ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE Vol. 114, 45–57, 2006

Subgroup ‘names’ of the () and the (): a literature survey SHUICHI NAGATA1,2*

1Department of , University of Toronto, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3G3 2School of Social Welfare, Tokyo University of Social Welfare, Isesaki, Japan

Received 2 July 2003; accepted 1 August 2005

Abstract After a long interruption due to the Pacific War and , anthropological research on the foraging populations of and northern Malaysia was resumed with renewed vigor by Thai, Malaysian, and international scholars. However, the link between recent find- ings and those reported by earlier workers in the region is often not made explicit. One difficulty in constructing a clear linkage is the lack of unambiguous identities or ‘names’ of the foraging groups under investigation. The present paper addresses this problem, examining the ‘names’ of the Sakai and Semang subgroups reported in the literature, evaluating the status of their referents, and discussing the reasons why subgroup names have been obscure.

Key words: Sakai, Semang, tribe, identify, foragers

Introduction all three of them as a single entity in his times, ‘Sakai’, a much maligned term for its residual meaning of servitude, One of the difficulties a field researcher encounters in the was used to refer to non-Muslim aborigines of the peninsula study of , the aboriginal peoples of Malaysia, is in pre-colonial Malaya. ‘Sakai’ in this sense continues to be the name of the people under study. Who are these people heard occasionally in Malay kampongs (or villages). As a one is studying? What is the name of the tribe? Do the peo- result of the Malayan Emergency (1948–1960), however, ple form one tribe or are they ‘mixed’? Is it a tribe or a seg- Orang Asli [“literally ‘natural people,’ but now taken to ment of some tribe? These problems are crucial not only in mean ‘original people’ ” (Nicholas, 2000: p. 6–7)], has been anchoring one’s study but also in learning the extent of geo- officially adopted to replace ‘Sakai’ or ‘Aborigines’ in 1966 graphical spread of the people. Any distributional study of (Dentan, 1997: p. 67), and has been in use in government cultural groups must begin with some identification mark of and academic publications and mass media since. They con- the people in question. This, however, is by no means sim- sist of the three large categories of Semang, , and ple. Aboriginal as mentioned above. The problem of ‘naming’ was taken up by almost all early In Malaysia, of these three, Semang appears to be the old- researchers, including Vaughan Stevens and Miklucho- est, turning up in Hikayat Marong Mahawangsa, which Maclay (von Miklucho-Maclay, 1878), Skeat and Blagden Blagden (Skeat and Blagden, 1966: p. 529) suspects was (1966: p. 24, first published in 1906), and others (de Morgan composed in the period of 1755–1765, and which mentions 1993, first published in 1886). Rudolf Martin (1905: “bangsa semang dan wila dan rayat bukit dan sabagai-nya” pp. 189–194) discussed this issue at considerable length. (Sturrock, 1916: p. 82), the passage translated by Low Subsequently Paul Schebesta (1927, 1952: p. 83) and Ivor (1849: p. 321) as “the Samang, the Bila otherwise Hill Bila Evans (1928) debated whether or not the Semang, or hunting and Ryots, and the Hill Ryots.” As regards the ‘Bila’ (Stur- and gathering peoples of the , have tribal rock’s ‘wila’), see the below section on tribes unidentified or names and if any named Semang group has further divisions identified by other names. in the form of subtribes. While the terms Bla, Bila, or wila ceased to be in use as a The history of naming the aborigines of the Malayan Pen- designation of a people, the Semang became predominantly insula, the Semang, Senoi, and aboriginal Malays or Jakun, a term to refer to foraging populations in the peninsula. But is long and complicated. The three named categories refer its etymology was a matter of much debate. Skeat said “The broadly to three modes of subsistence, i.e. hunting and gath- term ‘Semang’ has never been satisfactorily explained” ering, upland swidden farming of dry rice or millet, and low- (Skeat and Blagden, 1966: p. 22), but Schebesta (1952: land farming and forest collection for trade. Although p. 75) went on to speculate that it originated from a Lanoh Schebesta (1952: p. 69) says there was no name to refer to word, sema’, meaning a human in which the last glottal stop had been changed, according to Schebesta, to velar nasal, * Corresponding author. e-mail: [email protected] ng, by the Malays. Benjamin (2002: p. 34, note 38) phone: +1-416-978-4999; fax: +1-416-978-3217 also allows for Malay ‘mishearing’ of the Lanoh word. Published online 30 November 2005 The Semang do not call themselves Semang, which some in J-STAGE (www.jstage.jst.go.jp) DOI: 10.1537/ase.00082 of them understood to mean a legendary people other than

© 2005 The Anthropological Society of Nippon 45 46 S. NAGATA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE themselves (Schebesta, 1952: p. 73). Wilkinson even says: How the term Sakai, instead of Semang, was adopted to “(i)t (Semang) has come to be regarded as contemptuous, so refer to the forest-dwelling, nomadic hunter and gatherers of that no wild tribesman will answer it. ‘We are not Semang,’ Thailand is unclear. Porath (2002: p. 99) considers that it say the of Ijok, ‘we are Sakai of the Swamps; if you was taken from Malay during the 1950s and 1960s. That want Semang you will find them in the hills behind us’ ” Sakai is a word of Malay origin and has a meaning of subser- (Wilkinson, 1910: p. 9, quoted in Evans, 1968: p. 20, first vience or ‘savage’ is noted by Thai scholars as well published in 1937; see also Annandale and Robinson, 1903: (Thonghom, 1995: pp. 5–6). Apart from Ngoh or Ngoh p. 20). Paa and Sakai, Thonghom (1995: p. 5) mentions ‘Chaao My experience is the same as Schebesta’s (1952: p. 73), (people) Paa (the forest)’ as the name given to the foragers who wrote that he seldom heard the word from the Malays, of Trang, Phatthalung, and Satun (see also Hamilton, 2002: let alone the ‘Negritos’ themselves. This is one reason, p. 82). Thonghom (1995: p. 6) and The Institute of Southern Schebesta (1952: p. 73) says, that Evans avoided using it and Thai Studies (2001: p. 2245) also mention Semang and adopted instead ‘’. Another reason for Evans’ rejec- Negritos as referring to the Thai Sakai but their use in this tion of Semang is the fact that other terms are used to refer to sense appears to be limited to academic writings. Negritos of the other parts of the peninsula, e.g. Batek of In recent writings on the Thai Negritos, terms such as northwestern (or the much quoted term, Pangan) on Meniq (Porath, 2002: p. 100), Mani (Albrecht and Moser, the east coast (Evans, 1968: p. 20). More recently Nicholas 1998), or Maniq (Bishop, 1996; Hamilton, 2002: p. 82) are (2000: p. 3, note 3) expressed his preference for the term used to refer to this group, but these terms have yet to ‘Nigrito’ since Semang carries “a negative connotation achieve the status of general acceptance. Their meaning and when used by some of the Senoi groups” (see also Benjamin, the inappropriateness of using them as a term to replace 2002). Sakai is discussed below. Schebesta (1952: p. 76), however, found in Semang an Austroasiatic root meaning ‘human’. On this ground, he Tribal Names opposed Evans’ rejection of Semang to refer to all the wooly-haired people of the peninsula [“ ‘alle’ Schattierun- Having defined Semang, the next task is to discover the gen der ‘Ulotrichen’ Malayas” (Schebesta, 1952: p. 78)] and divisions of the Semang/Sakai into a multitude of ‘tribes’, adopted it instead. In other words, Schebesta’s Semang is an for, as Schebesta writes, there is no ‘native’ name collec- etic, not emic, term to refer to Malayan Negritos. To use his tively to refer to the Semang as a whole but only those that own expression, it is a scientific term [‘ein wissenschaftli- refer to occasional ‘tribes’ (‘Stamm’) (Schebesta, 1952: chen Terminus’ (Schebesta, 1952: p. 72)] and not ‘Lokal- p. 85; see also Evans, 1968: p. 22). But to find a ‘tribal’ benennung’ (Schebesta, 1952: pp. 75, 81, 83) or a parochial name is by no means easy since no definition of ‘tribe’ is yet term used by certain peoples in certain places. available. When Evans responded to Schebesta’s criticism In what follows, I use Semang in Schebesta’s sense, by providing a list of ‘tribal’ names, Schebesta criticized i.e. wooly-, ‘frizzy’- (Evans, 1925: p. 44), or ‘fuzzy’- him for not providing the criteria by which to identify a (Hamilton, 2002: p. 82) haired nomadic hunter-gatherers, ‘tribe’ (Schebesta, 1952: p. 83). Consequently Evans’ list of who form one of the three categories of the Orang Asli, the ‘tribal’ names, Schebesta claims, is a mixture of tribal and two others being Senoi and Aboriginal Malay. Linguistically place names as well as words meaning simply ‘humans’ they belong to Diffloth’s (1975: p. 2) and Benjamin’s (1976: (Evans, 1928: p. 58; Schebesta, 1952: p. 83; Benjamin, p. 43) ‘Northern Aslian’, which includes Chewong but 1966: pp. 9–10). excludes the people like Lanoh and Semaq Beri. The last How then is a ‘tribe’ to be found? Rudolf Martin (1905: two are also hunters-gatherers but whose languages do not p. 193) proposed that only those names used by the people to belong to Northern Aslian. refer to themselves should be adopted as the tribal name of It is important to note that although Sakai is no longer the people in question (see also Schebesta, 1952: p. 80). In used to refer to the aborigines of Malaysia, it is the term for other words, he proposed an emic designation, according to the aboriginal populations in southern Thailand provinces of which, for example, he used ‘Mendi’ or ‘Menik’ to refer to Narathiwat, Pattani, Yala, Satun, Phatthalung, and Trang. In the Semang of Perak (Martin, 1905: p. 194). But this, as he addition to Sakai, Sakae, Semang, Senoi, Ka-nung, Orang himself pointed out earlier, goes back to the Mon–Khmer Asli, Aukae Asli, Negreto, and Ngoh are also presently used root, meaning ‘man (Mensch)’ (Martin, 1905: p. 193). by the Thais to refer to them. The aborigines, however, call Schebesta (1952: pp. 80–81) points out that this word, in its themselves ‘Koy’, ‘Munni’, or ‘Ka-nung’ (The Institute of various forms, cannot be taken as tribal names since they are Southern Thai Studies, 2001: p. 2245; see also Evans, 1925: not proper nouns but common nouns meaning ‘human p. 44). Historically and culturally, these people are closely being’ or ‘man’. In fact, however, such a word is still used related to non-farming, hunting and gathering peoples of for ‘tribal’ names as in the case of Batek, meaning ‘human’, Malaysia, i.e. the Semang. The Sakai of Thailand and the and Maniq (Bishop, 1996), the group in Ban Rea, Than To Semang of Malaysia are therefore culturally similar but district of the province of Yala (Duangchand, 1984: p. 5, referred to by different terms in the two countries. Of these maps L and M). On the other hand, ‘Jahai’, according to van Thai terms, Ngoh (also meaning ‘’) or Ngoh Paa der Sluys (1999: p. 307), means “we who walk the trail of (‘Ngoh of the forest’) appear more commonly used and was our ancestors”, ja meaning “time before” and hai “to walk in the title of the famous play by Rama II (Thonghom, 1995: single file along the forest trails”. pp. 5, 17; Hamilton, 2002: p. 82). Schebesta’s (1952: p. 84) criteria for a name of a ‘tribe’ Vol. 114, 2006 SUBGROUP NAMES OF SAKAI AND SEMANG 47 are: (1) native statement of the Semang themselves elicit them? How should one phrase a question about an (endonym); (2) dialectical differences; and (3) differences in informant’s [‘Gewährsmänner’ (Schebesta, 1952: p. 87)] cultural practices, which are often associated with differ- ‘tribe’, without knowing the word for ‘tribe’? Benjamin ences in dialects. (1966: pp. 9–10) describes the continuing difficulty of iden- Of course, these criteria had to be fine-tuned by querying tifying a ‘tribe’ as follows: the neighboring tribes and ascertaining the difference “Yet we are faced with the fact that these tribal names between their own name and the name their neighbors used (essentially as 1st worked out by Schebesta in the for them. Schebesta (1952: p. 85) notes that though there is 1920s) were obtained as Aborigines’ replies to such no name for the Semang as a whole, the respective Semang ‘tribes’ have their own names. On the basis of these criteria, he goes on to identify Semang ‘tribes’ and classify them into Table 1. Semang ‘tribes’ according to Schebesta four groups (North, West, East, and South) (Schebesta, 1952: pp. 85–86; see also Benjamin, 1976: p. 41) (Table 1 North West East South and Figure 1). Tonga’ or Mos Sabub’n-Lanoh Jahay Batek While Schebesta’s criteria are reasonable enough, one is Kensiu Menri’ still left in limbo when it comes to applying them in practice. Kenta Nakil The first problem concerns native statements. How is one to Kenta’ Bog’n

