Transition from Native Forest Rubbers to Hevea Brasiliensis (Euphorbiaceae) Among Tribal Smallholders in Borneo Author(S): Michael R

Transition from Native Forest Rubbers to Hevea brasiliensis (Euphorbiaceae) among Tribal Smallholders in Borneo Author(s): Michael R. Dove Source: Economic Botany, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1994), pp. 382-396 Published by: Springer on behalf of New York Botanical Garden Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4255664 . Accessed: 14/09/2011 03:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

New York Botanical Garden Press and Springer are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic Botany.

http://www.jstor.org TRANSITION FROM NATIVE FOREST RUBBERS TO HEVEA BRAsILIENSIS (EUPHORBIACEAE) AMONG TRIBAL SMALLHOLDERS IN BORNEO'

MICHAEL R. DOVE

Dove, Michael R. (East-West Center, Honolulu, HA 96848). TRANSmONFROM NATIVE FOREsT RUBBERS TO HEVEA BRASILIENSISAMONG TRIBAL SMALLHOLDERSIN BoRNEo. EconomicBotany 48(4):382-396. 1994. This is a study of the historictransition in SoutheastAsia, in particular Borneo,from the exploitationof nativeforest rubbersto Para rubber(Hevea brasiliensis,Eu- phorbiaceae).During the second half of the nineteenthcentury, booming international markets subjectedforest rubbersto more intensiveand competitiveexploitation. At the same time, the settlementpatterns of tribalrubber gatherers were becoming more sedentary and theiragriculture more intensive.Hevea spp. was bettersuited to these changed circumstancesthan the native forest rubbers,largely because it was cultivatednot naturallygrown. The status of Hevea spp. in SoutheastAsia as a cultigen,as opposedto a naturalforestproduct, and thepolitical-economic implicationsof this helps to explain the contrastinghistories of smallholderrubber producers in the New and Old Worlds.This study offers an historicalperspective on currentdebates regarding relationsbetween forest resources,forest peoples,and the state.

PERALiAN KARET HUTAN ALAw MENJADI PERKEBUNANKARET RAKYAT OLEH/DALAM PETANI- PETANISUKU DI KALIMANTAN.Penelitian ini mempelajarisejarah peralihan di Asia Tenggara, khususnyaKalimantan, dari eksploitasikaret hutan menjadipenanaman karet Para (Hevea brasiliensis, Euphorbiaceae).Selama pertengahankedua abad ke sembilanbelas,melonjaknya pasar internasionalmenyebabkan karet hutandi eksploitasilebih intensifdan kompetitif Pada saat yang sama, pola pemukimanpemulung-pemulung karet hutan menjadilebih menetapdan sistem pertanian mereka menjadilebih intensif Penanaman Hevea spp. lebih sesuai terhadap peralihan ini dibandingdengan karet hutan, terutama karena Hevea spp. tersebutditanam bukantumbuh secara alami. Status Hevea spp. di Asia Tenggarasebagai suatu tanamanyang diusahakan(kultigen) yang berlawanandengan pohon hutan alam, dan akibatekonomi-politik untuk ini, menerangkanperbandingan sejarah pengelolahan Hevea spp. di Asia dan Amerika Selatan. Penelitian ini juga memberikansuatu pandangan sejarahpada perdebatansaat ini tentang hubungansumberdaya hutan, suku terasingyang hidupdi dalam hutan, dan kebijak- sanaan pemerintah. Key Words: rubber/latex; jelutong; non-timber forest products; Dayak; Kalimantan; Southeast Asia.

The adoption early in the twentieth century of dustry's early years in the second decade of the Para rubber [Hevea brasiliensis (Willd. ex Adr. twentieth century, smallholders have gained de Juss.) Muell.-Arg.] by the interior, tribal peo- ground ever since and now-with 2.6 million ples of Indonesia is one of the century's signal hectares held by over 1 million households- examples of spontaneous diffusion and adoption they are responsible for three-fourths of total of technological innovation in agriculture. It has production (CPIS 1993:3; Government of In- been called "one of the most remarkable periods donesia 1992:230-232). This success is all the of development in the history of agriculture" (Al- more notable because it occurred among people len and Donnithorne 1957, cited in Geertz 1963: who have been labeled as resistant to innovation 1 13). Whereas estates held a commanding share and development by both colonial and post-co- of Indonesia's rubber production during the in- lonial governments, and because these governments did nothing to support this adoption and a great deal to hinder it. Why was rubber adopted ' Received 7 May 1993; accepted 14 June 1994. with such alacrity and against such odds? Part

