so, less often, does her husband Saleh. Sometimes the teknonym takes the form of a more-or-less fanciful variant of the child's autonym. The mother of the five-year old girl ?ageq (the daughter of Malam; case 1.) has as her teknonym raat only 9agsv, but Gigeq. Likewise, fayaw (case 6.) is often referred to as ?ada?, a slightly altered form of the autonym of his eldest-born son Jida?. It is in fact rather less common for a father to be called by a teknonym of this second kind, and it is perhaps significant that fayaw claims to have been called ?ada? only since the death of his wife: she presumably was regularly so called before she died. Nevertheless, it is by no means rare for both parents to bear the name of their child as a joint tekno-

10 Dentan remarks of the closely similar Semai Senoi that "Teknonymy must be practised while children are still young enough to need magical protection, and frequently the teknonym is permanent" (1964:179).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 112 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN. nym, with the difference that the tnother is preferentially so called while the husband's teknonym alternates freely with any other of his names that he does not object to. Two points must be made here. Needham (1964:124) regards Slimming's account (1958: 59) as indicating that the teknonyms have a specific reference to the sex of the parent; in fact both parents may bear the same teknonym. The implication that "different names apply to men and to women according to circumstances" results from a difference between the sexes not of formal ascription but in preferential usage. My other point is that, unlike some other systems of teknonymy (see e.g., Geddes 1954:17-8 and Geertz & Geertz 1964), teknonymy among the Temiar applies only to the parents of the child in question; there is no extension to the grandparental generation nor to coUateral relatives of the parents. I have at least one record, however, of teknonymy applied to a step-parent: a woman who had been jilted by her lover before giving birth to his daughter began calling her

TABLE 4: TEMIAR NECRONYMS

SOURCE: Benjamin Slimming (Perolak ; Brok) (Yai)

NAME RELATIVE DECEASED NAME RELATIVE DECEASED

ïambey, latest-born (kumbey, Abaie woman whose child fabey child to mis- was stillborn miscarried carry) famoj only child, Amoid woman whose child still died still a baby unmarried Colah all children, Chelar woman whose child still died before unmarried adolescence fawas all children farêg either or (regrêg, both orphan) parents Balut spouse and (Malay: all Balu, children widow, widower, childless) Manaq parent of Manang woman who has no child . never borne a child

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEMIAR PERSONAL NAMES. 113 husband (whom she married about two years after the.affair) Baleh, and in this she was soon followed by many other villagers. This is just as one would expect on examining the kinship system, in which step- parents are behaviourally and structurally equivalent to true parents (at least in respect of a young child). My own data bear out Needham's conclusion that the Temiar do have "death-names of a kind", and serve to enlarge and digest Slimming's original account. The information I collected, however, does not fully agree with Slimming's description; but due to the loose way in which the Temiar apply the necronyms (as I prefer to call them) this is hardly surprising. Table 4 sets out the Temiar necronyms as I collected them paradigmatically from a group of informants soon after receiving a copy of Needham's article; alongside are ranged the same names as collected by Slimming (59), presumably in the Yai (Yöy) valley of Ulu Kelantan. Once again I must point out for a class of names that, despite reports to the contrary, the Temiar apply them equally to both sexes; at least, this is certainly true of the necronyms I collected. Necronyms are not very freqüently employed. Altogether I came across only three of them in actual use (i.e. without specially eliciting them): in descending order of frequency, fawas (case 2.), fambey and ?amöj. Occasionally, however, I was told that so-and-so exemplified the employment of such-an-such a necronym, even though I never noticed k being used. I was told, for example, that fayaw (case 6.) is sometimes called Cdlah because his wife is dead. This would seem. to contradict the interpretation of the name put forward in table 4, the more so as fayaw has two living children. Here too there is an apparent lack of fixity in the meanings of the names, recalling the looseness with which the birth-order names seem to be applied. But bef ore trying to understand how this comes about we must note some important features of the system of necronymy. To my knowledge Needham's account of the Penan "death-names" (1954b; 1965) is the only detailed description in the literature of a system of necronyms. It is when contrasted with those of the Penan system that the Temiar system best displays its important features. Perhaps the most obvious difference between the two resides in the range of application of the names. Penan necronyms make reference to a wide range of relatives while the Temiar names are concerned only with deaths within the nuclear family; and even then their usage is optional rather than obligatory. Perhaps the most significant feature of the Temiar system is the complete absence of reference to the death

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 114 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN.

of siblings. The only relatives of which the necronyms take account are children, parents and spouses. I carefully questioned my best Temiar informants on the possibility of necronyms referring to relatives outside this range and went out of my way to search for such names. There is ome example, ?awas in case 2., for which I can report both addressive and referential use. For ?ambey also I can report that it is used in both ways; and, as the following example shows, it is not restricted to women. Penghulu Kechil of Mengrod (Menröd), Kelantan, son of the well-known Temiar chief Mentri Awol, is often called ?ambey, apparently because he has no surviving children and the last pregnancies of his wives — he has had three — miscarried. famöj is a name of fairly frequent occurrence, and in the condïtions of Temiar life the situation it reflects is fairly common; old people long outliving their children and grandchildren so that they are left totally without surviving issue (cf. Noone, H.D. 1936:36 on Temiar family size and fertility rate). The other necronyms are not ones I heard used, nor did they occur on the genealogies I collected. On the other hand, farëg (more usually as regrëg) and balu? were sometimes used as status labels in talking of a third person. That balu/ is not necessarily just a name is demonstrated by its occurrence in such qualified forms as balu f belyeh, "someone all of whose spouses have died in succession". Balu? would on the face of it seem to be a Malay loan-word; but its phonological structure suggests that it is either a borrowing from long before modern times, or that it is one of a group of words that Senoi and Malay alike received from some earlier Indonesian (non-Malay) source. At the present time a Malay word balu received into Temiar would produce a farm with a long vowel in the final syllable: *balü?. The question of linguistic origin is here of rather more importance than in the case of the birth-order names: in the lafcter almost the whole set of names has a Malay origin, while, on the face of it, only one of the necronyms seems possibly to have such an origin. The birth-order names show every sign of being long well-integrated into the Temiar naming system despite their linguistically foreign origin; indeed the Temiar make greater use of them than the Malays. The somewhat incompkte— even degenerate — system of necronyms that are used only infrequently raises the possibility that its integration into Temiar culture is of a lower order. This in turn would raise the question of whether necronyms are on their way into or out of the culture. I mention this point because Needham's most recent article on the subject (1965) is very much concerned with change in the range and intensity of usage of

