Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros90Aire de transition ou creuset ? S...Eastern Indonesia in Austronesian...

Aire de transition ou creuset ? Société, techniques, territoires et rituels

Eastern Indonesia in Austronesian Perspective: The Evidence of Relational Terminologies

L’Indonésie orientale dans une perspective austronésienne : les preuves par la terminologie des liens de parenté
James Fox
p. 189-216

Résumés

Cet article envisage l’Indonésie orientale depuis deux pôles : depuis l’Austronésie occidentale (y compris Taiwan) et depuis l’Océanie. Il porte sur les relations terminologiques de parenté et leur variation régionale : quels modèles terminologiques de parenté de la région austronésienne occidentale furent apportés en Indonésie orientale ? Quels modèles furent transformés et quels sont les modèles distinctifs de la région ? Quels modèles de relation se poursuivent en Océanie ? L’Indonésie orientale est une zone de transition, qui est loin d’être uniforme : en conséquence, cet article vise aussi à identifier les modèles de variation locale au sein de l’Indonésie orientale.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

The Historical Delineation of Eastern Indonesia

1For the better part of two centuries, researchers, relying on different methods, have attempted to distinguish eastern Indonesia within the wider Austronesian archipelago. Alfred Russel Wallace in his Malay Archipelago (1869) was much concerned with the differences he claimed to perceive between Malay and Alfuru populations in the eastern archipelago. As a consequence, he drew not one but two distinct lines through eastern Indonesia. The first of these lines, which has become known simply as the ‘Wallace Line’ was labelled the “Division between the Indo-Malayan and the Austro-Malayan Regions”. The second line, which extends much further to the east and separates Sumba, Flores and the Moluccan islands from the rest of the archipelago, represented his “Division between Malayan and Polynesian Races” (See Map in Volume I set between pages 14 and 15).

2The next significant attempt to delineate eastern Indonesia was undertaken by the Dutch linguist, J. C. G. Jonker, who served as a language-officer of the Netherlands East Indies government, first in Makassar and then in Kupang from 1885 to 1901, and was eventually appointed, in 1909, as Professor in Leiden. Based on his extensive field research, Jonker produced comparative studies of at least nine different local languages. Although he pointed to critical differences between the languages of eastern and western Indonesia in a major article (Jonker 1914), he was more concerned to describe eastern Indonesian languages; he did, however, distinguish a “Bima-Sumba” group of languages from a “Timor-Ambon” group of languages within eastern Indonesia. He set forth his outline of eastern Indonesian languages in a series of comparative analyses in the Encyclopaedie van Nederlandsche-Indië (1917-1921) that became the basis for S. J. Esser’s 1938 linguistic maps in the Atlas van Tropisch Nederland.

3Among linguists, in 1965, Isodore Dyen, published a lexico-statistical analysis of Austronesian languages in which he distinguished a Hesperonesian subfamily of Malayo-Polynesian whose western boundary fell between Sumbawa, Sumba and Flores in the south, between Sulawesi and Buru to the north and between the Sangir Islands and Halmahera. In an influential anthropological paper that followed on from Dyen’s work, the anthropologist George Peter Murdock (1968:7-8) claimed to find a close correlation between Malayo-Polynesian sibling terms on either side, east and west, of Dyen’s delineation of a Hesperonesian subgroup of languages.

4More significantly, in publications from 1974 to 2009, Robert Blust has argued for a Central Malayo-Polynesian (CEMP) subgroup. He originally designated this as “Eastern Austronesian” (Blust 1974) to distinguish this grouping from Western Malayo-Polynesian. In later reformulations, however, he divided CEMP into a Central Malayo-Polynesian (CMP) and an Eastern Malayo-Polynesian (EMP) subgroup (Blust 1982, 1993). Specifically, the CMP subgroup extends from Bima on eastern Sumbawa to the Aru Islands and from Rote in the south to the Sula Archipelago in the north Maluku. Blust’s methodology is based on a use of the comparative method; his delineation of the islands that comprise his CMP subgroup in eastern Indonesia, however, resembles both Esser’s 1938 Atlas and Dyen’s Hesperonesian or “Moluccan” linkage.

5A particularly influential delineation of eastern Indonesia was made by the anthropologist F.A.E. van Wouden. In his 1935 Leiden dissertation, Sociale Structuurtypen in de Groote Oost, van Wouden proposed a demarcation of eastern Indonesia (de Groote Oost) based on ethnographic criteria of which possession of a “clan system” was primary. His definition of this area is as follows:

The area covered by this investigation extends over the whole of the south-east of Indonesia: it stretches from the Timor Archipelago in the west to the Southeastern Islands in the east, and is bordered to the north by the islands of Seran and Buru. The choice of this area, which takes in such far-separated territories, has not been determined by geographical or other more or less arbitrary factors, but is based upon various points of similarity from an ethnographical point of view. The different societies of these islands are practically all characterized by the possession of clan systems, still fairly intact, coupled with an explicit preference for cross-cousin marriage in its restricted form.” (Wouden, Types of Social Structure in Eastern Indonesia: 1968:1)

6Van Wouden goes on to contrast the societies of this area with those of Celebes (Sulawesi) and Halmahera, what he calls the “two other large culture areas.” He then qualifies his contrast by explaining that it “applies chiefly to Celebes [whereas] on Halmahera the memory of a former clan system seems still not entirely to have disappeared” (Wouden 1968: 1).

7The problematic aspect of his presentation of the region is its implied characterization of all the societies of eastern Indonesia as unilateral (i.e., unilineal). This assumption was further fostered by the application of the Needham model of prescriptive alliance that requires societies with directed alliance systems with cross-cousin marriage to have what Needham called lineal terminological equations (Needham 1973, 1974).

  • 2 Although a majority of languages in eastern Indonesia belong to the Austronesian family of language (...)

8It is apparent from ethnographic research in the region, that various societies in van Wouden’s area of investigation utilize bilateral or partially lineal reckoning and therefore do not have the unilateral clan system that constituted the primary defining criterion of van Wouden’s regional designation. Moreover van Wouden’s designation of a cultural area takes no account of language and thus ignores the presence of the non-Austronesian languages in the northern Moluccas and in the Timor-Alor-Kisar areas.2

9Despite the differing methods of these researchers, there is nonetheless a relative coincidence in the demarcation of what may be called ‘eastern Indonesia’: the eastern end of Sumbawa, the islands of Flores eastward, Sumba, Savu and Timor together with some or all of the Moluccan islands. Map I shows Wallace’s 2nd line, the Blust’s linguistic line and the van Wouden ethnological line – all of which purport to divide eastern Indonesia from western Indonesia (Map 1).

  • 3 Blust recognizes that many of his proposals for defining CMP do not meet the criteria for exclusive (...)

10In contrast to earlier attempts to delineate eastern Indonesia by a single line of demarcation, it is theoretically more appropriate to view eastern Indonesia from an Austronesian perspective as a complex zone of transition. This is the conclusion of recent linguistic research (Donohue and Grimes 2008) and has, to some extent, been conceded as such by Blust.3 Equally important is to recognize that eastern Indonesia (as well as western Austronesia) is not homogenous. The issue is one of variation across the Austronesian world.