Economic Botany 48(4) pp. 382-396. 1994 ? 1994, by The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458 U.S.A. 1994] DOVE: RUBBER AMONG BORNEOSMALLHOLDERS 383 of the answer involves the complementarity of Species: Native II* Exotic rubber with swidden agriculture, which I have Exploitation:Gathering ll* Planting analyzed in a separate study (Dove 1993a); but the rest of the answer, and my concern here, lies Control: European Il* Dayak in the historical antecedents of rubber and the Terminology: Gutta "'. Getah political-economic context of the transition from Fig. 1. The transition from native forest rubbers them to rubber. to Hevea spp. Most analysts of the development of smallholder cultivation of rubber (and other export naturally, Hevea spp. (an exotic) had to be plant- crops) look to comparatively recent historical ed. The act of planting greatly the events for its explanation. For example, Booth strengthened position of tribal rubber vis-a-vis the (1988:205) attributed this development to the producers state, during a period when the focus of contest expansion of Indonesia's trade with Europe (be- was shifting from inter-tribal to tribal-state. This fore which, she concluded, the land and labor offers an historical on involved must have been "under-utilized"). study perspective current non-tim- Cramb (1988:107) suggested that the develop- debates regarding the development of ment of cash-cropping in Sarawak was stimulat- ber forest products, and relations between forest the ed by the exhaustion of primary forest at the turn resources, forest peoples, and state. The data upon of the century, leading to inadequate swidden which this analysis is based harvests. Dillon (1985:116) argued that the de- were gathered during several periods of research velopment of smallholder rubber cultivation in in West and South Kalimantan, which included tandem with rice cultivation was due to the wide- an extended stay with the Kantu', an Ibanic- spread abundance of land in Indonesia at the turn speaking tribe of swidden agriculturalists. Hevea of the century. A shortcoming common to all of spp. is one of the Kantu's major sources of cash these analyses is that they assume commodity or tradable commodities. production was without precedent in the tribal and peasant economies that adopted it. In fact HISTORY there was a precedent: the gathering of natural forest latexes, which was one element in a tra- TRIBAL TRADE dition of trade in non-timber forest products that The once-widespread idea that monetary re- is of great antiquity in Southeast Asia and was lations are foreign to traditional, tribal societies an important factor in the development of its is increasingly questioned today, with the linkage societies. of tribal peoples to broader capitalist relations I suggest that Hevea spp. was adopted so readi- of production and exchange increasingly seen as ly in Indonesia because it filled a niche that pre- the rule rather than the exception (Parry and viously was filled by the native forest rubbers Bloch 1989). As Padoch and Vayda (1983:311) (Fig. 1). The forest rubbers were subjected to wrote some time ago, "A long-standing and ac- great pressure during the second half of the nine- tive involvement in trade is not at all atypical teenth century, when booming international among the supposedly isolated and self-sufficient markets brought new players and more intensive groups of the world's humid tropics." In South- systems of exploitation to bear on them. At the east Asia, as in most parts of the humid tropics, same time, the gradual evolution of the tribal this involvement historically focused on non- rubber gatherers toward more sedentary settle- timber forest products. Although merchants, local ment patterns and more intensive agriculture was courts, and international trading powers all played transforming the niche into which the forest rub- key roles in trade of these products, the initial bers had formerly fitted. Hevea spp. suited the gathering was usually done by forest-dwelling transformed niche better than the forest rubbers, tribesmen. This was a key role, with critical im- and it was protected against some of the pressures plications for the development of both the trade being applied to the forest rubber resource. and the tribesmen themselves. As Cleary and Whereas the forest rubbers were associated with Eaton (1992:59-60) wrote, "To conceptualize the a mobile settlement pattern, Hevea spp. was bet- important jungle trade as an unsophisticated and ter associated with a sedentary pattern; and, of anachronistic part of the 'traditional' economy great importance, whereas the forest rubbers grew is both misleading and inaccurate ... the trade 384 ECONOMICBOTANY [VOL. 48 was economically and socially sophisticated, as swidden cultivation and trade-oriented com- well as being ecologically balanced." modity production. (Failure to appreciate the Failure to note the existence and importance linkage between trade and swidden cultivation of this trade has led to misunderstandings of the undermines analysis of Bornean societies to this societies involved. For example, Kahn (1984: day [also noted by Cramb 1993:213-214].) 317-318) has argued that the trade in forest products was so important to historic Minangkabau FOREST PRODUCT TRADE society in Sumatra that the threat to it-by forest Recent work on non-timber forest products closures under the colonial Dutch government- has suggested that their potential economic value contributed to the communist uprising of 1927. is much greater than had been thought (e.g.: Dix- Kahn suggested that ignorance of the importance on, Roditi, and Silverman 199 1; Peters, Gentry, of this trade has contributed to misinterpretation and Mendelsohn 1989), and that the importance of the effects of the forest closures and the causes and historical depth of their trade are corre- of the uprising. The same ignorance has led to spondingly great. Trade in forest products has an misunderstanding of traditional Iban society and especially long history in Southeast Asia, with economy in Sarawak. Sahlins (1 972:224-226) ar- early records of it (between western Indonesia gued that economic exchange in Iban society was and China) dating from the fifth century (Wolters "balanced" rather than "generalized" due to the 1967), if not considerably earlier (von Heine- need to accumulate rice for external trade. Sher- Geldern 1945). A major category of forest prod- man (1990:287) critiqued this thesis based, in ucts throughout this history has been plant "ex- part, on the fact that Sahlins ignored the Iban udates," including gums, resins (intra-regional trade in forest products, which may have even trade in which may date back to Neolithic times eclipsed in importance their trade in rice. [Dunn 1975:120-137]), and latexes. The latexes Ignorance of the historic trade in forest prod- gathered in Borneo have been divided, within ucts has contributed, in particular, to misunder- the trade, into three categories. standing regarding the nature of swidden agri- The first is caoutchouc, "India rubber," or sim- culture. An example is the well-described semi- ply "rubber." The French term caoutchouc (in nomadic settlement pattern of the Iban (but see Spanish caucho) was derived from a native Pe- Padoch 1982), which has most often been ex- ruvian expression for "weeping wood"; whereas plained in terms of demand for new forest within the term India rubber stemmed from the dis- the swidden system. However, the contemporary covery in 1770 that the product could be used Kantu' (e.g.) say that their ancestors first ex- to "rub" out pencil marks, with "India" referring plored and settled their present territory in West to its customary sale through London's East In- Kalimantan not in search of fresh swidden ter- dian merchants (Coates 1987:7, 20-21; Corom- ritory but in search of forest rubber for trade. inas and Pascual 1980,1:927; Imbs 1977,5:130). Without knowledge of this trade, it is difficult to Caoutchouc first referred to any New World for- explain all the variation in the swidden system. est rubber. Eventually it came to refer chiefly to This is especially true regarding the impact on it rubber from Hevea spp. in South America and of intensified cultivation of commodities (such Ficus elastica Roxb. (Moraceae) in Southeast Asia as Hevea spp.). Even the most astute analysts and, in Borneo, Willughbeia spp. (Apocynaceae) (e.g., Pelzer 1945:24-25; Wolf 1982:330) have (Burkill 1962,2:2300-2304; Purseglove 1968: suggested that production of export commodities 146-147). Caoutchouc has been known to Eu- (like rubber and tobacco) under colonial rule must rope since the mid-sixteenth century. Trade in have been inherently "disturbing" to the tradi- it-which initially focused on erasers, clothing, tional swidden cycle. In fact, tribal communities footwear, medical syringes, and bottles-dates in Borneo were involved in the production of from the second half of the eighteenth century commodities for the international market, (Coates 1987). through their gathering of forest products, well The second category of forest rubber is gutta before the introduction of the more familiar percha, which refers largely to latex from trees colonial commodities of rubber, tobacco, coffee, of the family Sapotaceae, especially the genera and so on. Indeed, their traditional economies Palaquium (in particular P. gutta (Hook.) Burck), were structured not just to tolerate but profit whose native habitat ranges from India to the from the combination of subsistence-oriented Central Pacific, and Pavena, which ranges from 1994] DOVE: RUBBER AMONG BORNEOSMALLHOLDERS 385

Burma to New Guinea (Burkill 1962,2: biogeography of gutta percha trees because, be- 1651,1708). Its use as an adhesive and as caulk- fore the gutta percha boom, they had exploited ing for sailing vessels earned gutta percha a role them for their fatty edible seeds. There was a in the region's ancient trade with China (Hoff- minor trade in the oil from these seeds long be- man 1988:108). It was known in Europe by the fore the market for the latex developed (Burkill mid-seventeenth century, but large-scale trade in 1962,2:166 1). All trade uses likely are predated it dates from the 1840s and the discovery that by subsistence uses: the use of forest rubber for its extreme nonconductivity of electricity suited making handgrips for tools (Burkill 1962,2:1652) it for use in insulating marine telegraph cables, and for caulking and sealing (e.g., of canoes [cf. among other purposes (Eaton 1952:53-54). Jessup and Vayda 1988:16]) is of great antiquity The final category is jelutong, or guttajelutong, in the region. referring largely to latex from trees of the genus Dyera (Apocynaceae), in particular D. costulata "DOMESTICATION"OF FORESTPRODUCTS (Miq.) Hook.f., which are native to Malaysia and Indonesia (Burkill 1962,1:889-890; Eaton 1952: This history of gathering forest rubbers facil- 63). Jelutong initially was considered an inferior itated the adoption of Hevea spp. by the forest variety of gutta percha (cf. Hose and McDougall dwellers of the region (just as the historic trade 1912,1:151). It enjoyed a boom during the first in native rubbers in South and Southeast Asia decade of the twentieth century, following the helped to stimulate the initial decision by the discovery that it could be used in manufacturing colonial powers to try to transplant Hevea spp. fire-resistant plates and tiles. Jelutong became to the region in the first place [cf. Wolf and Wolf distinguished in its own right with the discovery 1936:152]). As Dunn (1975:86) wrote (cf. Gian- in 1922 that it could be used as a substitute for no 1986:3-4; Rambo 1982:282): Mexican chicle [from Manilkara achras (Mill.) For centuriesthe ancestorsof the modern Temuan Fosberg] in chewing gum, supplies of which fell presumablycollected gums, oils, and resins from short of demand during the prohibition era in foresttrees, using for at least some of these resources the United States (Burkill 1962,1:891; Eaton bark slicing techniques not unlike those employed 1952:62). (Gutta percha and jelutong are still in modern rubber tapping ... Hevea rubber, re- traded today, although not in volumes approach- quiring similar techniques and simple technology, ing historic levels [de Beer and McDermott 1989: has thereforesimply replacedtraditional gum and resin collectingin the Temuan economy. 40; Safran and Godoy 1993:296; West Kaliman- tan Provincial Planning Office, personal com- An indigenous perception of this historic linkage munication from director].) is reflected in language: the Kantu' and other The change in the market for jelutong, when Bornean tribesmen (as well as Malays) call Hevea it was gathered as a chicle substitute as opposed spp. getah, instead of the Malay/Indonesian/ to an inferior gutta, demonstrates the contingent Javanese term karet (Home 1974:259; Richards nature of the term "forest product": although the 1981:105; Wilkinson 1959 1:363). Getah is the botanical sources remain the same, the trade Malay/Indonesian term for tree sap (Wilkinson products taken from them may vary consider- 1959,1:363-364). This was the source of the An- ably. Thus, the native sources of latex were not glo/Dutch trade term gutta percha (percha "strip" necessarily first valued for latex. Many latex-pro- refers to the sheets of processed latex [Wilkinson ducing trees produce good timber, and timber, 1959,2:885]), which was applied to some of the not latex, was the basis for the most widespread most important native rubbers. The Kantu' and tree names (Burkill 1962,2:1654). Many of the other tribes did not, however, use the term gutta latex-yielding trees and vines also produce val- (or gutta percha) for the native rubbers: they used ued edible fruits and other products (Bock 1881: terms from their own languages (e.g., jangkang 204; Roth 1896;2:244). (Hose and McDougall for Palaquium spp. among the Kantu' [cf. Rich- [1912,1:151] suggested that attraction to the fruit ards 1981:123]), as might be expected for goods alone caused some Bornean tribesmen to con- of economic importance and long history. The tribute both intentionally and unintentionally to lack of local economic history obliged them to the spread of some of the native rubbers.) Burkill use the trade term getah/gutta for the non-native (1962,2:1655) suggested that the aboriginal Jak- IIevea spp. un of peninsular Malaysia were familiar with the The linkage between the cultivation of Hevea 386 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL. 48

