Foreword by Mikihiro Moriyama

In this section, we have 21 articles of a various theme on cultural heritage in and around Indonesia.1 Most of materials discussed here is cultural assets that show local knowledge and regional identity. These articles based on careful research will enrich our knowledge on cultures in Indonesia and enhance our understandings on culture in general. In fact, Indonesian studies have greatly contributed to academia in the world. A large number of scholars have produced numerous articles and books. Ethnographic descriptions and find- ings about peoples and societies in Indonesia have been global assets since colonial times. Such knowledge of local peoples in the colonies, however, was needed for self-interested rea- sons, namely managing the colonies and maximally profiting from the land and the people. T.S. Raffles, N.J. Krom, H. Kern, C. Snouck Hurgronje, C. van Vollenhoven and others wrote on the peoples. Likewise, language studies and multiple efforts toward creating dictionaries in the Archipelago were needed for propagation purposes by Christian missionaries since their arrival in the 17th century. Examples are B.F. Matthes on Buginese, Taco Roorda on Javanese, H.N. van der Tuuk on Batak, S. Coolsma on Sundanese. These research results comprise our basis for research on cultural heritage in Indonesia, regardless of what the original purposes were. Not only descriptions of Indonesian peoples and cultures, but also theory and important concepts were discovered through research made by scholars from all over the world. For instance, Clifford Geerts made a wonderful contribution through his anthropological fieldwork in the islands of Java and Bali, and Benedict Anderson made an unprecedented contribution to the humanities with his high command of the language and deep attachment to local peoples. By acknowledging such great contributions, here I raise a question that researchers on Indonesian studies are not completely free themselves from a colonial mindset. This problem seems to persist in academia both outside and inside Indonesian society. I notice that the term “indigenous studies” is recently used in academic circles in Indonesia. I will consider whether this term is adequate for research on cultural heritage in Indonesia or not. First of all, I retrace the definition of the term “indigenous” as it changes through the times—from the colonial period through the Japanese occupation and into the 21st century.

Rethinking the Term “Indigenous”

It is useful to begin the discussion of “indigenous studies” with a brief survey of the term “indigenous” since the Dutch colonial period. The words inboorlingen and inlanders were used by the Dutch to denote people in their colony. Perhaps these words can be translated as native rather than indigenous. Another word used in colonial times was inheems, which denotes indigenous with condescending nuance. For sure, these terms clearly show a disre- spectful view of the people the Dutch encountered. The Japanese did the same from their arrival in the Archipelago in the late 19th century through the occupation period of World War II. They used the words genjyu min (indigenous people, disdainfully) – or, even worse, dojin, literary translated as “land man” but with a connotation of native or savage.

1. This preface was written on the basis of my presentation for the Asia-Pacific Forum for Research in Social Science and Humanities Conference (APRiSH) 2016, at Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia. The research was supported mostly by a grant from UI-RESOLV (Visiting Scholar Program) of the Faculty of Humanities Universitas Indonesia, and in part by Nanzan University Pache Research Sbsidy I-A-2 for 2017. 481 These terms denoting “indigenous” in the history of Indonesia mostly connotes looking down on others and distinguishing others from outsiders’ higher position. Those who used the term did not see Indonesians as being in the same level as their own in terms of civiliza- tion. The “others” were considered as backward and uncivilized, so that their “masters”, the colonizers, would enlighten them. It was quite an arrogant idea of the outsiders. What happened here was that the newcomers found a culture and society different than their own, and did not think that every culture and society has its own values and philosophy. They evaluated foreign cultures with their own measuring standards. In short, the term “indigenous” is not free from such negative connotations because of the history of how the term was used in the colonial past: it has a discriminatory nuance when used to identify a group of people. The next question is whom the term “indigenous” is aimed at in a global age. The term has tended to be used by arrivals, mostly Westerners, to a foreign island or continent to identify those who were already living there. This happened in the Archipelago too as we have seen above. This cannot be separated from colonial history either. Then, we will see how the term is used in the 21st century in the following. The declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2007. The aims of the declaration are to protect the rights of indigenous peoples around the globe. Article 2 reads as follows: Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity. An Indonesian translation read as follows: Masyarakat pribumi dan tiap-tiap individu bebas dan setara dengan segala bangsa dan semua individu dan mereka mempunyai hak untuk terbebas dari segala macam diskriminasi, dan dalam pelaksanaan hak mereka, khusunya yang berdasar atas hak- hak mereka, khususnya yang berdasar pada asal-usul atau identitas mereka (Pasal 2 Perserikatan bangsa-bangsa 2007). Here the Indonesian translation for indigenous peoples is masyarakat pribumi (literally, “local society”). This translation does not seem appropriate because the term pribumi has been used to denote the Indonesian nation since the colonial period.2 It has even been used to distinguish Indonesians as colonized from Europeans as colonizers. The people at whom the declaration aims is a different group. The report of the Indigenous People Alliance of the Archipelago reads as follows: Indonesian laws use various terms to refer to indigenous peoples, such as masyarakat suku terasing (alien tribal communities), masyarakat tertinggal (neglected communities), masyarakat terpencil (remote communities), masyarakat hukum adat (customary law communities) and, more simply, masyarakat adat (communities governed by custom). Indigenous peoples live in forests, mountains and coasts. Some are nomadic and some are sedentary, and they are engaged in gathering, rotational swidden farming, agroforestry, fish- ing, small-scale plantations and mining for their subsistence needs. They traditionally live on their ancestral land and water. They depend on nature, as they believe the earth is a common property that has to be protected for its sustainability. They have their own knowledge about how to manage nature (Indigenous People Alliance of the Archipelago 2012: 1). In this passage, the term “indigenous people” is translated as isolated peoples such as orang Baduy (Baduy people in the Banten regency) or orang Dani (Dani people in the West Papua Regency). The United Nations declaration means that such isolated peoples in Indonesia should be differentiated from aborigines in Australia. Australian aborigines lived in the island before the Europeans came, while orang Baduy are Sundanese who chose to live in isolation when the Sundanese area was conquered by the Islamic-Javanese kingdom. Baduy people have distinctive customs and a unique culture ensuing from their own determination.

