Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:49:04.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contested Time and Place: Constructions of History in Todo, Manggarai (Western Flores, Indonesia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2011

Maribeth Erb
Maribeth Erb
Affiliation:
National University of Singapore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The recent rebuilding of the house of the clan from which a “king” of Manggarai was chosen during direct Dutch rule on the island of Flores in the Indonesian archipelago has brought to light several different histories of that clan's rise to power and the meaning of the house in those histories. This paper explores the contestation over both time and place in Todo, Manggarai, relating them to people's present-day concerns.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 47 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Research in Manggarai was conducted in 1983–85, 1986, 1992, 1993, under the auspices of the Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia, and the sponsorship of Nusa Cendana University and The University of Indonesia. The first years of research were supported by a Social Science Research Council Fellowship and a National Science Foundation Grant for Improving Doctoral Dissertation Research and were done in an isolated corner of Manggarai. Later research was supported by funds arranged by Father Stanislaw Ograbeck S.V.D. from the Divine Word Missionaries funds for special projects, for research done specifically in Todo. I wish to thank all of these institutions for their support. Special thanks also must go to the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, for granting me access to the Dorothy Pelzer Collection, to Roy Hamilton, visiting curator of the Smithsonian Institution in the early 1990s, for helping me to trace Dorothy Pelzer's materials, and to Paula Fleming and the Department of Anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution for allowing me to reproduce one of Dorothy Pelzer's photographs here. Discussions in the seminar at the National University of Singapore on “Social Memory”, led by Dr. Kwok Kian Woon and Dr. Roxana Waterson were very stimulating in the formulation of ideas on place and time in this paper. In addition Dr. Robert Lawang of the University of Indonesia has helped direct many ideas and questions in my present research on the house of the Todo royal family. I thank these scholars for their ideas and time. The people in Manggarai are also very generous with their time and always make guests feel welcome. I wish especially, in the context of information and ideas advanced in the present paper, to thank Bapak Fitus Tamor of the Todo royal family and Bapak Kepala Desa of Gulung, who comes originally from Desu, for many hours of discussion about contestations discussed here.

1 Maier, Charles S., The Unmasterable Past: History, Holocaust, and German Identity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), pp. 160–66.Google Scholar

2 For example Polish and Jewish interpretations of World War II Holocausts vary fundamentally, are tied up with their own particular histories, and are involved in recent contestations over claims to Auschwitz as a place. See Lukas, S., The Forgotten Holocaust: The History of Poland under German Occupation 1939–1944 (The University of Kentucky Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Irwin-Zarecka, Iwona, Neutralizing Memory: The Jew in Contemporary Poland (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1989), pp. 155–58.Google Scholar

3 Fulbrook, Mary, A Concise History of Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 2. See also the papers in History and Ethnicity, ed. E. Tonkin, M. McDonald and M. Chapman (London: Routledge), addressing the issues of “how history is used, experienced, remember or created”, and “How does the present create the past?”, p. 1.Google Scholar

4 Abu-Lughod, Janet, “On the Remaking of History: How to Reinvent the Past”, in Remaking History, ed. Kinger, Barbara and Mariani, Phil (Seattle: Bay Press, 1989), p. 112, italics in original.Google Scholar

5 Bao, P. Sareng Orin, Nusa Nipa: Nama Pribumi Nusa Flores (Ende, Flores: Pertjetakan Arnoldus, Penerbitan Nusa Indah, 1969), pp. 231–32.Google Scholar

6 Verheijen, J.A.J., Manggarai dan Wujud Tertinggi (Jakarta: LIPI-RUL, 1991), p. 24. Verheijen points out the wide range of vocabulary in present day Manggarai languages that is borrowed from Makassarese. Particularly words associated with power and differentiation of status, most notably the word keraeng- “noble”, as well as words associated with the technologies of weaving and horse-back riding are derived from this language. In the early seventeenth century the Goanese King converted to Islam, and based on the lack of Islamic vocabulary in Manggarai usage, Verheijen suggests this may indicate that Goanese influence in Manggarai preceded conversion. However it might also indicate the lack of depth of Goanese Islam at the time.Google Scholar

7 Noorduyn, J., “Makasar and the Islamization of Bima”, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land en Volkenkunde 143 (1987): 314–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Andaya, Leonard Y., The Heritage of Arung Palakka: A History of South Sulawesi (Celebes) in the Seventeenth Century (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1981), p. 35.Google Scholar

8 The records, which tell of the Bimanese Sultanate, written in Arabic script, but in the Malay language, were kept by Bp. H. Ahmad in Bima. A transcription is kept in the KTTLV library in Leiden, no. Or. 506. Reference to Manggarai being given as a gift from the Sultan of Goa to the Sultan of Bima can be found on page 23 of this transcription.