spp. and the earlier gathering of wild rubbers is ing it and, in the former case, tapping with a one of "domestication": a trade based on gath- technique and level of intensity that was sus- ering wild (or at least mostly wild) rubber became tainable or not. Some variation in techniques is a trade based on cultivating rubber (albeit not of accounted for by variation in botanical charac- the same species). A similar process of domes- teristics from one latex source to another, but tication took place with a number of other forest much is not. For example, Bock (1881:152) de- products. One salient example is the native tal- scribed the tapping of gutta percha trees in Bor- low-yielding illipe nut tree (Isoptera borneensis), neo: which has now been planted in some parts of Borneo for at least 150 years (Sather 1990:27- With two sharp strokes of a mandau a deep notch 28). Another example is rattan, which grows nat- was cut in the bark, from which the juice slowly oozed, forming a milky-looking mucilage, which urally in the forests of Borneo and has been gath- graduallyhardened and became darkerin colour as ered and traded for centuries. the second During it ran down the tree. The native collectorsof gutta- half of the nineteenth century and first half of perchamake a trackthrough the forest, nickingthe the twentieth, rattan began to be planted in parts trees in two or three places as they go, and collect of Kalimantan (Godoy and Feaw 1989; Tsing the hardenedsap on their returna few days after- 1984:247). Today it is cultivated (mostly in East wards. and South Kalimantan) in swidden fallows, like rubber (Lindblad 1988:59-60; Peluso 1983; Hornaday (1885:433) described the felling ofgut- Weinstock 1983). ta trees for the same purpose: The involvement in commodity production The native found a gutta tree, about ten inches in that resulted from this process of domestication diameter,and aftercutting it down, he ringedit neat- was one step in an evolutionary process; it was ly all the way along the stem, at intervalsof a yard not a "clean break" with the past. Belief in a or less. Underneatheach ring he put a calabashto clean break (critiqued by Ellen [1985:559] with catch the milk-whitesap which slowly exuded. reference to timber exploitation) led to the false inference that the first rubber smallholders Colonial observers charged native rubber learned the trade from colonial planters. In fact, gatherers with exploiting this discretionary ele- European planters were proceeding as much by ment (viz., to tap vs. fell) to the disadvantage of trial-and-error as tribal smallholders in the initial the resource, by favoring less sustainable meth- years of rubber cultivation, and some of the most ods of exploitation for the sake of short-term important lessons -such as the ill-effects of clean- gains (Brummeler 1883; Burbidge 1880:74-76; weeding-passed from tribesman to colonial van Romburgh 1897; te Wechel 1911). The Nor- planter, not the reverse. Missen (1972:214) wrote: wegian naturalist Bock (1881:204), commis- sioned by the Dutch colonial government to sur- To see the estatesin this role [of teacher]underplays vey southeastern Borneo, wrote; the commercial motivation and awareness of the indigenouscultivator . . . It seems far more appro- The Dyaks have not yet graduatedin the science priateto view the late nineteenthand earlytwentieth of forest conservation.Instead of making incisions at centurychanges among OuterIsland peasants as the regularintervals in the barkof a tree, and extracting continuation of a long-term process ratherthan as a portion of the juice at different something motivationallynew. periods,by which its furthergrowth would not be prevented,they usu- To understand this process of continuation, it is ally adopt the radicalexpedient of cuttingthe whole necessary to understand the forces that were at tree down. work in the system of natural rubber exploitation Fyfe (1949:26) came to a similar conclusion re- at the time that Hevea spp. first appeared. garding exploitation of gutta percha in the Malay Peninsula: HISTORIC SYSTEM OF LATEX-GATHERING The tree has to be tapped at short intervals along RESOURCEUSE, ABUSE, AND the whole stem and even out on the branches,an GOVERNMENT POLICY operation of some difficultyrequiring much effort by the tapper.As a resultthe guttacollector confined An important variable in exploitating the na- himselfto the simplestmethod of obtainingthe latex tive forest latexes was the means by which latex which is to fell the tree and bleed it at numerous was obtained: tapping the living tree versus fell- points along the stem and main branches. 1994] DOVE: RUBBER AMONG BORNEOSMALLHOLDERS 387

