Baca PDF (OCR): Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan Socio-political structure in Indonesia

MINANGKABAU AND NEGRI SEMBILAN

Socio-pulitical structure in Indonesia

Rack with ceremonial umbrellas, Java. (Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde - Leiden - Holland 370/1765) see page 161

MINANGKABAU AND NEGRI SEMBILAN

SOCIO-POLITICAL STRUCTURE IN INDONESIA

P. E. DE JOSSELIN DE JONG (Third impression)

MARTINUS NIJHOFF - 'S-GRAVENHAGE 1980

ISBN -13:978-94-009-8200-0 e-ISBN -13 :978-94-009-8198-0 DOl: 10.1007/978-94-009-8198-0

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the copyright holder.

Page Preface I CHAPTER I. Introduction 3 CHAPTER II. Preliminary Survey 7 CHAPTER III. Consideration of some previous works on Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan ......................................... 16 CHAPTER IV. Theory 35 CHAPTERV. Minangkabau Social Organisation ........................ 45 CHAPTER VI. Minangkabau Political Organisation ....................... 97 CHAPTER VII. Modern trends in Minangkabau .......................... 117 CHAPTER VIII. Negri Sembilan Social Organisation ....................... 122 CHAPTER IX. Negri Sembilan Political Organisation ..................... lSI CHAPTERX. Modern trends in Negri Sembilan ........................ 164

CHAPTER XI.

Comparison 168 CHAPTER XII. Summary, and some wider implications ................... 182 Bibliography ........................................ 197 Index. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 205 Map 1. Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan ................. 208 " 2. Minangkabau and its surroundings ................. 209 " 3. Negri Sembilan and its surroundings ............... 210 " 4. Minangkabau ................................. 211 " 5. Negri Sembilan ............................... 212 " 6. The distribution of the two adat in Minangkabau 213 CHAPTER XIII. Supplementary notes (1980 edition) ...................... 214 Errata ............................................. 232

PREFACE

As soon as one has to decide on a system of transliteration for the languages spoken in Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan, one is faced by peculiar difficulties. In the first place, one has the choice between adopting the Dutch system, the Indonesian (which is derived from it), the British or a scientifically satisfactory one. Then, should one spell the Minangkabau words according to their pronunciation, or in their Malaicised form, as the Minangkahau themselves do, ,at least when writing in Arabic characters? Further there is the difficulty that we do not really know what the language of Negri Sembilan is like ; from the scattered data one gets the impression that it should rather be considered a form of Minangkabau than a form of Malay, but European writers on this State have diligently "corrected" the native words and expressions, giving them, as much as possible, a Malay appearance. After some hesitation we adopted the following principles of transliteration :

A. We shall spell the Minangkabau words in accordance with their pronunciation, as is customary when Minangkabau texts are published in their Romanised form.

B. Negri Sembilan words will be given in their Malay form, although there is reason to suppose that in the actual spoken language these words may differ quite considerably from the way they have been rendered here.

C. For both the Sumatran and the Peninsular words we shall follow the official spelling of the Indonesian Republic.

The following notes may facilitate a comparison between the two languages and between the various systems of transcription.

The main difference between the Dutch and the Indonesian transliteration is:

Dutch oe = Indonesian u (e. g. boekit = bukit)

The main differences between the Indonesian and the British systems:

Indon. dj = Br. j (e. g. Djohol = Johol)

tj = ch (e. g. tjanggai = changgai)

j y (e.g. jang == yang)

e == e (e. g. besar == besar)

So, in the subsequent pages, the unaccented e everywhere stands for the "neutral vowel" or pepet. For clearness' sake we have added an accent (e or e) whenever the vowel has approximately its Italian value.

An apostrophe at the end of Malay and Minangkabau words represents the glottal stop, or hamzah.

The most striking differences between Minangkabau and Malay are:

Mal. e ("neutral vowel") == Mkb. a (e. g. Merapi == Marapi) final -at final -e· t e. g. rapat == rape') final -as final -eh (e. g. laras == Zareh) final oar final -a (e. g. besar == basa) final -us final -uih (e. g. alus == aluih) final out final -ui' (e. g. perot == parui') final -ung final -ueng (e. g. kampung == kampueng) final -uh final -ueh (e. g. puluh == pulueh) final oUr final -ue (e. g. kubur == kubue) final -a final -0 '(e. g. tiga == tigo)

The accent usually falls on the penultimate syllable in the Minangkabau words. For this purpose a syllable containing an -uior an -ueshould be considered as one syllable, not as two; that is to say, karnr pueng has two syllables: kam-pueng, not three: karnrpu-eng. So also a-luih, not a-lu-ih; pa-rui', not pa-ru-i' ; ku-bue, not ku-bu-e. The accentuation of these words is: kampueng, aluih, parui', kubue, and, in the same way, JangdipatUan Basa.

In Malay also the accent is generally on the penultimate, except when this syllable contains the "neutral vowel" e. In this case the accent falls on the ultimate: rapat, but besar.

The "Bestuursmemories" mentioned in the text and the Bibliography, are memoranda, prepared by Netherlands East Indies administrators on their transfer to a new post, describing the district under their authority in the state in which they are leaving it.

Manuscript or typescript copies of many such memoranda (and of the Militaire Memorie which is also to be found in the Bibliography) are kept in the library of the Koninklijk Instituut 'Voor de Tropen (Royal Institute for the Tropics) in Amsterdam.

The word "Indonesia" is used throughout in its scientific, not in its political sense, and may therefore include, i. a., the Malay Peninsula.

CHAPTER 1.

INTRODUCTION.

The study we are about to undertake means to give a description of the socio-political systems of Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan, and to draw a comparison .between the two. It is not the result of our own field-work experience, but based on the existing literature - and a few unpublished data - on the subject. Of course a work of this type has its disadvantages: in the first place, we continually come up against facts about which we would like to have more precise information than our sources supply, and in such cases we cannot fill in the lacunae with our own observations. Then there is the danger that a mere reconsideration of previous publications will reek too much of the lamp, and the author will fall victim to a judgement like B e row n e 's :

Small have continual plodders ever won,

Save base authority from others' books.

Nevertheless, if we cannot supply any new facts, we can legitimately consider whether the known facts have been correctly interpreted, and, if we reach the conclusion that such has not always been the case, offer a fresh explanation. Our main task will therefore ·be to try and trace the interrelationship between the various facts we shall come to know. At the same time this should give us a clearer understanding of various elements in the socio-political organisation that are not fully explicable .by the present situation alone.

Here it should be noted that this last possibility has been expressly denied by M a lin 0 w ski 1, his opinion :being that any element in present-day culture need, and indeed should, only be explained by reference to its present-day function. In his "Scientific theory of culture" he cites as example the horse.cIrawn carriage. One should not attempt to explain its occurence as a "survival" from the pre-motoring era, but by considering its function in our modern society: it offers a "ride into the past" to romantically inclined persons, etcetera. Still, this same example can serve to show up the limitations of a too rigidly functional method; the very fact that a drive in a horse-drawn cab offers one a "ride into the past" is only understandable if we ,know that such a conveyance, nowadays uncommon, was very frequent in earlier centuries, and is for that reason nowadays considered a relic of by-gone days. We shall therefore not, on principle, shy away from every attempt at tracing historical developments.

So we shall search for the underlying system which draws together the loose ends of the facts as we find them. Here and there this system is bound to show a hiatus, partly as a result of the incompleteness of our information, partly through the imperfections of the present work, but the broad outlines should become evident. To some extent this will entail a historical reconstruction, but a study of this type can also be considered in a different way, viz. as an attempt to trace the ideal pattern. It need not surprise us if the facts at present do not entirely conform to this ideal, but also it is not even certain that formerly they did. Devia'tons from the ideal always occur, but the ideal still holds good 2. A quite different point is, of course, that we are likely to see the pattern in a different way, and to formulate the ideal in other words, than the native population itself does ::.

It is understood that the word "ideal" is used here in a different sense than in "The Science of Man" 1. There ,is a pattern, a theoretical system, which is, as such, an abstraction, with ever-changing variants of it occurring in practice. This is meant by "ideal" in "The Scienc .. 3 of Man". In every-day speech, however, the word has a different meaning: that of a perfect type, a standard for imitation to which the participants in each particular culture try to conform. We should never fail to take this kind of "ideal" into account in a study of social organisation. Naturally we must, in a study of this type, be on our guard against tenuous lucubrations, and always keep closely to the facts as we know them.

In view of the great activity in the social sciences at present, and· the variety of interests of the workers in this field, it may be desirable to indicate the place of the present study within the science as a whole. This work, si magna licet componere parvis, makes use of an approach almost similar to that of R ass e r s' studies on Javanese social structure: using mostly contemporaneous data as a starting-point, it tries to find out how these facts are integrated into one cohesive cultural pattern. To mention a highly ,important work of recent years, Lev i - S t r a u s s' masterly study of kinship tackles its subject in a like manner, although it has a much wider scope.

In our opinion, the other main trends in modern social anthropology may be listed as follows:

In the first place we have the many field-work studies, which aim at giving insight into an entire culture or some of its aspects.

Next there are the attempts to define a "pattern of culture" 5, of which the stUdies of the "Basic Personality Structure" are to a certain extent a derivative, as the aim of the latter is not to characterise a certain culture, but the individual participating in that culture 6.

In the third place we should mention cross-cultural studies. One of the most remarkable developments in this field has been the introduction of a new kind of statistical approach, which aims at reducing the research-worker's own, subjective, evaluations to a minimum 7.

If our own work is properly carried out, it should also be of some use for studies of a different type. It may throw some new light on the similarities and differences between the cultures with which we are to deal and others, at least others in the same "field of study" 8 ; this would be Hs comparative, or cross-cultural, application. In the field of Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan culture alone it should be conducive to an understanding of facts that are not fully explicable outside the context of the culture as a whole; it may, for instance, also explain certain "attitudes" of the native population, which need to be understood for a study of basic personality types 9. On this subject, many points will need to be cleared up by field work based upon the results of theoretical studies. One of these points is : what is the attitude towards purely traditional concepts, such as phratry rivalry, when these concepts have lost much of their meaning. Another example: is the feeling of superiority of the bride-giving group towards the bride-taking group, such as we observe in many systems with fixed connubial relations, also maintained when 'there is no longer a regular connubium ?

Thus the concept of the "ideal pattern" can also be studied in its contemporaneous function. We can do this by trying to find out to what extent the ideal (in its meaning of "standard of perfection") is still upheld in the present day. What situations and actions are nowadays not only culturally approved, but even socially considered "best", considered "ideal" ? The present study will now and then venture into the historical field, as it will try to discover the deviations from the "ideal" (as meant in "The Science of Man") to which Minangkabau social organisation has been subject This will entail an historical reconstruction of a social 'system which shows a greater measure of integra:tion than the system of today. This is not what R a d 'c Ii f f e - B row n 10 has characterised as "pseudo·history", for we clearly recognise that perhaps at no time in the past did the -actual facts completely agree with our reconstruction. This reconstruction may ,be compared with a word marked with an asterisk in a linguistic publication : it represents the most acceptable form that can be constructed from the availa'ble data, and the best suited to explain the presentday facts - but it is purely theoretical and has never been observed in actual existence.

An objection that might be raised against this study is, that it does not draw a sharp dividing-line between the synchronic and the diachronic approach. Although such a procedure has, since D e S a u s sur e, been anathema in linguistics, we do not consider it reprehensible in a study of human society. Although there is every justification for a purely synchronic or a purely diachronic study, a combination of the two is, in our opinion, equally permissible in view of the manner in which the past affects our every-day life. By this we are not only referring to the self-evident fact that history has shaped our culture as we know it today (for this we could, if we like, simply accept as a giv-en fact, to be left out of further consideration), but also to the way in which history, as history, is received and enmeshed in favourable or unfavourable reactions by the people of the present day. The past as such is an e-Iement which plays a role and has a function in the present. Thi's would also be our reply to those who, like Mali now s :k i, would condemn every ethnological study that draws the past into its field vision as "mere antiquarianism"

Chapter references.

, Mal i now ski (2), 28. • S poe h r, 6. a K 1 u c k h 0 h n, 97. • K 1 u c k h 0 h n, 96_ G Benedict. a Du Bois, Kardiner (1), (2). 7 M u r doc k (2) 8 d e J 0 sse 1 i n d e Jon ,g (2), 5. 9 K a r din e r (2), 119. 10 Radcliffe-Brown (4),1.

CHAPTER II.

PRELIMINARY SURVEY.

The Minangkabaus inhabit the western part of central Sumatra, the area which Dutch writers call the Padang Highlands (Padangse Bovenlanden). The nucleus of .the Minangkabau territory is formed by the three districts or luha' of Agam, Tanah Data, and Limo Pulueh Koto: this last name means the "Fifty Towns", and is usually abbreviated, in print, as L Koto.

These three luha' together form the dare', the nuclear or inland area, to which is contrasted the rantau, the coastal territories. In its restricted meanmg rantau is only applied to the actual Minangkabau littoral, the Padang Lowlands (Padangse Benedenlanden) along the west coast, but in its wider meaning it can include all the marches of Minangkabau proper, viz. Lubue' Sikaping and Rau in the north; along the east coast, from north to south: Rokan, Tapung and Siak, Kampar, Kuantan or Indragiri, Batang Had; and in the south sometimes Korintji is included. The rantau is not a clearly defined geographical area, hut the ·term is used rather loosely to denote the areas adjoining the Minangkabau central region. Whether the inhabitants of these regions should also ,be called Minangkabaus is hard to say; 'the only satisfactory way of deciding this question would be to find out whether they consider themselves to be so, or whether they call themselves "Malays". At present we have no clear information on this point.

The true Minangkabau popula'tion calls its own country Alam Minangkabau, the Minangkabau World. The name, "minangkabau", has been explained as meaning "victorious water-buffalo", or "the water- 'buffalo was victorious", referring to a legend with which we shall deal in greater detail later on. V and e r T u u k 1 derives the word from pinangkabhu, "country of origin", and several other etymologies have been put forward, which may be found in ,the Encyclopaedie van Nederlandsch-Indie 2. In the 14th-century poem, the Nagarakrtagama, "Minangkabwa" is included among the countries that pay tribute to the Javanese kingdom of Majapahit a. Other historical data are scarce. From circa 500 A.D. onwards, as archaeology proves, there must have been several Hinduised states on Sumatra. The oldest we know of was Malayu (near the site of .present-day Djambi), the most important was Sriwijaya. Minangkabau enters history towards the end of the 13th century. The sItuation by that time was as follows: Sriwijaya's power on Sumatra had been declining for the last century, and a new Malayu, also called Dharmmasraya, had arisen. Then, in 1275, king Krtanagara of the Javanese kingdom of Singhasari enters into contact with Malayu. This Sumatran expedition, the famous Pamalayu (not an "expedition against Pamalayu", as Win s ted t 4 writes !), was successful, as appears from an inscription of 1286 A.D. found at Sungai Lansat on the Takung, one of the tributaries of the Batang Hari. A result of the Pamalayu was that the king of Dharmmasraya, Tribhiiwanaraja Mauliwarmmadewa, ,became closely allied with Singhasari. In the next cen· tury a new important development arose: prince A:di!tyawarman, probably related to, or even a member of, the ruling house of Dharmmasr·aya ,who had been educated in Java, returned to Sumatra and managed to carve out a kingdom for himself in the Minangkabau area, or perhaps we should say that dur,ing his reign the centre of the realm moved from Djambi to Minangkabau. Relics of his reign are the inscriptions of Padang Tjandi (1347 A.D.), Bukit Gombak, 1347 and 1356, and Suruaso, 1375. The .text of the Padang Tjandi inscription is sHU not quite comprehensible. When a better understanding of it has been. gained, it may supply very valuable information on the political organisation, containing as ~t does frequent, if as yet obscure, references to a high dignitary styled patih, apdtih and prapatih. Suruaso, the site of the inscription of 1375, is further inland than any of the places occuring earlier in the history of this region ; it is, in fact, in .the heart of the dare'. We may assume that Adityawarman was independent ruler of the Minangkabau territory.