Figure 1. Historical and approximate distribution of the Semang (Malaysia) and the Sakai (Thailand). 48 S. NAGATA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE

question as, ‘What people are you here?’ Ambiguous headquarters near Krunei calls himself ‘Penglima of the questions posed often enough necessarily produce Sakai’, but this is purely a Malay title, bestowed on him ambiguous replies; and this must be what happened. by the ex-Raja Muda of Rahman in return for aid given The tribal names obtained by this means over the years in hunting. The other Semán headmen do not are a very mixed lot. Some are innocuous Malay terms recognize him as their superior. The headman of each such as Orang Darat, , Orang Hutan, Orang camp appears to be appointed by the Malay whom the Pangan (respectively, ‘men of the Interior, the Headwa- men of that camp recognize as their master.” ters, the Forest, the Scrubland’). Others, still Malay, are The fluidity of ‘tribal’ identity has been noted not only less innocuous, such as the well-known Sakai (‘serf, among the Semang but among other Orang Asli. Both Ben- dependent’ in archaic Malay). Yet others incorporate jamin (1966) and Dentan (1975) pointed out that while lan- place names: Orang Selatar, ‘Men of the Seletar creeks guage, territory, and play a significant role in (a group of sea on the south coast of the Penin- determining the identity of Temiar and Semai, these vari- sula)’. These terms all fail to delimit unambiguously ables do not covary and as a result the ethnic identity of an Aborigines from non-aborigines, leave alone one individual is neither fixed nor stable, s/he choosing which- aboriginal tribe from another.” ever affiliation best suits his or her interests at given He adds a footnote: moments (Dentan, 1975: p. 50). Neither the Temiar nor the “The most startlingly misreported tribal name that I Semai have a word meaning a ‘tribe’ but only the phrase know of is the “Po-Klo” of Annandale (Annandale and meaning ‘our people (s9n'oi hii')’, whose content may vary Robinson, 1903: p. 23). The reply to his ‘who are you?’ depending on who it is contrasted to. There is no ‘tribe’ as a was obviously ‘we are all p9? k9l0? (siblings and cous- bounded corporate group. ins; relatives).’ ” [Benjamin, 1966: p. 9, note 16; also A similar situation was explored among the Batek see Schebesta, 1952: p. 90, where he translates the Semang by Endicott (1997). The Batek use the concept of same as “Sie sind in den Wald gegangen (They are gone bangsa to refer to “groups of persons habitually speaking a to the forest)”]. common dialect and living together, at any given time, in Nowhere in his three-volume book, however, did specifiable places within the Batek home range” (Endicott, Schebesta give the word for ‘tribe’ (‘Stamm’), so one is left 1997: p. 35). A bangsa is a collection of local communities wondering just how he went about asking the tribal names. or camps, consisting of several huts for families or single The same question may be raised in the works of others adults. Such a camp is called haya? by the Batek. The haya? including Martin, Evans, or Skeat and Blagden. There is also refers to each of these huts forming a camp (Endicott, only one entry to ‘tribe’ in Blagden’s Comparative Vocabu- personal communication). The Batek may use another term, lary (T 231) and another for ‘race’ (W 62) but in the sense of p9wak, for a group of related people living in a camp, but ‘competition’, not of ‘ethnic group’. Blagden dismisses both Endicott says it is rarely heard used (see Endicott, 1974: as unreliable. This is upsetting since Skeat liberally uses p. 235). “The usual term for such a group is gunamal so-and- ‘tribe’, for example in his monograph “The Names of the so, ‘so-and-so’s group,’ referring to a prominent member of Tribes” (Skeat and Blagden, 1966: p. 19). To ask, why this the camp” (Endicott, personal communication). omission, may take us back to the debate between Schebesta The Kensiu of Siong, though sedentary in a resettlement and Evans mentioned above. community for almost four decades, have a similar set of concepts referring to various groupings observed among the ‘Tribe’, ‘Territory’, Bangsa Temiar, Semai, and the Batek. In Kensiu usage, at the most inclusive level, there is gin, meaning ‘people’ in opposition A ‘tribe’, in the sense of “a fixed and immutable group to non-people, i.e. animals and sky spirits (c3noy). C3noy are membership” (Dentan, 1975: p. 62), does not exist in South- not gin because they are above humans. Malays, Chinese, east Asia. The identity of a ‘tribe’ emerges in opposition to Whites are all gin, which an informant said is the same as what it is not, including the state. Without such an entity that manusia in Malay (see Table 2). stands in opposition to itself, there is no tribe. It is therefore Schebesta ignores this most inclusive level of contrast, quite possible that the Semang had no ‘tribal’ identity in the namely human versus non-human, and begins from the level form of a name when they were unaware of ‘others’, espe- of aborigines versus non-aborigines when he states: cially when their life was outside the framework of a state. In “Die Semang sind sich ihrer Eigenrassigkeit durchaus other words, the fact that Evans, and for that matter other bewußt und bringen dies unter sich und auf Fragen earlier researchers, could not agree just what constitutes a Fremder dadurch zum Ausdruck, daß sie sich in dem ‘tribal’ name of the Semang may be because there was no ‘tribe’ to attach a name to. Annandale and Robinson (1903: pp. 21–22) had already cautioned not to assume that a ‘tribe’ Table 2. Levels of articulation/segmentation (the Semang) has a definite organization: “The Semán have been referred to as a tribe, but it must Batek (Endicott Kensiu not be supposed that they have in any sense a tribal 1974, 1997) organization, for they are divided into a number of People/non-people gin (people)/- camps, each consisting of about half-a-dozen families, Aborigine/non-aborigine bat3k/gob m9ni?/h9mi? ‘Tribe’ ba7sa? p9w0? (p9ta?) = bangsa and these camps are quite independent of one another. haya? h3nya? It is true that the headman of the camp which has its Local community Vol. 114, 2006 SUBGROUP NAMES OF SAKAI AND SEMANG 49

