• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN CENTER FOR SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIES MICHIGAN PAPERS ON SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA Editorial Board Alton L. Becker Peter E. Hook Karl L. Hutterer John Musgrave Nicholas Dirks, Chair Ann Arbor, Michigan USA PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC I OF CHINA \ I Ethnic groups Location of groups discussed in this volume (drawn by K. Gillogly) ETHNIC DIVERSITY AND iHE CONTROL OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA edited by A* Terry Rambo, Kathleen Gillogly, and Karl L. Hutterer Published in cooperation with the East-West Center, Environment and Policy Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii MICHIGAN PAPERS ON SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA CENTER FOR SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIES THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NUMBER 32 Open access edition funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities/ Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Humanities Open Book Program. Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 87-62020 ISBN: 0-89148-043-9 (cloth) ISBN: 0-89148-044-7 (paper) Copyright © 1988 Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies The University of Michigan Printed in the United States of America ISBN 978-0-89148-043-3 (hardcover) ISBN 978-0-89148-044-0 (paper) ISBN 978-0-472-12830-3 (ebook) ISBN 978-0-472-90230-9 (open access) The text of this book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ To the memory of Dawn Jean Rambo CONTENTS Maps, Figures, and Tables ix Preface xi 1. Introduction A. Terry Rambo, Karl L. Hutterer, and Kathleen Gillogly 1 2. Why are the Semang? Ecology and Ethnogenesis of Aboriginal Groups in Peninsular Malaysia A. Terry Rambo 19 3. Hunter-Gatherer/Farmer Exchange in the Philippines: Some Implications for Ethnic Identity and Adaptive Well-being James F. Eder 37 4. A Comparison of Batak and Ata Subsistence Styles in Two Different Social and Physical Environments Rowe V. Cadelina 59 5. Ethnic Groups and the Control of Natural Resources in Kelantan, Malaysia Robert L. Winzeler 83 6. The Semai: The Making of an Ethnic Group in Malaysia Alberto G. Gomes 99 7. Plant Products and Ethnicity in the Markets of Xishuangbanna, Yunnan Province, China Pei Sheng-ji 119 vn Contents 8. Changing Ethnicity and Social Resources in a Thai-Mon Village, 1971-81 Brian L. Foster '. 143 9. Ethnic Concentrations: The Ilongots in Upland Luzon Renato Rosaldo 161 10. Hierarchy and the Social Order: Mandaya Ethnic Relations in Southeast Mindanao, Philippines Aram A. Yengoyan 173 11. Material Dependence and Symbolic Independence: Construction of Melayu Ethnicity in Island Riau, Indonesia Vivienne Wee 197 Appendix: Conference Participants 227 vm MAPS, FIGURES, AND TABLES Maps Frontispiece: Location of groups discussed in this volume ii 2.1 Distribution of Malayan aborigines in relation to highland areas 32 4.1 Location of Ata community 78 4.2 Location of Kalakuasan Batak 79 5.1 Kelantan and Peninsular Malaysia 96 5.2 Malay reservation land (shaded) in West Malaysia 97 6.1 Approximate distribution of Orang Asli groups 117 7.1 Location of Xishuangbanna and Puer in Yunnan Province, southwestern China 128 10.1 Outline map of Mindanao indicating location of some ethnic groups discussed in text, excluding Bisayan migrants 195 11.1 Riau district 223 11.2 Subdistrict of Southern Bintan 224 Figures 2.1 Synthetic model of Malayan aboriginal ethnogenesis 33 7.1 Schematic representation of commodity exchange between upland and lowland groups in Xishuangbanna 129 11.1 Material continuum 225 11.2 Tanjungpinang, the center of material economy 225 11.3 Penyengat, the symbolic center 226 IX Maps, Figures, and Tables Tables 2.1 Comparison of ecological niches and physical adaptations of Semang and Senoi : 34 4.1 Proportion of carbohydrate food taken from various sources in one agricultural year by the Batak and the Ata 80 4.2 Protein sources for the Batak and the Ata 81 7.1 Types of markets in Xishuangbanna 130 8.1 Ethnicity in Ban Klang, 1971 and 1981 158 8.2 Nontrading residents of Ban Klang 158 8.3 Ethnic identities of those who haul for hire 159 8.4 Ethnic change for the pottery traders 159 PREFACE In August 1984, a three-day conference on ethnic diversity and the control of natural resources was held at the University of Michigan. Jointly sponsored by the Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies of the University of Michigan and the Environment and Policy Institute (EAPI) of the East-West Center in Honolulu, the conference was attended by fifteen scholars from six Asian and Pacific countries including the United States (see list of participants in the Appendix). This conference was the second in a series of conferences dealing with key issues in the human ecology of Southeast