It was feared that such methods would lead to This pressure did not necessitate unsustainable the extermination of the resource: Burbidge exploitation but it favored it. Gutta percha trees (1880:74) wrote (regarding Borneo), "The rubber- yielded 1-3 pounds of latex by tapping (viz., on yielding willughbeias are gradually, but none the one occasion) versus 10 pounds by felling (Bur- less surely, being exterminated by the collec- kill 1962,2:1664; cf. Eaton 1952:49). In the com- tors," while Bock (1881:204) wrote, "The con- petitive environment of a colonial-era commod- sequence is that the material is becoming more ity boom, the motivation to tap a tree for a small and more difficult to procure, and will eventually yield and leave it standing, in the hope of en- become scarce, if not extinct, in the island." Such joying more small tappings in the future, paled fears were the ostensible basis for government against the risk that someone else would fell the intervention, but close scrutiny suggests that oth- tree in the interim for a large, one-time yield. er factors were involved. This risk was heightened when native rights to The boom in jelutong (e.g.) in the first decade forest rubber trees were ignored during boom of the twentieth century triggered progressively times when, as the example of jelutong illus- tighter and more discriminating control of this trates, colonial governments imposed on the re- resource by colonial authorities (Drijber 1912; source progressively stricter and more biased Lindblad 1988:18-19; Potter 1988:130-134). By proprietary systems of their own. This imposi- 1908 the Dutch colonial government in parts of tion left the native tappers with increasingly little Kalimantan required a license to tap the trees; incentive for sustainable exploitation. in 1910 the government awarded all tapping rights to foreign concessionaires (as also was done in RESOURCEUSE, MOBILITY,AND SECURITY Sarawak [Reece 1988:28-29]); and in 1913 the The emergence of a robust European market government imposed export levies on native tap- for forest rubbers, with its attendant emphasis pers. The government justified these measures on exploitation for short-term profit, had im- in terms of the need to avoid overexploitation portant implications for historic patterns of pop- of the trees or to protect the smallholders against ulation movement and settlement. Exploitation middlemen. But some observers argued that the of latex-producing trees in a nonsustainable regulatory measures would not solve the problem manner, with the consequent need to always seek and might even exacerbate it (CAPD 1982:3540; out new and unexploited stands, promoted a pi- te Wechel 1911); and others insisted that the real oneering pattern of latex-related movement and motivation for intervention was European profit exploitation. A pattern developed of mounting at the expense of native rights. Van Vollenhoven gathering expeditions that lasted months or even called it an egregious example of the colonial years and sometimes extended beyond Borneo government's abuse of its right to "wastelands" to Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula (Burkill (Potter 1988:134). 1962,2:1656; Gomes 1911:234-235). The asso- Colonial efforts to control the exploitation of ciation of extended travel with gathering rubber jelutong and other forest rubbers fit a recurring and other forest products came to be so strong pattern (which subsequently applied to colonial- that such gathering was used as a pretext with era Hevea spp. as well [Dove 1993b]). In colonial colonial authorities to disguise migration into (and postcolonial) Borneo, whenever a natural areas off-limits to settlement (Pringle 1970:281). resource experienced a commercial boom and A number of observers have suggested that gath- attracted the attention of government and in- ering native rubbers and other forest products dustry, steps were taken - ostensibly for the com- was the genesis of the renowned Iban custom of mon good but often out of self-interest of the bejalai "expedition" (Lian 1988:118; Padoch political-economic establishment-to restrict its 1982:25,109)-an intriguing material interpre- exploitation by local smallholders. The result has tation of this much-discussed cultural trait. typically been destructive of both the resource Rubber-gathering also had an impact on the (Brookfield et al. 1990) and the socioeconomy in relocation of populations. Richards (1981:106) which it was traditionally exploited. suggested that (the above-mentioned pretext Government criticism of felling versus tapping aside) expeditions to gather forest rubbers usu- was ironic: the colonial structure that critiqued ally preceded migration. That is, if during an the overexploitation of forest rubbers was itself expedition a location was discovered that offered responsible-through its stimulation of trade- large stands of forest rubbers and also met the for the increased pressure on rubber production. other requirements of settlement, the group would 388 ECONOMICBOTANY [VOL. 48 relocate there. The contemporary Kantu' say that the forest. Some observers have interpreted this their ancestors first explored their present terri- association to mean that there was competition tory when searching for jangkang (Palaquium for scarce forest products (Lian 1988:119; Vayda spp. [cf. Richards 1981:123]) and kubal (Wil- 196 1:354-355). Others have suggested that gath- lughbeia spp. [cf. Howell and Bailey 1900:811). ering rubber and other forest products was not This is not to suggest that forest rubber-related per se the cause of warfare, but the travel and movement necessarily dictated forest swidden- migration that it required was (e.g., Baring-Gould related movement-or the reverse. Just as the and Bampfylde 1909:376). Hose and McDougall pattern of movement necessitated by unsustain- (1912,1:150,185) wrote, "In the course of such able exploitation of forest rubbers favors a pio- excursions [to gather forest products] they [the neering pattern of swidden agriculture, so does Iban] not infrequently penetrate into the regions the latter favor-or, perhaps more correctly, per- inhabited by other tribes, and many troubles have mit-a pioneering and unsustainable pattern of had their origin in the truculent behaviour of rubber exploitation. (A linkage between swidden such parties." It is suggestive that the subject of and gathering patterns also is suggested by the Hose and McDougall's outrage, the Iban, whose fact that the group most known for pioneering reputation for gathering rubber and other forest swidden cultivation in Borneo, the Iban, also was products has been mentioned, also were re- known for gathering forest products [Baring- nowned for their involvement in head-hunting. Gould and Bampfylde 1909:25, 375; Hose and Pringle (1970:21) wrote, "Stories about head- McDougall 1912,1:150; Pringle 1970:267]. This hunting may have slandered other pagan groups interpretation is supported by the fact that the . . ." but the Iban lived up to the reputation (cf. other group known for collecting forest products, Vayda 1976:48). the Penan, were not agriculturalists at all but full- In the case just cited by Hose and McDougall, time hunters-and-gatherers [Hoffman 1988].) the tribesmen who go on gathering expeditions The long-distance travel necessitated by take heads as opposed to losing them. Adult men rubber-gathering was associated with some phys- go on such expeditions, while the young, the old, ical risk, which is reflected in the attendant ritual. and the women remain behind. These age and Lumholtz (1920,1:124-125), for example, de- gender differences favor the tribesmen on an ex- scribed a remarkable /4 meter-high rubber statue pedition over the inhabitants of any community from southeast Borneo representing a rhinoceros they chance across. This was not true, however, with a man on its back, which was offered to the when the gathering was done by non-tribesmen. spirits in return for a successful rubber-gathering Bock (1881:118) described gathering by coastal expedition. The selection of the rhinoceros (Di- Malays as follows: dermocerus sumatrensis) is apt, since it inhabited Whencollecting gutta, the Malaystake a two or three (due to hunting pressure, if not natural preference days'journey into the forest. For fear of being mur- [Medway 1977:144-1451) the most remote and deredby the Dayaks,they go in parties,from twenty unfrequented parts of Borneo-the same sort of to thirty, for mutual protection,and very often ac- areas the rubber collectors had to penetrate to companiedor joined by friendlyDyaks. find unmolested trees. In the ceremony observed by Lumholtz (1920,1:124-125), a feast was held This pattern is very different from that described in honor of the statue and then the rhinoceros for the Iban and other Dayak. In addition to was "killed." This, again, is an apt symbol: as being much briefer and (therefore) involving the largest and thus potentially most threatening much shorter distances, it is associated with a animal in Borneo, the rhinoceros symbolized the defensive as opposed to offensive military pos- hazards of travel in the uninhabited Bornean in- ture. terior-although there were other hazards as well. There was an historical association between RESOURCEUSE, ETHNICITY,AND gathering forest rubber and head-hunting. This SUSTAINABILITY is reflected in the contemporary Iban/Kantu' lan- There was no "generic" gatherer of forest rub- guage, in which jangkang means gutta percha or bers or pattern of gathering. Rather, there were a bunch of trophy heads (Richards 1981:123)- a variety of participants and patterns, varying in both of which are obtained on expeditions into part as the role of the rubbers-and rubber col- 1994] DOVE: RUBBER AMONG BORNEO SMALLHOLDERS 389

TABLE 1. DIFFERENT MODES OF FOREST PRODUCT GATHERING.

Impact on Collector Intensity Market condition resource Tribal hunter-gatherer Low Normal Low (Hunter-gatherer/swidden agriculturalist) - - - Tribal swidden agriculturalist Medium Normal/boom Medium Malay peasant High Boom High Corporate interests High Boom High

lectors-fluctuated in broader political-econom- were not willing to wholly relinquish their swid- ic contexts. The earliest gatherers of forest rubber den cultivation of food crops to concentrate on were forest-dwelling hunter-gatherers (who may rubber-gathering; the more peasantized Malays have been familiar with the latex-yielding trees were. for products other than latex and for subsistence Some Dayak tribesmen managed to partici- uses rather than trade): these are the Penan (or pate in the forest product trade, while maintain- Punan) of Borneo and the orang asli "original ing their sedentary agricultural lifestyle, by de- people" of the Malay Peninsula. In the peninsula, veloping partnerships with the Penan (cf. mid-nineteenth century collection of gutta per- Guerreiro 1988:30-31; Hoffman 1988:103-104), cha was carried out by at least one of these ab- the forest product "specialists" of Borneo. Penan original groups, the Jakun (Burkill 1962,2:1655). participation was probably central to the gath- At that time, the tribal agriculturalists of Borneo, ering of most forest products except when, as the Dayak, were said to be ignorant of the prod- above, boom times made it economical for other uct. Low (1848:5 1) wrote, ". . . Gutta percha has groups to devote more time to gathering than been found in Borneo, and ... the natives ... they otherwise could afford. know at present nothing of the manner of col- Sustainability of forest rubber exploitation lecting it, or of its uses. . ." This situation changed varied with these different modes of production quickly as a result of the then-boom in the gutta (this variation is presented in simplified fashion percha trade. A quarter century after Low's ob- in Table 1). It was probably most sustainable servations, Dayak tribesmen were being em- when carried out by any one of the native hunter- ployed by merchants in the Malay peninsula spe- gatherers (cf. Dunn 1975:109), as just one among cifically for gathering gutta percha (Burkill 1962,2: many activities, during normal market times. It 1656; Dunn 1975:109). might have become less sustainable with the par- The Dayak offered something that the native ticipation of sedentary swidden agriculturalists, tribesmen of the peninsula did not: an intensive, and it clearly became unsustainable with the pioneering system of extraction (and a political participation of full-time peasant (and also cor- economy that made this possible). (The penin- porate) collectors-who employed felling or sula had no equivalent-neither in its small pop- slaughter tapping-during booin times. ulation of hunters-and-gatherers nor in its large, peasantized Malay population-to the populous, THE TRANSITION often aggressive, agriculturally based tribal peoples of Borneo.) This suggestion is supported by DETERMINANTS:TECHNOLOGICAL, the fact that within Borneo, colonial British au- ECONOMIC, ECOLOGICAL, TENURIAL thorities gave privileged status in collection to The historic exploitation of indigenous latex- the most mobile and aggressive of all of the Day- producing trees and vines resembled in many ak groups, the Iban (Pringle 1970:267). In the respects the subsequently introduced system of later stages of market booms, however even the rubber cultivation. For example, the labor re- Dayak could not exploit the forest rubbers as quirements of both systems are relatively low intensively as the colonial markets demanded. (Cramb 1988:112). In addition, there are rela- At these times coastal Malays did most of the tively few constraints in either case on the timing gathering, not the interior tribesmen (Potter 1988: of labor inputs. Forest rubbers can be gathered 131-133; cf. Hudson 1967:66). The tribesmen at short notice in response to fluctuation in either 390 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL. 48