jeweiligen Dialekt als ‘Menschen (Meni’, Menra’, meanings of puak are “pasok, troop, platoon, team,” all Sema’, usw.)’ bezeichnen; die anderen sind die Frem- pointing to ‘voluntary associations’ without a ‘kinship’ con- den, die Gob, Hemi’, Hami’ oder Homi’ [The Semang notation except in Pahang usage. Both Iskandar (1986: are aware of their own ethnic identity and express it on p. 907) and Tohchigakumei (1943: p. 1190), however, give others’ questioning, that they refer to them in their secondary meanings of suku bangsa, kaum, soekoe, showing respective dialect as ‘human being (Meni’, Menra’, ascriptive ‘communities’ are deeply involved in the Malay Sema’, etc.)’, while others are ‘strangers’, Gob, Hemi’, meaning of puak. Hami’ or Homi’] (Schebesta, 1952: pp. 80–81).” There are similarities and differences between Kensiu This level of opposition, aborigine/non-aborigine p9w0? and Batek p9wak. Batek p9wak refers to the people (Benjamin, 1966: p. 4), is, in Kensiu, a well-known pair of who form a camp, “but it can also be used for a larger group m9ni? versus h9mi?. Thus Malay or Chinese are described as of relatives” (Endicott, n.d.). Kensiu p9w0? is more like ‘gin h9mi? Melayu? (or jawi)’ or ‘gin h9mi? Cina?’. There is Batek ba7sa? or p9wak when used for a larger group. It some ambiguity about Black Americans, one of whom vis- refers to a level higher than local camps. The ‘locations’ ited the village in 1985 and stayed a few days there. Some associated with Batek ba7sa?, however, does not appear to said he was a m9ni?, others h9mi?, and one said he could be be stable at all. Endicott (1997: p. 35) says “The Batek seem considered the same as either Whites, the Chinese, or the to conceive of ba7sa? as groups of persons habitually speak- Indians. It seems clear, however, that only the m9ni? can ing a common dialect and living together, at any given time, become sky spirits, c3noi?. in specifiable places within the Batek home range. They Below the level of this contrast comes that of divisions speak of ba7sa? as having come from certain river water- among the m9ni?, which, in the case of the Batek, Endicott sheds, as moving to other areas, as splitting, converging, (1974, 1997) called ‘dialect groups’, or ba7sa?, as described expanding, and contracting.” above. Although bangsa is also found in Kensiu, this lan- The ‘locations’ are not blocks of land sharply demarcated guage has another term, p9w0?, to refer to these divisions. by defended boundaries but more like what Schebesta calls Thus p9w0? Kensiw, Kensiu ‘tribe’ or p9w0? ha? 9n to ‘Schweifgebiet (wandering territory)’, accessible to any- inquire about someone’s ‘tribe’ or ba7sa?. What is his tribe/ body wishing to forage or live temporarily. Batek ba7sa? has bangsa?, to which an answer may be Kensiw Mos (Nagata, a “geographical referent... (and) associated with a particular 1986). As mentioned below, Mos refers to their relative loca- river valley” (Endicott, 1974: p. 249). Kensiu p9ta? may, as tion vis-à-vis the Kensiu of Siong, meaning the Kensiu in the mentioned, become a matter of contention among the people Sik area of as being at the edge of the distribution of of different p9w0? or ‘tribes’. the Kensiu. Incidentally, instead of p9w0?, Malay asal is Both Batek ba7sa? and Kensiu p9w0? consist of a plurality occasionally used, thus ha? bo? asal low? (what is your of camps. However, Kensiu does not have a word meaning ‘tribe’?) ‘camp’. A camp or a village such as the Kensiu resettlement There is some ambiguity about p9w0? of the children of community of Lubuk Legong, is called h3nya? (hut). As mixed marriages. The children of a Kensiu betul man and a mentioned, Batek haya? (Endicott, 1974: p. 213) also refers Jahai Tehedeh woman, the father insists, are, like him, Ken- both to a hut and a camp consisting of several huts. That siu betul, although they have been living with the mother in Kensiu h3nya? refers to a single lean-to, a camp, or a village, the settlement in Yala, which he says is the place of the Ken- depending on the context, is somewhat similar to Temiar siu Hetot. Another man, a Jahai, married to a Kensiu woman de`k (house), which also refers to the traditional village of and raising a family in Lubuk Legong, said he doesn’t know two to three years’ duration (Benjamin, 1966: pp. 15–16). what the children’s p9w0? may be and doesn’t care what it is p9w0? p9ta? (“may be Orang Asli!”). To is attached , which is Boundaries the area that the group makes use of for living and subsis- tence and may be related to Malay p9ta, meaning a plan or a Among the Kensiu, while membership, identity, or map. A p9w0? has one p9ta?. P9ta? c9mam is the territory of belongingness [‘Angehörigkeit’ (Schebesta, 1952: pp. 92, the Thunder God, Kaey. 94)] to ba7sa? and p9w0? is largely ascriptive, it may also be Kensiu p9w0? appears related to p9wak. Semaq Beri, who acquired through socialization and migration. Nonetheless constitute a Senoi and not Semang group, use to refer to “a the p9w0? membership, once acquired, appears to remain group associated with an area—usually a river valley...usu- unchanged. ‘Tribal’ identity plays an important role in the ally contains ‘core’ siblings” and normally has a headman” selection of sexual partners because of c9mam (sexual prohi- (Kuchikura, 1987: pp. 34, 35; 1996: p. 40). Dallos (2003: bition based on classificatory kinship, see Nagata, 1999: p. 47) cites puak, used by one of her Lanoh informants to p. 55). ba7sa? and p9w0? membership gives one criterion by mean ‘clan, tribe, group, in Malay’. Puak in Malay is which to determine the relatedness of the partners such that defined as “tribe, a family in the widest sense, or clan” if the two parties are of different ba7sa? or p9w0?, there is no (Coope, 1991), while in Thai, phûak (r;d) means “group, danger of being related and hence attacked by c9mam. There troop, kind, family, companion” (Thonghom, 1995: pp. 12, is no hindrance for persons of different p9w0? to settle in a 15; Tomita, 1997: p. 1040). Drawing upon the entry puak in particular h3nya?. Linguistic barriers between different R.J. Wilkinson’s A Malay–English Dictionary (2 volumes, p9w0? appear easy for Kensiu and other groups of the West first published in 1932 and reprinted by Macmillan, London Semang to overcome. in 1959), which I was unable to consult, Dentan (personal Schebesta (1954: p. 217) observes that being of the same communication, April 5, 2002) points out that the primary ‘tribe’ (‘Stam’), based on language and customs, does not 50 S. NAGATA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE automatically imply segments of it are friendly or maintain wise subdivided into a number of subcategories, which may close ties. On the other hand, a particular tribe may have also be referred to as p9w0?. The division appears to be friendly relations with a stranger tribe or even with Senoi based on locations rather than on language, as among the groups (Schebesta, 1954: p. 217). An example Schebesta Batek. Endicott (1997: p. 48) writes: (1954: p. 217) gives is the Kensiu and the Kintak, which “The alternative of naming the group after its location have a tradition of the common origin in Kedah Peak and yet would have less enduring utility because the people had, at Schebesta’s time, hardly any connection between the move more often than they change their vocabulary. two, each maintaining a friendly tie with culturally distant Nevertheless, naming by location seems to be common ‘tribes’ of Lanoh and Jahai in Thailand respectively. among the western Semang, with the strange result that Two emergent phenomena, however, deserve attention people are often found living far from the areas for regarding the open boundary of p9w0?. In 1992, in the reset- which they are named (Skeat and Blagden, 1966: vol- tlement community of Lubuk Legong, some residents ume 1, p. 26). But, within locationally-named groups of expressed concern about an individual who was away from western Semang, group and language dynamics are the village and had been residing in Tawai for a number of probably similar to those among the Batek.” years, and whether he should be considered as belonging to Why such a difference in naming exists between the Batek the village and hence entitled to a portion of rubber estate on the one hand and the ‘western’ Semang that include Ken- profits (Nagata, 1991). The concern goes against the tradi- siu-Kintak on the other is unclear. tional understanding of an open, non-exclusionary camp or Now that many of these divisions are present in Legong, village residence. the people do not agree just where they were originally The sedentary life in the resettlement village has been located. The Kensiu, based in Mukim Siong, are called Ken- reinforcing the level of distinction between the aborigines/ siu Betul, Nakil, Dalem (inside Kensiu), or Tengah (Nagata, non-aborigines or, in the case of Kensiu, m9ni?/h9mi?. For 1986). This is in contrast to the Kensiu in , one thing, the p9w0? composition of the village population who are called Kensiu Lue (outside Kensiu), whereas those has been increasing its diversity, as people from different associated with Sik are Kensiu Mos. The locality of Kensiu parts of Malaysia, as well as a woman from , have Hetot is unclear but are said to be the same as the Kensiu in now migrated into the village. The linguistic situation is just Ban Rea ([hkocsi), Yala province. Some say, however, those as complex, though daily interactions are managed mostly in Yala are Kensiu Batu, who Evans placed in Mukim Sok by Kensiu with Malay as a secondary language. At the same near the Thailand–Malaysia border (Evans, 1968: pp. 24, 89; time, the differences in p9w0? are losing their potency or rel- Schebesta, 1952: p. 86) (Table 3). evance in comparison to that of Orang Asli. In other words, According to Schebesta (1952: pp. 83, 86), it is not possi- a new boundary in the form of Orang Asli is taking over the ble to analyze the word ‘Kensiu’. In spite of the rejection by aboriginal identity expressed by m9ni?. This process in turn Martin and Skeat, both Kensiu and Kintak are genuine generalizes the Orang Asli identity over and beyond the vil- ‘tribal’ names (‘Stammesnamen’) of the Kedah Semang, lage and relates the Kensiu and other villagers to other first identified by Vaughan Stevens (Schebesta, 1952: p. 83). Orang Asli in Malaysia as a whole (Nagata and Dallos, Schebesta (1952: p. 79) says of the name Kintak Bong that 2001; Nicholas, 2002). the association of ‘Kintak’ with Kinta River of Perak is uncertain, while the word, Bong, is related to the Malay Subdivisions [‘Unterstämme’ (Schebesta, 1952: word belum. Diffloth (personal communication, 2002) says p. 86)] of northern Semang and Sakai of Malaysia this interpretation by Schebesta is not believable. The Kin- and Thailand tak are divided into two subgroups of Nakil in Kroh (Evans, 1968: p. 24) and Bong in Ulu Selama (Evans, 1968: p. 12), In the same way that the Batek consist of a series of and Kupang (Table 3). Kensiu and Kintak together form the ba7sa? groups (Endicott, 1997: p. 35), the Kensiu are like- core of Schebesta’s North Semang, whose area of distribu-