2. Sometimes it was used as a counter-term to non-pribumi, denoting mainly Chinese Indonesian.

482 My question is whether the English term “indigenous people” as stated in the United Nations declaration is used appropriately in the context of Indonesian society. It might mislead to differen- tiation from or even discrimination of fellow peoples from the majority of the Indonesian nation. Is it proper to label a group of people as indigenous because they still keep their traditional way of life with their own customs, adat? Indonesia is a nation that consists of a large number of ethnic groups with their own cultures, as stated and respected by the constitution of 1945. Through history all peoples in the Archipelago were uniformly called indigenous by colonizers in various languages, despite noticing the great diversity among them. In this global age Indonesian city dwellers call people living in isolated locations “indigenous”, as if they were masters from the colonial past. They seem to discriminate against those who live in an underdeveloped environment by not remembering the history of the term in their own colonial past. It seems appropriate to use a different term to denote such peoples instead of using the English term “indigenous people”. As mentioned above, in Indonesian law there are Indonesian terms equivalent to the English ones: masyarakat suku terasing (alien tribal communities), masyarakat tertinggal (neglected communities), masyarakat terpencil (remote communities), masyarakat hukum adat (customary law communities) and masyarakat adat (communities governed by custom). The same holds true for Indonesian studies. It is not necessary to use “Indigenous Studies” in English to identify ethnic studies such as Sundanese culture or anthropological studies on remote communities like orang Baduy. The term “Indigenous Studies”’ in the Indonesian context reminds us of a colonial mindset and a discriminatory view. Is it more appropriate, then, to use the term “Indonesian Studies” the same way we use “Japanese Studies” for doing research on Japanese people, culture and society in a global age?

Respect for Local Culture

Articles in this section show their attachment for a local culture and careful research on their materials. This methodology and mindset should be respected for our further research on cultural heritage in Indonesia or Indonesian Studies. Neverthless, we know a different methodology based on comparison. Comparative studies between cultures could clarify the meaning of cultural practices and possibly break through existing theories. In this method discipline plays a more significant role for analysis and interpretation of a local culture. For instance, an anthropologist will observe a local ritual and interpret it by comparing it with an equivalent ritual elsewhere. In this case the researcher does not become attached to a single place for a long time and learn the local language well. He/she will move from one place to another to test his/her hypothesis. By contrast, another methodology consists of first learning the language of a research loca- tion and becoming involved in the society as well as deepening relationships with local people. Knowing a local culture deeply and finding a significant logic in the culture may lead to new theories. The direction of the vector is from specific to universal. For instance, Benedict Anderson found an idea of Imagined Communities through his Indonesian studies based on a deep understanding of the people and a thorough command of the Javanese and Indonesian languages. In the case of this highly talented scholar his research did not stop in Indonesia but covered the Philippines and Thailand too. In this process, the researcher sometimes develops an attachment to the people and they end up having a special place in his heart. Sometimes this becomes important to support our research motivation and adds extra meaning to our life. Either way, a researcher’s respect for the local people and an unpretentious attitude remains significant towards getting to know cultural heritage in this global age. We have more pos- sibilities thanks to technological innovations for research even in the field of the humanities. At the same time, we have to be careful about our attitude and methodology for a deeper understanding of others.

Mikihiro Moriyama Nanzan University, Japan 483 References

Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara. 2012. Country Technical Notes on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues, Republic of Indonesia, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD); Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP). Anderson, Benedict. 2116. A life beyond boundaries. London; New York: Verso. Asian Development Bank, Environment and Social Safeguard Division, Regional and Sustainable Devel- opment Department. 2002. Indigenous People/Ethnic Minorities and Poverty Reduction, Indonesia, Manila: Asian development Bank. Moriyama, Mikihiro. 2005. Sundanese Print Culture and Modernity in 19th-century West Java. Singapore: Singapore University Press. —. 2012. “Regional Languages and Decentralisation in Post-New Order Indonesia: The case of Sun- danese.” In Words in Motion—Language and Discourse in Post-New Order Indonesia, edited by Keith Foulcher, Mikihiro Moriyama and Manneke Budiman, 82-100. Singapore: NUS Press. —. 2013. Semangat Baru: Kolonialisme, Budaya Cetak, dan Kesastraan Sunda Abad Ke-19. Revised version, Jakarta: Komunitas Bambu. —. 2015. “Bahasa Sunda dalam Berdoa”, in Julian Millie and Dede Syarif ed., Islam dan Regionalisme, pp. 107-116, Bandung: Pustaka Jaya. Semali, Ladislaus M. and Joe. L. Kincheloe eds. 1999. What is indigenous knowledge? Voices from the academy, New York; London: Falmer Press. Sillitoe, Paul, Alan Bicher, and Johan Pottier eds. 2002. Participating in Development: approaches to indigenous knowledge, London; New York: Routledge. United Nations. 2007. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,

484