market prices or subsistence crop harvests, with tentially exhaustible (especially if the trees are minimal capital investment or risk-taking-as is felled or slaughter-tapped), the productivity of a also the case with tapping Hevea spp. (The op- Hevea spp. grove is potentially open-ended (since posite conclusion is sometimes reached [cf. Lind- naturally grown saplings can succeed trees that blad 1988:115] by incorrectly focusing on the pass their maturity). The sustainability of Hevea time that it takes to grow a rubber tree-8-10 spp. cultivation permits sedentariness, the un- years-instead of the time that it takes to bring sustainability of forest rubber exploitation does a dormant tree back into production- 2-4 days.) not; and although sedentariness is inimical to the The Iban of Sarawak in recent history still gath- continued exploitation of natural forest rubbers, ered forest rubbers (and other products) to make it is essential to the exploitation of Hevea spp. up for crop failures (Freeman 1970:264). These (The causal direction here is two-way: patterns similarities facilitated the adoption of rubber, of settlement both affect and are affected by pat- but this would not have occurred with the speed terns of resource exploitation.) and magnitude it did if there were not also sig- This past century has seen not only the seden- nificant differences. tarization but also the intensification of swidden The most obvious difference lies in the pro- cultivation, which again favors Hevea spp. over ductive capacity of the plants involved, for ex- the forest rubbers. Swidden cultivation has been ample in the concentration of marketable latex increasingly concentrated in secondary forest and in the tree exudate. The balance between latex swampland, which-with the added requirement and resins is 80/20 in Hevea spp., but it is the of weeding and (in swampland) transplanting- reverse, just 20/80, in the Dyera spp. sources of requires higher and more frequent labor inputs jelutong (Burkill 1962,1:891). Assuming that (Dove 1985:377-381). This labor schedule is production costs are approximately equal, the better complemented by the timing of economic economic return of Hevea spp. would be four inputs and returns in the exploitation of Hevea times as great as with jelutong (Burkill 1962,1: spp. than the native forest rubbers. Whereas 896). The advantage of Hevea spp. is even greater gathering in the forest necessitates the absence when differences in frequency of tapping are taken of the tribesmen from the village and thus swid- into account: though Hevea spp. should be tapped dens for weeks and months at a time, Hevea spp. just once every two days to achieve maximum can be tapped while they remain in the village latex flows (Barlow 1978:146), the comparable and continue to work in the swiddens. rule-of-thumb for standing, wild gutta percha A final difference between Hevea spp. and the trees was just once every two years (Fyfe 1949: native rubbers involves tenure. The native forest 27)-a difference in incidence of 365: 1! rubbers were subsumed under a traditional sys- Other differences between Hevea spp. and the tem of tree tenure. Under traditional Kantu' law, native forest latexes involve complementarity the first person to tap a tree has the exclusive with swidden cultivation, in particular the cen- right to further tapping (cf. Lian [1988:118] on tral act of the swidden cycle, clearing the forest. the Kenyah). This right lapsed if the person ceased Whereas the native rubbers are at risk whenever tapping long enough for the tapping scars to heal the natural forest is cleared, it is cleared forest or moved out of the area. This tenurial principle in which Hevea spp. is planted (its seedlings are is tailored to a sedentary, sustainable system of planted in newly-cleared swiddens). As the hab- exploitation. It was not suited to boom markets itat of the native rubbers is destroyed, therefore, and state intervention, as the progressive loss of the "habitat" of Hevea spp. is created. (This hab- local rights during the boom in jelutong showed. itat is not natural forest but it does "mimic" a Even today, individually claimed forest rubber forest succession [Geertz 1963:113; Gouyon, de trees are cut down with impunity by outsiders, Foresta, and Levang 1993].) The creation of this as is evident from this December 1989 news- habitat also was promoted by changes in patterns paper report of the destruction of jelutong and of agriculture and settlement over the past cen- other trees (cited in Down to Earth 1990:10): tury. As a result of demographic and political constraints, both swidden agriculture and settle- A loggingcompany identifiedonly as PT SBK with ment patterns have become more sedentary, a concession in KotawaringinTimur district, Cen- which favors Hevea spp. Whereas the supply of tral Kalimantan is suspected of cutting down forest rubber close to a given settlement is po- thousandsof tengkawang[Isoptera spp. and Shorea 1994] DOVE: RUBBER AMONG BORNEOSMALLHOLDERS 391

spp.], pantung [Dyeraspp.] and maja [unidentified] a standing Hevea spp. tree is undeniable evi- treeswhich had providedlocal people with a source dence of planting and thus tenure, but a standing of income. native rubber tree is not: any claim that one of the latter was planted can be countered with the The publication of this incident in an Indo- claim that it was naturally grown. This is one of nesian newspaper, with a tone sympathetic to the the principal reasons why the tribesmen who ex- local rights-holders, suggests that the wider world ploited the native forest rubbers "domesticated" is more observant of these traditional rights than not them but an exotic rubber, Hevea spp., in- it used to be; but recognition of proprietary rights stead. generally is, and was, reserved for planted trees. The planting of commercially valued perennials CONSEQUENCES:RITUAL, POLITICAL like rubber is recognized under both national and The shift from forest rubbers to Hevea spp. tribal law as establishing rights both to the trees represented the replacement not just of one tree and the land under them (Weinstock and Vergara with another, but of one mode-of-production with 1987:318-319). Although planting rubber (or another. Some of the attendant, wide-ranging other economic trees) enhances tenurial security, consequences are reflected in the changes in rit- it does not completely guarantee it. This is il- ual that occurred as a result. Thus, although bird lustrated by another, not-atypical story in the augury is associated with both gathering native Indonesian press, which tells of the clearing of rubbers and producing Hevea spp., there is a dif- 100 hectares of rubber smallholdings to make ference: as the earlier-described "rubber rhinoc- way for a government estate project (cited in eros" indicated, ritual in forest rubber produc- Down to Earth 1990:3). Even in the way that the tion focused on the hazards of traveling to gather state destroys rubber trees, however, their su- the rubber (Gomes 1911:234-235), whereas rit- perior tenurial character is evident: whereas the ual in Hevea spp. production focuses on the haz- colonial state could simply take forest rubber ards of trading the product (Sandin 1980: trees from local claimants, the contemporary state 107,112,113,1 15,122). (Market prices for rubber must fell a Hevea spp. tree and plants its own are volatile and represent the greatest source of rubber tree (or other perennial) in its stead, to uncertainty in rubber cultivation.) The focus in overcome local proprietary rights. the first case is on the physical dangers of the It is notable that the Dayak did not attempt tribal world, whereas the focus in the second case the obverse of the state's strategem, namely, is on the economic dangers of the outside world. clearing the forest rubber trees and then re-plant- This shift from "physical" to "fiscal" hazards ing the same species. That is, the Dayak did not reflects the consequences of a transition from a choose to reforest their fallowed swiddens with mode-of-production based on collection to one native rubbers instead of Hevea spp. This deci- based on cultivation. sion was not a function of botanical constraints: The consequences of this transition were re- a colonial observer noted that the Bornean source flected in the extraordinary panic that swept Bor- of caoutchouc ( Willughbeia spp.) "may be easily neo in the 1930s, based on a rumor that the spirit and rapidly increased by vegetative as well as of the Hevea spp. was "eating" the spirit of the seminal modes of propagation" (Burbidge 1880: swidden rice, and resulting in mass fellings of 74); and there are records of estate plantings of rubber trees (Dove n.d.; Freeman 1970:268; both gutta percha (Fyfe 1949:26) and jelutong Geddes 1954:97). This panic reflected anxiety (cf. van Wijk [ 1941 ] cited in CAPD [ 1982:1344]). about the impact that Hevea spp. cultivation The Dayak did some planting-the Kantu' (e.g.) might have on the traditional cultivation of swid- say that their ancestors planted some of the na- den rice. It can be interpreted as a caution against tive rubber trees, in particular Palaquium spp., overinvolvement in commodity production. the major source of gutta percha-but these ef- Hudson wrote (1 967:31 1): forts pale by comparison with the effort even- Most villagersfeel thatthe rubbermarket is a chancy tually devoted to Hevea spp. Although there may thing.World demand varies and pricesfluctuate. No be other reasons for this (e.g., differences in pro- one of them wantsto be totallydependent on factors ductivity), one of the principal reasons involves over which they have no control. Thus ... rubber the implications for domestication and, accord- cultivationwill continue in the foreseeablefuture as ingly, tenure in the eyes of the state. In Borneo, an activity ancillaryto swidden farming. 392 ECONOMICBOTANY [VOL. 48