Table 3. North Semang and Thailand Sakai subgroups and their former and recent locations

North Semang and Thailand Former locations Recent locations (1980s and 1990s) Sakai Jahay Tehedeh Ruesah and Ra-ngae districts (Narathiwat) Baling (Kedah), Ban Ray (Yala), Bkt. Asu (Ulu Perak) Jahay Weang district (Narathiwat) Kg. Banun (Ulu Perak), Baling (Kedah) Kensiu Lue (Hetot, Batu) Mk. Sok (Kedah) Ban Ray (, Yala), Baling (Kedah), Bkt. Asu (Ulu Perak) Kensiu Betul (Nakil, Dalem) Siong (Kedah) Baling (Kedah), Bkt. Asu (Ulu Perak) Kensiu Mos Sik (Kedah) Baling (Kedah), Bkt. Asu (Ulu Perak) Kintak Nakil Kroh (Ulu Perak) Bkt. Asu (Ulu Perak), Baling (Kedah) Kintak Bong Ulu Selama and Kupang (Perak) Baling (Kedah) Ten’en Nawong (Trang and Phathtalung border) Lipang subdistrict, Palian district (Trang), Pa Bong district (Phat- thalung), Thale Ban National Park (Khuan Don district, Satun) (Albrecht and Moser, 1998: p. 188), Thung Wa disctirct (Satun) (Thonghom, 1995: p. 35; Albrecht and Moser, 1998: p. 166) Vol. 114, 2006 SUBGROUP NAMES OF SAKAI AND SEMANG 51 tion includes the provinces of Phatthalung, Trang, and Pat- the areas of encounter with them: Tamod district, Phat- tani (Schebesta, 1952: p. 85). thalung (70 Sakai) in 1983, Lipang sub-district, Palian dis- Apart from the Kensiu (dyo:b;) in Yala Province, three other trict, Trang (20 Sakai) in 1984, and Klong Chalerm sub- groups of the ‘Sakai’/Semang are reported in South Thailand district, Kong-rha district, Phattahlung (30 Sakai) in 1985. (Duangchand, 1984: p. 8; Thonghom, 1995: p. 89; The Insti- Thonghom (1995: pp. 37–43) mentions three ‘bands’ of tute of Southern Thai Studies, 2001: pp. 2245–2247): (1) Ten’en along the Tong River, close to Ton Te waterfall, sur- Tene’en (c9HocvUo) [Taen-aen (Pookajorn and staff, 1991: veyed in 1993. Of the three, the ‘Jaopha Band’, appears to be p. 222), hereafter Ten’en ] speaking Tene’en, and living the same as the one Pookajorn and his team surveyed in around Phatthalung, Trang, and Satun (total population of 1990 (Pookajorn and staff, 1991: p. 221). In 1995 and 1996, about 70 people); (2) Tea-de (c9tgfUt) (hereafter Tehedeh) Albrecht and Moser (1998: p. 162) surveyed currently speaking Tea-de, and living around the Ruesah (veg4vinvglkt) inhabited as well as recently abandoned camp sites of the and Ra-ngae [itc’t or Rancae (Nagata, 1995: pp. 99, 107)] Ten’en that they called ‘Mani’. Their article provides a districts in Narathiwat (total population of about 40 people); detailed map showing the sites they visited (Albrecht and (3) Yahay (ptV|ppN) (hereafter Jahai) speaking Yahay, and liv- Moser, 1998: p. 163). These sites, which include the Sakai ing in the Weang (c;h') and Sukhirin districts in Narathiwat cave, initially excavated by Pookajorn in 1990, are concen- (total population of about 30 people). trated in the headwaters of Langu and Pa Bong rivers, It is not clear what period of recent history these popula- directly south of the mountainous area called Naitra, and tion figures represent. The Encyclopedia of Southern Thai where the borders of the four provinces of Satun, Songkla, Culture (The Institute of Southern Thai Studies, 2001) notes Trang, and Phatthalung meet. They were and are made and the disturbance the Thai Sakai experienced during the 1975– lived in by the Ten’en. Albrecht and Moser (1998: p. 161) 1977 communist insurgency (Thonghom, 1995: p. 34): estimated the number of the Mani or Ten’en as just over 140, “In 1977, it was found that the Sakai lived in Thung Wa dispersed and/or merging in numerous camps. district, Satun, Thanto sub-district, Bannungsata dis- I shall examine later the relationship between and the trict and , Yala, Ra-ngae and Weang dis- Tonga and the Mos of Schebesta–Evans–Brandt and the tricts, Narathiwat. There were less Sakai people in recent information regarding Ten’en or Mani. Table 3 sum- other provinces, for it was the time when communists marizes the former and recent geographical locations of the and terrorists were wiped out. The Sakai hid them- ‘North’ Semang and Sakai. selves in other places: those who lived in Phatthalung and Trang moved to stay with those in Thung Wa, ‘Tribes’, Legendary, or Extinct or Unidentified Satun (The Institute of Southern Thai Studies, 2001: p. 2247).” The above list of ‘tribal’ names for Schebesta’s North Brandt reported the locations of ‘Jahai’ in the Ra-ngae and Semang region is poor in comparison to those Schebesta or Wang districts of Narathiwat (Brandt, 1961: p. 133, 1965: Evans presented half a century ago. Does it mean the ‘tribal’ p. 34; Hamilton, 2002: p. 85) and the Betong district of Yala names that they presented in their lists, but those that the Province (Brandt, 1961: pp. 129, 133), but he does not dif- people now resident in the region failed to mention, repre- ferentiate them into Jahai and Jahai Tehedeh. By the 1980s, sent the ‘tribes’ that became extinct? Which ‘tribal’ names the two groups of Narathiwat Jahai had either become disappeared and why? There are a number of different cir- extinct (Nagata, 1991) or were residing with the Kensiu in cumstances that led to such disappearance. In what follows, Kedah or Yala or with the Kintak in Ulu Perak. A large I shall consider them on the basis of the cases available in the group of the Tehedeh was near Betong (Batu 9), Yala Prov- literature. ince, before moving to Legong in the early sixties, shortly after the Emergency and in a period of epidemics (Nagata, Mythical tribes 1986, 1991, 1995: pp. 99–100). Under the section, “Traditions of Abnormal Races and Neither Schebesta nor Evans mentions Ten’en, though it Cannibals”, Skeat and Blagden (1966: pp. 281–285) give a appears from their writings that they had visited the Ten’en list of what may correspond to Schebesta’s ‘mythical tribes’. areas of Phatthalung and Trang. Instead they mention Tonga Below is a summary of the ‘tribes’ that existed in the legend and Mos in these areas (Schebesta, 1952: pp. 81, 86; 1973: of the people from Schebesta’s work as well as my own field pp. 15, 269, first published in 1928; Evans, 1968). The situ- work. ation is the same with Brandt (1961, 1965), who mentions Tonga and Mos but not Ten’en. Bernatzik visited a ‘Semang’ Mawas camp at the border between Trang and Phatthalung, the Their forearm is made of iron and is used as a bush knife inhabitants of which though he does not name them, must (Martin, 1905: p. 205); a small group of nomadic Jahai in the have been Ten’en (Bernatzik, 1958: pp. 74–77). upstream region of Pergau, Tadoh district, so called by the On the other hand, the Thai sources I examined give a Jahai there, but the Jahai in Perak and the Kintak, who call detailed description of the distribution of the Ten’en in the them Meni’ Kal, consider them as legendary beings 1980s and 1990s. According to them, the Ten’en are located (Schebesta, 1952: pp. 91, 94). in the area defined by the Banthat mountain range (The Insti- tute of Southern Thai Studies, 2001: p. 2248; Porath, 2002: Girgasii p. 100). The Encyclopedia of Southern Thai Culture (The In Marong Mahawangsa, man with a tail, eats meat with- Institute of Southern Thai Studies, 2001: p. 2247) records out cooking (Martin, 1905: p. 206). 52 S. NAGATA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE