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEMIAR PERSONAL NAMES. 115

Penan necronyms, and its correlation with overall social change. With the foregoing in mind it must be said, however, that necronymy is a native Temiar institution insofar as there is an obvious cognitive gap, or set of potential categories, which it serves to fill. Although comparatively infrequent, the Temiar see necronymy as a perfectly natural way of naming people, and necronyms are in every sense kdnüh, "names". A further and possibly significant difference between the Penan and the Temiar is that among the latter it does not seem as if a person with surviving children is ever called by a necronym; at least, that is the impression I got through discussion with Temiar informants. Among the Penan, on the other hand, necronyms are in regular alternation with teknonyms (in the child series) or autonyms (in the sibling series) regardless of whether there are surviving children. Once again we must look not for the literal meaning of each term in isolation but for the general principle (if any) that underlies the whole class of names. The conclusion seems to be that the necronyms are concerned in some way with expressing a category opposition between the class of siblings and the class of parents, children and spouses (i.e. between those relationships lacking necronymic expression and those clearly expressed by the necronyms). This will, I hope, seem clearer when I attempt later to integrate the necronyms functionally with the other classes of names. Needham, in an early note (1954a), described what he regarded as the euphemisms used by the Eastem Penan to refe r to the dead, remarking how similar was the usage with regard to deceased Malay rulers. The Temiar have an almost identical institution; with them, however, something more than mere euphemism is involved. Like many other peoples, the Penan included, the Temiar rigorously avoid ref erring to a recently deceased person by any of the names he bore in his lifetime. Not surprisingly, this custom has as its manifest function the avoidance of attracting the unwanted attention of the deceased's ghost. But this is not the place to discuss the very confused afterlife beliefs of the Temiar. What I intend to concentrate on in this paper is the structural implications of the Temiar naming system — latent, not manifest, function. As we shall see, the way in which the Temiar refer to the dead has more than just implications for the social structure. It is, rather, a necessary condition for the full emergence of that social structure. Reference to the dead is quite uncomplicated: one simply substitutes

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 116 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN. for the deceased's name the name of the place of burial. Often this burial name will be prefixed by some such term as bës, "the deceased",11 taf, "male elder", or ja?, "female elder". The father of Panglima Dalam, for example, who was generally known as Bdjaw during his lifetime, is now referred to as Ta? Gapid, Gapid being the site of his burial. It was several months before I realised that the names of most of the ancestors appearing in the genealogies I had collected were in fact the names of streams. The Temiar had not thought to explain the matter to me — to them burial names are ksnüh like any other name. Younger dead, structurally less significant, are normally referred to as the bês of such-and-such a place for a few years afterwards, and then quietly forgotten. Temiar genealogies are of short depth (rarely extending beyond the second ascending generation, and in detail rarely beyond the first), a fact intimately connected with the institution of burial names. It is one of the classical facts of Temiar ethnography that they burnt and fled the site of a death immediately after the burial, making a new village some short distance away. Although this practice has recently been modified, if not abandoned, in response to the welfare services (medical and educational) and better housing accruing from permanent village siting, the present-day social organisation is still oriented in terms of the history of village-site movements undertaken by the ancestors of those who now constitute the core group in each Temiar village. The Temiar village may be viewed as the expression at any one time of a ramage group claiming descent from the first people to settle in the area. lts identity is maintained at the present time by the indefinitely-persisting seasonal fruit trees (bardk) at each of the previous village sites, supposedly planted or first laid claim to by the village (ramage) ancestors. The importance of the burial names becomes apparerut when it is realised that for the Temiar land is an unownable f ree good; only the produce of the land may be owned. The problem of how, when land cannot be owned, the Temiar village can be both corporate and territorially based is neatly solved through the use of burial names. The title genealogies of the fruit trees — wherein lies the corporateness by cognatic descent of the group — are necessarily also statements of the history of village-site occupation — wherein lies the group's territorial basis. Matters are of course much more complicated. than this summary suggests, but it clearly demonstrates the

11 Dr. Ivan Polunin tells me that among the Jah Hut, a Senoi group in central Pahang, there is a word "bes", presumably cognate with Temiar bês, which refers to the spirits of disease and probably means something like "ghost".

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEMIAR PERSONAL NAMES. 117 central importance of burial names as a factor in Temiar social organisation. Whether the same institution among the Penan and Malays is to be explained in the same way is impossible for me to say; there is no reason why it should not in different societies have different meanings and structural correlations — if any. Needham's discussion of burial names (1954a) comes to no conclusion on the matter: "a socio- logical comparison seems likely to prove baffling and unprofitable". Here, I have been able to suggest one possible answer to the problem. Despite the attention I have given to the other classes of names, it is those that fall into the heterogeneous dass of designations that are most likely to worry the outsider. To quote from the source of the term (Foucart 1917:130), The attention of ethnologists should be drawn to the innumerable "designations" employed by primitive races either among themselves or before strangers in order to hide their real names. These are not names; they have none of the characteristics of names. Their apparent multitude has misled many investigators; their elimination, on the other hand, leads to the surprizing discovery that the number of real names is very small and shows that the choice of these names by primitive peoples all over the world has always been guided by the same four or five ideas. Foucart's distinction between names and designations seems rather arbitrary, and yet, although the Temiar would class both as kdniïh, there are important qualitative differences between them. There is a sense in which (the designations are adventitious to the more integrated central core formed by the other classes of names; but this is a point I shall clarify later, when we have seen just how the other classes form an integrated set. The way in which the Temiar themselves refer to designations indicates something of their nature. The more usual term is kgnüh rata?, "levelled-out, non-status name" (Malay: rata, "bringing every- thing to the same level"). A native Temiar term is kdnüh rawdc, "overt, unguarded name" — seemingly the antithesis of the various terms used to indicate the autonym. The implication clearly is that designations make no reference to the status system operative within Temiar society (which is in direct contra-distinction to the other classes of names), and that they provide a convenient means of obviating the use of the autonym. Nevertheless we can usefully distinguish between those designations oriented positively towards the outside world and those having no necessary referential context apart from Temiar society itself. We have seen how some Temiar feel constrained to take additional,