Map 1 – Three lines of demarcation in eastern Indonesia.

Map 1 – Three lines of demarcation in eastern Indonesia.

The Focus of this Paper

11This paper is concerned with regional variation in terminological relations of consanguinity and affinity: patterns of relationships that underlie the social formation of Austronesian societies. The paper takes Taiwan as its starting point and is inevitably concerned with the whole of the Austronesian language family. It focuses on certain prominent patterns of relationship that differentiate western Austronesia from eastern Austronesia and examines the distribution and transformation of these patterns.

12This paper is drawn from a comprehensive monograph, Regional Variation in Austronesian Terminologies, which is still in preparation. This monograph is based on a collection (at this stage) of nearly four hundred Austronesian terminologies assigned to a list of some sixty (regional) language groupings – an extension of the list originally proposed by Malcolm Ross (1995) – intended to cover the entire Austronesian language family.

13Whereas Regional Variation attempts to consider the entire range of relations in Austronesian terminologies, both affinal and consanguineal across all generations, this paper can only examine a subset of this range of relations: specifically categories of relative age in conjunction with sibling relationships, together with a particular defining affinal configuration – all of which clearly distinguish eastern from western Indonesia.

14Although relative age terms (the categories: “elder/younger”) are a prominent feature of Austronesian societies from Taiwan to Tahiti, these terms, though indeed prominent, are not a universal feature of Austronesian relationship terminologies. With this in mind, it is nevertheless possible to identify certain broad patterns in the use of these terms.

Western Austronesia including Taiwan

15The languages of Taiwan are the appropriate starting point for an investigation of the Austronesian relationship terminologies because the Taiwanese terminologies are a reservoir of relational patterns that recur in Malayo-Polynesian. Given the language diversity of Taiwan, Blust (1995, 1999) has argued that the Taiwanese languages form nine separate first-order branches of Austronesian. Ross (2009, 2012) has collapsed this proposed categorization into four branches: 1) Puyuma, 2) Rukai, 3) Tsou and 4) what he calls “Nuclear Austronesian” which includes all the remaining Taiwanese languages and is the source from which Malayo-Polynesian derives (table I).

Table I

Society

Elder Sibling

Younger Sibling

Sibling/Cousin

PUYUMA

PUYUMA

iva

iwadi

trus

RUKAI

RUKAI

taka

aki

---

TSOU

TSOU

ohaiva

ohaisa

nanatoohaisa

NUCLEAR AUSTRONESIAN

AMIS

kaka

sava

puton

ATAYAL

qabusuyan

sasoi

naqun

TARUKO

gubsulan

umsuwai

nagun/mulawan

BUNUN

masitoxas

masinauba

mantas?an

KA’KANABU

kanovoa

kanaloa

turanga

KAVALAN

qaqa

swani

swani a qaqa

SAISIAT

minacini

minaici

minatini

16The ten Austronesian societies of Taiwan cited here all make use of relative age terms: with one term for elder sibling and another term for younger sibling. In this usage, these elder/younger terms do not distinguish gender but refer to both male and female siblings and they combine with another gender neutral term for siblings/cousins. There are few lexical similarities among the terms that make up these terminological sets. However, the pattern of relationship these terms denote is stable among all these terminologies and forms part of a basic bilateral structure that characterizes Taiwanese terminologies.

17This pattern can be represented as in figure I [where e = elder sibling of either sex /y = younger sibling of either sex; PSbC: Parents’ Siblings’ Child = Cousin] (figure I):

  • 4 Madagascar shares this sibling pattern for relative age with western Austronesia but has also elabo (...)

18This same pattern occurs throughout western Austronesia: the Philippines, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, most of Sumatra and the Sunda Islands. It occurs in more than seventy societies (in the present data set) and in virtually all the language groups of western Austronesian. Generally (but not always), these elder/younger sibling categories are accompanied by a general sibling term that may be applied to cousins (and often with the addition of further modifiers can be extended to more distant cousins).4

Fig. I – Pattern I, relative age/sibling cousin configuration.

Fig. I – Pattern I, relative age/sibling cousin configuration.

19For many of these language groups, there are numerous instances. For this reason, I provide here an abbreviated illustrative list to cover the range of these language groups among western Austronesian languages (table II).

Table II

Society

Elder Sibling

Younger Sibling

Sibling/Cousin

BATANIC (IVATAN)

IVATAN

kaka

wari

kakteh/kataysa

YAMI

kaka

wali

kaktu

NORTHERN PHILIPPINES

ATTA

kaka

urian

wagi/kapittan

BALANGAO

pangolowan

enawdi

apenghan

DUMAGAT

aka

wadi

pensan

ILONGOT

‘eka

‘agi

katan’agi

MESO-PHILIPPINES

BUHID

kaka

fuyu

faduasay

CEBUANO

manghud

manghud

igqagaw

PALAWAN

ukaq

ariq

tipusäd/ ägsa

TAUSUG

mangulang

manghud

pagtunghud

SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES

MAGINDANAON

kaka

ali

suled/tenged

MANOBO

kakay

hadi

dumahadi

SUBANUN

gulangbataq

ngudang

pated/tinindegay

SOUTH MINDANAO

BINUKID

manulang

manghed

suled/igqagaw

BLAAN

twege

twali

flanek

TIRURAY

ofoq

tuwarey

se timan ideng

MINAHASAN

MINAHASA

kakak

tuari

---

SAMA-BAJAU

BAJAU

siaka

siali

denakan

YAKAN

saka

sali

danganakan

CENTRAL SULAWESI: BUNGKU-MORI-TOLAKI

TOLAKI

kaka

hai

kotukombo

TORETE

tukaka

tuai

paekompo/poteha

CENTRAL SULAWESI: KAILI-PAMONA

DA’A

totuakae

totua’i

sampesuvu

CENTRAL SULAWESI: TOMINI

AMPIBABO

si a’ang

tuai

lulus

PENDAU

si a’a

si tuai

sampe suvu

TOTOLI

tukka/itaita

tuali

ponguusatan

MUNA-BUTON

MUNA

isa

ai

kakuta

MORONENE

tukaka

tuai

petila/topisa

WOLIO

aka

andi

tolida

SOUTH SULAWESI

BUGIS

daéng

anri/andi’

sapposiseng

MAKASSAR

daeng

andi’

sari’battang/sampo sikali

TORAJA

kaka

adi

siulu’/sampu

NORTH/NORTHWEST BORNEO

BENTIAN

tuke

ani

peyari

PENAN

tuke

tadin

pesak

KENYAH

sekun

sadin

chenganak

LUNDAYEK

rayeh

isuut

kianak

LAND DAYAK (INLAND SOUTHWEST BORNEO)

DAYAK

umbu

adi

adi tungar

EAST BARITO (SOUTH BORNEO)

MA’ANYAN

tata’

ani’

tuwari

WEST BARITO

NGAJU
(19th century)

aka

andi

pahari

UUT DANUM

oka’

ari’

hari

TAMANIC

MALOH

kaka’

adi’

saparanak

MOKEN AND MOKLEN

MAKWEN

aka

uai

---

MALAYO-CHAMIC

CHAM

sa ai

aday

---

IBAN

aka

adi

menyadi

OR. RIMBA

kakok

adik

dulur

JAVA-BALI-LOMBOK

OLD JAVANESE

raka

rari

sanak

SASAK

kaké

ade

sematon

20This is the primary pattern for relative age and sibling/cousin relations in western Austronesia. Overwhelmingly the terms for relative age reflect the proto-terms, *kaka/aka for “elder” and *Sua(n)ji or *hua(n)ji for younger while the general terms for siblings/cousins are diverse.