Udai (Evans, 1968: p. 13). Hairy bodies, residing close to Jakun country in the south (Anderson, 1965: p. xxxiv, first published in 1824; Meni Kaien Schebesta, 1952: p. 82). Kaien is the name of Sungei Krian in local Semang speech (Schebesta, 1952: p. 88)—same as Semang of Ijob? (Evans, Pemsed (p9ms3?–Kensiu) 1968: p. 13)—range from Larut to Dindings, ?; Very problematic; Evans claims he met two of them, Ban- listed in Benjamin’s (1983) map. gul and Hilik, from Bukit Enggang in Jeniang, Kedah, and Benjamin places them in his linguistic map but notes they Semang Juru of Province Wellesley were extinct in 1920. P9ms3? are well known among the Mentioned in Evans (1968: p. 12) quoting Anderson, older Kensiu residents of Lubuk Legong who talk of a terri- 1965; Schebesta (1952: pp. 19, 93). Dentan (1997: p. 113), torial dispute over a piece of land between the Kensiu of referring to Thompson (1943: p. 23) and others, notes at the Siong and the Pemsed who were in the area around Jeniang time of the 1891 census “only one Negrito . . . was to be in the mythical times (masa? p3kdok). The Pemsed were found in Province Wellesley” but became extinct by 1901. defeated in this dispute and had to flee and that is said to be the reason why none can see Pemsed any more, although Semang in Yan, near Kedah Peak they are said to descend from Bukit Enggang in Jeniang, Mentioned in Crawfurd (1848: p. 205) as the “Sámang of every Thursday, the market day of Parit Panjang, Kedah (see the Járai” (Schebesta, 1952: p. 93; Anderson, 1965: p. 166; also Schebesta, 1952: p. 74, 87; Evans, 1968: p. 25). Evans, 1968: p. 12 quoting Anderson, 1965: p. xxxviii). Kedah Peak is known locally as Gunung Jerai (1217 feet Kensiu Bateq or Batu (Nagata, 1986) above sea level), and by the Kensiu as Batu Telain (forbid- People with noses like and who use their feet as den rock), which, according to their tradition, has a fruit spoons. This may be a type of slander. orchard guarded by a tiger and where only a shaman can In addition to those reported by the early writers, enter (Nagata, 1991). Schebesta (1973: p. 162) mentions other legendary peoples he heard about from the Jahai. Apparently the stories of Semang Bakow imaginary peoples are common among the Orang Asli but ‘Mangrove Negritos’ mentioned in Schebesta (1952: the meaning of their existence has yet to be analyzed. p. 81) and Evans (1968: p. 13) quoting Anderson (1965: p. xxxviii). Tribes mentioned but no longer present (Schebesta, 1952: p. 92) Tribes mentioned but unidentified so far or identified by Some are indeed extinct. other names There are those that cannot be located, or have been Semang Paya of Ijok recorded under different names. Mentioned in Anderson (1965: p. xxxviii); so called by Malays because of the association of these Semang with the Semang Bila swamp land, but Meni’-Gul by the Kaien, Meni’-Biangog Crawfurd (1848: p. 187) writes of “a negro race” the [‘nicht seßhaft (non-sedentary)’, Schebesta, 1952: p. 81] by Malays call Sámang or Bila, while Anderson (1965: the Kinta (Schebesta, 1952: pp. 92, 93); extinct by 1921 p. xxxviii) reports that “(t)he are designated by the (Evans, 1968: p. 93). Malays Semang Paya, Bukit, Bakow and Bila.... The Blagden described the Semang Paya and the related small Semang Bila are those who have been somewhat reclaimed groups of dialects, “now probably extinct, but spoken in the from their savage habits and have had intercourse with the extreme south of Kedah and in the upper part of the valley of Malays.” Low (1849: pp. 20, 321, 327–328), whose inter- the Krian, the boundary river between the States of Kedah pretation Martin (1905: p. 206) follows, considers Bila as and Perak,” as “low-country Semang” (Skeat and Blagden, distinct from Semang, noting that ‘Samang and Bila’ were 1966: volume 2, p. 390; Benjamin, 1976: p. 50). They each under their own chief in Marong Mahawangsa. Both included all the groups listed in this section, who were Iskandar (1986: p. 1351) and Tohchigakumei (1943: mostly in Kedah, southern Perak, and Province Wellesley, p. 1767) explain wila as Orang Asli or a pygmy race in now extinct or migrated elsewhere. To these groups Dentan Kedah. Finally, Schebesta follows Anderson, considering (1997: p. 113; personal communication, April 6, 2002) adds Bila or properly Bla as a Malay word meaning ‘tame’ the Bila, mentioned below, and call them “lowland Semang (‘zahm’), and the designation, Semang Bila, as similar to the . . . (whose) basic ecological orientation seems to have been way of specifying a characteristic of the Semang as in the coastal, like that of Btisi.” The current distribution of the Semang Paya of Ijok (Evans, 1913; Schebesta, 1952: p. 81; North Semang in the interior of Kedah and Ulu Perak may Anderson, 1965: p. xxxviii), whereas Skeat and Blagden thus represent the retreat from the lowland and coastal plains (1966: volume 1, p. 20) interpret Orang B’la as ‘kept’ or of Kedah and Province Wellesley. ‘domesticated men’, used especially of slaves and depen- dants (Dentan, 1997: p. 113). Semang of Ulu Selama Same as Kintak Bong who moved from Selama to Kedah Mabek Hamik by 1931; molested and suffered from influenza epidemic Mentioned in Annandale and Robinson (1903: pp. 3, 7–8, Vol. 114, 2006 SUBGROUP NAMES OF SAKAI AND SEMANG 53

20, 22), Schebesta (1952: p. 86), Evans (1968: pp. 25, 28). Semnams, but it is probably too late in the day to recon- Mabek, according to Annandale and Robinson (1902), is the struct fully the geography of this. As linguistic catego- name of a place near Jalor, i.e. Yala. They called the Semang ries, Sabüm and Semnam appear in my own they encountered there Hami, which both Evans and ‘Austroasiatic subgroupings’ paper (Benjamin, 1976), Schebesta rightly say means non-aborigines; on the basis of as well as in Gérard Diffloth’s (1975) ‘Les langues the place, Manik, being close to Sungai Reh (Schebesta, mon–khmer de Malaisie: classification historique et 1952: p. 86; Evans, 1968: p. 24) in Yala (see Figure 1 in innovations.’ The linguistic differences seem to be Annandale and Robinson, 1902: p. 408), Schebesta thinks quite authentic, even if the speech varieties are all they are the same as Kensiu Batu; incidentally mab3? means closely related to each other, and slightly more ‘woman, wife’ in Kensiu. remotely to Temiar. Schebesta’s paper on ‘Ple-Temer’ grammar is not Temiar as we know it now, and may Jarum Semang well be yet another of these dialects/languages, proba- Mentioned in Annandale and Robinson (1902: p. 413; bly since disappeared.” 1903: p. 9), Schebesta (1952: pp. 80, 91, 94 Jahai in Temen- To deal with the linguistic and ‘tribal’ situation of the gor?, 130; 1973: p. 258)—the Jahai in Rahman district ‘Lanoh complex’ (Noone, 1936: p. 52; Benjamin, 1976: (Thailand) near Kerunai and Grik. p. 50), Schebesta (1952: pp. 88–89) set up a separate group, ‘West Semang’. According to Diffloth (1975) in the article Sakai Jeram quoted by Benjamin above, however, Lanoh does not belong Mentioned in Annandale and Robinson (1902: p. 413, to the North Aslian, to which the majority of Semang lan- 1903: p. 9), Schebesta (1952: pp. 79, 81, 88 Jahai near Kam- guages belong, but to the Central Aslian that comprise pung Kerunei); de Morgan (1993) changed the correct tribal Semai, Temiar, Sabum, Semnam, and Jah Hut. Linguisti- name of Lanoh to the Malay name of Orang Jeram. cally, therefore, it is moot to consider the Lanoh as Semang. Benjamin (1976: p. 48) gives four subgroups of Lanoh, Sabub’n which Dallos correlated to her findings on the basis of her Evans (1968: p. 26, note 3) says he never heard of field work in Tawai and Air Bah, Ulu Perak, in 1998. Table 4 Sabub’n as a name of Semang and that a Negrito shows this correlation (Dallos, personal communication, told him sabubn means ‘black’. Schebesta (1973: pp. 16, 94, 2005). Dallos notes that the Lanoh other than j9ram are said 259) does not use the name of Lanoh. In Schebesta (1952: to “use Temiar language a lot,” and “now they have become pp. 74, 85, 88, 89), Negrito in Grik are called Sabub’n- mixed (kacokan, in Malay).” Alternatively, people say that Semnam or Lanoh-Semnam. ‘Semnam’, according to these divisions are not really Lanoh, but Temiar who, Schebesta (1952: p. 75), is a name of a river near Grik. although speak Lanoh, speak it with a “funny accent” or dia- In his post to Orang Asli List Service of 30 November, lect (Dallos, personal communication, 2002). 1997, Geoffrey Benjamin writes: “(t)he Sabüm (u-diaeresis or u-slashed-through: a high Ambiguous tribal names whose location changed central vowel) and Semnam, these are sub-groups of the linguistic cluster currently called ‘Lanoh’ overall. Chong, Mos, and Tonga Lanohs themselves distinguish between the different In both Evans’ and Schebesta’s writings, the three kinds of ‘Lanoh’ (open-O) from both the Sabüms and ‘names’ of Chong, Mos, and Tonga appear in a confusing