9 Andaya, The Heritage of Arung Palakka, p. 101; Coolhaas, W.P., “Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Manggaraische volk (West Flores)”, Tijdscrift van het Koninklijk Nederlandsch Aardrijkskundig 59 (1942): 163Google Scholar; Lawang, “Stratifikasi Sosial Di Cancar-Manggarai Flores Barat” (Ph.D. diss., Universitas Indonesia, 1989), p. 137.Google Scholar

10 Andaya, The Heritage of Arung Palakka, p. 217; Bekkum, W. van, “Geschiedenis van Manggarai (West Flores). Todo en Pongkor”, Cultereel Indie 8 (1946): 68Google Scholar; Stapel, H.B., “Het Manggaraische Volk”, Tijdschrift voor Taal, Land en Volkenkunde 56 (1914): 150.Google Scholar

11 Coolhaas, “Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Manggaraische volk”, pp. 163–65; Lawang, “Stratifikasi Sosial Di Cancar”, pp. 137–40; Nooteboom, C., “Enkele feiten uit de geschiedenis van Manggarai (West Flores)”, Bingkasan Budi (Leiden, 1950), pp. 207–214.Google Scholar

12 Verheijen, J.A.J., Kamus Manggarai II: Indonesia-Manggarai (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1967), p. 311Google Scholar; Verheijen, J.A.J., “Berberapa Ciri-Khas Bahasa-Bahasa Di Manggarai” (stensil, Ruteng, 1991), p. 1.Google Scholar

13 Hemo, Doroteus, Analisa Sejarah Tentang Bentuk Rumah Adat di Kabupaten Daerah Tingkat II Manggarai (B.A. Thesis, Kupang: Fakultas Keguruan Universitas Negeri Nusa Cendana, 1978), pp. 5–6.Google Scholar The royal clan of Todo have a different version of the naming of Manggarai which will be related below.

14 Only a few years back, in approximately 1985, the border between the regencies (kabupaten) of Manggarai and Ngada was finally settled by the representatives from the federal government and those of the local kabupaten governments.

15 Lawang, “Stratifikasi Sosial Di Cancar”, p. 138; Meerburg, J.W., “Proeve eener beschriving van land en volk van Midden — Manggarai”, Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 34 (1891): 435Google Scholar; Coolhaas, “Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Manggaraische volk”, p. 172.

16 This is especially so in northeastern Manggarai and northwestern Ngada where people who speak the same language, that Verheijen has named “Rembong”, straddle the border. Verheijen, J.A.J., Bahasa Rembong di Flores Barat, vol. I (Ruteng: Regio S.V.D., 1977), p. v. There are also speakers of other Manggarai dialects in Ngada who were possibly refugees there from past centuries. J.A.J. Verheijen, “Berberapa Ciri-Khas Bahasa-Bahasa Di Manggarai”, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

17 Sutherland, H., “Slavery and the Slave Trade in South Sulawesi, 1660's-1800's”, in Slavery, Bondage and Dependency in Southeast Asia, ed. Reid, A. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983), pp. 263–85.Google Scholar

18 Coolhaas, “Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Manggaraische volk”, p. 163.

19 Ibid., pp. 162–63.

20 van Bekkum, “Geschiedenis van Manggarai”, p. 69.

21 Coolhaas, “Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Manggaraische volk”, p. 174. Following the convention of those who have done research in this regency, I use the spelling “Ngada” for the regency, and “Ngadha”, for one of the several cultural/linguistic groups found within this regency. Molnar, A., “The Grandchildren of the Ga'e Ancestors: The Hoga Sara of Ngada in West-Central Flores” (Ph.D. diss., Australian National University, 1994), p. 1Google Scholar; Forth, Gregory, “Considerations of ‘Keo’ as an Ethnographic Category”, Oceania 64 (1994): 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Coolhaas, “Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Manggaraische volk”, p. 174; J.AJ. Verheijen, Manggarai dan Wujud Tertinggi, p. 23.