Most Bornean tribesmen did not overcommit to fact were used to protect the inefficient European rubber cultivation but maintained it as an "an- estates from the highly competitive smallhold- cillary" activity, which has enabled them to sur- ers, by means of fixed estate/smallholder ratios, vive historic market cycles of boom and bust far planting restrictions, and special export taxes better than the estate sector. (ranging up to, and beyond, 2000 percent) on Rubber posed a threat not just to the rice spir- smallholder production alone (Bauer 1948:1 42n; its. The shift from mobile gathering to sedentary Thee 1977:27-28). Until the past decade the only tapping entailed a shift from a more aggressive, attention that smallholders in Indonesia have re- military posture to a more vulnerable, defensive ceived from the government has been punitive one. Since its introduction, Hevea spp. has been in nature; all technical, material, and regulatory associated with the disengagement from tribal support has been directed to the estate sector. By warfare. A civil servant in Sarawak wrote that the 1980s, a scant 8 percent of Indonesian small- the 1911-1912 rubber boom "banished all holders were participating in government pro- thoughts of tribal warfare and head-hunting" grams to improve productivity (Booth 1988:217), (Ward 1966:145), a change summed up by a despite which the smallholders have still man- colonial poet as follows (Anonymous 1925): aged to dominate production. The relative success of the smallholders in this Now all is changedgreat peace and quiet unequal contest is attested to by the name they The sharp-edgedsword becomes the tapper'sknife. The carved shield becomes a swing use for Hevea spp.: getah, the source of the co- Whereinis wrappedin clothesthe babewhose future lonial term gutta for forest rubbers. The adoption lies of this term reflects a changing of roles between In the price of rubbertapped in a ring. native rubbers and Hevea spp., and between Eu- ropean planters and native smallholders (Fig. 1). Hevea spp. became associated with a decline in It signifies that what the native rubbers were for warfare because involvement in its cultivation is the Europeans, Hevea spp. became for the tribes- inimical to waging war. The permanence of rubber men. A fundamental transformation of the po- gardens impedes the tactical mobility of the tribe, litical economy of rubber production in South- and the solitariness of the rubber tapper makes east Asia took place, based on critical differences defense impossible. Moreover, although men did between the native rubbers and Hevea spp. Al- most of the historic gathering of forest rubbers, though tribal collectors could not control ex- women today do most of the tapping of Hevea ploitation of native forest rubbers, tribal tappers spp. Down to the present day, rubber-tapping is could control exploitation of Hevea spp. The co- the activity that suffers most (viz., that is aban- lonial planters' use of "forest rubber" as a term doned) when rumors of marauding penyamun of disparagement for tribal Hevea spp. (Gouyon, "head-hunters" sweep through the interior of de Foresta, and Levang 1993:182; Lindblad 1988: Borneo. 66) is, from this perspective, doubly ironic. First, Contemporary, sedentary tappers of Hevea spp. it unwittingly points to the historic basis for the are vulnerable to roving bandits and rebels (and smallholders' successful adoption of Hevea spp. the rumor of them), just as local communities Second, it invokes as a term of disparagement were formerly vulnerable to roving gatherers of the commodity that the colonial establishment forest rubber. This transition reflects a move away successfully controlled (forest rubber), in refer- from the type of political-economic formation in ence to the commodity that it failed to control which tribal warfare had a role to play. Head- (Hevea spp.). hunting was the quintessential tribal activity, and its abandonment-occasioned, in part, by the CONCLUSIONS adoption of Hevea spp. - reflects a re-orientation The adoption of Hevea spp. in Borneo repre- of the primary axis of contest from inter-tribal sented not the adoption of trade but rather the to tribal-state. adaptation of a long-standing trade-in forest The developing contest with the state was re- products-to a changing political-economic con- flected in how quickly the colonial governments' text. The course of agricultural development here initial support for smallholder rubber cultivation was not just a contest between society and nature, turned to rabid opposition. The international nor between society and its own problems (e.g., rubber regulation agreements of the 1920s and population/resource pressure), but between dif- 1930s, ostensibly designed to stabilize prices, in ferent sectors of society (viz., a state and its com- 1994] DOVE: RUBBER AMONG BORNEO SMALLHOLDERS 393

mercial elite on the one hand, and tribesmen more than the global system impacting on the living at the state's periphery on the other). local system. The latter half of the nineteenth This contest was, in part, a conceptual one: its and first half of the twentieth centuries saw not object was to model the resource landscape in a just more involvement in the world economy by manner favorable to one's own rights, categories, the tribal communities in Borneo, but involve- and interests (cf. Dove 1992). Domestication ment of a different order. In response to the proved to be a powerful tool in this contest. It broader political-economic structures exerting gave local communities greater leverage vis-a- increasing control over commodity production, vis broader political-economic structures by the tribesmen developed new production sys- shifting their activities, along the publicly per- tems, like Hevea spp. cultivation, that maxi- ceived nature-culture continuum, further from mized the strengths of the local system-e.g., a nature and closer to culture. This shift enabled subsistence agricultural base-and exploited the the tribesmen to fend off external appropriation weaknesses of the global system-e.g., greater of the imported Hevea spp. more effectively than recognition of proprietary rights to planted trees. with their own native rubbers. There was much more to this process, therefore, This history shows that development of trade than the "working out of a colonial role" for the in non-timber forest products does not, by itself, native producers. guarantee an increased flow of benefits to local communities (and it may even threaten extant ACKNOWLEDGMENTS flows [Corry 1993; Hanson 1992]), contra current belief that such development is an absolute I initially carried out research in Borneo for two years (1974-1976) with support from the National Science Foundation (Grant #GS-42605). good. It took a long-term indigenous effort, which I gathered additional data during six years of subsequent work based in benefitted from a colonial planning process (the Indonesia (1979-1985), with support from the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and the Program on Environment of the East-West Center. importation of Hevea spp.) in effect gone awry, The current analysis was written with the assistance of fellowships from to establish local, native control of rubber pro- the East-West Center's Programs on Environment and Population and duction in Borneo. a grant from the John P. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. An earlier version of the paper was read at the XVII Pacific Science Congress The differing outcome of competition over the in Honolulu, May 1991. The author is grateful to Helen Takeuchi and native rubbers and Hevea spp. shows that the Daniel Bauer for assistance with editing and graphics, to Phyllis Tabusa intensification of relations between local com- and Marilyn M. Li for assistance with literature searches, to Marlinus Pandutama for assistance with Indonesian translation, and to two anon- munities and the global economic system is com- ymous reviewers for Economic Botany for very useful comments on an plex, takes many possible shapes, and has many earlier draft. None of the afore-mentioned people or organizations necessarily agrees with the analysis presented here, for which the author possible outcomes. The current tendency to view alone is responsible. histories of "incorporation" into the world economy as unvarying does an injustice to the varying LITERATURE CITED dynamics of local systems, as well as the global system itself. Allen, G. C., and A. G. Donnithorne. 1957. Western Dutch development of the forest product trade enterprise in Indonesia and Malaysia. Macmillan, in what is today the Indonesian portion of Bor- New York. neo has been characterized as follows: Anonymous. 1925. A Dyak house. Sarawak Gazette 859 (1 April). Baring-Gould, S., and C. A. Bampfylde. 1909. A his- On the one hand,the Dutch werereleasing them [the tory of Sarawak under its two white rajahs, 1839- interior Dayak tribesmen] from some of their old 1908. H. Sotheran and Co., London. insecurities,but, on the other, the Dutch were open- Barlow, C. 1978. The natural rubber industry: its ing up theircountry to new tradersin jungle produce, development, technology, and economy in Malay- and pressingthem to become involved with them. sia. Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur. The enticement of working regularlyfor the new Bauer, P. T. 1948. The rubber industry: a study in trader organizations,and their seductively reliable competition and monopoly. Longmans, Green and credit, was not easy to resist. A colonial role was Co., London. being worked out even for them ... (Black 1985: de Beer, J. H., and M. J. McDermott. 1989. The 291) economic value of non-timber forest products in Southeast Asia: with emphasis on Indonesia, Ma- Although it is important to link rubber gatherers laysia and Thailand. Netherlands Committee for and tappers to the wider, global processes of which IUCN, Amsterdam. they are part (cf. Kahn 1982:15), it also is im- Black, I. 1985. The "Lastposten": Eastern Kaliman- portant to recognize that the linkage involved tan and the Dutch in the nineteenth and early twen- 394 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL. 48