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 118 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN.

usually Malay, names as permanent tags so as to facilitate intercourse with officialdom (cases 1., 3., 4. and 7.). This has now taken on the character of a normal procedure such that at the first official registration of a new-born child a convenient name will be chosen, often at the suggestion of the Aborigines Department field officer, which will then be retained indefinitely as his kdnüh gob, "foreigner, Malay, name". So f ar as I can judge, however, this has been a long-established inistitution, at least in those Temiar communities that had direct contact with the outside world in the past; so that in such valleys as the Betis, Telom (Jelai) and Plus it is regarded as quite normal that the men should have two distinct sets of names. Many of the earlier writings on the Malayan Aborigines in f act refer to their subjects almost exclusively by Malay names of this sont, more especially for the better described Negrito and Semai groups (the Temiar had hardly been contacted at that period). Not all of the names in this class would be recognised as such by a Malay. In addition to such popular names als ?alïh (Ali) and RamUh (Ramli), one comes1 across many apparently inconsequential forms: Malam (Night), Sireh (Betel Leaf), Kolom (Fish-pond), Mav,gis (Manggosteen), Sampah (Rubbish), etc. Nor is Malay any longer the only source; since the Emergency several English forms, both names proper and other English words, have been used ais kdnüh gob by the Temiar. Two of my regular collaborators were known as Jos (Josh) and CaUh (Charlie), and I met quite a few others with names like Risin (Rations), Lojin (Lodgings), Bglodus, Berdüs (Bulldozer) and, a woman, Karan (Current, i.e. electricity). On occasion Temiar friends warned me that when enquiring after them from non- Aborigines I must not use the name I knew them by, but their kdnüh gob, or I would not be understood. There is another sense 'm which Temiar names become oriented towards the outside world. We have seen how Malam (case 1.) took the name on entering the lower levels of the Medical Section of the Aborigines Department and how he explained it as a way of obviating the difficulties non-Aborigines had in handling his real Temiar name. At other times, however, he refers to his Malay name as k-anüh parubatan yeh, "my Medical name", thereby indicating some concern for differentiated status, fayaw (case 6.) provides another example with his alternative "wage-receiving name", marking what he feit was his first real change of status in relation to the outside world. The same principle is at work in many of the cases of foreign names I have just described; most of the English names mark an involvement with military

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEMIAR PERSONAL NAMES. 119 forces at a time when their presence was an important element in Tetniar life. Bulldozer's name marks his time as part of the labour force that undertook the massive alterations of the jungle landscape during the building of the Forts and their landing-strips. The stimulus for taking on adventitious names may, then, arise as much from outside as from inside Temiar society. But in either case the overall conceptual distinction between two frames of reference remains: the Temiar world and the outside world. Nicknames indicating real or imagined personal characteristics are quite popular with the Temiar, and many of the names that one recur- rently meets are of this type. Both Williams-Hunt (65) and Carey (182) mention nicknames, but their examples ("Bren-gun", "Fairy", etc.) suggest that they had in mind names of the type I have already discussed. The distinction, however, is not crucial, as it does not correspond to any native Temiar categories. ?abap. (case 3.) provides an example of what I here, perhaps arbitrarily, regard as nicknames; its meaning is "Chatty", deriving from the root *baji as in lejibBji, "one who chatters". This is said to refer to Wakü's character as a youth. The name fabap, still sticks, though it is now hardly a fit epithet. Many nicknames hark back in this way to ai former state of affairs, sometimes in a striking manner. fasod, "Shorty", is a name borme by many Temiar despite the fact that several of them are now of more than average height. Table 5 lists some of the commoner nicknames.

TABLE 5 : TEMIAR NICKNAMES fadon Lanky ?amoy (Chinese?) ?asod Shorty ?alus Baldy (lus, to go bald) fabajl Chatty fajijac Cheeky fagas Kurap4 (gas, Tinea)

Finally, there remain two groups of names that independently share some of the characteristics of the other classes. Many Temiar have the power of spirit-mediumship, halaf, and in their view this is a state of affairs necessary for the well-being of the community. Some halaf (or "adepts", to use Dentan's well-chosen term; 1964:181) possess the power to a greater, and qualitatively distinct, degree, retaining in certain spheres of activity a considerable following throughout a wide area. "Great halaf" generally possess what amounts to an extra autonym, the kdnüh halaf, which is not, however, always surrounded by the reticence that normally marks the autonym proper. Mentri Awol's