21There is, however a variation on this primary pattern. Instead of two terms for relative age, this variant pattern relies on three terms: a term for elder brother, another term for elder sister with a third term for younger sibling plus a general sibling/cousin term. This pattern is represented by Figure II :

22Table III lists societies that utilize this variant pattern of relative age terms in the western Austronesian world and gives some idea of the relatively circumscribed distribution of this pattern. It includes one instance from Taiwan and from Northern Philippines but is concentrated among Malayo-Chamic languages.

Figure II – Pattern II, alternative relative age configuration

Figure II – Pattern II, alternative relative age configuration
  • 5 For purposes of completeness, one must also take into account those societies of western Austronesi (...)

23Together these two patterns predominate throughout western Austronesia and as such, provide a striking contrast to relative age + sibling/cousin relations in eastern Indonesia.5

Table III

Society

Elder Male/ ElderFemale (>Elder M/FCousin)

Younger Sibling

(>Younger Cousin)

Sibling/Cousin

TAIWAN: NUCLEAR AUSTRONESIAN

PAZEH

ma:mah/ iah

suazi

---

NORTHERN PHILIPPINES

ITNEG

manang/manong

ading

sonod/kasinsin

MALAYO-CHAMIC

JARAI

ayong/amai

adöi

---

ACEH

abang/kakak

adoe

GUMAI

kakak/ayuk

ading

---

LOM

kakak/ayak

adek

sanak pupek

MINANG

tuan/kaka

adiek

dunsanak

SAKAI

upik/ino

adik

---

MALAY

abang/kaka

adi(k)

SELAKO

abang/kaka’

adi’

gambar kepala

JAVA-BALI-LOMBOK

JAVA

kakang/mbaqju

adi

naqsanaq

SUNDA

akang/cece

ade

misan/sepupu

BALI

beli/mbok

adin

---

24The majority of instances of societies using this pattern belong to the Malayo-Chamic language group and to languages of Java-Bali-Lombok. Among most of these societies, the *kaka/aka term is retained for one of the two elder gendered categories as is the *hua(n)ji for younger. Essentially this pattern involves adding a term at the elder level. Historical records show that Old Javanese relied on the primary two-term relative age pattern (raka/rari) but at some time after the 14th or 15th century, adopted the three-term pattern which is in use today (see Fox 1986). Pattern II may well be a Malayo-Chamic innovation that has influenced other neighbouring societies.

25There is a strong correlation between Pattern I or Pattern II relative age terms in Ego’s generation and bilateral arrangements in the 1st ascending generation. All of the societies from Taiwan through the Philippines, Borneo, most (but not all) of Sumatra, Sulawesi and the Sunda Islands are structurally bilateral or, in an alternative terminology, “cognatic” (see Fox 1994, 2005).

The Transformation of Relative Age Categories in Eastern Indonesia

26Were one to draw a line through the middle of the island of Sumbawa and continue northward passing to the east of Selayar off the coast of Sulawesi, this line would demarcate an area of eastern Indonesia in which there occur a number of critical transformations in Austronesian terminological configurations. The eastern end of the island of Sumbawa straddles this line of transformation. Bima and Dou Donggo possess a combination of terminological features that look both ways: east and west.

27A majority of societies in eastern Indonesia use relative age terms but the use of these terms is dependent on sex-of-speaker. Thus a male-speaker applies these terms to his male siblings and male parallel cousins while a female-speaker applies them to her female siblings and female parallel cousins. The single general term for sibling found in western Austronesian is replaced by either one or two terms that are applied according to gender and sex-of-speaker. The more common variant on this pattern has two terms: a term for brother used by a sister and a term for sister used by a brother.

Figure III – pattern iii, relative age/two term opposite sex sibling/cousins.

Figure III – pattern iii, relative age/two term opposite sex sibling/cousins.

28This pattern can be represented as follows in Figure III:

  • 6 Various societies in eastern Indonesia exploit the possibilities of the sex-of-speaker/relative age (...)

29The distribution of this pattern is on eastern Sumbawa and the islands further to the east. It includes the Dou Donggo who are a subgroup of the Bimanese population, all of the populations of Flores and the islands to the east as far as Alor together with most of the societies of the island of Timor along with many Moluccan societies. The transformative feature of this configuration is the use of relative age terms based on sex-of-speaker coupled with two terms for opposite sex siblings (brother/sister) and parallel cousins.6

  • 7 The brother/sister/opposite sex parallel cousin terms cited here reflect either: *ñaRa or *ma-Ruqan (...)

30Table IV lists the societies of eastern Indonesia that rely on this configuration:7

Table IV – Relative age with two opposite sex terms

Society

Sibling/Parallel Cousin
Elder/Younger
(Same Sex)

Sibling/Parallel Cousin:

Brother (w.s)

Sister (m.s.)

(Opposite Sex)

BIMA+SAVU

DOU DONGGO

sa’e/ari

amania

amancava

SAVU

a’a/ari

na’mone

na’weni

DHAO

a’a/ari

ana mone

ana heni

EAST FLORES

KOMODO

ha/ari

na

?

MANGGARAI

ka’e/ase

nara

weta

RIUNG

ka’é/azé’

nara

weta

RONGGA

ka’e/azhi

nara

weta

CENTRAL FLORES

ENDE

ka’e/ari

nara

weta

HOGA SARA

kae/azi

nara

weta

KEO

ka’e/’ari

nala

weta

NAGE

ka’e/azi

na

weta

NGGELA

kae/aji

nara

weta

PALUE

ka’e/hari

naja

Weda

CENTRAL EAST FLORES

TANA AI

wué/wari

nara

wine

EAST FLORES, SOLOR TO ALOR

BELOGILI

kaka/ari’

na’a

biné

LEWOTALA

kaka/adé

na’a

biné’

KEDANG

aqe/arin

narin

binin

BARNUSA

kakang/aring

nang

bining

TIMOR

ROTI

ka’a/fadi

na’a(k)

feto(k)

HELONG

kaka/pali

blane

bata

ATONI

tataf/olif

nauf

fetof

BEKA’IS

ka’an/walin

manek

fetok

MAMBAI

kaka/alin

nara

tbo

ISNI

ka’an/alin

naran

hatonu

TOKODEDE

kaka/alin

na

moto

CENTRAL MALUKU

BURU

kai/wai

naha

feta

SOUTHEASTERN ISLANDS

DAMA

kake/weye

mmuno

vwota7

31This pattern with separate terms for both brother and sister and opposite sex parallel cousins is not, however, the only terminological pattern in eastern Indonesia. It is logically possible to have a single reciprocal term for the opposite sex sibling. This other pattern variant also occurs in eastern Indonesia. Examples of societies in eastern Indonesia that apply sex-of-speaker to their relative age terms but utilize a single term for the opposite sex sibling, are as follows.