Table 4. ‘Lanoh Complex’ by Benjamin and Dallos

Benjamin Location Dallos Location Semnam Kuala Kenering, Lanoh ‘jeram’. Lanoh j9ram are also known as Before: mostly Sg. Malau and Sumpitan Auer Bal Lanoh s9mnam, or Lanoh saka?, which, according Now: The Lanoh of Air Bah (and Tawai) live in the to the people in Air Bah, means ‘original (asal in general area of Kuala Kenering (at Sg. Bal Bah) Malay)’, or ‘true Lanoh (sejati)’. Sabum Lenggong (The Lanoh of Air Bah did not know who ‘Sabum’, Before: Lanoh l9pey are said to have originated or sab2m, might be. However, there are Lanoh from an island, called ‘Pulau John’ (?) in the area near Lenggong, who live in a village/mixed with of Sg. Siput and Labit near the Perak Dam. Temiar in a village called Bukit Sapi. There Now: Kg Bukit Sapi near Lenggong is a possibility that some of these people are Benjamin’s ‘Sabum’.) Also, some people in Bukit Sapi are said to be Lanoh l9pey (also known as Lanoh kiyen) Lanoh Yir Sg. Sarah Lanoh menderey - m9nd9r9y (they are called ‘yir’ Before: Selama, Ijok; Now: Ulu Grik because they pronounce the word ‘yay’, ‘two of us’ as ‘yir’) Lanoh Jengjeng Upper Perak (Sg. Lanoh jinjeng/jenjeng (jinj37) Before: Kuala Kenderung (Sg. Papan) Ringat) Now: (together with m9nd9r9y) Ulu Grik Lanoh koba? Before: Lasa and Baung Now: Sg. Dala, Sg. Piah 54 S. NAGATA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE manner. In his original article, Evans (1925: p. 43) calls the 86; 1973: p. 15). However, Schebesta (1973: p. 15) is not Negritos encountered in Trang and Patthalung simply clear about the difference between Tonga and Mos, writing ‘Chong Negritos’, but not Tonga or Mos, meaning the Neg- “The most northerly group are the Tonga, or Mos.” On the ritos in the area of the present Kachong Nature Reserve map opposite page 182 of Schebesta (1952), he gives ‘Tenga between Phatthalung town of Nawong and Trang town of (Mos)’. The only hint that the Tonga may be distinct from Kachong (Evans, 1925: pp. 40, 42–43). Although Burenhult the Mos appears when he reports that a Negrito girl, Isan, (1999: p. 135) says the word list in Evans (1927: pp. 8–12) said her people are called Tonga and ‘their neighbors’ is that of Tonga, nowhere in the referred text, which is a (which means not her own group) the Mos (Schebesta, 1973: straight copy from his 1925 article, does Evans state that the p. 269). list is that of the Tonga. In his book, Evans (1968: p. 23, 30) Brandt (1961: pp. 130–131, 136; 1965: pp. 35–36) gives a again writes of Chong Negritos meaning those “at Chong in detailed description of the Tonga widely spread from Phat- the Trang-Patalung hills.” Schebesta (1952: p. 86) too says thalung to Trang and Satun, but without showing their differ- Chong is the center of the northern-most distribution of the ence either from the Mos or what he calls Chong. Finally Semang, i.e. Tonga. Brandt (1961: pp. 129–131) does not ‘Tonga’ are the only Semang/Sakai group recorded in mention Chong but Ga-Chong Fall, mentioned on the on- Benjamin’s (1983) and Bradley’s (1983) linguistic maps of line map of Trang (http://www.trangonline.com/trangmap. and south Thailand. jpg), and certainly not as a name of a people. So it seems From all the above, one may infer that the Tonga, and nei- Chong is not a name of a Sakai group but that of a place. ther Mos nor Chong, are the only Semang/Sakai ‘tribe’ or ‘Chong (=v')’ in Thai also means a Mon–Khmer ethnic group ethno-linguistic group in Thailand, distinct from Kensiu or living in the areas of north Chantaburi and Trat provinces two groups of Jahai. Then the question is why ‘Tonga’ is not and and one wonders if this was confused with mentioned by Thai scholars. The Encyclopedia of Southern the Sakai by Evans and others. Thai Culture (The Institute of Southern Thai Studies, 2001) While Evans does not mention Mos in his 1925 article, in does not mention either Tonga or Mos. Thonghom (1995: his 1937 book he writes of “Tonga or Tenga and Mos... liv- p. 9) quotes from an obscure ‘Ethnology (sic)’ book that ing near Chong, on the Trang side of the range” (Evans, “Semang in Thailand are also called Tongkas (9v'd|), or Mos 1968: p. 23), without explaining if Tonga or Tenga and Mos (F,), with their domiciliary areas on the mountains of the Pat- refer to two (or three?) different groups or ‘tribes’ of Sakai. tani and the Nakhornseethamaraj Provinces,” but does not Schebesta (1954: pp. 240, 259, 272, 289) is more specific, refer to these names elsewhere in his book. Pookajorn and though only slightly so, with references to Mos or Phat- staff (1991: p. 222; 1994) call the Sakai in Palian district, thalung-Mos, but not to Tonga, whereas his 1957 volume Trang, Taen-aen but not Tongka or Mos, whereas Albrecht speaks of Tonga-Mos (Schebesta, 1957: p. 157). Only in his and Moser call the same group ‘Mani’ (Albrecht and Moser, book published in 1928 does Schebesta (1973: pp. 15, 269) 1998). But the people of Legong confirmed that Pookajorn’s mention Mos specifically, numbering about 100, and distinct group near the Sakai Cave were Tene’en, when they heard from Tonga. Brandt (1961: p. 129; 1965: p. 35), on the other the tape I made at the Sakai Cave camp (Nagata, 1991). The hand, writes of Tonga, Mos, and Chong Negritos in Banthat Tonga on Benjamin’s (1983) map, referred to above, are mountains and says that “The Pattalung-Trang Negritos... I around Ban Du Son and Khun Ka Long, near Thale Ban will arbitrarily call Tonga” (Brandt, 1961: p. 130; see also National Park, Satun, and he footnotes that “[the language] Hamilton, 2002: p. 85). Finally neither Benjamin’s nor Bra- Tonga’ is probably closely related to Kensiu” (see also dley’s (1983) maps on peninsular Malaysia and south Thai- Benjamin, 1976: p. 50), but this speculation is not based on land list Mos. any actual encounter with the people so called. Close to Du Mos, according to Blagden, appears to mean “ ‘without’ Son, Brandt (1961: p. 131) recorded a group of Negritos in the in the sense opposite to ‘within,’ as the Malay luar” (Skeat subdistrict of Tung Nui, on the road to Rattapuri, Songkla. and Blagden, 1966: volume 1, p. 483), while Diffloth says Brandt speculates that they might have been related to the (Diffloth, 1975: p. 4, note 4) it is a Kensiu word meaning “le now-extinct Negritos in Perlis, Malaysia, the area covered bout, l’extrémité” and that the Mos could very well be a by the Tonga on Benjamin’s (1983) map. But, according to northern extension of the Kensiu, although Schebesta places the The Encyclopedia of Southern Thai Culture (The Insti- them in the region of Phatthalung-Trang. I have previously tute of Southern Thai Studies, 2001) and Thonghom, these described how the Legong people claim Kensiu Mos had Satun Negritos are Tene’en as well. Just what Tongka means been centered in Sik, Kedah, but is now practically merged is not clear, though Warrington Smyth (1898: volume 1, with the people in Lubuk Legong (Nagata, 1986). If this p. 318) writes that “the town of Puket is known to the Chi- interpretation of mos is correct, it means there was no people nese as Tongka.” called simply Mos in Thailand or Malaysia. ‘Mos’ is a mod- These fragments of data lead me to conclude that the area ifier, not a noun, and this is reflected in the absence and allotted to Tonga in the English sources are where the groups ambiguity of Mos in the writings of Evans, Schebesta, and of Ten’en have been reported since the 1970s by Thai others. What about Tonga then? researchers and they are called neither Tonga nor Mos. In As mentioned, Evans (1968: p. 23) gives the name Tonga short, Tonga is Ten’en, whose distribution ranges from or Tenga along with Mos. Schebesta states that the Tonga are Trang and Phatthalung to Satun and Songkla, and in the past the most northerly located Semang, whose foraging area is the Malaysian state of Perlis. on both sides of the road connecting Phatthalung and Trang, Evans (1925: pp. 40, 44; 1968: p. 9) tried to determine the centering in Cong, now Kachong (Schebesta, 1952: p. 81, northern limit of the Negrito distribution and visited Surat- Vol. 114, 2006 SUBGROUP NAMES OF SAKAI AND SEMANG 55 thani to check Warrington Smyth’s statement on the Negrito own observation of the epidemic scare in the Lanoh village presence in the province of Chaiya (Brandt, 1961: p. 131), of Air Bah in 1998. only to be told there were none. However, there were Negri- In a draft version of the 1997 article, Endicott wrote: tos in Krabi province and some from Chong visited Nakon “(s)ubgroups of Semang existing at any one time, whether Sri Tamarat (Evans, 1925: pp. 43–44; Brandt, 1961: p. 131). named by linguistic peculiarities or locations, are best As mentioned above, Schebesta (1952: p. 86, 1973: p. 15) viewed as transitory phenomena, not as enduring and considers the Tonga, or Mos, to be the most northerly group sharply bounded social groups.” While it captures the but confirms the Negrito absence in Chaiya (Schebesta, essence of Semang ‘tribes’ well, one may ask how effective 1952: p. 86). Following Schebesta and the above discussion, this process may be in the event of sedentarization, which I conclude that the Tene’en in Phatthalung and Trang are many Semang groups have been forced to undergo for the now the most northerly located Semang/Sakai and that their past several decades. The case of Lubuk Legong appears to current distribution shows the historical drift from further indicate a certain loss of flexible identity and a search for an north, as far as Suratthani and Krabi, to the narrow confines overriding one that may lessen the significance of subgroup in the south of Naitra, in the area of the headwaters of the Pa or tribal differences. Such an identity is found in that of Bon and La Ngu rivers in the Banthat mountain range, where ‘Orang Asli’. An important question arising from this is that four provinces, Trang, Phatthalung, Satun and Songkla, of ‘marriage’ and family formation, which is subject to the meet. A similar contraction in the distribution of the Tene’en rule of consanguineal and hence subgroup exog- may have gone from the south as well, from Perlis and Satun amy. If subgroups or ‘tribes’ disappear into an overriding to the northwestern part of the . category of Orang Asli and everyone is the same as Orang Asli, how could the principle of exogamy operate? One solu- Conclusions tion is not to go so high a step in the oppositional hierarchy but come up with a category that may oppose, say, Temir or The names of Semang or Sakai ‘tribes’ show a wide range Semai, namely Semang. At the moment, however, there is of differences in the factors chosen as ‘names’. This has long no sign that such identity is developing among the people of been a cause of confusion. As the Semang and the Sakai Lubuk Legong. undergo further migration, individually or by group, and combine with each other, the identity of the ‘tribes’ will Acknowledgments change further, with some disappearing and new ones, based on new localities or linguistic and cultural peculiarities, Many people helped in the preparation of the present being born. As already noted by Endicott (1997), the internal paper. I would like to express my special thanks to Profes- segments of the Semang do not form stable, well-bounded, sors Phaiboon Duangchan, R.K. Dentan, Gerald Diffloth, corporate groups that continue to maintain their identities by Takafumi Ishida, Dr. Csilla Dallos, Khun Kruen Maneechote means of, say, descent or belief systems. The relationship of the Institute of South Thailand Studies, Songkhla, and two between these segments is based on pragmatic interests of anonymous reviewers. The transcription of the Orang Asli those who make up the segments. Hence it is indeterminate terms was made possible by use of the Times New Austric in terms of pre-existing factors of, say, kinship and marriage. fonts created by Dr. Geofferey Benjamin, who made them Benjamin (1976) characterized the process of differentia- freely available for research. tion of Northern as following Morris Swadesh’s (1959) ‘mesh principle’ (Benjamin, 1976: p. 69). In contrast to the speakers of Central and Southern Aslian References languages, Northern Aslian language speakers (excepting Albrecht G. and Moser J. (1998) Recent Mani settlements in Satun Che’ Wong) have until very recently all been nomadic Province, Southern Thailand. The Journal of the Siam Soci- hunter-gatherers, living in small bands, practicing band ety, 86: 161–199. exogamy, and with individual families constantly changing Anderson J. (1965) Of political and commercial considerations rel- ative to the Malayan peninsula and the British settlements in their domicile. These circumstances led to the “many intra- the straits of , with the appendix: Of the aboriginal group loans and a high modal cognacy rates” of lexical items inhabitants of the Malayan peninsula, and particularly of the (Benjamin, 1976: p. 74). Endicott (1997) sees the same pro- Negroes, called Semang. Facsimile reprint, Malayan Branch cess operating in Batek subgroup relations. Much like a sys- of the Royal Asiatic Society, , first published in tem of polythetic classification (Needham, 1975), Semang 1824. subgroups or ‘tribes’ are interconnected by sharing a few Annandale N. and Robinson H.C. (1902) Some preliminary results of an expedition to the Malay peninsula. Journal of the elements of culture, including vocabulary, among them- Anthropological Institute, 32: 407–417. selves and thus forming a vast network. Nomadism, trade, Annandale N. and Robinson H.C. (1903) Fasciculi Malayenses: and exogamy will promote to expand this network, while anthropological and zoological results of an expedition to external threats like epidemics and wars may shrink it. Perak and the Siamese Malay States, 1901–1902 (undertaken Regarding epidemics, however, Dallos comments that such by Nelson Annandale and Herbert C. Robinson). Published phenomena, instead of shrinking the network of subgroups, for the University Press of Liverpoole by Williams and Nor- gate, London. fragment and expand it among “individualistic foragers with Benjamin G. (1966) Temiar social groupings. Federation Museums an immediate return system of production” (Dallos, personal Journal, New Series, 11: 1–25. communication, 2002). Her comments are based on the case Benjamin G. (1976) Austroasiatic subgroupings and prehistory in of epidemics among the Lanoh in the early 1960s and her the Malay Peninsula. In: Jenner P. (ed.) Austroasiatic Studies, 56 S. NAGATA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE

Part 1. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, pp. 37–128. Evans I.H.N. (1925) An ethnological expedition to South Siam. Benjamin G. (1983) Peninsular Malaysia. In: Wurm S.A. and Journal of the Federated Malay States Museums, 12: 35–57. Hattori S. (eds.), Language Atlas of the Pacific Area, Volume Evans I.H.N. (1927) Papers on the Ethnology and Archaeology of 2, Map 37. Australian Academy of the Humanities and the the Malay Peninsula. Cambridge University Press, Cam- Japan Academy, Canberra and Tokyo. bridge. Benjamin G. (2002) On being tribal in the Malay world. In: Evans I.H.N. (1928) Schebesta and the Negritos. Man, 28: 57–59. Benjamin G. and Chou C. (eds.), Tribal Communities in the Evans I.H.N. (1968) The Negritos of Malaya. Second Impression. Malay World—Historical, Cultural and Social Perspectives. Frank Cass & Co, London, first published in 1937. International Institute for Asian Studies and Institute of Hamilton A. (2002) Tribal people on the southern Thai border: Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore and the Netherlands, internal colonialism, minorities and the state. In: Benjamin G. pp. 7–76. and Chou C. (eds.), Tribal Communities in the Malay Bernatzik H.A. (1958) The Spirits of the Yellow Leaves (translated World—Historical, Cultural and Social Perspectives. Interna- by E.W. Dickes). Robert Hale, London. tional Institute for Asian Studies and Institute of Southeast Bishop N.M. (1996) A preliminary description of Kensiu (Maniq) Asian Studies, Singapore and the Netherlands, pp. 77–96. phonology. Mon-Khmer Studies, 25: 227–253. Iskandar T. (1986) Kamus Dewan. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Bradley D. (1983) Mainland South-East Asia (South). In: Wurm . S.A. and Hattori S. (eds.), Language Atlas of the Pacific Area, Kuchikura Y. (1987) Subsistence ecology among Semaq Beri, Volume 2, Map 36. Australian Academy of the Humanities hunter-gatherers of Peninsular Malaysia. Hokkaido Behav- and the Japan Academy, Canberra and Tokyo. ioral Science Report, Series E, No. 1 (HBSR-E-1), Depart- Brandt J.H. (1961) The Negrito of Peninsular Thailand. Journal of ment of Behavioral Science, Faculty of Letters, Hokkaido the Siam Society, 49: 123–158. University, Sapporo, Hokkaido. Brandt J.H. (1965) The Southeast Asian Negrito: further notes on Kuchikura Y. (1996) Blowguns and Spirits. University of Tokyo the Negrito of South Thailand. Journal of the Siam Society, Press, Tokyo (in Japanese). 53: 27–43. Low J. (1849) A translation of the Kedah Annals, termed Marong Burenhult N. (1999) A bibliographical guide to Aslian linguistics. Mahawangsa, and sketches of the ancient condition of some Mon-Khmer Studies, 29: 133–141. of the nations of Eastern Asia with reference to the Malays. Coope A.E. (1991) A Malay–English/English–Malay Dictionary. The Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia, 3: 1– Macmillan Education Ltd, London and Basingstoke. 23, 162–181, 253–270, 314–336, 467–488. Crawfurd J. (1848) On the Malayan and and Martin R. (1905) Die Inlandstämme der Malayischen Halbinsel. races. Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia, 2: Gustav Fischer, Jena. 183–228. Nagata S. (1986) Kensiu notes 86–87. Unpublished field notes. Dallos C. (2003) Identity and opportunity: asymmetrical house- Nagata S. (1991) Kensiu notes 91–92. Unpublished field notes. hold integration among the Lanoh, newly sedentary hunter- Nagata S. (1995) Education and socialization in a Semang Reset- gatherers and forest collectors of Peninsular Malaysia. Doc- tlement community of Kedah, Malaysia: the case of the Ken- toral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, McGill Uni- siu, the Kintak Bogn and the Kintak Nakil. In: Rashid R. versity. (ed.), Indigenous Minorities of Peninsular Malaysia (Selected de Morgan J. (1993) Exploration dans la Presqu’ile Malaise Issues and Ethnographies). Intersocietal and Scientific Sendi- (Royaumes de Pérak et de ). Grand Sud: Hommes et rian Berhad, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 86–108. Sociétés d’Asie du Sud-Est, Tome 3. Prince of Songkla Uni- Nagata S. (1999) Conjugal families and the non-circulation of chil- versity, Bangkok, first published in 1886. dren in a resettlement community of foragers in West Malay- Dentan R.K. (1975) If there were no Malays, who would the Semai sia. In: Aragon L.V. and Russell S.D. (eds.), Structuralism’s be? In: Nagata J.A. (ed.), Pluralism in Malaysia: Myth and Transformations: Order and Revision in Indonesian and Reality. Contributions to Asian Studies, Volume 7, Brill, Malaysian Societies. Papers Writtein in Honor of Clark E. Leiden, pp. 50–64. Cunningham, Program for Southeast Asian Studies Mono- Dentan R.K. (1997) The persistence of received truth: how the graph Series, Arizona State University Program for Southeast Malaysian ruling class constructs Orang Asli. In: Winzelar Asian Studies, Tempe, pp. 37–67. R.L. (ed.), and the State: Politics, Land, Nagata S. and Dallos C. (2001) The Orang Asli of West Malaysia: and Ethnicity in the Malayan Peninsula and . Yale an update. Moussons, 4: 97–112. University Studies, Monograph Series, No. Needham R. (1975) Polythetic classification: convergence and 46, Yale University Southeast Asian Studies, New Haven, consequence. Man, New Series, 10: 349–369. Connecticut, pp. 98–134. Nicholas C. (2000) The Orang Asli and the Contest for Resources. Diffloth G.F. (1975) Les langues mon-khmer de Malaisie: classifi- International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs Document cation historique et innovations. Asie du sud-est et monde No. 95, Copenhagen. insulindien, 6(4): 1–19. Nicholas C. (2002) Organizing Orang Asli identity. In: Benjamin Duangchand P. (1984) A phonological description of the Kansiw G. and Chou C. (eds.), Tribal Communities in the (a Sakai dialect). Master of Arts dissertation, World—Historical, Cultural and Social Perspectives. Interna- Mahidol University. tional Institute for Asian Studies and Institute of Southeast Endicott K. (1974) Batek Negrito economy and social organiza- Asian Studies, Singapore and the Netherlands, pp. 119–136. tion. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Har- Noone H.D. (1936) Report on the settlement and welfare of the vard University. Ple-Temiar Senoi of the Perak- watershed. Journal of Endicott K. (1997) Batek history, interethnic relations and sub- the Federated Malay States Museums, 19: 1–85. group dynamics. In: Winzeler R.L. (ed.), Indigenous Peoples Pookajorn S. and staff (1991) Preliminary report of excavations at and the State: Politics, Land, and Ethnicity in the Malayan Moh-Khiew Cave, Krabi province, Sakai Cave, Trang prov- Peninsula and Borneo. Yale University Southeast Asia Stud- ince and ethnoarchaeological research of hunter-gatherer ies, Monograph Series, No. 46, Yale University Southeast group, so-called Sakai or Semang at . The Asian Studies, New Haven, Connecticut, pp. 30–50. Research Project in Thailand, Volume 1, Depart- Evans I.H.N. (1913) Notes on the aboriginal inhabitants of Ijok in ment of Archaeology, Faculty of Archaeology, Silpakorn Uni- the District of Selama, Perak. Journal of the Federated Malay versity, Bangkok. States Museums, 5: 176–186. Pookajorn S. and staff (1994) Final report of excavations at Moh Vol. 114, 2006 SUBGROUP NAMES OF SAKAI AND SEMANG 57