23 Coolhaas, “Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Manggaraische volk”, p. 174.

24 Ibid., pp. 165–66.

25 Nooteboom, “Enkele feiten uit de geschiedenis van Manggarai”, p. 210.

26 J.A.J. Verheijen, Manggarai dan Wujud Tertinggi, p. 31.

27 Since it is a Bimanese word it was presumably Bima who introduced this system of leadership; ibid., p. 24. There is, though, by no means a consensus on this point.

28 Nooteboom, “Enkele feiten uit de geschiedenis van Manggarai”, p. 208.

29 Though this is perhaps unlikely if it is true that Todo villagers invited Bimanese to help them, as people say, in the battle against Cibal.

30 It is unlikely that in earlier times the certainty of origin was as fixed as it is now. The earliest mention I can find of Todo peoples’ origin from Minangkabau is Stapel, a first lieutenant in the Dutch infantry based in Manggarai, who in the early twentieth century wrote a paper published in 1914 (Stapel, H.B., “Het Manggaraische Volk”, Tijdschrift voor Taal, Land en Volkenkunde 56 [1914]: 149–87).Google Scholar Monsignor Van Bekkum, who is still alive and living in Manggarai, did research among peoples of Todo and its sister village Pongkor and was inclined to favor the name “Bonengkabao”, as the likely origin of Todo and Pongkor villagers, though it is unclear how often he heard people using this name or where its location was. He suggests that the increasingly popular use of the name “Minangkabau” had to do with the learning of this name from school and from people of other regions. See Bekkum, van, “Warloka-Todo-Pongkor, Een brok gescheidenis van Manggarai”, Cultereel Indie 6 (1944): 147, 152.Google Scholar

31 Some accounts even say that it was after the victory over the Cibalese that Todo villagers asked Bima to remain and rule Manggarai. See van Bekkum, “Geschiedenis van Manggarai”, p. 69. This seems unlikely to me however, since their successful battle of revenge probably didn't occur until the eighteenth century. Besides, it is unlikely that the Todonese had very much to do with the decision making about who was to have control over Manggarai, since these decisions seemed to have been made entirely by outsiders.

32 Nooteboom, “Enkele feiten uit de geschiedenis van Manggarai (West Flores)”, Bingkasan Budi (Leiden, 1950), pp. 207–214Google Scholar; see also Bekkum, van, “Geschiedenis van Manggarai (West Flores), Todo en Pongkor”, Cultereel Indie 8 (1946): 65–69 for an account of these battles.Google Scholar

33 Lawang, “Stratifikasi Sosial Di Cancar”, pp. 146–48.

34 Peter Goethals writes dramatically of the loss of life on the island of Sumbawa due to this volcanic explosion. Direct deaths in Bima due to the eruption, seem to have been negligible, (though in other areas it was high), but the resulting starvation and illness seems to have claimed one quarter of the population; another quarter fled to Java, Sulawesi and a number of other islands. Bima actually suffered less than some other more western regions of Sumbawa, which lost up to 70 per cent of thenpopulation in these ways (Goethals, Peter R., Aspects of Local Government in a Sumbawan Village [Eastern Indonesia], Ithaca: Cornell University, Modern Indonesia Project, 1961, pp. 17–19).Google Scholar

35 Nooteboom, “Enkele feiten uit de geschiedenis van Manggarai”, p. 211.

36 Coolhaas, “Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Manggaraische volk”, pp. 172, 174.

37 Lawang, “Stratifikasi Sosial Di Cancar”, p. 169.

38 Ibid., pp. 161, 205.

39 Ibid., pp. 161–70.

40 Cristoffel, Kapten, “Dagboek van de Commandant der ageerenda troepen in Flores van 9 October tot en met 30 November” (typescript, 1908), pp. 2–5.Google Scholar

41 Lawang, “Stratifikasi Sosial Di Cancar”, pp. 199–205.

42 Ibid., pp. 206, 220, 222–28. Cornelius Ngambut only recently passed away in 1994, and many people still referred to him as Raja Ngambut, even though he was never officially coronated.