32This pattern can be represented as follows:

33This configuration occurs less frequently than the first pattern and appears more frequently in the area closer to New Guinea.

34Table V lists the societies of eastern Indonesia with this pattern:

Figure IV – Pattern iv, relative age/single term opposite sex sibling/cousins

Figure IV – Pattern iv, relative age/single term opposite sex sibling/cousins

Table V – Relative age with a single opposite sex sibling term

Society

Sibling /Parallel Cousin

Sibling/Parallel Cousin

Elder/Younger: Same-Sex

Single Term: Opposite Sex

TIMOR

NAUETI

kaka/wari

mae

CENTRAL MALUKU

ALUNE

wali mena/wali muli

beta

SOUTHEAST MALUKU

KEI

a’an/wari

uran

TANEBAR-EVAV

a’an/wari

uran

SOUTH HALMAHERA/ NEW GUINEA

IRARUTU

atagfad/agfut

aruig

Sumba’s Alternative Patterning of Relations in Ego’s Generation without Relative Age

35While Patterns III and IV predominate throughout much of eastern Indonesia from the islands of Flores eastward to Timor and to the Moluccan islands as far as the coast of New Guinea, they are not the only Ego-generation patterns that occur in the region.

36Sumba is a particularly instructive case because the use of relative age terms among societies on the island is of little significance. Instead Sumba has a patterned set of terminological relations that resemble Pattern III but do so without the use of relative age.

37Pattern III terminologies distinguish between same sex and opposite sex relations in Ego’s generation. While relative age terms define relations among members of the same sex, two terms are used to define relations between members of the opposite sex. By contrast, Sumbanese terminologies have two separate terms for members of the same sex; these terms are sex-of-speaker dependent; and these terms are combined with two terms for the opposite sex which are also sex-of-speaker dependent. This Pattern IV is one without relative age terms.

38Figure V illustrates this basic pattern of relationships.

Figure V – Pattern v, Sumba: same sex/opposite sex without relative age

Figure V – Pattern v, Sumba: same sex/opposite sex without relative age

39Table VI sets out these terminological relations for Sumba moving from east to west across the island:

Group

Sibling/Parallel Cousin
(Same-Sex)

Sibling/Parallel Cousin

(Opposite Sex)

(m.s.)

(w.s.)

(w.s.)

(m.s.)

Kambera

angu paluhu

angu kawini

ana moni

ana wini

Memboro

angu wua

angu kawini

ana moni

ana wini

Wanokaka

angu wua

angu mahawa

ana moni

ana wini

Lauli

angu wua

angu mawine

na’a

woto

Kodi

dungo kambo

angu winye

lamone

lawinye

40In effect, as in the example of Kambera, angu paluhu is used by a brother to his brother and parallel cousins; angu kawini by a sister to sister and her parallel cousins, while ana wini is used by a brother to his sister and parallel cousins and ana moni is used by a sister to her brother and parallel cousins.

41The expression of relations between members of the opposite sex are like those in Pattern III: for example, Lauli has na’a/woto (*ñaRa/*bǝtaw) while the reciprocal, ana wini//ana moni, terms are like those of Savu na’weni/na’mone.

Critical differences in alliance relationships

42The literature on eastern Indonesia emphasizes the importance of positive alliance relations among groups and the establishment, over generations, of relationships between wife-givers and wife-takers. Given this as one of the chief characteristics of the societies of eastern Indonesia, it is critical to note how such relationships contrast with all alliance relationships in western Austronesia. This is notable and definable in the terminologies of western and eastern Austronesia.

43In western Austronesia, the category of “child’s spouse’s parent” defines a reciprocal relationship between parents whose children have married. In Malay/Indonesian, this is the besan-relationship. The following figure provides a diagrammatic representation of this CSpP relationship.

Figure VI – Child’s spouse’s parent relationship

Figure VI – Child’s spouse’s parent relationship

44This categorical relationship is found in terminologies from Taiwan to Sumbawa. It occurs among some but not all of the Austronesian societies of Taiwan (Saalua, Puyuma, Pazeh and Yami) and among the Cham and Jarai of Vietnam. It is also reported among virtually all the societies of the Philippines, Borneo and Sulawesi, in most of Sumatra, and from Java to Sumbawa (Dou Donggo). However, it virtually ceases to occur beyond Sumbawa in eastern Indonesia, with the exception of the Buli of Halmahera and possibly also the Sobei of the north coast of New Guinea.

45Table VII sets out the evidence for the distribution of this category overwhelmingly in the western Austronesian region. Although for presentation here, I have abbreviated this list – the present data set has 85 instances of the CSpP category – this list still shows both the spread and diversity of the lexical terms used for CSpP.

Table VII – Child Spouse’s Parents (CSpP) Terms in Austronesian Languages

SOCIETY

CSpP Term

Further Specification

TAIWAN

PUYUMA

ali

CSpF

anai

CSpM

SAALUA

ts’uts’uta

PAZEH

lagi

BATANIC (IVATAN)

YAMI

kuakai

CSpF

kabakus

CSpM

NORTHERN PHILIPPINES

AGTA

kabalay

BONTOK

aliwid

DUMAGAT (Casiguran)

balaqi

GA’DANG

kafalay

ILOCANO

abalayan

ISNEG

abalay

KALINGA (S. Tanudan)

aboryan

KANKANAY (Northern)

kaqising

SAGADA IGOROT

kaising

MESO-PHILIPPINES

BUHID

balayi

CEBUANO

balaqi

PALAWAN

bajsan

TAGALOG

belage

TAGBANWA (Calamian)

balii

TAUSUG

baqi

SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES

MANOBO (Ilianen)

belaqi

SUBANUN

bela’i

SOUTH MINDANAO

TIRURAY

belaqi

TBOLI

laqi

SAMA-BAJAU

BAJAU

ba’i

YAKAN

baqi

MALAYO-CHAMIC

ACEH

bisan

CHAM

para

SWP

parai

DHP

GUMAI

warang

CSpF

besan

CSpM

IBAN

isan

JARAI

rui

LOM

bisén

MALAY

besan

SELAKO

imat

SEMENDO

besan

kakak besan

SWP

adik besan

DHP

NORTH/NORTHEAST BORNEO

BENTIAN

sanget

BUKAT

isan, avé’

KEREHO UHENG

avé, sangé

LUN DAYEK

arum

TAMAN

isen

LAND DAYAK (INLAND SOUTHWEST BORNEO)

LAND DAYAK

dami

EAST BARITO (SOUTH BORNEO)

MA’ANYAN

bulau

WEST BARITO

NGAJU (Upper Mentaya)

sanger

UUT DANUM

sangew

TAMANIC (CENTRAL BORNEO)