Taking the middle of the 14th century as the starting"point of the Minangkabau ·kingdom, we may say that this realm has lasted for some five centuries, until the first half of the 19th century. We do not know all the vicissitudes it underwent during this period. It is certain that the coastal area was frequently a bone of contention between Minangkabau and Atjeh, but this does not concern us here. Round 1820 a movement of fanatical Muslim puritans instituted a real reign of terror in the country, and members of this sect, the Padri, also attacked the royal residence and assassinated practically all the members of the dynasty; the last surviving R u I e r died in 1844. The Minangkabau social structure managed to weather the storm, and the sense of Minangkabau unity, fostered by, among other :l'actors, a common language, proved strong enough to preserve the cohesion of the country, even when it suddenly lost its symbol of unity, the reigning dynasty, and had only the Dutch colonial administration as central authority.

Before we deal with this social structure we should say a few words about the connection with Negri Sembilan.

The Minangkabaus are characterised by a strong wanderlust; a period spent abroad as a merchant is a normal feature in the life of the Minangkabau men. This must have been the same in earlier days, and these colonies of Minangkabau ,traders could develop into permanent settlements. This has oNen been the case in the territories bordering on Minangkabau, especially in Siak, and then also in the tanah sabrang, the "opposite land", as the Suma'trans call the Malay Peninsula.

The main settlements there were in what is now Negri Sembilan, one of ,the states of the Malay Union. Local traditions put this immigration at the end of the 14th century. ActuaHy, of course, the Minangkabaus must have come filtering in over a considerable length of time, some only to return to the homeland after a longer or shorter stay, others remaining in their new home and gradually forming permanent colonies there. According to Win s ted t 'i, they certainly inhabited the Peninsula in the 15th century, and Godinho de Eredia mentions the "Monancabos" in 1602 6 • Their territory came under the influence of Malaka (Malacca), and of the state that stepped into Malaka's shoes after 1511 : Djohor (Johore), being held in feoff by the Bendahara, whom we might call the hereditary Prime Ministers of these states. In 1717 Djohor is attacked by the people of Siak, led ;by a remarkable adventurer, Radja Ketjil. The seafaring Bugis of South Celebes come to the aid of Djohor, but these allies soon prove at least as great a menace as the enemies from Siak, as they themselves also soon prove avid for power in ,the Straits area. A period of confusion follows, during which Djohor, Radja Ketjil and !the Bugis each have their victories and their defeats. Round the middle of the century the Dutch try to placate the Bugis by helping their leader, Daeng Kambodja, to become king of the Negri Sembilan territories. This attempt is unsuccessful, as the Minangkabau inhabitants refuse to accept the Bugis asking; they send to Minangkabau for a representative of the ruling dynas,ty, and appoint this prince, Radja Malewa, as Ruler, or Jangdipertuan Besar, of Negri Sembilan. From the days of Malewa, in the second half of the 18th century, until Ali, 1832, a Ruler of Negri Sembilan is, on his death, always succeeded by a member of the Minangkabau dynasty sent over from the homeland to the settlements on the Malay Peninsula. Since th~ death of Ali, however, the Jangdipertuan have always been succeeded by members of their own patrilineal family, Le. by princes born and ,bred in Negri Sembilan Uself.

We expressly spoke of the Jangdipertuan's patrilineal family, because of the remarkable fact that outside the ruling dynasty matri· linear descent prevails.

In the brief description of the social structure which we shall now give, we base 'Ourselves on the situation in Minangkabau. Conditions in Negri Sembilan are largely similar, and at 'any rate always comparable. The differences between the social structures of the two countries will become apparent in Chapters VIII to XI inclusive.

The smallest genealogical unit is formed by a mother with her children; this group is called a samandai ("one mother"). On account of the peculiar position 'Of the father, to which we shall refer again later on, it is the mother's br'Other who acts as guardian and chief of this little group. The native word for mother's brother is mama' ; he calls his sister's children kamanakan.

A samandai group does not have its own dwelling, but inhabits 'One large house together with the rest 'Of the matrilinear descent group. Assuming members 'Of three genera:tions to be alive at the same time, such a house will, theref'Ore, c'Ontain: boys and girls; their mothers and mother's ,brothers; their mother's sisters with their children ; their mother's mother, mother's mother's sisters with their children and mother's mother's sisters' daughters' children and mother's mother's brothers.

Such a unit is called sabuah parui', meaning "one womb"; its head is generally the eldest mama', who is designa:ted as tungganai or kapalo parui', although other, less usual, terms also 'Occur. Sometimes we encounter a unit between the samandai and the parui', viz. the djurai, a branch of the parui'. We must, however, also take into account the local variations in terminology, which make it possible that a unit that is called a parui' in one village is called djurai in another. We shall deal with this question at greater length in Chapter V. When real djurai do occur, they may only branch off from the other djurai of the same parui' to form new parui', i. e. new more or less autonomous units, in the fifth generation, ko' limo kali turun, reckoned from the ancestress whom all djurais of ,the parui' have in common. A married man does not come to live in the house of his wife's parui'. He visits his wife there at night, and may potter about there, doing odd jobs, in the day-time, but he cannot claim a place for himself there. He is accounted still to be an inhabitant of his own parui's house, and he returns there every morning. Parenthetically we may observe that this situation is in flat disagreement with M u I' doc k 's statement.. that it is impossible that a man and his wife should, upon marriage, each remain in their own "family of orientation" - this is just what does happen in Minangkabau. It appears also to corroborate the views of M u I' doc k' s critic, 0 p leI', who says that M u I'd 0 c k has tended to exaggerate the role of the nuclear family at ,the expense of the extended f'amily, at least as far as South East Asia is concerned 8.

The fact that a father does not live in the same house as his children largely explains the important part played by another man in a child's life : the mother's brother. The latter is also the ideal fatherin-law: marriages between a young man and his m-br-d are held in great favour.

When a marriage has taken place, a separate room is built on to the parui' dwelling for the young-married woman, where she can receive her husband. Each time a girl member of the parui' marries a new room is added to the communal dwelling, which thus continually increases in size. This goes on until finally lack of space of other reasons make it desirable no longer to add new rooms, but to ,build a new house. Often this is set up close to the old dwelling. A group of parui' members become the inhahitants ; they either remain under the authority of the chief of the original dwelling, or they constitute themselves so as to form a new parui'. Several parui' which are related to one another through this kind of fission, together form a kampueng. The kampueng chief is one of the heads of the related parui', in principle either the oldest tungganai or the tungganai of the oldest parui'. The head of a kampueng is usually called panghulu kampueng, although the title andiko is also often met with. The parui' generally makes the impreSSion of being the most important functional unit, as appears from the fact that the andiko is not actually the ruler over a kampueng, but rather a primus inter pares among the parui' chiefs. The rule of exogamy certainly applies to the parui', but not always to the kampueng. Here local variations playa part, while we must also take into account the divergence between theory and practice.

Kampueng are always named, and when European writers refer to the "clan" or "tribe" of Domo, Pajobada, etc., this refers to the kampueng. In these pages we shall, as much as possible, make use of the native terms for the various genealogical units. If we wish to use the European terms, the parui' might perhaps best be described as an extended family, the kampueng as a clan. Such an equation of Minangkabau and European terms is, however, far from satisfactory, and we do well to try and avoid it. What pitfalls it might lead one to is demonstrated by the case of M u r doc k. In his "Social Structure" he gives a (very unusual) definition of the "clan" that cannot ,be applied to any unit in Minangkabau social organisation. Yet he later on lists Minangkabau among the societies having clans 9. We shall return to this subject in the last Chapter, and in the mean time give preference to the words parui', kampueng, etc.

The kampueng themselves are traditionally grouped together in four suku, the legendary four original "clans" of Minangkabau. They are called Koto, Piliang, Bodi and Tjaniago, and in their turn also belong together two by two. Both groups, Koto-Piliang and BodiTjaniago, are supposed to have their own custom, or adat ; in practice the differences between the two adat are of relatively minor importance. Each village, nagO;ri, of Minangkabau considers itself and adherent of either the Koto-Piliang or of the Bodi-Tjaniago adat. This does not mean that such a village contains only kampueng belonging to 'one of the adat, but that either the Koto-Piliang or the Bodi-Tjaniago group traditionally occupies a dominant position in that village.

These two groups are called lareh, a word that occurs in several Indonesian languages with the meaning "harmony", "harmonious", "belonging together". They each have their legendary ancestor, Kjai Katumanggungan for Koto-Piliang and Parapatih nan Sabatang for Bodi-Tjaniago. From these forbears the present-day adat also take their names, so that the Koto-Piliang adat is also called adat Katumanggungan, and the Bodi-Tjaniago adat: adat Parapatih. The larehorganisation also exerts its influence on the government of the village: a Bodi-Tjaniago nagari is ruled by the combined andiko, a Koto-PUiang nagari also assigns a rOle to the four-suku grouping, as each suku is represented by one andiko in the village council. These "heads of the four suku". panghulu ka-ampe' suku, sometimes recognise one of their members as putjue' or "summit" ; this is, however, more particularly an adat of the rantau.

We said that a samandai-group is placed under the authority of the 0 Ide s t mama', and that the parui'-chief is also often the oldest mama', or else the head of the parui's oldest djurai. In the same manner a kampueng chief may be chosen from among the men of the kampueng's oldest parui'. In contrast with this strong feeling for primogeniture stands another custom, of frequent occurrence in Negri Sembilan as well as in the Minangkabau nuclear territories and rantau, the so-called adat sansako. According to this custom, a function devolves upon each unit in rotation. The panghulu ka-ampe' suku (where they occur) are chosen from all the kampueng of the suku in succession, the andiko (panghulu kampueng) from all the parui' of the kampueng, the tungganai from all the djurai of the parui'.

The largest unit with which we have dealt so far is the nagari. This is, indeed, the area within which the social system can ;be seen to function. Neither the luha' nor the alam Minangkabau as a whole has its own native government.

All we need say about the three luha' at this stage is that they are also classified according to the two adat, Agam being Bodi-Tjaniago, L Koto, Koto·Piliang, and Tanah Data "mixed".

The lack of any nation-wide centralizing authority is also apparent in the kampueng ("clan")-organisation: offshoots of the kampueng Pajobada, for instance, may occur in nagari scattered all over Minangkabau, but there is no chief over all these local Pajobadas together. The same applies to the four "super-clans" or suku: ·a nagari may have four heads of suku, who are the chiefs of the members of the Koto, Piliang, Bodi and Tjaniago suku in that village, but there is no supreme authority over all Koto, or all Piliang, etcetera, in its entirety.

The Rulers, of whom we spoke when reviewing Minangkabau history, constituted the centralizing force, until their dynasty was practically exterminated by the Padris in the eighteen-twenties and thirties. Their residence was at Pagarrujueng, in the luha' Tanah Data. The Ruler's title was Jangdipatuan Basa, "He who is acknowl~dged as great lord", and this title and function was inherited, in striking contrast to the general Minangkabau custom, patrilineally. If we wish to be exact we should really speak of t h r e e Rulers, all belonging to the same House. The Jangdipatuan we just mentioned was the Radjo Alam. "King of the World" ; he appears to have dealt with political affairs, and it is he whom officials of the Dutch East India Company used to designate as "emperor of Minangkabau". The other two members of the royal trio were the Radjo Adat, "King of Custom", and the Radjo Ibadat, "King of Religion". Important dignitaries in the royal entourage, who also resided near Pagarrujueng, were the Basa Ampe' Balai, the Great Men of the Four Council Halls. These four, whom we might designate as ministers, were:

the Bandaharo, residing at Sungai Taro'

Tuan Kali, " Padang Gantieng

Mangkudum, " Sumanie'

1 ndomo, "Suruaso

They were not members of the royal family, but in all probability were prominent headmen of the nagari that formed their residences. With the fall of the dynas'ty, their function in the Minangkabau policy also came to an end.

Here we may terminate this sketch of Minangkabau custom, which was meant as a first reconnoitring of the field now to be subjected to a more detailed survey. Various facts have drawn our attention as needing further clarification. For instance, why the rule of the five generations that have to elapse before a djurai can constitute itself as a separate parui' ? Some other points not immediately clear are:

What is the background of the adat sansako, which seems to be so contrary to the principle of primogeniture to which so much importance is attached? How can one explain that the Rulers were organised patrilineally, while the rest of the population had matriliny? Can we agree with We s ten e n k 10, whose opinion is that this should be explained as a result of the penetration by patrilineally organised Hindu princes into a matrilineally organised territory? What is the meaning of the tradition that originally there were four clans (suku), and what of the bipartition Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago ? And how does the preferred m-br-d marriage come into the picture? In brief, what is the functional coherence of the different elements in Minangkabau socio-political structure? Before we venture to give our own views, we shall first see to what extent previous writers on this subject have occupied themselves with these questions.

Chapter references.

1 Van d e r T u u k, 542.

Encyclopaedie, 740 (s.v. Minangkabau).

• Winstedt (6), 29. Winstedt (6), 163. • Ham e r s t e r, 1446. , M u r doc 'k (2), 16. o 0 pIe r, 78. • M u r doc k (2), 68, 244. 10 West e n en k (1), 113, 114, 115. (2), 248. (3), 245.

Canto XIII; H. Kern VII, 278.

CONSIDERATION OF SOME PREVIOUS WORKS ON MINANGKABAU AND NEGRI SEMBILAN.

Most writers on Minangkabau have published their works in periodicals. A discussion of all these publications would greatly surpass the limits of the present volume, and furthermore several of them will come up for discussion incidentally in the following chapters. Here we shall only devote some words to such studies as cover the entire field and which are frequently used as works of reference, also by anthropologists who are not exclusively concerned with Indonesia.