tieth centuries.Journal of SoutheastAsian Studies opment of selected non-timber forest products from 16:281-29 1. Borneo for the U.S. market. 2 vols. Project Borneo, Bock, C. 1881. The head-huntersof Borneo:a nar- Cambridge. rative of travel up the Mahakam and down the Dove, M. R. 1985. Swidden agriculture in Indonesia: Barito;also journeyings in Sumatra.Sampson Low, the subsistence strategies of the Kalimantan Kantu'. Marston,Searle & Rivington, London. Mouton, Berlin. Booth, A. 1988. Agriculturaldevelopment in Indo- 1992. The dialectical history of "jungle" in nesia. Asian Studies Association of Australia, the subcontinent. Journal of Anthropological Re- Southeast Asia Publications Series No. 16. Allen search 48:231-253. and Unwin, Sydney. . 1993a. Para rubber and swidden agriculture Brookfield, H., F. J. Lian, L. Kwai-Sim, and L. Potter. in Borneo: an exemplary adaptation to the ecology 1990. Borneo and the Malay Peninsula. Pages 495- and economy of the tropical forest. Economic Bot- 512 in B. L. Turner, W. C. Clark, R. W. Kates, J. any 47:136-147. F. Richards, J. T. Mathews, and W. B. Meyer, eds., * 1993b. A revisionist view of tropical defor- The earth as transformedby human action. Cam- estation and development. Environmental Conser- bridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge. vation 20:17-24, 56. Brummeler,T. 1883. Getah pertjahen caoutchouc. . n.d. Rice-eating rubber and people-eating Tijdschrift voor Nijverheid & Landbouw in Ned- governments: peasant versus state critiques of rubber erlandsch-Indie28:1 1-46. development in colonial Indonesia. Ethnohistory. Burbidge, F. W. 1880. The gardens of the sun: a Down to Earth. 1990. Farmer shot in plantation dis- naturalist's journal of Borneo and the Sulu Archi- pute, No. 7 (March) 3; Loggers destroy local forest pelago. John Murray, London. product supplies, No. 7 (March): 10. Burkill, I. H. 1962. A dictionary of the economic Drijber, B. H. 1912. Djeloetoeng concessie op Bor- products of the Malay Peninsula. 2 vols. Ministry neo. De Indische Gids 34:1444-1469. of Agriculture and Cooperation, Kuala Lumpur. Dunn, F. L. 1975. Rain-forest collectors and traders: CAPD (Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Docu- a study of resource utilization in modern and an- mentation). 1982. Indonesian forestry abstracts: cient Malaya. Monographs ofthe Malaysian Branch Dutch literature until about 1960. CAPD, Wag- of the Royal Asiatic Society, No. 5. eningen. Eaton, B. J. 1952. Wild and plantation rubber plants: Cleary, M., and P. Eaton. 1992. Borneo: change and gutta-percha and balata. Pages 49-63 in P. Schid- development. Oxford University Press, Singapore. rowitz and T. R. Dawson, eds., History of the rubber Coates, A. 1987. The commerce in rubber: the first industry. W. Heffer and Sons for the Institution of 250 years. Oxford University Press, Singapore. the Rubber Industry, Cambridge. Corominas,J., and J. A. Pascual. 1980. Diccionario Ellen, R. F. 1985. Patterns of indigenous timber ex- critico etimologico Castellanoe Hispanico. 5 vols. traction from Moluccan forest fringes. Journal of EditorialGredos, Madrid. Biogeography 12:559-587. Corry, S. 1993. The rainforest harvest: who reaps the Freeman, J. D. 1970. Report on the Iban. The Ath- benefit? The Ecologist 23(4):148-153. lone Press, London. CPIS (Centerfor Policy and ImplementationStudies). Fyfe, A. J. 1949. Gutta percha. Malayan Forester 12: 1993. Towardsa plantingmaterials policy for In- 25-27. donesian rubbersmallholdings: lessons from past Geddes, W. R. 1954. The Land Dayaks of Sarawak. projects.Agriculture Group Working Paper No. 14. Colonial Research Study no. 14. H.M.S.O., Lon- CPIS, Jakarta. don. Cramb, R. A. 1988. The commercialization of Iban Geertz, C. 1963. Agricultural involution: the pro- agriculture. Pages 105-134 in R. A. Cramb and R. cesses of ecological change in Indonesia. For the H. W. Reece, eds., Development in Sarawak: his- Association of Asian Studies, by the University of torical and contemporary perspectives. Monash Pa- California Press, Berkeley. per on Southeast Asia No. 17, Center of Southeast Gianno, R. 1986. The exploitation of resinous prod- Asian Studies, Monash University. ucts in a lowland Malayan Forest. Wallaceana 43: 1993. Shifting cultivation and sustainable ag- 3-6. riculture in East Malaysia: a longitudinal case study. Godoy, R., and T. C. Feaw. 1989. The profitability Agricultural Systems 42:209-226. of smallholder rattan cultivation in Central Borneo. Dillon, H. S. 1985. Development of rubber small- Human Ecology 16(4):397-420. holders in north Sumatra. Pages 1 6-126 in Small- Gomes, E. H. 1911. Seventeen years among the Sea holder rubber production and policies: proceedings Dyaks of Borneo: a record of intimate association of an international workshop held at the University with the natives of the Bornean jungles. Seeley and of Adelaide. ACIAR, Canberra. Co., London. Dixon, A., H. Roditi, and L. Silverman. 1991. From Gouyon, A., H. de Foresta, and P. Levang. 1993. Does forest to market: a feasibility study of the devel- 'jungle rubber' deserve its name? An analysis of 1994] DOVE: RUBBER AMONG BORNEOSMALLHOLDERS 395