MALOH

isan

LAMPUNG

LAMPUNG

sabai

MENGGALA

sabai

NORTH WEST SUMATRA/BARRIER ISLANDS

ALAS

bésan

GAYO

umé

NIAS

mbambato

SAKKUDEI (Mentawai)

kaddei

JAVA-BALI-LOMBOK

JAVA

besan

OLD JAVANESE

warang

BALI

warang

SASAK

warang

SUNDA

warang

CENTRAL SULAWESI: BUNGKU-MORI-TOLAKI

TOLAKI

meoasa

TORETE

baisano anangku

CENTRAL SULAWESI: KAILI-PAMONA

DA’A

sumbava

CENTRAL SULAWESI: TOMINI

PENDAU

poposialap

MUNA-BUTON

MUNA

samponi

MORONENE

asamponi

WOLIO

oera

SOUTH SULAWESI

BUGIS

baiseng

MAKASSAR

de’nang

SA’DAN TORAJA

baisen

BIMA

DOU DONGGO

vai

HALMAHERA

BULI

paing

SARMI-JAYAPURA BAY

SOBEI

penabi

46Among these terms for CSpP, there appear to be a number of particular clusters. The most prominent of these is a cluster – balaqi-belage-abalay – that is found throughout the Philippines from north to south. The Pazeh of Taiwan have the term, lagi, for CSpP and this may possibly be cognate with terms in this Philippine cluster. This cluster also includes the Bajau, ba’i, which may be related, as well, to the Dou Donggo, paing and the Buli vai. The Bajau have had settlements for centuries on the coasts of Sumbawa and Halmahera.

47The other prominent cluster – besan-bisan-isan-kaising – predominates among Malayo-Chamic languages but occurs as well in Northern Luzon, Borneo, Java and southern Sulawesi. Malay or Malayic influences may have been responsible for some of this distribution. Old Javanese, for example, once had warang as the term for CSpP but several hundred years ago it borrowed besan, probably from Malay. The term warang identifies another cluster that occurs from southern Sumatra to Lombok.

  • 8 Notably, in most of its occurrence, this category does not specify gender but there are exceptions (...)

48Despite these several clusters, a notable feature of this category is the great variety of seemingly unrelated terms that define this category: kuakai, kubagus, aliwid, para, rui, imat, avé, arum, sanger, sabai, umé, mbambato, kaddei, meoasa, baisano, sumbava, poposialap, samponi, oera, and de’nang.8

The Sociological Significance of the CSpP Relationship

  • 9 The CSpP term disappears even in those societies of eastern Indonesia that retain other terminologi (...)

49CSpP is a terminological designation adopted after marriage and therefore its sociological function stands in marked contrast with the relationship categories of those Austronesian kinship systems that promote or direct marriage to a particular category of relative. Rather than defining a positive rule of marriage, CSpP designates a post-facto relationship. It is a relationship that exists specifically between particular families. Thus, sociologically, there is a significant difference in the presence or absence of the relationship category. Its virtual disappearance in eastern Indonesia is one of a series of changes that occur in the terminologies of this region.9

50In most societies that rely on the CSpP relationship, there is no significant, continuing differentiation between wife-givers and wife-takers. By contrast, in many eastern Indonesian societies, significant differentiation is made between wife-givers and wife-takers. Wife-takers refer to wife-givers with distinctive terms that both elevate and honour them and in some of these societies, this distinction is, as it were, built into the relationship terminology and maintained by positive rules that designate marriage with a particular category of relative. In societies where positive rules direct marriages in a regular and repeated fashion, the category of wife-giver is part of a set terminological configuration. Since the CSpP category is applied after marriage, it would be socially incompatible within a terminology where the categories of marriage relationship are prefigured within the terminology itself. Moreover the category is applied between related families and thus defines a more limited form of alliance than that between larger (lineage or clan) groups as in eastern Indonesia. It defines a relationship for each marriage separately. For parents with many children, it configures multiple different individual relationships.

51Given its sociological importance, the presence or absence of the CSpP relationship category provides a clear demarcation of difference between western Austronesia and eastern Austronesia.

Map 2 – The Child Spouse’s Parents (CSpP) Line of Demarcation.

Map 2 – The Child Spouse’s Parents (CSpP) Line of Demarcation.

52Besides distinguishing between the presence and absence of the Child’s Parent’s Sibling relationship, this line of demarcation may be regarded with greater symbolic significance. To the east of this line is the region characterized by the occurrence of the Patterns III, IV or V which define relations in Ego’s generation. While these patterns are one of the defining characteristic of eastern Indonesia in relation to western Austronesia, two of these patterns are not confined to eastern Indonesia. They constitute some of the principal patterns that define terminological relationships in Ego’s generation in Oceania.

Sex-of-Speaker, Relative Age and Opposite Sex Sibling Distinctions in Oceania

53When one turns to Oceania, there is great variability in sibling terms with both the presence and absence of relative age terms. Similar patterns to those in eastern Indonesia are discernible and, one could argue, significant. My purpose therefore is not to provide a comprehensive picture of the variety of these sibling terminologies but rather to show the prevalence of formal patterns like those that are most prominent in eastern Indonesia.

54It is best to begin with Pattern IV: this pattern consists of relative age terms for same-sex siblings and a single reciprocal term for opposite-sex siblings. The pattern occurs predominantly in the Moluccan islands and on the coast of New Guinea. It could be called the “Near New Guinea” pattern because it is also found around the north coast of New Guinea and among the islands at the West Papua Tip extending to the Solomons and onward to Fiji.

Some illustrative examples of this pattern (Pattern IV) are as follows: Table VIII – Pattern IV

SOCIETY

Sibling (Same-Sex)

Elder/Younger

Sibling (Opposite Sex)

One Term

NORTH NEW GUINEA

WOGEO

toka/tei

lu

PAPUA TIP

MOTU

kaka/tadi

taihu

MEKEO

a-/atsi

afakua

MUYUW

tuawa-/bwada-

na-t

TROBRIANDS

tuwa-/bwada-

lu-ta

N.W. SOLOMONIC

VARISI

togana/kaena

vavanina

S.E. SOLOMONIC

BAEGU

sauana/sasina

waiwane

CENTRAL PACIFIC

FIJI (BAU)

tuaka-ŋgu/taci-qu

gane-ŋgu

  • 10 In 1938, Wilhelm Milke was the first to recognize the existence of Pattern III in Oceania. He descr (...)

55By contrast, Pattern III – the pattern of relative ages for same-sex siblings and parallel cousins with two terms for opposite sex siblings – is even more notable and wide-spread in further Oceania. It extends from Manus and Tanna out into the Pacific where it is particularly evident.10 A few examples of this pattern are as follows:

Table IX – Pattern III

SOCIETY

Sibling (Same-Sex)

Elder/Younger

Sibling (Opposite Sex): Two Terms

Brother (w.s)

Sister (m.s.)

ADMIRALTIES

BALUAN

toung/naing

mwaning

patning

SOUTH VANUATU

KWAMERA

prea-/prisi-

pumani

pini

CENTRAL PACIFIC

TONGA

taokete/tehina

tuongaane

tuofefine

ROTUMA

sasigi/sasiga

sagaväväne

saghani

HAWAI’I

kaikua’ana/kaikaina

kaikunane

kaihuahine

RANGIROA

tua’ana/teina

tu’ane

tu’ane

MAORI

tuakana/teina

tungane

tuahine

  • 11 Following Clark (1975), Marck (1996) argues convincingly for a semantic simplification of this patt (...)