The most voluminous work on Minangkabau is WILLINCK. His book, "Het rechtsleven der Minangkabausche Maleiers", is a 950 page account of Minangkabau socia-political institutions. It contains a wealth of information, which on the whole makes the impression of being reliable. For the most part, however, it is not the result of original research, but a compilation of materials gathered 'by others. The author himself spent almost the entire length of his Sumatran career at Padang, and cannot have gathered much information on the situation in the interior from own observation. Like all data gained at second or third hand, his, too, should be checked as much as possible with first-hand accounts by writers who actually observed the institutions they describe. Although the book is very valuable as a store-house of material, and may profitably be consulted by whoever wants concrete data on Minangkabau kinship or political organisation, it shows great weaknesses as soon as the author ventures into the field of theory. In the first place, the theoretical ideas are expressed with appalling verbosity, which makes the book much bigger than necessary and does not facilitate reading. The arguments themselves are often highly inept: far-fetched comparisons with Roman law occur in most chapters, especially in those on inheritance. A discussion of the question whether property rights on harto pusako (ancestral property) should be considered as a condominium pro parte indivisa 1 seems to us to be incorrect in principle, as one should just try to avoid forcing categories and terms of one system to fit another.

Next, the author was a belated adherent of M 0 r g a n's theories on primitive promiscuity, and B a c h 0 fen's and MeL e n nan's on universal matriarchy. This point of view led to passages such as we find on p. 350, where Will inc k writes that Minangkabau family relationships are "very much closer" to those of animals than to Western ones.

Add a strong anti-Muslim bias, for instance in the sentence " ...... Muslim marriage regulations, and every other code based on Muslim Law and custom, are of no good whatever, !rom an ethical as well as from an economic standpOint" *, and it is clear that we need not expect much benefit from this writer's interpretations or comment 2.

Will inc k's opinion on the social organisation is in brief, as follows 4: the Minangkabau were nomads, each "family" leading a wandering life under its own chief. This situation prevailed until the advent of the first Rulers, "Hindus or Hindu-Javanese". For a better insurance of their authority they forced the nomads to adopt a sedentary mode of life, thus enabling the nagari to come into being, and the "tribal constitution" to develop into a "territorial constitution". Furthermore, the Rulers imposed on each nagari a set of administrative units, viz. the suku. "A subsequent incorrect use of the word" gave rise to a mis-interpretation of these suku as "tribes", genealogical units of a higher order than the "families" which had so far been the basis of the Minangkabau community.

The author's opinion on the bipartition of Minangkabau into Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago is very simple: it does not exist, and never did exist. We do well, however, to realise that Will inc k was led to take up this extreme position as a result of his perfectly justified criticism of the views held by K roe sen and S t i b b e 5 and Van Has s e 1 t 6 - afterwards revived by Ley d s - who interpreted the two groups as being political parties, and the two legendary ancestors, Katumanggungan and Parapatih, as party leaders.

The institution of kingship is seen as an element entirely alien to Minangkabau. The Rulers themselves were totally excluded from the community, and were real rois faineants, nothing more than "ornaments" in the State - this hardly seems to agree with the important change they were supposed to have effected in transforming the Minangkabau from a people organised in wandering family bands to sedentary villagers.

Still, we repeat that, although Will inc k's theories do not have much more than a curiosity value for us, his book as a whole should not be judged by its weakest points. We shall often make use of it when we need information on the many different aspects of Minangkabau society.

It is remarkable that WESTENENK, whose publication on the Minangkabau nagari is in many respects a model of detailed factual information, should agree with W ill inc k that the suku are the result of "planning" by originally alien rulers, imposed from above on the Minangkabau population 7.

Next we have, apart from the many monographs on details of the social organisation or on some smaller area, surveys of Minangkabau society as a whole in LEKKERKERKER's book "Land en volk van Sumatra", 1916, which deals with all the different population groups of the island, and JOUSTRA'S "Minangkabau", a compendium of data on practically all aspects of native life and European enterprise in the Minangkabau territory.

The social system has been described in English, and thus made more widely known, by L 0 e band Fay -Coo per Col e ; the first· mentioned author wrote his articles in AA XXXV and XXXVI (in which the social structure of the Minangkabau is compared with that of their northern neighbours, the Batak), and his book "Sumatra" in 1935. The latter contributed to "Essays in anthropology in honor of A. L. K roe b e r", 1936, and devoted a chapter to Minangkabau in his book "Peoples of Malaya", 1945. This chapter is practically the same as the earlier essay.

LOEB'S article should 'be read critically. In the first place it contains many inaccuracies, due to lack of care either in the writing or in the correction, for instance: Tanuh, Datar, ... (p. 26), for Tanah Datar; djehe and djemo (p. 36) for djahe' and tjemo ; ketek (p. 48) for ketek, etc. This would not be so serious if it was not symptomatic for a lack of linguistic knowledge and insight. This failing makes itself painfully felt further on in the article, when the writer founds a theory of culture contact mainly on arguments of a linguistic nature.

The following are some solecisms in the field of Indonesian languages: Lima-puluh does not mean "15 towns" (p. 27), but "fifty".

"Ninia mujang ..... is also called pujang or muiang"; actually, of course, mujang and muiang are just two ways of spelling the same word, and the same may be said of adia and adieq in the following sentence : "Younger brothers and sisters are called adieq or adia" (p. 38). Boru is a Batak, not "the Indonesian", word for girl (p. 52). This last mistake is serious, as it lies within the domain of comparative Indonesian linguistics, the science with the aid of which the author builds up his theory of diffusion. The same sentence contains another, rather similar, error, as L 0 e b says there that the New Caledonian word padi corresponds to the Dravidian angi = younger brother, while according to his own comparative list of kinship terms the Tami! word is tambi. but anngi the Batak and anggi the Gajo word.

Or rather, the word anggi occurs in the list marked with a (G). and this G is said to stand for Garo ('p. 41). Actually the words thus marked are not Garo, but Gajo. As the Garo inhabit Assam and the Gajo Sumatra, a totally false impression is conveyed of the area in which related kinship terms occur.

Apart from these linguistic errors there are quite a few other inexactitudes of fact or interpretation which it may be useful to correct. In general we shall take them in the sequence in which they appear.

P. 26: L 0 e b contrasts the Minangkabau of the mother-country with the emigrants who live on the Malay Peninsula; the latter are "often called deutero-Malays". This is an incorrect use of a term that did not have much to commend it anyway, and is therefore hardly ever met with nowadays. If one wishes to use it - as Fi s c her 8 does, in his "Inleiding tot de volkenkunde van Nederlands-Indie" - then the word proto-Malays is applied to those Indonesians who have remained relatively untouched by the successive currents of foreign influence, which first brought Indian culture, and next Islam to the Archipelago. The Batak, Dajak (Dyak), and Toradja may be taken as examples. The term de utero-Malays then serves to designate those who have undergone this foreign influence, such as the Achehnese, Javanese, Bugis, Minangkabau, and the true Malays who inhabit the east coast of Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula and the coasts of Borneo. The contrast between ·protoand deutero-Malays is, therefore, primarily one between types of culture, and even if one does apply the distinction so as to designate two successive "waves" of immigrants into Indonesia - as F i s c her, in fact, does - then still the population groups are classified as above, and the Minangkabau of Sumatra and of the Peninsula are both accounted deutero-Malays. The erroneous use of the term "deutero-Malays" recurs on p. 29, where it plays a part in a rather dubious etymology of the word suku.

Page 27: Indragiri, mentioned as one of the eight "large seaports", is not the name of a port but of a territory; Siak, occurring in the same context, generally designates the territory, and hardly ever its port, Siak Sri Indrapura.

Same page: The "overlord ruler" had his residence at Pagarruj!leng, not at Palembang, some 235 kilometres further south and quite outside Minangkabau.

Page 28: " ...... The actual rulers of the land are the sib (suku) heads, the datuq nan berampe". This is not incorrect, but incomplete. As we said in Chapter II, p. 12, a nagari ruled 'by the panghulu nan ka-ampe' suku (i.e. the datuq nan berampe) is typically Koto Piliang; in Bodi-Tjaniago territories, quite one half of the Alam Minangkabau, the nagari government consists of the heads of the kampueng, the panghulu andiko.

H the statement just quoted was too positive, the 'same may be said of the following: "The government of Minangkabau rests primarIly on two councils .. that of the village panghulus, who meet in the village balai; and the four heads of the negari sukus, the datuq nan berampe, who meet in the negari balai". (p. 31). Our first objection to this passage is that it suggests Minangkabau having two different territorial units, the village and the nagari, each with its own type of government; this is quite incorrect. In the second place, it represents the datuq nan berampe as the governing council of the nagari all over Minangkabau; actua1ly, as we have seen, the nagari (and nagari is nothing more or les's than the Minangkabau word for "village" or, rather, for every territorial unit of higher rank than a hamlet, tarata') is ruled either by the four suku chiefs or by the combined panghulu andiko. The over-simplification in L 0 e Ib's description can probably be explained by the fact that the author relies largely on Will inc 'k, who a,lso described the Four Chiefs as occurring over all Minangkabau, without taking sufficient account of these areas where the situation is different, as appears from publications by various other writers.

Another result of L 0 e b's almost exclusive reliance on the data supplied by Will inc k is the too great stress he lays on the importance of the djurai, at the expense of the larger units, parui' and kampueng. Now there are local variations, a's we shall see in

Chapter V, and the native population itself often uses the various terms not as applying to rigidly defined concepts, but with a certain possibility of interchange. But just these very variations make it necessary to avoid, as much as possible, unqualified statements as: "Each djurai lives in a separa:te house and is ruled over Iby the oldest brother of the oldest woman of the house" (p. 30). The situation might rather be summarised as follows: matrilineal relatives dwell together as long as the available space within the communal house permits. The founding of a new house is mainly dependent on whe'ther there is suitable building ground of which use can be made. A communal dwelling may contain an entire pami', but usually a parui' is too large for this, and lives scattered over several houses; in such cases each house need not contain exactly one djurai, as several djurai may be living ,together. There is really no word current in the whole of Minangkabau to designate house-mates. J a u s t r a mentians some wards 9, all 'Of them apparently 'Only in use in a rather restricted area. The most frequently employed wauld appear ta be the vague term kaum, i.e. "folk". Passibly the word djurai alsa sometimes 'Occurs in this meaning, but that would be an exceptian rather than the rule. J 0 u s t r a explicitly says thatt the djurai does not form an autanomous unH. The word djurai seems ta be a designatian in everyday language of a group 'Of relatives, the smallest group after the samandai, rather than of an organised, self-contained organism with its awn rights, duties and possessions. On these same graunds it is desirable not ta lay taa much stress on .the djurai as halder of ancestral property, hanD pusako. L a e b, on the other hand, sees the djurai as 'One the main praperty-awning bodies. This view is pmbably based on the passage in "Het Rechtsleven der Minangkabausche Maleiers", p. 594 seq., which deals with the 'Ownership of ancestral propeflty.

Hawever, Will inc k ,there 'Offers hls interpretaltian 'Of the difference between hano pusako and hano manah, and between the roles of the djurai and the parui', ratther as a suggestion of how it migblt possibly be than as a descriptian of haw it has actually Ibeen observed ta be. In general even Will inc k speaks 'Of ancestral property as "jamiliegoederen", "family possessions", and with "jamilie" he means parui'.

The statement that "only the succeeding, not the lateral 'Or preceding, generations have claim to" the hano pusako daes not appear ta be borne out by the facts. Ancestral propeflty belongs ta a gene alogical group t whether this be the djurai, parui' or J 0 u s t r a's kaum) ; the head of the group 'administers it, and may put it to use for the benefLt of any member of that group; the generation of the member is of no importance. L 0 e b's statement is probably caused by a misunderstanding of W i 11 i n ck's argument that the harto pusako of one djurai may not tbe inherited by members of another.

Page 32: "Dissenting members of a council ...... can be cast out of the family or even out of the community". This is totally incorrect. Neither Will inc k in his exhaustive list of crimes and their punishments 10 t which faithfully follows the Minangkabau Undang-undang or Legal Codes), nor any other authority I have ever encountered mentions it 11.

"Minangkabau rule is a true gerontocracy". The use made here of the word "gerontocracy" conveys an absolutely false impression. L 0 e b founds his statement on the fact that "the oldest male member of each djurai is eligible for the 'position of mamaq, the mamaq of the oldest djurai of the sa-buwah-pa'fui should become panghulu, and the oldest branch of the suku in the negari should place its panghulu in the negari council". That is perfectly true, but it is a description of what might be called primogeniture, 'but certainly not gerontocracy. A Minangkabau may be elected to a post as belonging to the oldest parui' of the kampueng, but yet be younger than many of his male subordinates. The position that old age per se gives a man all kinds of rights and a claim toa leading position in the community does not prevail in Minangkabau.

One paragraph further on, the author says that the Minangka'bau social system has "provoked the immigration of the more energetic". As this remark suddenly appears out of the blue, we cannot gather whether the author means what he says, or whether" "immigration" is a mistake for "emigration". Whatever the case may be, the Minangkabau .system certainly has, if not "provoked", at least facilitated emigration (witness the Minangkabau colonies in Negri Sembilan) ; but how the Minangkabau social system could provoke immigration into the country is not clear.

A Minangkabau man's proper name is not "secret" (p. 32), even though it is a breach of etiquette to address a functionary by his name instead of by his title or "honorary name", the gala. Nor are the name,s always "of Hindu origin" (p. 48) - more frequently they are Arabic.

The author cites a case of ancestral land being sold to a European, but relegates this account to a footnote (p. 34), and rightly so, for it can hal1dly be more than a tall story. One of the most fundamental and best~known laws of the Netherlands Indies was the "Land Alienation Prohibition" (Verbod van vervreemding van erfelijk individueel gebruiksrech't, Ned. Ind. Stb!. 1875 No. 179), ruling that no native of the Netherlands East Indies could sell ,land to a European, and that any such transaction was null and void. No European would spend money to buy land when it was generally known that such a transaction was illegal and invalid; and so the whole case must be considered impossible.

Page 44: The sentence "while a woman might marry a halfbrother from a different bther according to na1tiveadat, this is seldom done" is positively astounding. Such a marriage is contrary to the most elementary rules of matrilineal exogamy, and would be incest of the worst kind, punishable by perpetual banishment, and in some districts by death. No wonder it is "seldom done".

In this way more errors could be pointed out, but this may be sufficient to prove that, in view of such factual inaccuracies, L 0 e b's interpretations and explanaltions should also be accepted with some reserve. His historical views often agree with those of Will inc k : he also sees the Jangdipatuan as members of a Hindu dynasty, who originaUy came from abroad; they were never of much importance, "the poorest pretense at monarchs the wor,ld has known" (p. 28). Yet they managed to promote an organis,ation of the inhabitants in territorial units, nagari, which are but "the Hindu idea of territorial government superimposed upon .fhe native rule by genealogies". L 0 e b differs from W i 11 inc k, however, and rightly so, in my opinion, by rejecting the idea 'that the suku-system also was 'an administrative measure of the Hindu rulers. The suku are accepted as autochthonous, although the Hindus "made use of {them) for governmental purposes" (p. 291. The bipartition into territories with Koto-PHiang and wirth Bodi-Tjaniago adat - into two lareh, in Minangkabau parlance - is also presumed to be original, although the two parts were "unnamed" before the Hindu-Javanese arrived. L 0 e b is on the right track, in our opinion, when he calls these parts ''moieties'',

So we find ,that L 0 e b has answered many of the questions with which we concluded Chapter II. He does not give any information on the prO'blem of the five genera'tions or on the occurence of the adat sansako. but the mo-br-da marriage is very thoroughly studied. This study appears in the shape of a theory of diffusion, which had already been propounded by the author in an earlier publication 12. A discussion of the theory as a whole would be out of place here, and we shall therefore consider it only in so far as it has a bearing on the Minangkabau cross-cousin marriage.