43 Coolhaas, “Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Manggaraische volk”, p. 335.

44 Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (rev. ed.) (London: Verso 1991), pp. 164–78Google Scholar; Benjamin, G., “The Unseen Presence: A Theory of the Nation-State and its Mystifications” (Department of Sociology Working Papers, no. 91, 1988), p. 3Google Scholar; Navari, C., “The Origins of the Nation-State”, in The Nation State, ed. Tivy, Leonard (New York: St. Martins, 1981), pp. 35–36.Google Scholar

45 See for example Freijss, J.P., “Reizen naar Mangarai en Lombok in 1854–1856”, Tijdschrift voor Taal, Land en Volkenkunde 9 (1860): 443–530, and documents from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries referred to in Nooteboom, “Enkele feiten uit de geschiedenis van Manggarai”, pp. 207–214, where it is clear that dalu always refer to people.Google Scholar

46 See for example Coolhaas, “Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Manggaraische volk”, pp. 148–77, 328–60, and van Bekkum, “Geschiedenis van Manggarai”, pp. 65–75, and Bekkum, W. van, “Vier Moko's in Noord-Oost-Manggarai (West Flores)”, Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 84 (1950–1951): 1–9, where reference is frequently made to ”daluschap” (“dalu-dom”), dalu as territory.Google Scholar

47 Gellner, E., Nations and Nationalism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983), pp. 1–6.Google Scholar

48 Coolhaas, “Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Manggaraische volk”, pp. 159–60.

49 Nooteboom, “Versieringen van Manggaraische huizen”, Tijdschrift voor Taal, Land en Volkenkunde 79 (1939): 222–24.Google Scholar

50 It was as a result of these measurements being found in the fleldnotes of Dorothy Pelzer, kept in the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, that the Todo house could be rebuilt in 1992–93, following the exact measurements of the old house.

51 Coolhaas, “Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Manggaraische volk”, p. 335; Lawang, “Stratifikasi Sosial Di Cancar”, p. 210.

52 The region of Cancar is particularly suited to wet rice cultivation because of the abundant flat land nestled in between the mountains. It is also directly on the Trans-Manggarai/Flores road, which means transportation facilities are readily available.

53 Lawang, “Stratifikasi Sosial Di Cancar”, pp. 220–21, 265.

54 Ibid., pp. 235–38.

55 Ibid., pp. 331–32.

56 Ibid., pp. 309–310.

57 Ibid., pp. 326–36.

58 A road to Todo was only finished in 1991. It was built by a priest who had worked in Todo for many years and aspired to see the village opened up to communication with the rest of Manggarai. However it took many years to build and much foreign capital. It was expensive and complicated to build because of the need to dynamite a mountainside before the road could connect with Todo.

59 J.A.J. Verheijen, Kamus Manggarai II: Indonesia-Manggarai, p. 732.

60 See also Bekkum, W. van, “De machtsverschuivingen in Manggarai (West Floras), tengevolge van de Goaneesche en Bimaneesche invloeden”, Cultereel Indie 7 (1946): 126–28, and Lawang, “Stratifikasi Sosial Di Cancar”, pp. 61–69, for features of Manggarai villages and their organization.Google Scholar

61 Nooteboom, “Versieringen van Manggaraische huizen”, pp. 221–38.

62 See M. Erb, “Gushing Forth from the House: Niang Wowang and the History and Social Organization of Todo, Manggarai, Western Flores”, manuscript.

63 See Coolhaas, “Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Manggaraische volk”, pp. 328–31, and van Bekkum, “De machtsverschuivingen in Manggarai”, pp. 125–29.

64 Fox, James J., “Comparative Perspectives on Austronesian Houses: An Introductory Essay”, in Inside Austronesian Houses: Perspectives on Domestic Designs for Living, ed. Fox, James J. (Canberra: Australian National University, 1993)Google Scholar; Fox, James J., “Origin Structures and Systems of Precedence in the Comparative Study of Austronesian Societies”, in Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan, ed. Li, Paul, Ho, Dah-an, Tsang, Cheng-hwa and Huang, Ying-kuei (Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, 1995).Google Scholar

65 Inpres, an abbreviation for ”Instruksi Presiden” — “by order of the President” is used to refer to projects funded by the federal government to erect buildings such as schools and hospitals. These buildings have a fairly poor reputation in Manggarai, because the money is allocated to a contractor, who tries to use as little of it as possible to get the job done. I have heard tales of school buildings, in particular, which have been built in a hurry and fall down shortly after a photograph has been sent to the government office in charge. By referring to the Todo house as an inpres there is potentially more than just the claim that it is a “contracted” project, that ignores social relationships, there is also a hint of an accusation of corruption. Indeed there are those who openly suggest this, especially since the amount of money allotted for nine houses turned out to be enough for just one.