rubberagroforestry systems in southeastSumatra. Lumholtz,C. 1920. Throughcentral Borneo:an ac- AgroforestrySystems 22:181-206. count of two years' travel in the land of the head- Government of Indonesia. 1992. Statistik Indonesia: huntersbetween the years 1913 and 1917. 2 vols. statistical yearbook of Indonesia. Central Bureau CharlesScribner's Sons, New York. of Statistics,Jakarta. Medway, Lord. 1977. Mammals of Borneo. Mono- Guerreiro,A. 1988. Cashcrops and subsistencestrat- graph No. 7. The MalaysianBranch of the Royal egies. SarawakMuseum Journal39(60):15-52. Asiatic Society, Kuala Lumpur. Hanson, J. H. 1992. Extractiveeconomies in a his- Missen, G. J. 1972. Viewpoint on Indonesia:a geo- toricalperspective: gum arabicin West Africa.Ad- graphicalstudy. Thomas Nelson, Melbourne. vances in Economic Botany 9:107-114. Padoch,C. 1982. Migrationand its alternativesamong von Heine-Geldern,R. 1945. Prehistoricresearch in the Ibanof Sarawak.Verhandelingen No. 98. Mar- the Netherlands Indies. Southeast Asia Institute, tinus Nijhoff, The Hague. New York. , and A. P. Vayda. 1983. Patternsof resource Hoffman,C. 1988. The "wild Punan"of Borneo:a use and human settlementin tropicalforests. Pages matterof economics. Pages89-118 in M. R. Dove, 301-313 in F. B. Golley, ed., Tropicalrain forests: ed., The real and imagined role of culture in de- structureand function.Elsevier Scientific, Amster- velopment:case studiesfrom Indonesia.University dam. of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Parry, J., and M. Bloch, eds. 1989. Money and the Hornaday,W. T. 1885. Two years in the jungle:the mortalityofexchange. Cambridge University Press, experiencesof a hunterand naturalistin India,Cey- Cambridge. lon, the Malay Peninsula and Borneo. Charles Peluso, N. P. 1983. Networkingin the commons: a Scribner'sSons, New York. tragedyfor rattan?Indonesia 35:95-108. Horne,E. C. 1974. Javanese-Englishdictionary. Yale Pelzer, K. 1945. Pioneer settlement in the Asiatic University Press, New Haven. tropics:studies in land utilizationand agricultural Hose, C., and W. McDougall. 1912. The pagantribes colonization in Southeast Asia. American Geo- of Borneo. 2 vols. Macmillanand Co., Ltd., Lon- graphicalSociety (Special Publication No. 29), New don. York. Howell, W., and D. J. S. Bailey. 1900. A Sea Dyak Peters, C. M., A. H. Gentry, and R. 0. Mendelsohn. dictionary.American Mission Press, Singapore. 1989. Valuationof an Amazonian rainforest.Na- Hudson, A. B. 1967. Padju Epat: the ethnography ture 339:655-656. and social structureof a Ma'anyanDajak group in Potter,L. 1988. Indigenesand colonisers:Dutch for- SoutheasternBorneo. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell est policy in South and East Borneo (Kalimantan), University. 1900 to 1950. Pages 127-149 in J. Dargavel, K. Imbs,P. 1977. Tresorde la langueFrancaise. 15 vols. Dixon, and N. Semple,eds., Changingtropical for- CentreNational de la RechercheScientifique, Paris. ests: historical perspectiveson today's challenges Jessup, T. C., and A. P. Vayda. 1988. Dayaks and in Asia, Australasiaand Oceania. Centre for Re- forests of interiorBorneo. Expedition30(1):5-17. source and EnvironmentalStudies, Canberra. Kahn,J. S. 1982. Frompeasants to petty commodity Pringle, R. 1970. Rajahs and rebels: the Ibans of production in Southeast Asia. Bulletin of Con- Sarawakunder Brooke rule, 1841-1941. Cornell cerned Asian Scholars 14(l):3-1 5. University Press, Ithaca. 1984. Peasantpolitical consciousness in West Purseglove,J. W. 1968. Tropicalcrops: dicotyledons. Sumatra:a reanalysisof the communist uprisingof Longman,Harlow (U.K.). 1927. Senri EthnologicalStudies 13:293-325. Rambo,A. T. 1982. OrangAsli adaptive strategies: Lian, F. J. 1988. The economics and ecology of the implicationsfor Malaysiannatural resource devel- production of the tropical rainforestresources by opment planning. Pages 251-299 in C. Mac- tribal groups of Sarawak,Borneo. Pages 113-125 Andrewsand L. S. Chin, eds., Too rapid ruralde- in J. Dargavel, K. Dixon, and N. Semple, eds., velopment. Ohio University Press, Athens. Changingtropical forests: historical perspectives on Reece,R. H. W. 1988. Economicdevelopment under today'schallenges in Asia, Australasiaand Oceania. the Brookes. Pages 21-34 in R. A. Cramband R. Centre for Resource and EnvironmentalStudies, H. W. Reece, eds., Development in Sarawak:his- Canberra. toricaland contemporaryperspectives. Monash Pa- Lindblad,J. T. 1988. BetweenDayak and Dutch:the per on SoutheastAsia No. 17, Centerof Southeast economic history of SoutheastKalimantan, 1880- Asian Studies, Monash University. 1942. VerhandelingenNo. 134. Foris Publications, Richards,A. 1981. An Iban-Englishdictionary. Clar- Dordrecht. endon Press, Oxford. Low, H. 1848. Sarawak,its inhabitantsand produc- van Romburgh,P. 1897. Getah Pertja, hare eigen- tions: beingnotes duringa residencein that country schappen,haar voorkomenen de wijze, waaropzij with his excellency Mr. Brooke. R. Bentley, Lon- gewonnenwordt. Teysmannia7:37-44, 134-142. don. Roth,H. L. 1896. The natives of Sarawakand British 396 ECONOMICBOTANY [VOL. 48

North Borneo. 2 vols. Truslove and Hanson, Lon- tence,change, and adaptiveprocesses in threeOcean don. societies. Plenum Press, New York. Safran, E. A., and R. A. Godoy. 1993. Effects of gov- Ward,A. B. 1966. Rajah'sservant. Cornell Southeast ernment policies on smaliholder palm cultivation: Asia Program Data Paper 61. Cornell University, an example from Borneo. Human Organization 52: Department of Asian Studies, Ithaca. 294-298. te Wechel, P. 1911. lets over z.g.n. Djeloetoeng. Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone Age economics. Aldine, Chi- Teysmannia 22:588-597. cago. Weinstock, J. A. 1983. Rattan: ecological balance in Sandin, B. 1980. Iban adat and augury. Universiti a Borneo rainforest swidden. Economic Botany 37: Sains Malaysia, Penang. 58-68. Sather, C. 1990. Trees and tree tenure in Paku Iban , and N. T. Vergara. 1987. Land or plants: society. Borneo Review 1(1): 16-40. agriculturaltenure in agroforestrysystems. Eco- Sherman, D. G. 1990. Rice, rupees, and ritual: econ- nomic Botany 41:312-322. omy and society among the Samosir Batak of Su- van Wijk, C. L. 1941. Enkeleaantekeningen over de matra. Stanford University Press, Stanford. verjongingvan de Pantoeng(Dyera lowii en D. bor- Thee, Kian-wie. 1977. Plantation agriculture and ex- neensis).(Notes on the regenerationof the pantung port growth: an economic history of East Sumatra, (Dyera lowii and D. borneensis).)Unpublished. 1863-1942. LEKNAS-LIPI, Jakarta. Wilkinson,R. J. 1959. A Malay-Englishdictionary, Tsing, A. L. 1984. Politics and culture in the Meratus 2 vols. Macmillan, New York. mountains. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford Universi- Wolf, E. R. 1982. Europe and the people without ty. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. history. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley. Vayda, A. P. 1961. Expansion and warfare among Wolf, H., and R. Wolf. 1936. Rubber: a story of glory swidden agriculturalists. American Anthropologist and greed. Covici Friede, New York. 63(2):346-358. Wolters,0. 1967. EarlyIndonesian commerce. Cor- 1976. War in ecological perspective: persis- nell University Press, Ithaca.

BOOK REVIEW

Remarkable Agaves and Cacti. Park S. Nobel. Oxford in some placesare fed chopped-upOpuntiaficus-indica UniversityPress, 200 MadisonAvenue, New York, mixed with approximatelyequal amounts of alfalfa NY 10016. 24 February1994. x (unnumbered)+ and chickenmanure! This fact,togetherwith thousands 166 pp. (cloth) ISBN 0- 19-508414-4, $39.95; (pa- more, makes the book worth every minute it takes to perback)ISBN 0-19-508415-2, $19.95. read it. As one Park S. Nobel is co-author of The Cactus Primer expects from this press, the book is entirely free of typos, (1986), a book which deservesa place on every botan- the photographsare sharplyreproduced, ist's shelf. His new book, whose title might imply it is and the Latin names are correctlygiven-I thought I had caughthim in a coffee-tablevolume, will deservedly take its place out an erroron Agavecerulata (looks beside The CactusPrimer. like a misprintfor serrulata),but no, it is correct,from a "Remarkablemeans worthy of notice, uncommon, cerula, little piece of wax. The book even extraordinary,"says the author, with respect to is fully referenced,the referencesgiven at the cacti and agaves he treats. He aptly describeshis the end of each chapter,with all titles (includingserials) book as well, whose coverageranges from the history unabbreviated.Those who wish to delve more deeply of the margarita(with tequila, of course, made from will get smiles from librariansand useful responses Agave tequilana)to the efficiencyof crassulaceanacid from computerizedcard catalogs. ProfessorNobel (know-bell)is picturedon metabolism (CAM) versus C3 and C4 plants. page 157. Thereare ethnobotanical data; horticultural tips; pleas He appearsto be a very open, frank, accessible kind for conservation;essays on naturalhistory; food uses; of fellow-just like his book. primerson the physiologyof roots, stems, and leaves (the author is after all a plant physiologist);even a bit NEILA. HARRIMAN of plant anatomy. Nobel is a teacher, who leads the BIoLoGY DEPARTMENT readergently from the surface to the interior, meta- UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-OSHKOSH phoricallyas well as literally.I didn't know that cattle OSHKOSH, WI 54901