In 'brief the theory is, that "Ithe Polynesian generation type of kinship is the oldest form in the Pacific" (p. 54). This Polynesian system was characterized, not only by terminology of the generation type, but also by the absence of a clan system. Wherever clans, crosscousin marriage and moieties are met with in Indonesia (in Minangkabau, for example), they have been introduced from without, viz. from the Dravidian country. Thls Dravidian system expanded all over the Pacific area, leaving the Polynesian system observable as a SUbstratum in Polynesia, Borneo, Celebes and the Philippines, and on the Andaman and Mentawei islands. The cross-cousin marriage, introduced by the new form of social organisation, and which usually occurs in Indonesia in ibs asymmetrical form, was originally sym· metrical, as among the Dravidians. Indications that the social system did spread from South India eastwards are found in the occurrence of the trait-complex of moieties, clans, avoidance rules, totemism, exogamy and cross-cousin marriage over the area indicaJted, together with related kinship terms: mama is the word for m-br in Tamil as well as in Minangkabau. Both Low Ii e and F i s c her 13 have dealt with the theory, and shown how very weak it is. All that really reo maJins after a c11itical scrutiny is, as pointed out by Low i e 14, that there is connection between the kinship terms of South India and Indonesia (with the exception of Borneo, Celebes, etc., as above, p. 24), if philologists accept the Unguistic proof; but this conneation, if extant, would not prove that the social organisation, which occurs in fue same "system" or "complex" wirth the terms, should be connected in the same manner, genetically and historically. Now it seems to me that we must go further, and even reject the idea that the Tamil and the Minangkabau kinship terms are oonnected.

In the first place F is c her 15 draws attention to the fact that the so-called Tamil words also occur among the Toradja (and, we may add, the Mentawei: kamama-an) 16, who, according to L 0 e b 's own theory, never underwent the Dravidian influence. On the other hand this "Tamil" word mama is missing just where one would expect 'Such mfluence : in Javanese and Sundanese (L 0 e b nowhere mentions Java, but is not included among the Indonesian territories explic1tly placed beyond the Dravidian pale). Among the Batak, mama only occurs in the Karo-Batak dialeClt, in all others the word tulang is used, as L'O e b himself notes in the article devoted to "The Batak" 17. Furthermore, quite apart from :the fact that the term does not appear where it should and does where it should not, it is doubtful whether a word like mama can be ased at all for comparative purposes. It is a typical Lallwon, such as is found in languages of the most diverse stocks, to denote, i. a., close relatives lR. In ,this way we f,ind, in Indonesia, mamak or mak meaning: m-br in Minangkabau (mamak, mama'); father or mother in Javanese (mamak and mak); aunt in Malay (mak) , etc. So also in Australia - another region supposed to have undergone the influence of Dravidian social struciture - we find amamaq as·the word for m-br among the Dieri 19, but mamaq for "father" among the Kariera 20. To select just those cases in which mamaq means mother's brother, then to equate them with Tamil mama (maman, according to the "Tamil-English Dictionary for Students and Colleges"), and finally to draw far-reaching conclusions from material gathered sO' haphazardly is just as arbitrary and unwarranted as a diffusionistic theory would be if based on the equation of Javanese mamak = mother with European mama = mo\Jher, or Javanese bapak = father with European papa = father * .

One year after L 0 e b's article another study Minangkabau sO'cial structure appeared, also in En~ish: FAy-COOPER COLE'S contribution to "Essays in anthropology in honor of A. L. K roe b e r", entitled "Family, clan, and phratry in Central Sumatra". This essay, too, seems to me to 'be open to criticism on several points.

The ,author's acquaiIlltance with the Malay and Minangkabau languages appears to be as sketchy as Loeb's, and the spelling of Minangkabau (and Dutch) words is erratic. Tuganai (p. 21) should be tungganai; pungulu (p. 22 seq.): panghulu; and the transliterations capella (23), galang gang (24), Ketamang-goengan (25) for kapala, galanggang and Katumanggungan are also more or less off the mark.

Gadang barliga (22) ** is not a title and does not mean "hereditary great". The author must have been thinking either of a proverbial saying, meaning "what is great comes in turn", and referring to' the adat sansako which we mentioned in the preceding chapter, or to another saying, quoted by D e M 0 u bra y 22 :

kechil bernama, gedang bergelar,

meaning "When small one has a name, when grown up a title".

Linguistic mistakes like the ones indicated are, however, less important from a strictly anthropological point of view than misrepresentations as the following: "Beneath the veneer of Mohammedanism the people are essentially pagan" (19). This is one of those facile statements against which S n 0 u c k H u r g ron j e always protested so strongly!!::_ The thousands of Minangkabaus who undertake the arduous and costly pilgrimage to Mecca would certainly be surprised to hear themselves described as "pagans" ; nor is the intense interest in Islamic affairs, manifested, for instance, in the religious controversy between the kaum kuno and the kaum mudo, characteristic of an "essentially pagan" people. "Before we grant you the right to call the inhabitants of the Archipelago bad Muslims because the 'broad masses are attached to externals, and understand little or nothing of the true nature of their religion, we demand that you show us one nation on earth of which the masses have progressed fur,ther in knowledge of their religion 24".

As concerns social organisation in its narrower sense, our opinion differs from the authors in several respects. "The smallest unit recognized in this society is the rumah or house" (20), says Col e_ Now the smallest unit actually is the samandai, a mother with her children; but apart from this, Col e lays too much stress on the house, just as L 0 e b did on the djurai. As both 'authors mean practically the same thing with their terms, we need not go into his again in detail, but may refer to wha1 we said when speaking of L 0 e b's article. In brief, our objections are: Col e has not pointed out clearly enough how great the local variants in terminology may be, nor that the Minangkabau themselves do not use the words in a strictly defined sense. Col e's representation is not incorrect, but rather too rigid. The "house" may sometimes be the fundamental exogamous property-owning unit, but it need not be. The essential unit is the parui', the members of which may dwell in several houses, each of which may have a certain measure of independent organisation; but they generally function as particles of a parui' (unless a parui' is so small that it comprises only one house). So we should like to see parui' substituted for rumah in the sentence: "All land and most other property 'belong to the rumah" (21).

In dealing with the s'O-called "payung" the auth'Or appears to be quite mistaken. From his description (pp. 22, 23), one gets the impression that the payung is a functioning unit, with its own chief, the "capella (sic) payung". In reality, pajueng is a fairly indeterminate expression (litterally meaning "umbrella") for any chief's sphere of office, 'Or for his subordinates. It can be larger 'Or smaller, depending on whether the chief is head of one 'Or more parui', 'On whether or not outsiders have been adopted as members of his genealogical unit, etcetera, but it is not a unit as such. The title kapala pajueng is hardly ever used, and the proverb Col e quotes as referring toO the "payung" ("the payung is a great tree in :the middle of a plain", etc.,) 25 really describes the head of the parui'S6.

When the author introduces the next larger unit, the suku, the result is confusion w'Orse confounded. The facts are, that several parui' together form a kampueng, the kampueng themselves being traditionally grouped in four suku, all four being represented in an ideal nagari. Now two admittedly confusing factors must be taken into account. One is, that the kampueng are sometimes also caned suku. This varies according to local usage, but in a description we do well always to distinguish between the two ,,terms. The other rather confusing element is that kampung, in Malay, refers to a village, or a district in a town, at any rate to a territorial group. In Minangkabau on the other hand it is purely genealogical, and could best be translated as "clan". It is true that in the nagari the members of a kampueng generally live in one and the same area, but kampueng-territory is a derivative of ;the kampueng as a genealogical body. Fay-Cooper Cole seems to have g'Ot lost in this terminological maze. He confuses kampueng and suku as a result of failing to distinguish between the Four SUkUiS, and 1'heir sub-divisions, kampueng, sometimes called suku. The sentence: "Several adjoining payung, each with its chief, make upa division known as suku" (23), should therefore be read: "Several parui', each with its chief, make up a division known as kampueng"; and the head 'Of a kampueng is not known as "pungulu adat", bU't, usually, as "panghulu andiko". Thus also the last sentence on page 23 should be emended to read as follows: "The next larger unit is the nagari. 'Dheoretically it should consist of four suku, which can be !Split up into a number of kampuengs - thus the nagari of Sarik has eleven kampuengs".

Not only does the writer confuse the suku with the kampueng, hut he also gives to the word kampueng its Malay, not Minangkabau, meaning of "village". His entire description of the function and organisation .of the kampueng (pp. 24, 25) is totally false.

The manner in which he places the "pungulu capella" (panghulu kapala) in the social system is also erroneous. This function is definitely not native to Minangkabau, but was instituted by the Dutch authorities, who desired to be able to deal with one man as head of the nagari 27.

It is a pity that the work is marred by all these mistakes, for now we also do not know what va'lue to attach to other pieces of information, which are not demonstra,bly incorrect. For instance, we are told that "no man is aUowed to marry into a negari not his own" (24). Now we do indeed get the impression from other sources that there is a certain tendency to prefer marriages within the nagari, and nagariendogamy may have been the rule once, but no other authority expresses himself so positively as Col e does here. It wouLd be a very important datum, if we could be sure it is correct - but can we ? In the same way we do not know whether Cole has correctly rendered the customary sayings which he quotes now and then, and which the present author cannot recall ever having met with elsewhere, e. g. "Tho.se who draw from the same well may never marry" (23), "Those who live on the same ground should never marry" * (25), "The people of ancient times had only rumah and parui, but no suku" (24). For lack of supporting evidence we 'should do well not to rely too much on those quotations.

Finally 'some words as to Col e's views on the Minangkabau kings and on the bipartition. The kings were "of Indian origin" (19). They probably instituted the three luha' asadministr,ative divisions. They made for a "semblance of unity" (27), but were otherwise unimportant.

The antithesis between Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago was caused by an unequal divis,ion of the land between these two iroups, the groups themselves Ibeing "much like politicatl parties in western lands" (26) ; their members "may change their allegiance at will". How utterly and completely incorrect this view i:s, may already have become apparent from what we said in Chapter II, or else will become so, we hope, in Chapter V. As we have seen (supra, p. 17), this theory was already rejected by Will inc k.

In 1945 Fay -Coo per Col e published "Peoples of Malaya", containing a chapter on Minangkabau, which in all essentials is the same as the article we have just been discussing.

As other publications on Minangkabau only treat of details of the social structure, and shall be discussed incidentally in the course of this work, we shall now leave Minangkabau * * and devote some words to' those writers who have occupied themselves with Negri Sembilan: Sir Ric h a r d Win s ted t, G. A. deC. de MoO u b ria y, and, E. N. T a y lor.

Articles by WINSTEDT on Negri Sembilan and adjoining territories are mainly .of an histQrical nature; the author's main achievement in the Indonesian field will be judged by many to 'be his invaluable philological work. There are nevertheless, two short articles from his pen on social anthroPQlogy, viz. "Family relaUonships in Negri Sembilan", and "Mother-right among Khassis and Malays". The firnt-mentioned article is mainly useful as containing the kinship terms in use in Negri Sembilan; it does not have the pretension .of explaining the sO'cial system - nor, in fact, does any other publication of Win IS ted t's, although the second article just mentioned comes near to it. As a comparison between two types of socIal structure its weakness, in .our opinion, is, in the first place, that discrete elements from boOth cultures are compared with one another; thus ancestor worship, marriage restrictions, inheritance .of property, etc. are, one by one, described according to Khassi and to "Malay" practice. In this way it is inevitable that the structure of each culture as a whole becomes obscured, as the interdependence of the various elements is neglected in the description. Furthermore, the "Malay" examples are apparently arbitrarily chosen, llOW from Minangkabau, then from Negri Sembilan. In spite of the great similarities between the custom of those two countries, this procedure has the disadvantage of neglecting the fact that, after all, Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan culture are, each for each, independently and coherently functioning entities.

A far greater part of Win s ted t's oeuvre is devoted to political history. In so far as it covers our field of study, we have made grateful use of it. We cannot refrain from remarking, however, that in the treatment of the early periods, the Indian influence, undoubtedly very great in Indonesia, looms disproportionately large; the view that "Malayan races ...... owed everything to India: religions, pOlitical system ...... " 20 etc. is, to put it mildly, greatly exaggerated. It fail:s to take into account the substratum common to both India and Indonesia :1O,as well as the strong pe~sistance of old Indonesian beliefs and ways of life through the successive invasions of Indian, Muslims and European culture, a,s described by R ass e r s, among others, and as must indeed be obvious to any ,student of Indonesian anthropology.

The only handbook on the social structure of Negri Sembilan is DE MOUBRAY'S "Matriarchy in the Malay Peninsula".

This works consists of a descriptive section (Part III), sandwiched in 'between a "comparative part" and "conclusions". The two latter sections are by far the least 'Satisfactory part of the book. We shall not discuss the lengthy comparison with the South Indian systems they contain, as that would lie outside the scope of the present study. We shou1d, though, say something of the way in which d e M 0 u ,b ray explains the Negri Sembilan social system. It can be said in one wo~d : degeneration. He presumes both matriarchy and patriarehy to be degeneration products of a parental system (pp. 57, 63). This parental system is "higher" than its derivatives. This supposition is uttered with varying degrees of assurance, now as a "probably correct" deduction (57), then as a "very vague possibility" (63), 'but the degeneration hypothesis clearly traces its course through the whole 'book. Likewise, the "matriarchy" 'as found on the Malay Peninsula is 'a degeneration product of "pure" or "primitive" matriarchy (97) This degeneration makes itself manifest by "disintegration of communal ownership" (97), "weakening of the matrilineal factor" (99) and "weakening of tribal cohesion" (104).

What we object to is not the attempt to explain the present social structure by tracing the historical development it has undergone (the present volume tries to do the same), ,but the manner in which the attempt is made. D e M 0 u ib ray does not use ,the pre,sent situation as a starting-point for an attempt to find out how it has become as it is, whereby the historical reconstruction must be able to clear up certain specific difficulties for which there appears to ,be no solution in contemporaneous society. His method is to pre-suppose a primitive stage, from which the modern culture has evolved.

Thus on 'page 97 : "I postulate that the typical and most primitive form of matriarchy is communal, has in fact perfect joint family constitution, with the women as members", etc. ; and "The ways in which matriarchy can break up are various. The different ,characteristics can to a great extent evolve independently. Among the obvious possible lines of evolution are, firstly, the breaking up of communism", after which he proceeds to demonstrate how -this hypothetical break-up actually occurred. In other words, he does not reason from the known to the unknown, but from the unknown to the known.