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 120 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN. name (?awal) is a kdnüh halat and a common alternative to the name by which he is otherwise generally known, Têt ?ajin. (Cf. H. D. Noone 1955:4, where he appears as the "chief in the Ulu Nenggiri" whose tiger-spirit — the mark of a "great halat" — gave him the song called Ajin.) Temiar ideas suppose that one of the distinguishing features of a "great halaf" is the relatively powerful development of his blood- or speech-soul, jarëk. Insofar as Temiar theological concepts posit some sort of category opposition between jdfdk and raway (headsoul), the vague association of the latter with the autonym proper suggests that names may have implications stretching far beyond simple questions of social structure. Due to the lack of precise information on these points, however, my attempts to interpret the Temiar naming system will for the present remain firmly embedded in questions of social structure. There is a small group of forms sharing the characteristics of both names and terms of address. At least two examples occur in Noone's Rening genealogy: the name Abong is found twice, and in Noone's orthography this could represent equally ?aböq or fabot), both of which are names of the type I have under discussion. ?aboq also occurs in one of my own examples (case 4.) where it provides an alternative to the autonym and teknonym. If pressed the Temiar would very likely regard these forms as apellations (kewnow) rather than names {kdnüh): in the paradigmatic exposition by one of my informants some of the forms are without doubt primarily appellations. Yet even one of these undoubted appellations appears in Noone's genealogy (Atau, i.e. ?atyw) to all intents as a name. As the paradigm (table 6) shows, the important dimension here is that of relative age, the significance of which for Temiar social organisation deserves extended treatment (cf. Needham 1966). In some respects the details of the paradigm differ from what I was able to record of actual usage. ?aböt$ and ?aboiy are both often used as names of women regardless of thedr age or whether they have borne children. As terms of address böq and boq aTe employed in some areas (Pahang in my experience, but also, they told me, in the Korbu, Kinta and Plus valleys of Perak) towards non- strangers, not closely related, who are younger than the speaker. A common and interesting use of ?agöh is in referring to and addressing people whose name the speaker does not know or young children who have not yet been named. I gave earlier an excellent example of this usage in a young child's attempts to define one of his elders. This ethnographic summary of Temiar names bring to an end the first part of the present paper. It now remains to take a wider view,

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEM IAR PERSONAL NAMES. 121

TABLE6: TEMIAR APPELLATIONS fatow Junior male consanguine fakh Junior female consanguine Paböt} Younger woman who has not yet borne a child (polite) ?aboq Junior young woman ?abüs Contemporary or junior young person fagöh Young man (polite; North, Lanoh?) fajoy Young woman. (polite; North, Lanoh?) both of the way in which I have set out the ethnographic facts and of possible ways of interpreting those facts. Lévi-Strauss in his extended discussion of personal names (1962: 226-86) sets up two extreme types between which we may regard all other names as falling. At one extreme the name acts as "une marque d'identification, qui confirme par application d'une règle, 1'appartenance de 1'individu qu'on nomme a une classe préordonnée (... un statut natal dans un système de statuts)" (240), and this idea has been implicit in my approach up to this point. Most accounts of Malayan Aboriginal names have laid more stress on what emerges as the other pole of Lévi-Strauss' continuüm: the name as "une libre création de 1'individu qui nomme et qui exprime, au moyen de celui qu'il nomme, un état transitoire de sa propre subjectivité". Before proceeding further, then, it wiU be as well to look more closely at the process of naming among the Temiar. There is no formal rule as to who should be responsible for naming the new-born child, but most informants claimed that they were named in the first instance by their parents (usually the father; cf. cases 1., 4., 5. and 6.) or some other close kinsman. Occasionally the midwife (whose relationship with the child is one of quasi-kinship) or the halaf are claimed as the source of one's personal name. In either case I doubt that such information should be taken literally; as we have seen, Temiar naming is so casual as to make it very unlikely that anyone could accurately recall all the details of his own case. Yet we should not regard the information as non-significant: the presumed name-givers are precisely those whom the Temiar child regards as having jural responsibility for his welfare. It seems, then, that Temiar ideas, at least, catch an echo of the concept of names expressing a transitory subjective state of the name-giver. (I leave undiscussed here the extent, if at all, to which an objective jural responsibility is actually transformed into a subjective obligation.) Some of the names taken in later life are self-imposed (or at least self-sanctioned) and cannot but represent in part an expression of the individual's subjectivity.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 122 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN.

It is a big jump from showing how the Temiar themselves might believe that naming expresses something of the name-giver's subjective feelings to demonstrating how the names themselves might formally come to do so. Most classes of Temiar names consist of forms created not de novo but by the expropriation of pre-existing forms, many of which have an overtly designatory function. This is not to deny the play of imagination, but as we have seen, the freedom of choice is restricted by the relative closedness of the classes.12 The autonyms, on the other hand, allow of f ree imagination as the major factor in their invention. Some informants feit that autonyms should have "meaning", but they failed to demonstrate the truth of their contention. Involved here is probably the question of connotation rather than signification: connotation, that is, for the name-giver, and thus not easily transmissable to others.13 A great many personal names are claimed (in retrospect?) to have their origin in some recurrent syllable in the child's first babblings: ?ager$, for example, is so called for her habit when younger of murmuring "ge*,, gei}, gev,". Among the Semai this procedure seems to have achieved some degree of institutionalisation: "Traditionally, a child's first word was taken as its name (Semai, möl)..." (Dentan 1964:181). The Temiar, however, do not distinguish a discrete class of first-word- or babbling-names. Little has been said so far about the concept of naming as such. For the Temiar the concept is not a unitary one, and they distinguish terminologically several kinds of naming. Names of the sort discussed in this paper are referred to by the Temiar as kdnüh, the verbal form of which, "to name", is kernüh. Although kanüh is translated is neatly as "name", the range of contexts in which the word appears suggests that for the Temiar other meanings are involved. Apart from fe-lo? kdnüh hahf, "what is your name?", we find tof bar-kdnüh, "without sense, nonsense"; mof kdnüh ?3hf, "does it have any meaning?"; nat kdnüh ?dhl, ".. . and that's the reason for it all!", and so on. Kernüh describes the process of naming proper, with the prime emphasis on the ascription of the autonym. One may also kernüh names of other classes, but the more likely way of referring to the ascription of additional non-auto-