Asia jointly sponsored by the East-West Center and the University of Michigan. The proceedings of the first conference, held in Honolulu in 1983, have been published in Cultural Values and Human Ecology in Southeast Asia as Number 27 in the series Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia. Like the first conference, which focused on the relationship between cultural values and tropical ecology, this meeting was planned to bring together Asian scholars working in member projects of the Southeast Asian Universities Agroecosystem Network (SUAN) with scholars in Western institutions who share their concern with developing human ecology research in the region. The purpose of the conference was to explore the ecological ramifications of ethnicity in Southeast Asia. This topic was chosen under the assumption that the high degree of ethnic diversity historically evident in the region and its continuing importance under contemporary conditions is related to both the nature of tropical Asian environments on the one hand, and the nature of Southeast Asian political systems and the ways in which they manipulate natural resources on the other. Although the emphasis of the conference series is on developing improved theoretical understandings of human-environment interactions, it should be evident that the topics selected for discussion also have great practical significance. Scholars representing a broad range of theoretical perspectives and working with an even wider range of ethnic groups and environments were invited. This diversity is reflected in the resulting papers although, unfortunately, the range is narrower than it was in the conference itself. This reflects the fact that a XI Preface number of participants, for a variety of reasons outside the control of the editors, elected not to submit their papers for publication in this volume. All the chapters have been significantly revised following the conference, in many cases taking alternative perspectives presented by other participants into account in the process. The editors have sought to impdse a common format while trying to preserve as much as possible the unique qualities of the individual papers. Funding for the conference was provided by the East-West Center and the University of Michigan. Karen Ashitomi and Regina Gregory, EAPI Human Ecology Program secretaries, typed multiple drafts of the manuscripts. Helen Takeuchi was responsible for copyediting. xn CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A. Terry Rambo Karl L. Hutterer Kathleen Gillogly Its vast human diversity—racial, linguistic, and cultural—has made Southeast Asia simultaneously the ethnographer's heaven and the ethnologist's purgatory. Simply describing the multitude of different peoples inhabiting the region has kept several generations of field workers gainfully employed, with results that threaten to swamp all but the largest library collections. As a conse- quence of this activity, it is fair to say that Southeast Asia is now at least as well known ethnographically as any world region with the exception of Native North America. Unfortunately, ethnologists have not enjoyed great success in imposing clas- sificatory order on the diversity revealed by the work of the ethnographers. The culture-area approach, still the standard framework for ordering New World ethnology, was not a conspicuous success when applied to Southeast Asia (Bacon 1946; Kroeber 1947; Narroll 1950). To dichotomize the multitudinous groups in the area into upland swidden farming tribesmen and lowland wet rice farming peasants (Burling 1965) radically oversimplifies reality. Attempts to retain complexity, as in the ethnolinguistic classification employed by LeBar, Hickey, and Musgrave (1964), lack any systematic basis for differentiating between groups. As Yengoyan points out in his chapter in this volume, ethnographers have tended to "divide and subdivide groups into finer categories whose exist- ence is highly suspect." The ad hoc character of ethnic classifications in Southeast Asia reflects, in our view, the continuing theoretical underdevelopment of area studies. Rather than evolving out of a vigorous confrontation between ethnographic observations and general anthropological theory, as was the case in New World ethnological Rambo, Hutterer, Gillogly classifications, the schemes employed in Southeast Asia have usually been imported ones. Unlike the American culture-area classification schemes, which are based upon a complex set of theoretical explanations for ethnic differentia- tion (adaptation to common environmental factors within each area plus diffu- sion across area boundaries), most of the schemes employed in Southeast Asia have assumed that diversity is explainable in terms of a single cause. For a long time, migration and diffusion were invoked as the key explanatory factor; more recently, equally

Load more

  243

Copy Link