A result of this a..prioristic standpoint is the idea of "degeneration". If he had used a neutral word like "change", no one, surely, would object; but it is, of course, unjustified to introduce an appreciative judgment, as in the idea of matriarchy ,being a form of degeneration from a "higher type of social system, the parental" (63).

As to the final section (Part IV, Conclusions), Us great value is that it devotes attention to Negri Sembilan culture as a dynamic whole and traces the modern developments and tendencies. Its weakness lies in the author's failure to utilise the concept of culture as a personalitymoulding force. This leads him to statements like those on page 197, in which he discusses the Malay's potentialities in the modern world. His opinion is that the Malays will never change their role of "independent peasant pro,prietors", as they are racially, hereditarily, unfit for other forms of life: " ...... the Malays have not it in them to excel in either commerce or industry, nor, compared especially to highercaste Indians among whom Aryan blood preponderates,have they the intellectual gifts to cultivate the deeper things of mind, to develop for instance a system of metaphysics". It is surely unnecessary to point out how incorrect all this itS.

The descriptive part is very useful. In parentheses we may remark how characteristic of British publications on Negri Sembilan it is that by far the greater part (47 of the 71 pages) of this section is devoted to inheritance, just as most Dutch works on Minangkabau adat devote most space to organisation and chieftainship in the nagari and the genealogical groups. The reason probably is, that Negri Sembilan still has its own Ruler and governing council, but Minangkabau was under direct rule. Dutch civil servants were therefore mainly concerned with purely administrative questions, while the British could leave a large part of them to the inhabitants themselves, and were mainly concerned with legal problems, of which land cases, i. e. questions of inheritance, were always among the most important.

Later on in this volume we shall frequently make use of D e M 0 u bra y's data, and where we differ from him on cefltain points, these will come up for discussion automatically. As to the specific questions with which we closed Chapter II, there is really only one to which De M 0 u bra y supplies an answer. The traditional four suku and two lareh grouping found in Minangkabau does not prevail in Negri Sembilan; the preference for cross-cousin marriages, and the role ascribed to every fifth generation, are not mentioned by D e M 0 u - ,b r·a y. He does mention the fact that descent in the Ruler's family is reckoned patrilineally, but does not venture an explanation. On the adat sansako (which he calls by its alternative name, giliran), he is more explicit (p. 106). His rather complicated reasoning may be summarised as follows: in the period of "pure communal matriarchy" the tribal dignities were inherited from a man by his eldest sister's eldest son. This developed into a system whereby all sons of all sisters were eligible; this system could be extended so that each perut (= parui') descended from the females in question could supply the communal dignitary. But "how the principle was introduced ...... that each perut ;;hould have its equality in this matter ensured by being placed as it were on a roster, I cannot guess". So even De M 0 u bra y, with all his involved reasoning, fails us in this respect.

Finally I should like to mention a thi!1d writer on Negri Sembilan, E. N. TAYLOR. The reason why I single out his work from the quite considerable list of publications on Negri Sembilan customs is that two of his articles, "Customary law of Rembau" and "Inheritance in Negri Sembilan", especially the first, are, in my opinion, the most useful of those which are to hand at present. The ground which the author sets himself to cover is covered painstakingly and thoroughly, and the facts are presented with admirahle clearness; but there is one important point on which I think T a y lor is quite mistaken.

We mentioned the Minangkabau bipartition according to the lareh Kato-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago. Now local traditions ascribe the two varying adat to the decisions taken by two great leaders in the dawn of Minangkabau history, Kjai Katumanggungan and Parapatih nan Sabatang. After them the two ad at are also sometimes called ad at Katumanggungan and adat Parapatih. These terms are also met with in Negri Sembilan, but British writers always use the expressions in a sense different from that of Minangkabau: adaIt Parapatih (adat perpatih, in its Malay form) is used to designate Negri Sembilan custom in its entirety (and not one variant of the prevailing adat), while adat Katumanggungan (or adat temenggung) is used for the custom in the other Peninsular states, which are predominantly Malay, not Minangkabau, and appear to 'be patrilineally, not matrilineally, organised, or to lack a clan organisation altogether. A:t first I was inclined to con5ider .this usage as an incorrect interpretation of the native terms by the European authors concerned, but the complete agreement of all authorities on this point, as well as the fact that those Negri Sembilan Undang-undang (treatises on customary law) I consulted make use of the expressions with the same meaning, seem to indicate that the words "adat perpatih" and "adat temenggung" have really acquired a different content on the Malay Peninsula *. We may, then, take it for a fact that adat perpatih designates the custom of the Minangkabau state of Negri Sembilan, adat temenggung the custom of the surrounding Malay territories; but we cannot agree with T a y lor's interpretation: "In Malaya, before the British period, the law of the Malays relating to property was, in Negri Sembilan, adat perpateh and in the other, States, adat perpateh in decay, under monarchical influence" 31. The laws of the two contrasted territories had totally different histories, and we do not think it justified to consider the adat temenggung .(in its Peninsular sense), 1he adat of the Ma'lays who were already settled in the Peninsula, and who did not come there via Sumatra, a ''decayed'' form of adat perpatih, ~he adat of the Minangkaba'll population which immigrated into Negri Sembilan at a comparatively recent date. This rather confused idea may well be due in part to the careless use mOSJt British writers, T a y lor included, make of the word "Malay", applying it both to the Minangkabau and 10 the "true" Malays (RiauMalays), and thus suggesting one homogeneous population, with a culture which may show local variations, but is essentially one.

T a y lor is not the only author to interpret the words adat perpatih and adat temenggung in this manner; in fact he bases his opinion on Wi I kin son's "Law". In a later chapter we shall return to' this subject, for the presenit all we need is insight into the manner in which the bipartition, as it appears in Minangkatbau and Negri Sembilan, has been expJained.

We are forced to the conclusion thalt the 'problems we set at the end of the preceding chapter have not been brought very much nearer to a solution by the works reviewed 1:n this seCition, in spite of the very valua'ble descriptive malterials adduced ,by some.

We shall now try a different approach.

• Will inc k's views on Muslim Law itself tS that ,pans of it, e. 'g. the rules governing the mahr or ,bride-price, are derived from ancient Greek law 3.

* Winstedt apparently accepts the Tamil origin of the word mamak as a proven fact, but for some reason takes it to mean "a wife's eldest ,brother" 2'.

** a more correct spelling would be gadang baZega.

* This saying does not seem compatible with a demand for local (nagari) endogamy!

,", The reaSDns why we devoted Wlhat may appear a disp1"DportiDnately great amDunt Df space to' the articles by L 0' e band C 0' 1 e is, that these are the only comprehensive publicatiDns Dn Minangkabau sDcial structure by an anthrDpologist (as cDntrasted to' administratQrs, lawyers, etc.) since the days of W illk e n (ca. 1885), and the purely pragmatic Qne that in most recent hOQk,s Dn more general anthrQP'Dlogical subjects it is L 0' e band CD 1 e whO' are cited as autho· rities, frequently as tJhe Dnly Dnes ".

* I must still confess to a lingering doubt whether the Minangkabau meaning of the words is really nowhere to be met with in Ne,gri Sembilan.

Chapter references.

1 Will inc k, 577. 2 Will inc k, 527. 3 W ill inc k, 506. • Willinck, 71-78. • Resumes. • Vet h, part III. 7 Westenenk (1), 114. s Fischer (2),22. • Joustra (2), 92. 10 W iII inc k, 824-860. 11 Westenenk (1), 170 seq., fer instance. 12 L 0 e b (1), 657-661. 13 Lowie (1), Fischer (1). u Lowie (1), 322. ,. F i s c her (1), 363. ,. Loeb (3),42. 17 Loeb (2),22,23. 19 Gonda (2),94. 1. Radcliffe-Brown (2), I, 45. 20 R a d c 1 i ff e -U row n (2), II, 60. 21 Winstedt (10),61. .. De M()ubray, 148. 23 Sn()uck Hurgronje (2), IV", 351; IV', 11-24 . .. Sn ou c k Hu r g ro nj e (2), IV', 23-24. 2. Col e, 23. 26 Westenenk (1), 119. 27 Joustra (2), 114. 28 M u r doc k (2); Lev i - S .t r a u s s; R a d c I iff e - B row n (4); Low i e (2); Pi d din g ton. 29 Win s ted t (7), 186. S. C hat t e r j i, for instance. al T a y lor (2), 47.

THEORY.

Before tackling the Minangkabau problems, we shall first devote' a chapter to a purely theoretical discussion of some possible types of social organisation, so as to leave as little occasion as possible for a misunderstanding of the terms Ito be used in future, and so as to have some diagrams grouped together to which we can refer back later on.

Prima facie Minangka1bau social organisation appears to have clans (unilinear descent groups whose members are a'll ,traditionally related) and cross-cousin marriage. Later on we shall discuss the question whether a man's ideal spouse is his mo-br.,da exclusively (in which case we shall speak of exclusive cross-cousin marriage, abbreviated e.c.c.m.), or whether she may be either his mo-br-da or his fa~si-da *. We shall now consider some possibilities of clan organisation and marriage forms.

If a society only recognises two unilineal descent groups, then these must of course regularly intermarry (presupposing them to be exogamous). In diagram it may be expressed thus:

81 81 "2 "2 81 "2. 0 .. ·· ..... --. 0 ......... · .. ·'. ---0 .J I "6"! h" #.2.8 I 82682

Diagram I.

In this one diagram we have made use of symbols to denote either matrilinear or patrilinear descent. The letters, in this case A and B, designate the matrilineal relatives, the numbers, 1 and 2, the members of the patrilinear groups. The black circles denote males, the open ones females. The lines connectf: spouses, the dotted lines siblings. So we find that, supposing this society to the matrilineally organised, A men marry B women, and A women marry B men. Using -~ to indicate marriage, the arrow pointing from the wom:m to the man, it may be symbalised as: A ~ ~ B.

In cases of this kind we shaH say there is a "symmetrical connubial relation", or symmetrical connubium, between A and B. (If the society were organised patrilineally, the same would apply to the groups 1 and 2). A social organisation of this type entails exchange of actual or classificatory sisters for marriage, and therefore 'a man's wife is his mo-br,da and his fa-si-da at the same time.

As soon as more than two clans pa~ticipate in the system, hrother and sister exchange can be prohibited, or at least avoided. A society with three matrilineal clans, A,B, and C, or another with three patrilineal ones, 1, 2, and 3, would give us the following picture if they avoided brother and sister exchange and demanded a man's marriage to his fa-si-da:

C3 A2 A2 81 81 C3 . .............. o-. ............. o-. ~ ~ A I 00. AI bB3 A2 ~ lSI AI D .A1 Diagram II.

Now there is no longer a Itruly symmetricalconnubium, but, taking matrilineal clans as an example and using the same symbols as above , the situation is :

B A C B 0 • 0 (\I 0 ~ • B A C 0 • 0 • +-- 0 • ~ 0 B A C 0 III 0 ~ • 0 r • 0 ~ 0 8 A C 0 IV 0 ~ 0 • ~ 0 • 0 Diagram III.

In the second generation (horizontal line II) clan A receives its brides from clan C, but gives its own girls in marriage to men from clan B. In the following generation, III, the position is reversed; and in this way each clan functions alternately as bride-givers to and 'bridetakers from one (\ther clan.

Using the same type of diagram, but assuming mo-br-da marriage. the .situation is like this:

6 e e A A B Be . --0·············.--0 ···· . ·· . -0············ .--0 cJ A6.~.B le !A B6.B Lc lB be e.6e Diagram IV.

The connubial relations in a matrilineal society are now;

A B e A • ~ 0 • -- 0 • .. 0 A B e A • ~ 0 • ~ 0 • , 0 A B C A. • ~ 0 • .. 0 • .. 0 Diagram V.

Here we find a true asymmetrical connu:bium: clan B is a1lways hridegiver for clan A and always bridetaker from clan C, there is no longer an alternation per generation.

Now in all preceding cases we have assumed a unilateral organisation, but now we must also take double descent in consideration.

In any society whatsoever we can, of course, draw up genealogical tables for any member of that community, based on double descent, for the same reason that we can draw up tables of kinship. The question is whether or not descent is socially recognized \ and, if so, whether the recognized descent -is patrilinear, matrilinear, or double. Cultures with double descent do not necessarily attach equal importance to both types of descent, in other words, not every culture with double descent Jays equal stress on both lineages. In double descent,a man becomes member of the patri-lineage 2 of his father and the matri-lineage of his mother; and the patri-lineages are, as tt were, perpetuated by the men, their sons, sons' sons, etc., the matri-lineages by the women, their daughters, etc. In societies with double descent it may be observed that material or spin.tual "goods" of one type are inherited patrilineally, of another type matrilineally. Supposing that in a society social position (family name, rank, social prestige) is inherited matriline,ally, but place of dwelling patrineally; and supposing that for some reason or other the culture in question gradually began to a'ttach less importance to place of dwelling, then the importance of ,the patri-lineage would also dwindle, so that a contemporary study of ,this culture would show a system of double descent, with matrilinear descent functionally more important than patrilinear. The hypothetical example we have given does certainly not mean .to say ,that we hold an historical sequence as supposed there, to be a necessary development. We do mean that in a culture study we should take theposSiibility into account of a culture recognizing both lines of descent, and casu quo should consider the function and JrnpoI'ltance of each lineage. As an example of such a study, in this case of a society with a certaiin recognition of double descent but with heavy stress on patriliny, we may mention For t e s' publication on the Tallensi.

A genealogical table for a social system as outlined on p. 37, but taking into account both matrilineal and patrilineal descent, would be:

8' C 3 C3 A2 '2 S 1 81 C3 .-- 0 ............. . O· ........... . --0 .... · ...... . - - 0 C 1 ! A 36..A 3 821...\ .82 b C1 A t 1 836..83 bC2 I I Bl • 0 C3 cl.6cl

Diagram VI.

In this case there are at least three matrilineal clans participating (A, B and C), and 'at least three patrilineal clan, 1, 2, and 3. It will be noticed that here, with e.c.c.m., not only the matrilineal, but also the patrilineal clans maintain asymmetrical connubial relations:

1 2 3 , C A B C 0--. .o~ • 9 --Jo • .-+--0. +-- o. -+-- 0 , 2 3 1 ~ A 8 C 0--+ .0 --+ .0 --+ . .+--o.+--o.+--O 1 2 3 , C A 8 C o ----+ e 0--+ e 0 ----+ • • -+-- 0 .+--oe-of--O

Diagram VII.