12 Negrito names seem to be freely chosen, but from an indefinitely large set of pre-existing forms (plant names etc). 13 Many animal and deity names display, quite explicitly, onomatopoeic or alliter- ative reference to some quality of the named being. The thunder-deity, feqküi, for example, has an alternative name, Hiw5w, which the Temiar regard as representing the sound of thunder.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEMIAR PERSONAL NAMES. 123 mymic natnes is by the term jal, which may be glossed as "to designate". Jal is not used in reference to the autonym. On the contrary, its most frequent use is in reference to apparent changes of name, the acquisition of a kgnüh pdy, "new name", in such expressions as ?e-terjal kdnüh ?gh ..., "we (re) name him ...". Jal, ter jal is used generally of reference to someone or something by a casual or temporary name, the relationship between name and object remaining adventitious and non-intrinsic. There is a sense in which kgnüh and jal are both non-relational, in contrast to a third kind of naming expressed by the Temiar morpheme co?, "one, by naming, brought into relationship with the namer". The verbal form bercö? would without further qualification suggest "to make a pet of (a wild animal)", a process which involves incorporation into the family by the extension of a "personal" name towards the animal. When physically possible such a pet (cö?) may be suckled by its human "mother" and brought up in the family circle. The persisting quasi-kinship relation between a child and the midwife who had brought it into the world, and between a cured patiënt and his curing hald?, is spoken of in precisely the same terms: the senior addresses and refers to his dependent as his cöf, the latter reciprocally calling him tohat, "healer". The idea of relationship is also apparent in the use of cö? to refer to a whole series of animais as the "familiare" of the thunder- deity Karey: the relationship between Karey and his co? quite explicitly parallels in Temiar thought the relaitionship of filiation held to obtain between a hola? and his spirit-guide, gonig. I have stressed these points because bercö?14 is often used as if it mearut simply "to name": fe- bercö? kdnüh ?dh ..., "we call him ...; we have named him...". But naming in this sense is plainly more than an act of arbitrary labelling; it strongly implies as an intrinsic part of the act of naming the setting-up of a relationship. It might seem from what I have said as if "names", kgnüh, were opposed to "apellations", kewnow, such >that a sharp distinction could be drawn between them. This is not really so, however. Although kewnow without further qualification would suggest "kinship term", its root kö~w has much the same range of meaning as its English equivalent, "to call". One may equally köw someone by a kinship term as by a personal name. Just as the English "to call", köw refers both to the act of designation (whether by specific name, personal name or

14 Among the many other homophones and reflexes of cöf (which include a relative pronoun and a word "to hit") is the infixal form canöt, the kinship term "great-grandchild", used for the third and remoter descending generations.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 124 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN.

appellation) and of attracting someone's attention by hailing. This, of course, is no accident, as a change in approacb immediately makes apparent. If we look simply at the way Temiar address each other we find that names and kin terms are used interchangeably (with the proviso that kin terms tend to be used preferentially to those senior to oneself; and vice versa).15 At a deeper level too, I would claim, there obtains an all-importaint relationship between the two systems. Viewed in their totality as internally consistent logical systems (or "cultural paradigms" — Geertz, H. & C. 1964:103) the kinship terminology and the naming system both "say" the same thing. But they are not homologous. The relationship between them remains a dialectica! one, in a manner strongly reminiscent of the equivalent but non- homologous signalling of syntactic structure carried for spoken English by the intonational system and for written English by the punctuational system. Intonation and punctuation are not directly relatable one to the other, but only independently each to the underlying structure (Gleason 1965 : 182 ff.). I shall discuss shortly the nature of the "underlying structure" that the Temiar kinship terminology and naming system both serve to signal. In attempting to make sense of the complexities of Temiar names and naming it would be hard to proceed without the insights into the whole field provided by the writings of Geertz and Geertz, Lévi-Strauss and Needham. All these writers have stressed that names are more than just ethnographic details or minor nomenclatural usages; on the contrary, they are inextricably bound up with those features that anthropologists regard as lying at the very base of society. I do not propose to review here the ideas put forward by the writers mentioned; instead I shall rake from them only those that are directly relevant to the understanding of Temiar names. Geertz and Geertz show how a major result of teknonymy in Bali is "a curtain of genealogical amnesia which steadily descends over each generation in turn", created by "its progressive suppression of personal names and its regular substitution of what are essentially impersonal status terms". This, they claim, is a necessary precondition for Balinese society to exist at all, since it creates the necessary elasticity of descent- group recognition: I have already commented on the functional relationship between burial names and Temiar social organisation, and it is

15 Professor Meyer Fortes retninds me that L. H. Morgan's great study of kinship terminologies began with his concern for how different societies called, i.e. named, their members.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEMIAR PERSONAL NAMES. 125 obvious that there too the suppression of personal names is a necessary condition for the contimiaition of the society in its present form. But it is not only the burial names that serve to suppress the personal names. It seems rather as if the whole naming system had that as its end, and that the personal name, or autonym, is no more than, in Lévi-Strauss' phrase (1962:259), a "simple numero d'attente" held by the individual before his full entry into the system. We may, then, regard all the other classes of names as constituting a mechanism for the suppression of the autonym; this is certainly the impression given by the facts of Temiar behaviour. Having touched earlier on religious implications of this behaviour, there is space here only to suggest possible correlations with social structure. The Temiar ramage is optative and non-exclusive (Firth 1963:28, 36) so that the individual has potential membership in as many descent-groups as he can claim to be linked with by consanguineal ties. The past decade has witnessed a sharp improvement in our understanding of cognatic descent structures,. and one of the results has been to focus attention onto the problem of cut-off — the mechanism by which, in a situation of considerable genealogical overlap, the individual becomes a member of just some descent-group (or groups) and not others. In the Temiar case ithere is no formal cut-off rule to reduce the confusion and the alternative must partly reside in some means of reducing to a manageable extent the individual's knowledge and recognition of the genealogical field. We have seen how rapidly genealogical knowledge falls off beyond proximaite generations. We have seen also (table 3) that as one grows older, autonymic individuation is progressively replaced by "what are essentially impersonal status terms", nicknames selected from a pre-existing set, or nicknames having as primary referent the outside rather than the Temiar world. It seems, then, that there is a functional connection between this progressive loss of individuation and the genealogical amnesia necessary for the continued existence of the system.16 It is an empirical fact that few Temiar regard as operational their membership in more than two or three ramages, and they are able to give details of their potential membership in hardly a greater number than that. On present evidence it looks as if this is due to the combined

16 As Geertz and Geertz remark of Bali (1964: 101), "There is in fact no way older people can communicate to younger people about a dead individual whom the elder knew as a man but the younger did not in more than general terms so far as social identity concerned."