Kiew Cave, Krabi province; Sakai Cave, Trang province and ety, 72: 37–123. ethnoarchaeological research of hunter-gatherer group, so- Swadesh M. (1959) The mesh principle in comparative linguistics. called Mani or Sakai or Orang Asli at Trang province. The Anthropological Linguistics, 1: 7–14. Hoabinhian Research Project in Thailand, Volume 2, Depart- The Institute of Southern Thai Studies (2001) Sakai (translated to ment of Archaeology, Faculty of Archaeology, Silpakorn Uni- English by Varangkana Ngannaruemonkit). In: The Encyclo- versity, Bangkok. pedia of Southern Thai Culture. Compiled by Ganda Gantha- Porath N. (2002) Developing indigenous communities into Sakais: nophat, Paibun Duangchan and Suphak Inthonkong, Volume South Thailand and . In: Benjamin G. and Chou C. (eds.), 5, Srinakhrrinwirot University, Songkhla, Thailand, Tribal Communities in the Malay World—Historical, Cultural pp. 2245–2268 (in Thai). and Social Perspectives. International Institute for Asian Thompson V. (1943) Postmortem on Malaya. Macmillan, New Studies and Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore York. and the Netherlands, pp. 97–118. Thonghom S. (1995) Sakai: The Forest People. Provincial Admin- Schebesta P.R. (1927) The Negritos of the Malay peninsula. subdi- istrative Organization, Trang, Thailand. visions and names. Man, 27: 89–94. Tohchigakumei (1943) Kamoes Bahasa Melajoe (Indonesia)-Nip- Schebesta P.R. (1952) Die Negrito Asiens, Band 1, Geschichte, pon Jang Lengkap. Hakubukan, Tokyo. Geographie, Umwelt, Demographie und Anthropologie der Tomita T. (1997) Thai–Japanese Major Dictionary. Nippon Thai Negrito. Mödling, Vienna. Club, Tokyo (in Thai and Japanese). Schebesta P.R. (1954) Die Negrito Asiens, Band 2/1, Wirtschaft van der Sluys C.M.I. (1999) The Jahai of northern peninsular und Soziologie. Mödling, Vienna. Malaysia. In: Lee R.B. and Daly R. (eds.), The Cambridge Schebesta P.R. (1957) Die Negrito Asiens, Band 2/2, Religion und Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers. Cambridge Univer- Mythologie. Mödling, Vienna. sity Press, Cambridge, pp. 307–418. Schebesta P.R. (1973) Among the Forest Dwarfs of Malaya. von Miklucho-Maclay N. (1878) Ethnological excursions in the Oxford University Press (Oxford in Asia), Singapore, first Malay peninsula. Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal published in 1928 by Hutchinson, London. Asiatic Society, 2: 205–216. Skeat W.W. and Blagden C.O. (1966) Pagan Races of the Malay Warrington Smyth H. (1898) Five Years in Siam: from 1891 to Peninsula. 2 volumes, Frank Cass & Co, London, first pub- 1896. 2 volumes, John Murray, London. lished in 1906 by Macmillan & Co, London. Wilkinson R.J. (1910) Supplement (The Aboriginal Tribes). Papers Sturrock A.J. (1916) Hikayat Marong Maha Wangsa; or Kedah on Malay Subjects Series, F. M. S. Government Press, Kuala Annals. Journal of Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Soci- Lumpur.