We shall now work out this system on a larger scale, again for a mo-br-da marriage, and with four matrilineal and four patrilineal clans:

• ___ .. _ ..... . .. . ..... . .. .. _ •• __ ........ ....... __ . .. ................... .. __ ... __ r oO ___ ... . .. __ ........ _ ....... __ • • ___ : ~ . . : . • ~............. .. ~ ••• ---.. . ...... • ... - •• ~- . .. ..... - . . I • , .. • • t • I • I~ ..... L"~'~'~"~~~"' .. I ... ':'~~' "~"~"'''l'-'''~~:'''''~'~ .... j ..... ~ A I ! r····· .. ···· .. ··; r·············: r············-: : '2 ~ ..... .L .... ~~.~ ..... ~~~_ .. + ..... .~ ' .... ~~.~.~.~ ..... ~ I.~ ••••. 1 .... ; A 2 i r·_ .. ···· .. ···"': r .... · .. ···· .. · ..: f······ .. ····· .. ; : u~ .... I... .. ~~.~ ...... ~ (I .... (\ :r~' ..... ~2~ ... 1 .... :., : : ............. ~ r"'········ .. · .. ·: ~'.-.-." "-.-': : •• ~ ... ..t ..... ~ .8.1 ....... :~ .... + ... ~.(2 m (~~ ... + ...... ~.~ ..... ~': .... + ... ~ .. • "......... ..... ,..... ............... . • . .. - ----... I :: 1:::: _10 • &2 820 .c.~ ,30 .04 D40 .A1 Diagram VIII.

The four matri-clans, A, B, C, D form vertical lines on the diagram, the members of the consecutive generations of the patn-clans 1, 2, 3, 4 can be traced diagonally, from top right to bottom left.

The connubia are :

The system also allows exogamous (and therefore intermarrying)

phratries * to be recognized: AC (- --+ BD, or, from a patrilineal point of view: 1-3 ~-- > 2-4.

Here we should add that, if we have a social 'Organisation of four patri-clans in asymmetrical connubium, the introduction of just f 0 u r matrilineal clans is not arbi,trary choice, but is an inavoida1ble consequence : "beside the four patriHneal clans four exogamous matrilineai groups ... must exist" ;J.

Likewise, if we have four matri-clans to begin with in a system of this kind, this automatkally entails the existence (not necessarily recognized by the society itself) of four patri-clans.

Taking both forms of descent into account, we see that in every patri-clan successive generations of males marry females from each of the matri-clans in turn: clan 1 men marry women first from clan D, the next generation from C, then from B, then from A, and so back to D again. As the children from such marriages inherit their patriclan frDm their father and their matri-clan from their mother, they themselves are respectively D 1, C 1, B 1, A 1, and then D 1 again. Likewise successive generations 'Of children belonging to' matri-clan A are A 1, A 2, A 3, A 4, A 1, etc. Each patri-clan combines itself with each matri-clan in succession, and the same combinatiDn turns up again after as many generatiDns as there are unilateral clans participating in the system. In Dur case, with four unilateral clans, the same combination recurs after four, i. e. in the fifth, generatiDn.

We have by nDW intrDduced variDus genealogical units: patriand matri-clans, and phratries based Dn patrilinea-l 'Or matriHneal descent. A society may Dr may not name all Df these units, but even if unnamed they may well 'be seen to' functiDn. If each cDmbinatiDn 'Of patrilineal and matrilineal clans haJs it'S 'Own name, the sDciety clearly recDgnizes again a new type Df unit, which is purely dDuble-unilateral, the marriage class.

FDr a -IDng time it was nDt clear hDW classes cDuld functi'On with e.c.c.m., that is to say, with an asymmetrical cDnnubium.

Even R a d c I iff e - B r '0 w n, in his otherwise masterly article in "Oceania", did not, in Dur DpiniDn, sufficiently take into account the fundamental difference between symmetrical and asymmetrical CDnnubium. Van W 0 U den, in 1935, was the first to' tackle this ·problem satisfactorily 4. Working on data from eastern Indone'sia, he found several facts which led him to the conclusion that the ideal type of marriage in that area was the mo"br-da marriage, which could only be adequately explained by an asymmetrical (circulating) connu'bial system. Such a system demands a't least three participating unilateral clans. If one theoretically assumes four unilateral clans, let us say four patrilineal clans, to have participated in such a system, it becomes clear that four other, matrilineal, clans also come into play. The result is a 16-class system, and so here we have a class system combined with an asymmetrical connubium. If we a'lso assume the four patrilineal and the four matrilineal clans to be grouped, two 'by two, in patrilineal and matrilineal moieties, the resultant over-all picture can 'be presented as follows:

		1 :2 3 .- A A
			B B
	I		c c
。		0 0	。
1	2	1 :2 3 4	4

The numbers denote the patrilineal clans, grouped in the patrimoieties 1 + 2 and 3 + 4, the letters the matrilineal clans, forming matri-moieties A + Band C + D. The moieties cut the whole society ~nto quarters, I, II, III, and IV.

	II
Ⅲ	III IV

They are related to each other by symmetrical connubia (I~-~ IV and II~~III), and behave just like the classes in a "classical" fourclass system. Van W 0 u den's theoretically constructed sixteen-class system differs from a four-class organisation, by the fact that its clans are connected with one ,another through asymmetrical connubia, and its classes only contain members of one single generation.

Van W 0 u den then studies some other implications of varioUlS systems permitting asymmetrical connubia, which need not concern us here. The salient feature of his studies is this, that he brought forward the essential importance of the asymmetrical connubium, and demonstrated how it could occur in conjunction with a class-system. In the area he described he did not, however, find any society in which the system he showed to be theoretically possible, was actually functioning. This was due largely to the fact that the East-Indonesian social systems he reviewed were all more or less in a 'state of change, or even disintegration, and partly to the often very incomplete descriptions he had to use as sources of information.

Since 1935, of course, ethnographical literature halS been enriched by descriptions of ,societies where marriage-classes actually do occur in combination with asymmetrical connubium; an example of such a society is the Murngin, who have a circulating connubium in an eightclass system. The Murngin data have recently been re-assessed in the important work 'by Levi - S t r 2. u IS s, which we have already mentioned in an earlier chapter.

At the moment we need not follow this author in his theory on the historical development 'by which he explains the Murngin social system 'but as later in thi:s study we shall again come to speak of Lev i - S t r au s s's theories, when they touch upon our own Minangkabau problems, it WalS appropriate to introduce his pUblication in this chapter, in its theoretical setting.

We would like to make one more remark on marri:age-classes.

It will be observed that the relationship between classes, and indeed their nature, in systems with circulating connuibium differs quite considerably from the position with brother and sister exchange, as found in the Aranda and Kariera types of social organisa'1ion. Taking a four-class system as an example, and using the letters and numbel'!s of diagram I, we can diagrammatically express the classes' interrelationship thus:

But in a society with asymmetrical connubium, like that of diagram VI, the relationship between classes is (expressed in terms of that diagram) :

We may formulate the difference by saying that in cases of symmetrical connubium, classes as a whole (the men and the women of each class together) stand in relationship to one another, :but in sys tems with asymmetrical connubium the classes split apart, the women going one way (B 3 women marrying A 1 men, for instance), the men another (B 3 men marrying C 2 women).

As we have now introduced the main constituent elements of any kinship and marriage system, we may here terminate the discussion on a theoretical 'basis and turn to the study of an actual society, the Minangkabau.

,;, We shall use the f<lHowing abbreviations of kinship terms: fa for father hr f<lr brother so for son mo for mother si for sister da for daughter, with the component elements of composite terms connected by hyphens.

':' We use the term "phratries" here instead of "moieties", as clans A and C do not together form one descent group, nor Band D together. In diagram I. on the other hand, each of the clans A. B, 1. and 2 are moieties.

Chapter references.

1 Radcliffe-Brown (1),50.

• for this expression, see M u r doc k (2), 69 and footnote.

• Van Woudeo, 96.

• V a 0 W 0 u d e 0, esp. Chapter III.

CHAPTER V.

§ 1. The units making up the nagari.

We shall now study Minangkabau social structure in rather greater detail than was done in Chapter II, and at the same time try to bring out the background of various customs, and attempt to discover upon what kind of ideal system the always imperfect practice as we observe it is based.

First we shall give the Minangkabau kinship terms, diagrammatically set out. They have been taken from the following authors: V e r k e r k Pis tor iu s, Vet h, Will inc k, van d e r Too r n, and H a r reb 0 m e e, and the sources have been indicated.

A question mark denotes lack of precision in the quoted source. For ex-ample, H a r reb 0 m e e calls the laki uwai katji' "aangetrouwde oom", i. e. "uncle by marriage", a term that could refer to either mosi-husband or fa-si-husband. We have here taken it to mean both, but have added a question mark.

Of the terms in all columns but the last we are not certain whether they are modes of address to, or designations of, the person meant. The terms in the last (extreme right) column are the only ones which are undoubtedly modes of address. They were given as such by a Minangkabau student at Leiden University in 1936/37 (unpublished).

The most striking fact that emerges from these tables is that the kinship terminology so little reflects the very definite matriliny, and almost keeps an even 'bilateral ,balance:

mo, mo-si and fa-si are all called mandai;

siblings, mo-si-child, fa-si-child, mo-br-child, fa-br-child are all called dansana' ;

mo~br-wife, fa-browne are both called pasumandan;

only in the mama' - kamanakan relationship does a unilateral stress come in:

fa, fa-br: bapa', but mo~br: mama';

child, Dr-child, si-child (female spea'king): ana', but si-child (male speaking): kamanakan.


	Pistork Ps	Willink	Verkerk WiIlinck Veth address Pistorius	address
br	dansauen n	anauen n	anaen	br dansana' dansana' dansana' ambo (older br) kandueng kandueng kandueng adie' (younger br)
si	dansanen	ansuen ang	dansauen	si dansana' dansana' dansana' angah (older si) kandueng kandueng kandueng adie' (younger lSi)
br-wife	ipa?	kakah	br-wife ipa? kakah ipa, or kaka' • bisan? adie'	kadke
si-husband	ipa?	tunadi	si-husband ipa? tunadi ipa, or tuan adie'·* bisan?	tuan adie'**
br-so	adansana	dansana' dansa~'	br-so ana' or ana' or ana' kandueng	ana'
brda	br-da ana' or or saudara		dansana' ana' or ana' dansana'	ana'
si~so ana' si-da (female	ana		kandueng or saudara ana'	ana
speaking) si-<la (male	kamanakan	kandueng I kandueng	si-so kamanakan kamanakan I kamanakan kamanakan	Kammmakas
speaking)	I	grandchild I tjutju dansana' tjutju injie'	tjutju
grandchild piui'	tjutju	(= so-c'hild) great- tjutju piui'	piui
gr-gr	tjutju	gr-gr- tjutju tjitjie'	tjitjie'
grandchild mujang	gr-gr-gr- tjutju pindie'		pindie'
grandchild tjitjie' gr-gr-gr-gr- tjutju	tjutju
grandchild pindie'	pindie'	da~husband binantu binantu or	binanty or
so-wife			minantu I
half-siblings		sambajan	so-wife binantu or I half ~si:blings sambajan minantu I
hadfsibingh	(same fa) i I	sambajan	I

(same fa) i I I

• used when speaker is younger than his brother (otherwise adie') .

** used when speaker is younger than his sister (otherwise address by name).



v. d. Toorn	(a)ma' or mah or biai
	kaa trl

snuo	kandueng gai' or ninie' kandueng gai' or ninie'
I	mo-br-wife pasumandan pasumandan pasumandan mo-si-da ldamaM' ldansana' mo-br-so ibu dansana' ibu mo-mo ninie' tuo or tuo or mo-fa ut;i ninie' tuo or tuo or mo-mo-si ninie' utji mo-mo-br

• With the addition of tuo, tangah or ketek, depending or whether the person referred ,to is the oldest, the middle in age, or the youngest of the brothers or sisters of the speaker's mother. In the last column gadang is used instead of tuo.

	202

v d. Toor	ajah ajah ajah
	fa-br-wife pasumandan: pasumandan pasumandan
10	uwai katji' or lakz
	kandueng gai' ninie' kandueng gai' ninie' •
	fa-fa-si ninie' kandueng fa-si (m)andai. mandai (m)andai fa-fa ninie' tuo or tuo or fa-mo ninie' tuo or tuo or fa..fa-br ninie'

• With the addition of tuo, or depending on whether the person referred to is older or younger than the speaker's father. In the last column gadang is used instead of tuo.

	wife's br ipa? ipa ipa? or bisan? ipa adie' (younger si) wife's br-wife ipa? ipa? or bisan ? adie' (younger br)	L
\	wife's si-husb. ipa? pambajan ipa ? or bisan? bisan ambo (older br) wife's si ipa? bisan ipa? or bisan ? ipa angah (older si)	husb.'s rno sumandan? mantuo I or andai or I
		husb.'s si ipa? sumandan? ipa? or bisan? ipa husb.'s 'br ipa? sumandan? ipa? or bisan? ipa husb.s' si-husb. ipa? sumandan? ipa ? or bisan ? husb.'s br-wife ipa? sumandan? ipa? or bisan?
Verkerk Willinck I Veth v. d. Toorn \ address Pistorius	wife's rno andai or mantuo mantuo	hush.'s fa angku mantuo mantuo
sr	wife's fa angku mantuo	husb.'s mo-si andan
_

The terminology as a whole may be considered to be of the Hawaiian or generation type. In fact, Will inc k 1 expressly points out that the word dansana' designates one's generation-mates, whether these be one's siblings or one's eight cousin; and the proverb 2 "harto pusako turun dari ninie' ka mama', dari mama' ka kamanakan". Literally means: "ancestral property is inherited from the grandparent by the mo-br, and from the mo-br by his si-child", but actually the words ninie', mama' and kamanakan are not used here to designate specific relatives, ·but three successive generations.

A r:ather remarkable feature is the use made of the terms orang baripo and its synonym,orang babako :1. They designate the "members of one's father's family", but also the children of one's mama'. The problems this raises can, however, better be dealt with in § 2 of this chapter.

Some remarks on the relationship between Minangkabau kinship terms and the "original" Indonesian social system are to be found in Wilken (2) 4.

As soon as we attempt to give a -description of the units that make up the nagari, and of the chiefs and dignitaries connected with them, we are faced by the difficulty that the data furnished 'by the various writers on the subject do not always agree. Partly this is due to the vagueness and multiplicity of the terms as used by the Minangka·bau themselves, and partly to local differences; but there is yet another factor that has contributed to the confusion, and that is that some writers have taken the European words and concepts as their startingpoint, and have then considered how the native terms can be made to fit them. An example is J 0 us t r a, in his discussion on the word "family". On p. 114 he equates parui' with family, when he is dealing with the kapaZo parui', ,translated as "heads of families" ; but in two other passages5 he says that the parui', headed by a kapaZo parui', is or may ,be subdivided into families, each under a mama'.

This latter arrangement fairly well agrees with the description given by Will inc k. What he calls "family" is the parui' 6, headed by an andiko 7. Later he stresses the importance of this "family" by saying that the djurai, the "branch" of a family (to which, in other places, he attributes rather too much importance), is not a unit "in public law", i. e. does not as such have a representative in the government of the nagari. On pp. 165 and 351 he redefines the relation between kampueng, parui' and djurai: if an entire parui' lives in one house, its chief is an andiko or tuo rumah ("old man of the house"); but if a parui' is divided over several houses (p. 165) or - what would appear to amount to the same thing - is split up into several djurai (p. 351), this structurally more complicated unit is called a kampueng, its chief a panghulu kampueng. The members of a parui' are called the ana' buah of their panghulu andiko, members of a djurai the kamanakan of their mama' (this word being applied here in a wider sense than that of mo-br-da) 8. The panghulu of a parui' is the mama' of his own djurai 9. A djurai may split apart from the 'parent body by going to live in its own house 10.