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 126 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN. effect of the naming system and the isolated and dispersed pattern of residence. The lead set by Lévi-Strauss enables us to take the analysis further. His discussion (1962: 253-63) of the Penan system as described by Needham demonstrates clearly the necessity for treating as an integrated set the autonym, teknonym, necronym and the taboo on reference to the dead by name. In an overall sense the Penan system is of the same type as that of the Temiar; but there are differences (some of which I have already indicated), and Lévi-Strauss' analysis accordingly does not fit the Temiar case in every detail. I shall discuss the Temiar system on its own terms, taking my clues frotn Lévi-Strauss where relevant. The autonym, being non-relational and effectively discarded on the attainment of adulthood, is opposed to the group formeel by the relational and openly-used birth-order name, teknonym and necronym. If the latter group of names forms a system, then the autonym may be regarded as having two functions in respect of that system: it sets apart whoever bears it openly as not yet having entered the system ; and it allows its pre-emption by, and hence the formation of, the teknonym, one of the terms of that system. The terms of the system have in cornmon that they serve to define the individual through his relationships, in the case of the teknonym to a specified individual, and in the case of the necronym and birth-order name through the nature of the relationship itself. The necronym mentions the relationship only to proclaim it abolished (Lévi-Strauss 1962:255): the relationship is a negative one. In a subtler but essentially similar way the same may be said of the teknonym: by identifying parent and child in the same name its acts to neutralise, or negative, the relationship between them. Lévi-Strauss in the same context talks of "les parents qui se définissent comme morts par contraste a la vie qu'ils ont créée" (262). The birth- order names, on the other hand, make a positive statement of the individual's relationships, defining him in relation to persons still living (or at least in no way implying the real or virtual abolition of those relationships). Lévi-Strauss' elegant phrase neatly encapsulates the opposition between the necronym and teknonym on one side and the birth-order name on the other: we may regard the former as being "en clé de mort" (either really or virtually), while the latter plays its part "en clé de vie" (1962:257). What meaning should we see in this? In an unpublished paper (Benjamin MS) I tried to show that the Temiar kinship terminology

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEMIAR PERSONAL NAMES. 127 as a whole contains within it a statement of social structure that corres- ponds both to the actual patterns of social interaction at three different levels of organisation (household, household-cluster and village) and to the way the Temiar themselves conceptualise their social organisation. This is not the place to demonstrate how the kinship terminology affects a "statement of social structure" (the detailed argument will be put forward in a later publication); what matters here is the form of that statement. My claim was that the Temiar perceive the develop- mental cycle at all three levels as "the progressive generation of a group of siblings out of a set of affinal and filiative links which simultaneously undergo progressive degeneration". The connection this has with the naming system should now be obvious: there is a precise correspondence between the two systems. The one makes statements about the progressive generation of sibling links while the other defines the individual "en clé de vie" in terms of his siblings; the one expresses the progressive (fegeneration of affinal and filiative links while the other declares these same links abolished by employing them "en clé de mort". We are now able to see why the necronyms refer only to spouses, parents and children, and not to siblings. It is precisely because siblings are defined in terms of each other during their life-time that there are no sibling-necronyms: the two classes of names are comple- mentary. It now becomes apparent that "birth-order name" is somewhait of a misnomer. "Fratronym", the term suggested by Lévi-Strauss (1962:257), reflects far more accurately the essential nature of this class of names than does the term which, for comparative purposes, I have used up till now; and its adoption would do away with apparent anomalies in the application of the names. Both Needham (1959:86; 1964: 121) and Lévi-Strauss (1962: 257) were able to posit the existence of a set of names of this type as a further development or transformation of the Penan system. That they do not occur in the Penan system is due, says Lévi-Strauss, to the pre-emption of the name of the latest- born child as the parent's teknonym. In the Temiar case, however, it is the name of the first-born. or eldest surviving child that normally serves as the parent's teknonym, and the fratronymic function is allowed to emerge. Yet, the Temiar system does make structural use of the status of last-born, which it labels by the name ?aluj. We have seen that insofar as it makes reference to parenthood as well as to siblingship ?aluj is not fully homologous with the other birth-order names; it is not strictly a fratronym. By declaring the end of child- bearing for the parents while simultaneously marking the completion

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 128 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN. of the sibling group formed by their children, ?aluj becomes a further expression of the model of social structure contained in other sectors of the system: the virtual death of the filiative link proclaims the full establishment of the consanguineal link. It is probably no accident that faluj is a pure Temiar word in a class consisting otherwise almost entirely of Malay words. And the problem of the Malay origin of the birth-order names should no longer worry us: their absence entirely from the naming system would in no way alter the overall structure of that system. The Temiar took over a pre-existing set of terms tailor-made to fit the cognitive slot already prepared for them by the system. The Temiar naming system, then, is an internally coherent fragment of culture, what Geertz and Geertz call a "cultural paradigm". To the extent that the paradigm is couched as a calculus of social relationships (as plainly it is) it takes on the characteristics of what Lévi-Strauss (1966: 16ff.) would regard as a native model of the social structure; it is as expressions of this model that I regard both the kinship terminology and the naming system of the Temiar. But in so doing I must counter two possible objections. Firstly, it could be claimed that the analysis presented here represents not what is inherent in the system, but what the external observer chooses arbitrarily to abstract from it. To avoid this charge I tried earlier to give as full an account as possible of the various types of Temiar personal names and naming; no less than the full range of types I met with in the field have been discussed in this paper. A more serious charge would be that only one of several possible structurings of the material has been selected as the structure. But this would be to misunderstand the relation between culture and society. The two are only partially interdependent; the one is not necessarily a projection of the other. As anthropologists we should concentrate on the dialectical relationship between them as a major source of the dynamic elements of social behaviour. It is the "logico-meaningful integration" of culture that provides the Weberian understanding and meaning necessary for the individual to behave in such a manner that the overall social system comes to have "causal- functional integration" (Geertz 1957:34, after Sorokin). But a cultural element or fragment can be meaningful only to the extent that it finds an echo in the individual's own experience. My analysis of the Temiar naming system accordingly selects as the structure that structuring of the data most meaningful in the light of the individual Temiar's experience of the pattern of social interaction. On this view the fact