56Jeff Marck, who has carried out the most exhaustive examination of Polynesian terminologies, has noted that this “is the system in the great majority of historic Polynesian societies” (1996: 229).11

  • 12 Mac Marshall’s “Structural Patterns of Sibling Classification in Island Oceania” (1984) is a valian (...)

57The distribution of Patterns III and IV covering an area from eastern Indonesia to the central Pacific gives evidence of considerable stability. The distinctive distribution of these patterns in relation to one another also suggests that each pattern has considerable historical continuity.12

  • 13 Over thirty years after his 1938 paper on sibling terminologies in Oceania, as part of an argument (...)

58As for Pattern V – the pattern without relative age terms which is found on the island of Sumba – there is no evidence that it has been ‘carried over’ into Oceania. As presented, Pattern V shows structural resemblance to Pattern III: two separate terms for same-sex siblings and another two terms for opposite-sex siblings. By contrast, in parts of Oceania, a prominent pattern for terminologies without relative age consists simply of two terms – with each term marked by sex-of-speaker distinction.13

59This pattern can be seen in Figure VII. It resembles Figure V, which applies to Sumba in eastern Indonesia. The pattern lacks relative age terms as is the case on Sumba but instead of two terms for the opposite sex as in Sumba, it consists of a single reciprocal term used between members of the opposite sex.

Figure Vii – Oceania: Three Term Pattern of Same Sex/Opposite Sex Relations Without Relative Age

Figure Vii – Oceania: Three Term Pattern of Same Sex/Opposite Sex Relations Without Relative Age

60Table X provides examples of this basic arrangement:

Table X

SOCIETY

SAME-SEX

B, (MZS FBS) (m.s.)

Z, (MZD FBD) (w.s.)

OPPOSITE-SEX Two B, (MZS FBS) (w.s.)

Z, (MZD FBD) (m.s.)

NORTH NEW GUINEA

TAKIA

tei

lu-

PAPUAN TIP

BASIMA

sia-

nu-

DOBU

tasi

nu’u

TUBE-TUBE

kakava

du

S.E. SALOMONIC

AROSI

doora

haho

MONO-ALU

kai

fafine

WEST NEW BRITAIN

VITU

tazi-gu

livuku-gu

NEW IRELAND

LELET

netak, paton

minmin

CENTAL PACIFIC

TIKOPIA

taina

kave

GILBERT ISLANDS

tari

mane

61This wide-spread arrangement of same-sex//opposite sex relationships is distinctive to Oceania and constitutes as important a pattern of relationship as either Pattern III or IV.

Comment and Conclusions

62This paper has examined several critical terminological features that differentiate the societies of eastern Indonesia from the societies of western Austronesia and link these societies on the basis of similar terminological features with societies in Oceania. The principal evidence for these differences can be seen in relative age and sibling terminologies but include as well the way in which marriages are systematically defined on a post-hoc basis in western Austronesia compared to the broad tendency toward terminologically “directed” marriage in eastern Indonesia. This paper has also looked at the variation in terminological patterning that occurs in eastern Indonesia and how this pattern “carries on” into Oceania. The two most prominent terminological patterns for relative age and opposite-sex siblings are found in eastern Indonesia as well as in Oceania. However, as in eastern Indonesia, there are other patterned variations in Oceania. To illustrate this point, this paper has also identified a particular terminological variation in sibling relations (same-sex/opposite-sex) that is distinctive to Oceania.

63All of this discussion offers a partial glimpse of the significant variation in the terminologies of the Austronesian-speaking world. Its purpose was to provide a focus on eastern Indonesia. By this same token, this examination ought not to be given overdue significance. It forms a part of a larger perspective which is the focus of my comprehensive monograph, Regional Variation in Austronesian Terminologies.

  • 14 I would like to acknowledge the valuable advice of my colleague and friend, Dr Charles Grimes, who (...)

64From the time of Morgan and the beginning of the study of kinship, a distinction has been made between consanguinity and affinity. This paper has, in effect, discussed a few features of difference in consanguinity (confined to Ego’s generation) in Austronesian terminologies. From a wider perspective, however, most of the variation and differentiation that occurs in Austronesian terminologies is to be found in their affinal dimensions. An appropriate perspective for the comparative study of these terminologies must thus focus on Austronesian relationships of affinity.14

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Blust, Robert A. 1974. “Eastern Austronesian: a Note.” In University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 6(4): 101-107.

Blust, Robert A. 1982. “The Linguistic Value of the Wallace Line.” In Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 138(2/3): 231-250.

Blust, Robert A. 1993. “Central and Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian.” In Oceanic Linguistics 32: 241293.

Blust, Robert A. 1995. “The Position of The Formosan Languages: Method and Theory in Austronesian Comparative Linguistics.” In Paul Jen-kuei Li, Cheng-hwa Tsang, Ying-kuei Huang, Dah-an Ho & Chiu-yu Tseng (eds), Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan, pp. 585-650. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.

Chiu-yu Tseng 1999. “Subgrouping, Circularity and Extinction: Some Issues in Austronesian Comparative Linguistics.” In Elizabeth Zeitoun & Paul Jen-kuei Li (eds), Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, pp. 31-94. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.

Chiu-yu Tseng 2009. “The Position of the Languages of Eastern Indonesia: A Reply to Donohue and Grimes.” In Oceanic Linguistics 48/1: 37-77.

Brandes, Jan Laurens A. 1884. Bijdrage tot de vergelijkende klankeer der westerse afdeeling van de Maleisch-Polynesische taalfamilie. Utrecht: Proefschrift.

Carsten, Janet. 1997. The Heat of the Hearth: The Process of Kinship in a Malay Fishing Village. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Chowning, Ann. 1984. “Comment on Marshall.” In Current Anthropology 25: 628.

Clark, Ross. 1975. “Comment on Polynesian Sibling Terms.” In American Anthropologist 77: 84-87.

Clark, Ross. 1984. “Comment on Marshall.” In Current Anthropology 25: 628-629.

Donohue, Mark and Charles E. Grimes

Clark, Ross. 2008. “Yet more on The Position of the Languages of Eastern Indonesia and East Timor.” In Oceanic Linguistics 47/1: 114-158.

Dyen, Isidore. 1965. A Lexicostatistical Classification of the Austronesian Languages. Baltimore: IJAL Memoir 19.

Esser, S. J. 1938. “Talen,” pp. 9-9b. In Atlas van Tropisch Nederland. Amsterdam: Koninklijk Nederlandsch Aardrijkskundig Genootschap.

Fox, James J. 1986. “The Ordering of Generations: Change and Continuity in Old Javanese Kinship.” In Marr, D.G. and Milner, A.C. (eds), Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries, pp. 315-326. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and Research School of Pacific Studies (Canberra).