66 van Bekkum, “Warloka-Todo-Pongkor, Een brok gescheidenis van Manggarai”, pp. 144–52; van Bekkum, “Geschiedenis van Manggarai”, pp. 65–75 but note the aboriginal interpretations mentioned on p. 67; van Bekkum, “De machtsverschuivingen in Manggarai”, pp. 122–30.

67 Coolhaas, “Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Manggaraische volk”, pp. 148–77, 328–60; Nooteboom, “Enkele feiten uit de geschiedenis van Manggarai”, pp. 207–214.

68 The motif of the “stranger king” is a common one in Oceania and Southeast Asia. See Sahlins, Marshall, “The Stranger King, or Dumezil among the Fijians”, The Journal of Pacific History 16 (1981): 112CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fox, James J., “Austronesian Societies and their Transformations”, in The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives (Canberra: Australian National University, 1995), pp. 217–19.Google Scholar Apart from those mentioned in Fox, other Indonesian societies try to resolve a conflict between the ideas of indigenous origin and powerful outsiders. See, for example, Wee, Vivienne, “Material Dependence and Symbolic Independence: Constructions of Melayu Ethnicity in Island Riau, Indonesia”, in Ethnic Diversity and the Control of Natural Resources, ed. Rambo, A. Terry, Gillogly, Kathleen and Hutterer, Karl L. (Ann Arbor: Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia No. 32, 1988), pp. 197–222Google Scholar on how peoples of Riau construct their ideas of indigenous and foreign, superiority and inferiority, submission and domination in different types of “symbolic economy”; and Bowen, J., Sumatran Politics and Poetics: Gayo History 1890–1989 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), pp. 225–30, where indigenous populations try to resolve the idea of the superior status of foreigners by claiming that they are both foreign and indigenous.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69 This is a very common myth told throughout Southeast Asia in various forms. One version found in the Rembong dalu in northeastern Manggarai is related in Erb, M., “Cuddling the Rice: Play, Myth and Ritual in the Agricultural Year, Rembong, Northern Manggarai”, Contributions to Southeast Asian Ethnography 10 (1994): 151–83.Google Scholar

70 This is the white-headed mannikin, Lonchura pallida, according to Verheijen, J.A.J., “Bird- Names in Manggarai, Flores, Indonesia”, Anthropos 58 (1963): 700; J.A.J. Verheijen, Kamus Manggarai II: Indonesia-Manggarai, p. 500.Google Scholar

71 They did not bring cloth or the knowledge of weaving, however, and hence in Manggarai they continued to use the bark of trees for clothing. An example of this kind of clothing had been given by my informant's father to Monsignor Van Bekkum many years ago. The origin of weaving in Todo is indeed a very controversial point, since they weave cloth very different from the typical Manggarai “black cloth” woven in the northern dalu. One elder told me that weaving was taken up by Todo women only at the beginning of this century. It was learned from Muslim populations originating from Endeh (further east on Flores). For a discussion of weaving in other parts of Manggarai see Erb, M., “The Curse of the Cooked People: Weaving among the Rembong, Northeastern Manggarai”, in Gift of the Cotton Maiden: Textiles of Flores and the Solor Islands, ed. Hamilton, Roy (Los Angeles: The Fowler Museum of Cultural History, 1994), pp. 195–209Google Scholar, and Roy Hamilton, “Regional Survey: Manggarai Regency”, in ibid., pp. 81–97.