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEMIAR PERSONAL NAMES. 129 that the kinship terminology seems also to contain the same model of social structure is confirmation that the chosen procedure is a valid one. An important corollary of this "more dynamic functional approach" (Geertz 1957:34) is the lack of any necessary correlationi between a given cultural paradigm and a specific social structure. There is no reason why a naming system structurally identical to that of the Temiar should not occur in a structurally totally dissimilar society. Nor should it be impossible for the present naming system to remain unaltered if Temiar society should undergo some overall change in social structure: some hitherto unconsidered structuring of the cultural content might in the changed drcumstances come to serve admirably as a vehide for the new constious native model. Until recently, however, Temiar sodety seems to have remained in a rather stable state and the drcumstances I have described represent the special case of isomorphism between cultural paradigm and sodal structure. It is a feature of the stability of this system only, and not of culture in general, that the cultural paradigms appear as if merely projections of sodal structure. The second possible objection to the present analysis is that in actual usage the system is not at all rigid, and that at times application of the names is very loose indeed. This is not a new problem: the controversy over the validity of distinguishing between prescriptive and preferential marriage systems springs from the same confusion. I can do no better than quote from Lévi-Strauss' discussion of the latter case (1966: 17): "even a preferential system is prescriptive at the level of the model, while even a prescriptive system cannot but be preferential at the levd of the reality". The model is not destroyed by variability in the behaviour associated with it, and the freedom of choice in naming never exceeds the bounds of the existing system, the structure of which rests unassailed. The situation is, however, more complicated than the foregoing discussion might suggest. As with other sodeties, the Temiar possess more than one variety of the consdous modd of thdr sodal structure (cf. Ward 1965). Previous accounts describe them, wrongly, as living each community in a defined territory or "saka" (sakaf) within which it has exclusive rights and over whidi stands some form of successionary political leadership (R.O.D. Noone 1954-5: 5-6; Cole 1959:193, provide crystallised statements of this view. H. D. Noone's original statement (1936:22-4), although less rigid, shows essentially the same approach). How the misunderstanding arose is difficult to know; it probably relates to the strangeness for outsiders of a system in which land is

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 130 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN.

unownable. What is important here is that the Temiar now expect outsiders to conceptualise their social structure according to the territorial model. Indeed, they have become so highly adept in manipulating the model that they use it unthinkingly whenever the context demands — as I found to disadvantage during the early stages of my fieldwork. This duplicity of approach to the Temiar world and the larger world is reflected in the naming system, as we have seen. I suggest that it is in this light we should regard the readiness of the Temiar to present themselves to the outside world by designations which are of little use within their own world. The same probably applies to the birth-order names: the many Alongs, Angahs, Alangs and so on who people Aborigines Department records suggests that the Temiar see these essentially Malay names as more amenable for dealings with outsiders. The inconsistenties in usage that we noticed earlier indicate that the one class of names possibly serves two distinot logical functions: birth-order names sensu stricto in the context of the outsider model, fratronyms in the context of the native model. It must seem to the Temiar that the former function is the more comprehensible to the hierarchically-organised Malays, who traditionally represent "outsiders" (goh) par excellence. Lastly, a few words are called for on a question raised by Needham (1959; 1965): the relation between naming system (in particular, "mourning terms") and social solidarity. Commenting on Lévi-Strauss' analysis of Penan death-names and teknonyms Needham complains of its failure fully to convince; he sets out instead to continue the mode of elucidation he began earlier (1959: 87). Needham's argument — for which he adduces considerable empirical evidence — is that among the various groups of Penan there is a significant correlation between the extent to which death-names (necronyms) are employed and the degree of social solidarity. As they lose their traditional ways and become less solidary they tend to give up use of the death-names. We are still in the dark, though, as to mechanism that gives rise to this correlation; it is here perhaps that Lévi-Strauss' analysis becomes relevant. Patently, death-names and social solidarity are different kinds of phenomena, the one a fragment of culture, the other a feature of social interaction. It foUows that the relation between them is not that of a causal-functional nexus; it is at best indirect, mediated by some sort of transducer mechanism. The transducer, I suggest, is the individual member of society, who behaves socially (or at all) to the extent that his behaviour is made meaningful (for himself) by the containing culture,