Fox, James J. 1994, “Who’s Who in Ego’s Generation: A Consideration of Malayo-Polynesian Same Generation Kinship Terms.” In Pawley, A. and Ross, M. (eds), Austronesian Terminologies: Continuity and Change, pp. 127-139. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Fox, James J. 2005. “A Comparative Analysis of the Relationship Terminologies of Northern Luzon.” In Hsiu-chuan Liao and Carl R. Galvez Rubino (eds), Current Issues in Philippine Linguistics and Anthropology (Parangal kay Lawrence A. Reid), pp. 227-247. Manila: The Linguistic Society of the Philippines and SIL Philippines.

Grimes, Barbara D. 1993. The Pursuit of Prosperity and Blessing: Social Life and Symbolic Action on Buru Island, Eastern Indonesia. Unpublished PhD Thesis Anthropology Department, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies. Canberra: The Australian National University.

Grimes, Charles E. 1991. “Central Malayo-Polynesian: an Interim Evaluation.” Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Honolulu, May 1991.

Grimes, Charles E. 2000. “Introduction: New Information Filling Old Gaps in Eastern Indonesia.” In Charles E. Grimes (ed.), Spices from the East: Papers in Languages of Eastern Indonesia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics 503: 1–8.

Grimes, Charles E. 2010. “What Happened in the Middle? Unravelling The Linguistic Prehistory of the Austronesian Languages of Eastern Indonesia and East Timor.” Paper presented at the Workshop on Critical Directions in Comparative Austronesian Studies held at the Australian National University, 27-28 January 2010.

Jonker, J.C. G. 1914. “Kan man bij de talen van den Indische archipelago een Westelijke en eene Ostelijke afdeeling onderscheiden?.” In Verslag en Mededelingen Koninklijke Academie van Wetenschappen, Afd Letterkunde (4de reeks) 12: 314-417.

Jonker, J.C. G. 1917-1921. “Ambonsche Tongvallen.” I: 41-42; Bimaneesch I:308-309; Rottineesch III:639-640; Sikka’sch III: 771-772; Soemba’sch IV:6-7; and Timoreesch IV: 351-352 in Encyclopaedie van Nederlandsch-Indië, ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.

Lewis, E. Douglas. 1988. People of the Source: The Social and Ceremonial Order of Tana Wai Brama on Flores. Verhandelingen KITLV: 135. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Marck, Jeff. 1996. “Kin Terms in the Polynesian Protolanguages.” In Oceanic Linguistics 35(2): 195-257.

Marshall, Mac. 1984. “Structural Patterns of Sibling Classification in Island Oceania: Implications for Culture History.” In Current Anthropology 25(5): 597- 637.

Milke, Wilhelm. 1938. “Die Benennungen der Geschwister in den austronesischen Sprachen Ozeaniens.” In Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 70: 51-66.

Milke, Wilhelm. 1965. “Comparative notes on the Austronesian languages of New Guinea.” In G. B. Milner and Eugenie J. A. Henderson (eds), Indo-Pacific Linguistic Studies, pt. 1, Historical Linguistics, pp. 330-48. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Murdock, George Peter. 1968. “Patterns of Sibling Terminology.” In Ethnology 7(1):1-24.

Needham, Rodney. 1973. “Prescription.” In Oceania 43: 166-181.

Needham, Rodney. 1974. Remarks and Inventions: Skeptical Essays about Kinship. London: Tavistock Publications.

Robson, Stuart. 1985. “The Terminology of Javanese Kinship.” In Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 143(4): 507-518.

Ross, Malcolm. 1995. “Some Current Issues in Austronesian Linguistics.” In Tryon, Darrell (ed.), Comparative Austronesian Dictionary, Part I: Fascicle 1: 45-120.

Ross, Malcolm. 2009. “Proto Austronesian Verbal Morphology: a Reappraisal.” In K. Alexander Adelaar & Andrew Pawley (eds), Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A Festschrift for Robert Blust, pp. 295-326. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Ross, Malcolm. 2012. “In Defense of Nuclear Austronesian (and Against Tsouic).” In Language and Linguistics 13.6: 1253-1330.

Traube, Elizabeth. 1986. Cosmology and Social Life: Ritual Exchange among the Mambai of East Timor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wallace, Alfred Russel. 1869. The Malay Archipelago. Two Volumes. London: MacMillan and Co.

Wouden, F. A. E. van. 1935. Sociale Structuurtypen in de Groote Oost. Leiden: J. Ginsberg.

Wouden, F. A. E. van. 1968. Types of Social Structure in Eastern Indonesia. (Translated by Rodney Needham). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Haut de page

Notes

2 Although a majority of languages in eastern Indonesia belong to the Austronesian family of languages, in the north, the islands of Ternate, Tidore, Bacan, Obi and Halmahera have non-Austronesian languages that are classified as belonging to the West Papuan Phylum of languages while further to the south, both the islands of Alor and Pantar have predominantly non-Austronesian languages that are related to other non-Austronesian languages found in central and eastern Timor and on the island of Kisar. All of these languages have been tentatively linked to a separate phylum, the Trans-New Guinea Phylum.

3 Blust recognizes that many of his proposals for defining CMP do not meet the criteria for exclusively shared innovations required by the historical comparative method and has attempted to revise his argument by introducing other considerations. He states: “Many of the lexical and phonological innovations used to assign languages to CMP do not cover the entire set of languages, and so suggest that this grouping arose from an original dialect chain that served as a ‘diffusion corridor’ rather than through a series of ‘clean’ language splits” (Blust 2009: 31). While Blust has characterized the Austronesian languages of eastern Indonesia and East Timor as comprising a distinct subgroup within Austronesian, Donohue and Grimes (2008) characterize these languages differently, pointing to the formative influences of early contact with non-Austronesian languages in this region – a point hinted at by Brandes as early as 1884.

4 Madagascar shares this sibling pattern for relative age with western Austronesia but has also elaborated a distinctive set of gendered sibling terms.

5 For purposes of completeness, one must also take into account those societies of western Austronesia who have no relative age terms but only a single term for all siblings and cousins. The Paiwan represent one such society in Taiwan; most other societies with only a single term for sibling cluster in Northwest Borneo and the Northern Philippines. Among these societies are the following:
Image 100002010000017700000099F6C3F977.png

It should be noted that the single term for sibling in several of these societies is one of the relative age terms used in other societies.

6 Various societies in eastern Indonesia exploit the possibilities of the sex-of-speaker/relative age distinction to define categories of potential alliance. This can be seen as a transformation of an optional use of relative age terms as an intimate form of address between lovers and/or between husband and wife in western Austronesia. For example, in her account of Malay marriage, Janet Carsten (1997:93) writes: “Villagers always state that the correct term of address for wives to use to their husbands is abang, older brother; that for husbands to their wives is adik, younger sibling.” In this usage, the elder term is used for a male lover or husband and the younger term for a female lover or wife. The reciprocal use of the formalized relative age terms, kakanda-adinda, is a standard feature in older forms of traditional Malay poetry. Javanese uses the reciprocal terms mas (from kangmas) and dhik (from adhik) as similar intimate address terms for husband and wife (see Robson 1985: 515). In eastern Indonesia, this optional usage becomes a formal feature of some terminologies. In societies where relative age terms are applied between same-sex siblings and parallel cousins, these same relative ages can also be applied to members of the opposite sex. This defines specific cross-cousins as potential marriage partners. Some of the best instances of this usage are for the Tana ’Ai of Flores, the Buru in Maluku and possibly for the Mambai (and other groups) in Timor (Lewis 1988, B. D. Grimes 1993, and Traube 1986).