J 0 u s t r a uses the word kaum to denote what Will inc k calls djurai. Another use of the word kaum is made 'by S c h a fer, who in the territory he was acquainted with (Batusangkar, Tanah Data) found sabuah parui' used as a word for the m e m b e r s 0 f a kaum 11. This kaum was headed by a panghulu andiko, and could be subdivided into djurai, each with a mama' or tungganai as chief. The word kampueng appeared to be synonymous with kaum.

We must now introduce a new factor that also plays its role in the social organisation: the respect for any group's oldest rights, which leads to the special position accorded to what Dutch writers call the kernfamilie, a word we may render by "original family". We have seen how a parul' may 'Split up, generally along lines of cleavage formed by the previowsly functioning djurai (kaum, rumah), into several new parui'. The offshoots which in this way became independent of the parent body are, however, very often (probably we may even say: usually) not accepted as being on a par with the parent parui', the original family. Although the offshoot's chief, formerly a humble tuo rumah, has now ,become a kapalo parui', still he will not be eligible as panghulu kampueng. This function is reserved for kapalo of original parui'. Thus the situation has been described by van V 0 11 e n h 0 - v e n, among others 12, who adds that only the head of the original parui' is called andiko, the heads of the newly created parui' being styled mama' rumah or tungganai. So also in P a u w's data on L Koto 13.

The same rule prevails when an entirely new nagari is founded: the mama' (here used for head ofa "family") of the group that first settles in a new area remains the chief, panghulu andiko, when this group splits up into various smaller gronps, each under a mama'; and when new settlers arrive, and gradually a nagari comes into Ibeing with several panghulu andiko, the head of the original founders is admitted to be of higher rank than his fellow-panghulu andiko, and is called the putjue' aue, the "summit" 14. Descriptions of this kind are also available from the most widely separated areas of Minangkabau and the rantau: in Lubue' Sikaping the panghulu of the founding family is more influential than the others 15 ; in Painan the putjue' is always a chief of the original "colonisers" or founders of the nagari 16, etcetera.

Several times we pointed out that there are many local variations in social organisation and in terminology. Whether a nagari belongs to the Koto-Piliang or to the Bodi-Tjaniago adat is to a great extent decisive for the arrangements within its confines. J 0 u s t r a 17 describes the two modes of internal organisation as follows: the government of a Koto-Piliang nagari is made up of heads of parui' (kapalo parui'), the heads of kampueng (panghulu kampueng) and the heads of the four suku (panghulu nan ka-ampe' suku). The government of a Bodi-Tjaniago nagari consists exclusively of panghulu andiko, who correspond to the panghulu kampueng in a Koto-Piliang nagari. He adds that in Bodi-Tjanlago territories the heads of parui' often like to call themselves panghulu andiko, thereby usurping a title that actually pertains to chiefs who stand one rank higher in the hierarchy.

Van V 0 11 e n h 0 v e n, as we have seen, describes a territory where andiko is specially an appellation for heads of the or i gin a 1 parui', and he describes as a typically Koto-Piliang custom that the kampueng has its own head, called putjue' or datue' nan ka-ampe (Literally "Lord of the Four", properly a term for a head of one of the four suku), while Bodi-Tjaniago kampueng are ruled by the combined heads of the constituent parui' 18.

All agree at any rate that it is typical for Koto-Piliang to have the four suku, with a chief each, hierachically above the kampueng, and often a putjue' above all as head of the nagari.

Another institution hardly ever, if at all, found in Bodi-Tjaniago villages, but common among the Koto-Piliang, is the urang ampe djinih, the "men of four kinds" 19. Where it is encountered this expression refers to a chief and his three assistants. According to J 0 U s t r a 20 the head of a suku, according to Will inc k 21 the head of a parui' (of an "0riginaI" parui' according to We s ten en k) 22 is assisted by three other dignitaries appointed from among his subordinates, and called manti (or pagawai), malim, and dubalang. These three, together with their panghulu, are the urang ampe' djinih. It is not an institution of great importance, and I only mention it as an instance of the difference between Koto-Pi~ang and Bodi-Tjaniago custom. It is no wonder it is said to be absent in Agam, the luha' considered to be typically Bodji-Tjaniago 23.

Some more striking local differences may also be briefly reviewed here. In Bukittinggi, luha' Agam, each "family" (Le. parui') has a panghulu andiko as head, the nagari is governed by a council, rape', or panghulu andiko 2!. This agrees with van V 0 11 e n h 0 v en's description of a typical Bodi-Tjaniago adat, the kampueng, the intermediary units between the parui' and the nagari, ,being governed by the combined parui' chiefs.

If Agam is considered to be Bodi-Tjaniago, the luha' L Koto is always described as the representative of the Koto-Piliang adat. Two nagari of L Koto may be mentioned :

In Pajokumbueh the head of the parui' is called panghulu andiko ; there are several such panghulu andiko per kampueng, and the highest governing body of the nagari is a rape' ka-IV suku 25.

Suliki is governed by the panghulu nan IV suku; there are kampueng, which lack chiefs of their own, but are headed by panghulu andiko, the heads of the parui' 26.

Although the wording of the descriptions is different, there is a striking resemblance. The fact also emerges that the absence of a distinct kampueng-chief is not only to be observed in Bodi-Tjaniago areas, as van V 0 11 e n h 0 v e n would suggest; at least, if we are to believe this description; W est e n e n k's "Minang-kabausche nagari" (po 126) gives a quite different picture: the nagari is headed by a putjue' ; each suku by a panghulu ka-IV suku (each of whom has three assistants, so that each suku has a governing body of urang IV djinih), and each kampueng by a panghulu kampueng; if, as is mostly the case, the kampueng is subdivided into parui', each of these is headed by a kapalo parui'. It must be said that this description does make a more truly "Koto-Piliang-like" impression.

The third luha', Tanah Data, is supposed to be a territory of "mixed" adat, a combination of the two main forms. Three important nagari in this district are Solo', Singkara', and Batusangkar.

Solo' has "families", called suku, headed by a panghulu andiko; frequently the entire suku lives together in one dwelling, so that the pang hulu andiko is one and the same person as the head of the dwelling, the mama'. If the suku is divided over several houses, this entails the panghulu andiko being chief over several mama'. The nagaTi as a whole has a putjue' as highest authority; he is one of the panghulu andiko, fLnd does not actually rule the others, but is considered as primue mter pares 27.

S~ngR.ara' has an organisation entirely similar to that of Solo', with the only difference that the "family" is not called suku but kampueng.

Batusangkar also has panghulu andiko ; we are not told the name of the genealogical units of WhICh they are the head, but apparently they correspond to the kllmpueng. The kampueng, each with their panghulu andiko, are grouped together in four suku, each with a panghulu suku. One of the latter is acknowledged as putjue' 28.

The information given by van Ron k e I and Pam u n t j a k 29, that in Agam the head of a parui' is generally called panghulu, in Tanah Data tungganai, does not appear to be borne out by the facts.

From time to time we met with a dignitary called putjue', who acts as head of the nagari. It should 'be noted that in the periphery of the Minangkabau World, in the rantau, this putjue' is often called radjo 30, or, especially in the south, radjo panghulu 31. So when the word radjo is met with, it does not always refer to the former Rulers of Minangkabau, the Jangdipatuans; in fact, in customary sayings it may sometimes even be applied to heads In general, for instance to a panghulu kampueng in the Minangkabau nuclear territories 32.

From all data it appears that the framework within which the genealogical groups can be observed is formed by the nagari; each nagari is, as it were, a miniature replica of the Minangkabau "World" as a whole. This also holds good for the rantau, only Indragiri * is explicitly mentioned as having a different orgamsation 33. There the luha', the district, takes the place of the nagari elsewhere,' the luha' being governed ,by a putjue' or a council of suku chiefs, according to whether it is "unitarian" or "federative", a distinction corresponding to the Minangkabau terms Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago respectively. It is remarkable that in Negri Sembilan, too, we shall find the luha' occupying the place of the nagari in Minangkabau.

One other characteristic of the rantau, in this case the southern marches, maybe mentioned, viz. that the conjugal nuclear family, father, mother, and child, which in Minangka'bau plays a very small role in an individual's life, and may be said to be frequently quite in abeyance, is of greater importance, and is also more independent of the larger units there 34.

It may be convenient, in view of this welter of possibly rather confusing terms, to summarise the socio-political groups with their chiefs as given by five writers who have more or less thoroughly dealt with Minangkabau social structure. We may add that P a u w's very reliable Bestuursmemorie on L Koto uses the same set of terms as J 0 u s t r a does for Koto-Piliang nagari in general.

The names of the genealogical units are printed in italics, the titles of their chiefs in CAPITALS.

* It is doubtful whether we may include Indragiri among the rantau of Minangkabau. Here again the only measure would be whether the inhabitants consider ,themselves as Minangkabau or not, and on this point I am not informed.

Joustra:

I. suku - PANGHULU KA-AMPe' SUKU.

II. kampueng (called suku in Bodi-Tjaniago areas) - PANGHULU ANDIKO.

III. parui' - KAPALO PARUI', TUNGGANAI, MAMA' RUMAH.

IV. kaum - MAMA'.

Wilken:

I. suku.

II. kampueng - KAPALO KAMPUENG.

III. parui' - TUNGGANAI, PANGHULU RUMAH.

Willinck:

I. suku.

II.

III. parui' - PANGHULU ANDIKO.

IV. djurai - MAMA'

(a parui' is called sakampueng, i. e. "forming one kampueng", when it consists of several djurais, and therefore of several houses, under one common chief).

Schafer:

I. suku.

II. parui' = kaum = kampueng - PANGHULU ANDIKO.

III. djurai - MAMA', TUNGGANAI.

van Vollenhoven:

I. suku.

II. kampueng - PANGHULU KAMPUENG (the PANGHULU KAMPUENG is not actually the head of a kampueng, ,but the most important parui' - chief of that kampueng).

III. parui' - MAMA' RUMAH, 'IUNGGANAI

(the MAMA' RUMAH of the original parui' is called ANDIKO).

IV. djurai.

The sense in which we ourselves use the terms has already been given in Ohapter II. Our terminology will ,be:

I. suku - PANGHULU KA-AMPe' SUKU.

II. kampueng - PANGHULU KAMPUENG.

III. parui' - KAPALO PARUI'.

IV. rumah - MAMA' RUMAH.

We are, however, aware that in some districts the same terms are used in another meaning, or the same units are designated by other terms, or some units may be missing altogether (as the suku in Booi-Tjaniago districts).

These groups we have been describing are not only of importance for Minangkabau government, but also for the regulation of marriage (as will be further discussed in § 2), and as property-owning bodies. As we have remarked, data on the rules of inheritance are far more abundant for Negri Sembilan than for Minangkabau, and will be dealt with more fully in Chapter VIII; Ibut some Minangkabau facts can be given here.

The most important distinction is that between individual property and communal, or ancestral, property. The latter, harto pusako, belongs to a parui' (W ilk e n 54), or to what J 0 u s t r a calls a "family", which may be either a parui' (kaum) (J 0 u s t r a 131), or according to Will inc k, to either djurai or parui' (57). We are probably not far wrong if we explain this discrepancy as follows: if a parui' is not split up into rumah, it is the property-owning unit. If the whole parui' becomes extinct, its property comes under administration of the kampueng of which it was a part. If a parui' has several rumah, each rumah has its own property, but on becoming extinct this again becomes parui'j>roperty; also goods whiCh were ancestral property before the parui' split up into subdivisions are parui'-goods, and probably kept in the communal dwelling of the subdivision that represents the "original" parui', the parent body. There are sure to be local vanations, which would have to 'be investigated in the field.

The harto pusako is administered by the head of the propertyowning unit, and kept in the room of his oldest sister 35. He can aUot part of it to any female member of the parui' who has need of it for herself of her children; by way of exception, men can sometimes also receive a particle of the harto pusako for their use, generally ancestral weapons or male ornaments, but only if the women have been provided for. Whoever receives part of the harto pusako only has the loan of it, communal ownership is maintained. The ancestral property has for this reason been called a "family aid fund" (K 0 0 rem a n, quoted by J 0 u s t r a) 36. It, or part of it, may only be sold in very serious cases, defined by customary sayings : to cover the cost of 1) a funeral of a member of the parui', 2) a wedding, 3) repairing the communal dwelling, 4) blood-money demanded by the relatives of a person killed by a parui'-member, 5) the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Individual property is called tjarian or pantjarian, i. e. "earnings".

In case of marriage both spouses will usually bring in some property that they acquired before the wedding. This is called, in the wife's case, (harto) dapatan, "gainings", in the husband's (harto) pambao(an), "goods brought". Both dapatan and pambaoan can consist of individual earnings (tjarian), and of each individual's share of the pusako of his or her parui'.

In this sector of Minangkabau custom, too, there are local differmces in terminology. Korintji for inS'tance uses the term pamundjangan for pambaoan, pananti for dapatan, and pambaoan for both together 37.

Further, husband and wife may acquire property by common effort during marriage. This is called suarang. The saying which governs the rules of inheritance is :

suarang baragieh

sakutu babalah

harto pambao kombali

harto dapatan tingga, translated:

joint earnings are divided

the partnership is dissolved

the husband's ,brought goods return

the wife's gainings remain 31!.

The version we find cited -by W ilk en:

harto dapatan tingga

harto pambaoan turon

harto suarang diagieh, translated:

the wife's gainings remain

the husband's brought goods are inherited

joint earnings are divided 39,

is not corroborated !by any other authority, and is probably incorrect.

The saying we quoted, in Us unqualified form, is applied in cases of divorce. When a marriage is dissolved by death, the suarang is divided between the surviver and the relatives (rumah or parui') of the deceased.

A woman's pantjarian is generally devoted in the first place to the henefit of her children, so that in practice it may be said to !be inherited by her daughters. (Only if she dies without issue can her property be inherited by her siblings; they are excluded from inheritance by C'hildren of the deceased) 40. After these daughters' decease it is added to the harto pusako; this is a general rule: harto pantjarian (of either a man or a woman) once inherited becomes harto pusako 41. Now and again one meets with cases that the pantjarian is inherited by the sons to the exclusion of the daughters 42. A probable explanation is that the daughters are provided for anyway Iby the harto pusako.

A man's pambaoan reverts to his parui' (or rumah) on his decease. The pusako part of it is, of course, immediately added again to the pusako stock; the pantjarian may not be entirely recoverable, as the deceased, if he I had children, may have given considerable amounts of it to his sons during his life. This is obviously a case where strict matrilineal theory is vitiated in practiee, with paternal affection undoubtedly playing a part of importance. Those presents of a father to his son are justified by Muslim law, and may take the form of a hibah, a legally recognized gift. As this entails a rather complicated procedure one often avoids it, and gives pantjarian-earnings to one's sons surreptitiously 43. Custom nowadays approves of such donations to a total of one half of a man's pantjarian.