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEMIAR PERSONAL NAMES. 131 and who in turn by behaving socially makes possible the storage and generation of culture (cf. Roberts 1964:439). The essential point here is that the individual mediates not between single items in society and culture but between the total systems, each exhibiting its own form of integration (Geertz 1957). Social solidarity — essentially, the sum- mation of the causal-functional integration of society — if it is at all relatable to cultural factors, relates to the overall logico-meaningful integration of culture. In trying to correlate the institution of death- names with social solidarity our aim, then, should be firstly to demonstrate the extent to which death-names fit logically with the rest of the naming system, and then to show whether behaviour seems more meaningful for the actor in the light of that system. I have not said much in this paper about the logical coherence of the Temiar naming system — to do so would be to repeat the essence of Lévi-Strauss' discussion of the Penan system (1962:253-63). But I hope to have shown how, by acting as a vehicle for conscious models of the social structure, the system helps provide a meaningful basis for social action. By any standards Temiar society is highly solidary; indeed, its "feel" is much more that of a band society of hunters (cf. Service 1966: 71-2) than of the hill peasants they ostensibly are. Following Needham's criteria for estimating the degree of solidarity (1965:61), Temiar society is highly solidary in at least the following characteristics. Physical propinquity is close: they live generally in communal houses with only insubstantial partitions between the living compartments. Game is shared obligatorily among all the members of the village, and casual gifts of food pass continually throughout the community. Privacy is minimal and members of the community are in close and continuing communication•: they frequently talk to each other through the walls of the houses, so tightly-knit are the villages. The Temiar are dependent upon other peoples only for iron, salt, and more recently, cloth; otherwise their contacts are few and voluntary. Cultural change is so far superficial, and the feel of everyday life is unmistakably Temiar in even the most acculturated communities: loincloths are worn for work and of ten at other times; the women usually go bare-breasted; traditional decorations of flowers, leaves and face-paint are worn virtually every day; and, most important, subsistence still depends almost entirely on shifting cultivation of root-crops, supplemented by much fishing, hunting and collecting. At every turn they show themselves to be thoroughly imbued with the "value of community" (cf. Geddes 1954:20 ff.), best seen in the suckling or comforting of any child of

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 132 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN. the community by any of its members. Yet death-natnes are poorly developed, and mourning terms otherwise are hardly in evidence. Such death-names (necronyms) as do exist, however, are tightly integrated into the logic of the naming system as a whole, supporting the contention that it is the latter we should concentrate on in diseussing such questions as socdal solidarity. My intention in the first place has been to give an ethnographic account of names and naming among the Temiar. Less narrowly, I hope to have added to the view that names are much more than mere ethnographic details or cultural trivia: they deserve the same degree of attention as kinship terminologies, and for much the same reasons. Finally, I have tried to exemplify my belief that studies of this sort provide a means of dealing with the crucial problem of social anthropology: the relation between culture and society.

King's College, Cambridge. GEOFFREY BENJAMIN

REFERENCES Benjamin, G. 1966 Temiar social groupings. Fedn Mus. J. 11:1-25. MS. Temiar kinship. To appear in Fedn Mus. J. 1967. Carey, Iskandar 1961 Tengleq kui serok: a study of the Temiar language, with an ethnographic summary. Siri Pengetahuan Bahasa dan Sastera DBP Bil. 1. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Cole, R. 1959 Temiar Senoi agriculture: a note on aborginal shifting cultivation in Ulu Kelantan, Malaya. Malay. Forester 22: 191-207; 22:260-71. Kuala Lumpur. Dentan, Robert 1964 Senoi-Semarig. In Ethnic groups of mainland Southeast Asia (ed.) Frank M. Lebar et al.* 176-86. New Haven: Human Relations Area Files Press. Firth, R. 1963 Bilateral descent groups: an operational viewpoint. Occ. Pap. R. anthrop. Inst. 16:22-37. Foucart, G. 1917 Names (primitive). In Encyclopedia of religion and ethics (ed.) James Hastings, 9:130-6. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Frazer, J. G. 1911 The golden bough. 3: Taboo and the perils of the soul. 3rd. Edn. London: Macmillan.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access TEMIAR PERSONAL NAMES. 133

Geddes, W. R. 1954 The Land Dayaks of Sarawak. Colon. Res. Stud. 14. London: H.M.S.O.

Geertz, C. 19S7 Ritual and social change: a Javanese example. Am. Anthrop. 59: 32-54.

Geertz, H. and Geertz, C. 1964 Teknonymy in Bali: parenthood, age-grading and genealogical amnesia. Jl R. anthrop. Inst. 94:94-108. Gleason, H. A., Jr. 1965 Linguistics and English grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1962 La pensee sauvage. Paris: Pion. 1966 The future of kinship studies. Proc. R. anthrop. Inst. 1965: 13-22. Needham, R. 1954a Reference to the dead among the Penan. Man 54: art. 6. 1954b The system of teknonyms and deathnames of the Penan. SWest. J. Anthrop. 10:416-31. 1959 Mourning terms. Bijdr. Taal- Land- Volkenk. 115: 58-89.

1964 Temer names. J. Malay. Brch R. Asiat. Soc. 37:121-5. 1965 Death-names and solidarity in Penan society. Bijdr. Taal- Land- Vol- kenk. 121:58-76. 1966 Age, category and descent. Bijdr. Taal- Land- Volkenk. 122: 1-35. Noone, H. D. 1936 Report on the settlements and welfare of the Ple-Temiar Senoi of the Perak-Kelantan watershed. J. fed. Malay St. Mus. 19: 1-85. 1955 Introduction and notes. Accompanying Temiar dream songs front Malaya. New York: Ethnic Folkways Library P.460. (12in., recording.)

Noone, R. O. D. 1954-5 Notes on the trade in blowpipes and blowpipe bamboo in north Malaya. Fedn Mus. J. 1 &2:1-18. Roberts, John M. 1964 The self-management of cultures. In Explorations in cultural anthropology (ed.) W. H. Goodenough, 433-54. New York: McGraw Hill.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access 134 GEOFFREY BENJAMIN.

Service, Elman R. 1966 The hunters. Foundations of modern anthropology series. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Slimming, John 1958 Temiar jungle: a Malayan journey. London: John Murray. Ward, Barbara E. 1965 Varieties of the conscious model: the fishermen of South China. In The relevance of models for social anthropology. ASA Monographs 1. London: Tavistock Publications; New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers. Wilkinson, R. J. 1910 The aboriginal tribes. Papers on Malay subjects, Supplement. Kuala Lumpur: F.M.S. Government Press. Williams-Hunt, P. D. R. 1952 An introduction to the Malayan Aborigines. Kuala Lumpur: Govern- ment Press.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:13:42PM via free access