7 The brother/sister/opposite sex parallel cousin terms cited here reflect either: *ñaRa or *ma-Ruqanay for ‘brother’ and either *bǝtaw or *binay/b-in-ahi for “sister.” It is notable that these pairs occur in all possible permutations. Thus *ñaRa occurs with both *bǝtaw and *bi-in-ahi as does *ma-Ruqanay with each sister term. The *ma-Ruqanay/*bi-in-ahi combination, in the Savu and Dhao examples, is particularly relevant for comparison to terminologies in Oceania since it is the combination that carries out into the Pacific.The proto-form *ma-Ruqanay is generally reconstructed as “male” and *binay/b-in-ahi as “female” at the PMP level. This may reflect evidence of this usage in western Indonesia. It is pertinent that the transformation of these terms from “male”/“female” to one possible set of “brother”/“sister” designations, as shown, takes place in eastern Indonesia.

8 Notably, in most of its occurrence, this category does not specify gender but there are exceptions to this general pattern. There are two patterned possibilities for this. The Puyuma, Yami and Gumai distinguish gender of the parents:
Image 10000201000000D40000007AA31751FB.png
The Gumai appear to reflect both former Javanese and Malay(ic) influence: they have
warang for child’s spouse’s father and besan for child’s spouse’s mother. The Cham and the Semendo, on the other hand, distinguish according to the sex of the spouse:
Image 10000201000000DD00000058350554D7.png

9 The CSpP term disappears even in those societies of eastern Indonesia that retain other terminological features similar to the majority of western Austronesian societies.

10 In 1938, Wilhelm Milke was the first to recognize the existence of Pattern III in Oceania. He described this pattern as “an ancient Melanesian sibling terminology” (urmelanesische Geschwisterterminologie: UMN) and noted that this “ancient Melanesian sibling terminology” was preserved primarily in the Admiralties and in Polynesia. He contrasted this UMN with what he called an UAN: “an ancient Austronesian sibling terminology” (uraustronesische Geschwisterterminologie), i.e. Pattern I.

11 Following Clark (1975), Marck (1996) argues convincingly for a semantic simplification of this pattern as in various other parts of Polynesia either by the replacement of one of these original four terms or by an elimination of semantic distinctions. In this way, he wishes to account for other historical variants on this pattern. Ross Clark (1984:628) has pointed out in his comments on Marshall that Marshall’s four-term Polynesian terminological configuration, in many instances, has similar cognate forms reflecting Proto-Oceania: *tuqaka elder (same sex), *tansi younger (same sex), *ŋmaqane m (f.s.) and *papine f (m.s.). See Fn 6 and Table VI, for some of the relevant comparisons for eastern Indonesia. From a comparative linguistic perspective, these relative age (elder/younger terms – same sex) terms in Oceania may resemble cognate forms in the Philippines but such terms do not have the same semantic sense. Elder and younger terms in western Austronesia are applied between both sexes.

12 Mac Marshall’s “Structural Patterns of Sibling Classification in Island Oceania” (1984) is a valiant and still valuable attempt at a total (evolutionary) classification of sibling terms in Oceania. It floundered on an array of linguistic misinterpretations and limitations, but Marshall defended the paper’s shortcomings by claiming that his chief concern was to present the “formal typological patterns of sibling classification” independent of their lexical representation. The empirical evidence he assembled for his paper is considerable. In Marshall’s schema, Pattern III of this paper is his “Type 10” and Pattern IV is his “Type 6.” Marshall labels Type 6 as “Core Melanesia” and “Type 10” as “Core Polynesia” (1984: 605). These are two most common sibling types in Oceania. As I have tried to show in this paper, they are also the two most common terminological patterns for relative age and siblings in eastern Indonesia.

13 Over thirty years after his 1938 paper on sibling terminologies in Oceania, as part of an argument for a “New Guinea cluster” of languages within Oceanic, Milke (1965:345) noted the distribution of a single “cross-sibling” term reflecting *lobu or *libu’ among a range of these so-called “New Guinea cluster” languages extending the entire length of the north coast of Papua New Guinea including many off-shore islands as far as the Siassi Islands of northwest New Britain and of Vitu (see Ann Chowning 1984:628). In fact Milke’s observations merge the evidence for opposite-sex sibling terms that occur in Pattern IV (cited in Table VIII) with the evidence for opposite sibling terms as indicated in the terminological pattern shown in Table X. Compare the Wogeo and Trobriands terms in Table VIII with the terms from the Takia, Basima, Dobu and Tube-Tube in Table X. There is clearly a relationship between these two configurations.

14 I would like to acknowledge the valuable advice of my colleague and friend, Dr Charles Grimes, who has, for many years, kept me informed of continuing developments in eastern Indonesian linguistics (see Grimes 1991, 2000, 2010). I would also like to thank Jennifer Sheehan for the figures in this paper (and many more in the Regional Variation volume).

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Map 1 – Three lines of demarcation in eastern Indonesia.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/archipel/docannexe/image/375/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 200k
Titre Fig. I – Pattern I, relative age/sibling cousin configuration.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/archipel/docannexe/image/375/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 10k
Titre Figure II – Pattern II, alternative relative age configuration
URL http://journals.openedition.org/archipel/docannexe/image/375/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 15k
Titre Figure III – pattern iii, relative age/two term opposite sex sibling/cousins.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/archipel/docannexe/image/375/img-4.png
Fichier image/png, 23k
Titre Figure IV – Pattern iv, relative age/single term opposite sex sibling/cousins
URL http://journals.openedition.org/archipel/docannexe/image/375/img-5.png
Fichier image/png, 9,0k
Titre Figure V – Pattern v, Sumba: same sex/opposite sex without relative age
URL http://journals.openedition.org/archipel/docannexe/image/375/img-6.png
Fichier image/png, 8,6k
Titre Figure VI – Child’s spouse’s parent relationship
URL http://journals.openedition.org/archipel/docannexe/image/375/img-7.png
Fichier image/png, 5,8k
Titre Map 2 – The Child Spouse’s Parents (CSpP) Line of Demarcation.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/archipel/docannexe/image/375/img-8.png
Fichier image/png, 66k
Titre Figure Vii – Oceania: Three Term Pattern of Same Sex/Opposite Sex Relations Without Relative Age
URL http://journals.openedition.org/archipel/docannexe/image/375/img-9.png
Fichier image/png, 28k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

James Fox, « Eastern Indonesia in Austronesian Perspective: The Evidence of Relational Terminologies »Archipel, 90 | 2015, 189-216.

Référence électronique

James Fox, « Eastern Indonesia in Austronesian Perspective: The Evidence of Relational Terminologies »Archipel [En ligne], 90 | 2015, mis en ligne le 01 mai 2017, consulté le 28 mars 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/archipel/375 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/archipel.375

Haut de page

Auteur

James Fox

The Australian National University

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search