72 Though there is no space to discuss this here, the marital alliance relationship is of an almost sacred quality in Manggarai as in many places in eastern Indonesia. The anak rona, that is the clan from which one takes wives has an almost diety-like power over their anak wina, being seen to have both cursing and blessing powers over them. This is because they are the “source” of life. See for example Gordon, John, “The Marriage Nexus among the Manggarai”, in The Flow of Life: Essays on Eastern Indonesia, ed. Fox, J.J. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980), pp. 48–7Google Scholar, and other chapters in the same volume. See also Erb, M., “Stealing Women and Living in Sin: Adaptation and Conflict in Morals and Customary Law in Rembong, Northeastern Manggarai”, Anthropos 86 (1991): 59–73 for a description of the process of marriage in another part of Manggarai.Google Scholar

73 See M. Erb, “Stealing Women and Living in Sin”, pp. 59–73.

74 Wessing, Robert, “A Change in the Forest: Myth and History in West Java”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 24 (1993): 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75 This is a sign that it was an adult. Manggarai reckon the age of buffaloes according to the number of molars they have. A buffalo with eight molars, called in Manggarai kaba ngis alo- (kerbau gigi delapan in Indonesian) — “a bull of eight teeth”, would be fully grown.

76 See, for example, the explanation of different views concerning the derivation of the name Minangkabau on pp. 20–25 of Pelajaran Adat Minangkabau (Sejarah dan Budaya), published by the Lembaga Kerapatan Adat Alam Minangkabau (LKAAM) Sumatera Barat. The date on the title page is 1987, but the first printing was in 1989. The story of the buffalo calf is also related by Loeb, Edwin M. in Sumatra: Its History and People (Kuala Lumpur and Medan: Oxford University Press/Toko Buku Deli, 1972, a reprint of the 1935 edition). It is quite possible that people in Manggarai learned of this story and adapted it to their own purposes.Google Scholar

77 See also van Bekkum, “Warloka-Todo-Pongkor, Een brok gescheidenis van Manggarai”, pp. 144–52.

78 Ibid., p. 148.

79 Similar pillars are found in far eastern Manggarai, in the dalu territory of Rembong, and I was told the same formations can be found in the Rajong dalu territory as well. To the people in eastern Manggarai, these pillars also represented the superior ability of their ancestors, who had magical ability to carve stone. The stone “pillars” are probably a geological formation connected with volcanic activity.

80 See also van Bekkum, “Warloka-Todo-Pongkor, Een brok gescheidenis van Manggarai”, pp. 147–48; van Bekkum, “Geschiedenis van Manggarai”, p. 65.

81 Lawang suggests that traditionally this was a common reason for the moving of villages traditionally in Manggarai, which in any case was not an uncommon occurence. Pigs were never penned, and if they went somewhere far away to give birth this was a sign to the villagers that they should move their village site. He suggests it would not be too difficult to move a small village given an excuse like this, since taking care of the pigs would be made easier. Lawang, “Stratifikasi Sosial Di Cancar”, pp. 75–76.1 have never heard this used as an explanation for moving a village except in the case of this origin story of the Todo royal clan, so he may be generalizing from the one story in saying that this was a common occurrence.

82 Minangkabau houses are characterized by a saddle-backed roof with outward sloping gableends, creating an effect like buffalo horns. See Waterson, Roxana, The Living House: An Anthropology of Architecture in Southeast Asia (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 4.Google Scholar

83 See also van Bekkum, “Geschiedenis van Manggarai”, p. 67, and Lawang, “Stratifikasi Sosial Di Cancar”, pp. 155–57, for other versions of this tale.

84 Lawang, “Stratifikasi Sosial Di Cancar”, pp. 223–24.

85 van Bekkum, “Geschiedenis van Manggarai”, pp. 65–75.

86 Fox, James J., “Reflections on ‘Hierarchy’ and ‘Precedence’”, History and Anthropology 7 (1994): 98.Google Scholar

87 Basso, Keith, ”‘Stalking with Stories’: Names, Places, and Moral Narratives among the Western Apache”, in Text, Play and Story, ed. Bruner, E. (Washington, D.C.: American Ethnological Society, 1984), pp. 44–45Google Scholar; Bakhtin, M., The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. Holquist, M. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981).Google Scholar

88 Benjamin, G., “The Sociology of Indigeny” (paper presented at the ASEAN Inter-University Seminars on Social Issues in Southeast Asia, Cebu, Philippines, 1995), p. 2.Google Scholar

89 James J. Fox, “Austronesian Societies and their Transformations”, p. 219.

90 G. Benjamin, “The Sociology of Indigeny”, p. 2.

91 Fox, James J., “'Standing’ in Time and Place: The Structure of Rotinese Historical Narratives”, in Perceptions of the Past in Southeast Asia, ed. Reid, A. and Marr, D. (Singapore: Heinemann Education Books, 1979), pp. 10–25.Google Scholar