A married man usually stores his pambaoan in his wife's room in her family-dwelling. On the news of Ihis death members of his parui', generally his siblings, gather there to collect the pusako-goods which he had been using, and as much of his parl!tjarian as may he left H.

All the data givena'bove refer to' portable goods, 'but land is subject to the same general rule: it may 'be tanah pusako, ancestral land, or pantjarian, individually acquired, e. g. rby cultivating a plot formerly covered by jungle or shrub. In the latter case fhe newly cultivated land is inherited Qnce, and then becomes tanah pusako. Unfortunately, in the Qnly detailed account on inheritance of fresh clearings obviQusly a mistake has crept in. The descriptiQn as it stands is 4:; :

If L II were the first to bring the plot intO' cultivation, it would be inherited, on his death, by M I, M II, MIla, L IIa; after their death it would come, as tanah pusako, to' M III, M IV, L IV; and after their decease to' MIa, MIla, L III.

We nQtice that M IIa occurs twice, and this ()Ibvious incQnsistency is particularly inconvenient as now we cannot make out whether it is only the "branch" to which L II belonged (the descendants of M I) rthat claims the pusako, Qr all the descendants of M, both branches of what is probably a parui'. Possibly here, as with moveables, it is first the '"branch" or rumah, and afterw.ards, if the rumah ihas become extinct, the parui'.

The rights of a land-owning body on its tanah pusako is called ha' ulajat, and may lie with either the panghulu ka-IV suku, as in Kota-Piliang districts, Qr witih 1:he panghulu aooiko, as the parui'-chiefs style themselves in Bodi-Tjaniago areas 46. When the ha' ulajat is vested in the panghulu aooiko, this may either mean: in all of them together, as forming the governing council of the nagari, or in each separately, as heads of the parui', or exclusively in the andiko of the "original" parui' of the nagari.

Rather different rules prevail depending on whether the land in question is cultivated, uncultivated, or ancient clearings which have reverted to jungle, but these variations do not concern us here.

A peculiar type of ground is formed by stretches of land running along the traditionally fixed boundaries of the nagari. They are known as tanah radjo, "royal land", and form a veritable no-man's land. No Minangkabau will willingly settle on such ground, and no person or body can claim property rights on it.

Succession is governed by quite different rules than inheritanee proper. A triba] function, and the much-prized gala (title) that goes with it, is usua,}ly inherited first Iby the chief's brothers in order of age, then by his kamanakan, beginning by his oldest sister's oldest son 47. A variant is mentioned by V e r k e r k Pis to r ius 4~, who states that the succession passes first .to the deceased dignitary's "oldest nephew on his mother's side" (probably mo-si-so is meant), and then to brothers and kamanakan respectively. T1he reason for this apparent contradiction might possibly be that this last datum explicitly refers to the inheritance of the function of panghulu kapalo kampueng, the earlier ones to chieft'ainship in general; it would be quite possible for a chief to belong to one rumah or parui', and ,his mo-si-so to another, which would automatically render 'Succession of this nephew to the post impossible.

There is some difference between succession in Koto-Piliang and in Bodi-Tjaniago nagari: in the former it takes plaee more or less automatically, deviations from the rules only occurring if the successor designated by custom is obviously unfit for the post; in the latter, a functionary has some powers to indicate whom he would like to have appointed as his successor after his death.

A more important deviation from the otherwise prevailing primogeniture and unilineal succession is the adat sansako already referred to, and occurring in different parts of the country. In this way we find that sometimes the galq of a suku chief devolves upon a member of each kampueng of that suku in succession 49. In Batusangkar the position of panghulu suku can be filled by men from each "kaum" in rotation, the position of kapalo parui' by the various tungganai (rumah chiefs) in rotation 50. In the s'ame way van V 0 11 e n h 0 v e n says that if several parui' have one common chief, he is a man from each of the parui' in succession 51. This is said to apply to Agam, but also to Rau and Kampar ;;2. In Lubue' Sikaping the function 'Of ranja was fulfillled by men of each of the branches (,here called baris) of the ruling family in 'Succession 53 ; and in Painan the heads of the kaum (comparable with the kampueng elsewhere) are men fr'Om each of the parui, the heads of the nagari men from each of the kaum in r'Otation 54. Our 'Opini'On on the significance of this custom will be given in § 5 of this chapter.

Finally it may be noted that the Minangkabau notion of nobility is connected with that of customary 'Office. The nobles, perhaps ,better styled "patricians" or "upper classes" (in Minangkabau urang baie', "good people", or urang patui', "decent people") form a loosely-defined class of people whose main ,characteristic is a sense of their own importance, derived from t1heir own, or their close relatives', panghulu dignity. They try to avoid mesalliances with the urang banja', oir.onoi.

§ 2. Circulating connubium.

The fundamental rule governing marriage relations is matrilineal exogamy; but what are the exogamous units? Here again we meet with lilcal variations, the contrast between KotD-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago, and a cDnflict between ideal and practice. Actually the parui' are usually the units within which 'One may not marry, ;but which may intermarry mutually. This certainly hDlds good for those B'Odi-Tjaniago districts where the parui' is the largest functioning unit within the nagari. Intermarriage of smaller units, djurai or rumah, within one parui' is universally and severally condemned. AlsD in nagari where kampueng and suku are met with, the parui' 'Often act as l'argest exogamous units, so that marriage between a man and a woman 'belDnging to different parui' but to the same suku, Dr even kampueng, not infrequently 'Occur 55; but in this case such a marriage seems to be more Dr less in the nature 'Of a cDncessiDn tD everyday men and women, who never can be expected tD live up tD the theDretically formulated ideal. The ideal is that kampueng, t'OD, impose exogamy on their members. It may even happen that in 'One and the same territory some kampueng enforce this demand for marriage outside the kampueng, while others are more lax in this matter.

In Pangkalan Koto Baru, for instance, the kampueng Piliang, DomD, and Tjaniago are rigidly exogamous, while Patapang, Malaju, and

Mandeling are content a'S Jong as the parui'-exogamy is maintained 56. But not 'Only the kampueng, 'but even "related" kampueng 'Should, according to the ideal, not permit marriages between their members 57. These "related" kampueng form the four kampueng groups or suku, and 'a trace of suku-exogamy is found e.g. in Suliki, where intermarriage of DJamba' and Patapang, 'and 'Of Gutji and Piliang are forbid:den 58; we know that in Suliki one of the four suku comprises Kot'O, Piliang, Pisang, Tandjung, Pajobada, Pagatjantjang, Sikumbang, Gutji and Sima/bue, and another Patapang, Kotianjer, Djamba', Salo, Banuhampu 59. Actually, however, suku-exogamy seems seldom to ,be enforced, and kampueng-exogamy is the most we can expect to find.

M'Ore detailed marriage~regulationsare the prohibition 'Of marriage between a man and a woman 'and, at the 'Same time, that woman's IIMrsi or fa-5i 'Or sister; also prohibited is marriage with divorced wife's sister 60. This first two prohibitions also prevail in Islamic law {'being based on Koran IV:27), but need n'Ot ibe attributed to Muslim influence exclusively. The underlying principle appears t'O Ibe an aversion to marriage of 'One man with two women from the same parui' (or kampueng) simultaneously, whether such a marriage be :polygynous or after a divorce.

The ,prohibition of marriage Ibetween foster-siblings, mentioned by Fay - C 0'0 per Col e, 61, is however purely Islamic, and is not given as part 'Of the adat by any other author 62.

Marriage Ibetween 'parallel-cousins is definitely prohibited 63, even if it be 'between children of two :brothers, although matrilineally they would not 'be related to one another.

W i 11 inc k also remarks on the prohibition of marriage between a man ailid his sister-in-law 64, and a woman and her 'brother-in-.law. He thinks this is Islamic as well, as Minangkabau custom "does n'Ot recognize affinity". This last statement is incorrect, and the prohibition in question is one preventing brother and sister exchange. Incidentally, fhis rule probably also explains the legend of the settling of Rau 65. The legend is that a man, Radjo Sjahbandar, and his sister Putri Intan Biludu, of kampueng Djamba', were married to Putri Sangkabulan and Sutan NuraJam of kampueng Mandeling, who where also brother and sister. As their "families objected to the match" the two cou:ples fled from Pagarrujueng, where they lived, to Rau, and so 'became the first colonisers in this rantau. The reason for the family's "'Objection" may well have ·been the very fact that by the marriages, entailing brother and sister exchange, a serious breach of adat was committed.

So far we have 'Only mentioned prohibitions. Favoured matches are those with crDss-cousins, and from some data it would appear that marriage with mo-br-da or with fa-si.Jda are equally acceptable. This is said 'by L 0 e ,b for instance 66, ·but his data are not always relia;ble. More explicit is van E e r de 61, who says that the ideal match for a girl (A) is the son (B) of her mama' (C), or the kamanakan (D) of her father (E). (See diagram).

This 'Obviously refers to symmetrical cross-cousin marriage. On the other hand there are many indications that, 'although nowadays marriage with fa·si-da is considered very acceptable, at least in some parts of the country, the really ideal marriage, and the one that underlies the Minangkabau social structure, is the e.c.c.m. In the first place there is always and everywhere the important role of the mama' in the life

T ··C E ·· .. ······O_ - • ............. <>--. • 1 I 8 A ~

of his kamanakan, while the fa-si-husband, who would be an important personage as future father-m-Iaw if symmetrical c.c.m. was the custom, hardly ever emerges from the background, and is never the 'Object 'Of a pronounced, culturally conditioned, affective relationship, as the mama' certainly is.

Also, in the kaba, the traditional stories and legends of Minangkabau (which often take the form of epic poems), it is always the e.c.c.m. that we meet with, 'and which is accepted as a matter of course; the mama' is always the father-in-law. Whether we read the Kaba Tjindue Mato 68, or the Kaba Mama' Si Hetong 69, or any other, we are always confronted with the same ;patiern.

Then again, when a modern Minangkabau explains the customary saying " manjalahkan djangdjang" , he makes it clear by referring to the dislike of marriage with fa-si-da. The explanation that is given for this dislike is that ifa divorce occurs, it is always disagreeable for a man to visit his divorced wife's relatives. But in case of fa-si-da marriage, the "in-laws" would be his nearest relatives in his father's parui', so that he would be forced to avoid them. Now this explanation would appear to be a rationalization, but the fact remains that in parts, at least, of Minangkabau even to·day the fa-si-da marriage is not conSIdered right. We even have an informant who mentioned cases in which mo-br·da marriage is obligatory: if a young man has a married mama', then the latter must (sic !) offer the daughter to whom his wife may possibly give life, to his nephew 70. I do not think it too rash to conclude that the e.c.c.m. is the ideal and bask form of marriage in Minangkabau.

The fact that marriage with fa-si-da is nowadays considered perfectly correct need no,t vitiate this conclusion, as the Minangka'bau social organisation allows quite considerable latitude in many particulars, as long as certain basic prohibitions (in this case : parui'-, kampueng-, or suku-exogamy) are respected; and also in other cultures one frequent'ly meets with cases in which the system may demand e.c.c.m., but fa-si-da marriage is nevertheless also met with 71.

The marriage is not simply an affair between individuals, 'but forms a connubial relationship between the matrilineal clans. This is of prime importance, and can be proved in many ways. In the first place there i5 a strong tendency to preserve the link between two clans which is forged by marriage: a man's marriage to his deceased wife's sister, or 'vith his brother's widow, is considered highly desirable. This is attested to by various authors 7:!. The outlying district of Rawas supplies the only exception - probably the one that proves the rule - as prohibiting marriage with deceased wife's sister 73. The levirate and sororate, so esteemed in all other parts of Minangkabau, are both called manjiliehkan or manggantikan lapie', "to exohange one's sleepingmat" 74.

Furthermore we have seen in an earlier chapter that for a circulating connubium the participation of at least three clans is needed; and, even if there are more clans to join in the connubial ring, each individual always has to deal with three clans of greater importance to him than all the others: his own, the one from which he gets his wife, and the one from which his sisters get their husbands; with other wo~ds : his own cIan, the bride-giving clan, and the bride-taking clan. In social systems with circulating connubium there are often special terms to designate not only one's own group Ibut also the two others with which one 'stands in close relationship. In this way the Batak use the words hulahula and boru, the Sumbanese loka and doma, etc. to designate bride-givers and bride-takers respectively 7". This is also the cases in Minangka'bau, where there are the words sumando for the bride-taking and pasumandan for the 'bride-giving groups 76. There is also the expression urang bako, used to indicate one's father's matrilineal relatives, who in their turn call the children of their male kinsman ana' pisang. In circulating connwbium the word bako would also serve to indicate the bride-taking group, who call the children of their bride-givers ana' pisang. The diagram below illustrates this:

E and F call B, C, D, (and, of course, other fa-br, fa-si, and fa-sichildren) bako, th~ latter caIl E and F ana' pisang. Now it has often been observed that in Indonesia (to confine ourselves to this single area) a circulating system entails superiority of the Ibride-giving over

/ / / A / B / / /7\--- -- ~7\- -. ~ / 0 ( / f E / ~ / / I &I?IOE - BR IOf ' TAKERS GIVfR~

the bride-taking group, and that, for Indonesia at least, no exceptions appear to occur 77. The Batak hulahula, for instance, call their borugroup their "perpetual slaverS" ; in Tanimbar the analogous group of rvduwe say that their uranak (bride-takers) "prepare our 'palm-wine for us", and so forth 78. When we see, then, that in Minangka!bau the bakogroup are obviously subservient to the ana' pisang, the most satisfactory explanation is offered by the circulative connubial system, in which the urang bako are the bride-takers, and the ana' pisang represent the the bride-givers.

We are told that during the wedding period the husband's relatives show marked benevolence towards the wife's 711; it is said to be the duty of the urang bako "always to aid the family of their daughter-in-law" 80; they always grant the seat of honour in their own communal dwellin~ to members of their pasumandan-group 81. They are always very respectful towards the ana' pisang, and at vadous ceremonies they are supposed to give presents to them, among others at the ceremony of the first cutting 'Of the child's hair ~~. Conversely, the ana' pisang may make rude or sarcastic remarks to his or her urang bako, who are supposed to take them in good part 83.

Incidentally, we may remark that this appears to be the only pronouncedcase of a joking relationship in Minangkabau. L 0 e b says that there is a joking relationship comprising practically all members of another suku than one's own H4, but this relationship would appear to be 'Of much less importance and not highly institutionalised. He makes another rather positive statement on this matter in an article in "Anthropos" 85, when he speaks of a kind of avoidance custom between male and female members of the same suku, and a kind of joking relationship between marriageable men and women of different suku. It seems to me, however, that this writer has been attempting to suggest a connection between joking relationship and avoidance customs on the one hand, and permitted or prohibited marriage on the other, without too much regard f'Or actual facts; for it is an indubitable fact that, if not the only, then certainly the most important avoidance custom in Minangkabau is between parents-in-law and their sons-in-law (between mantuo and binantu, in the Minangkabau language) 86, so between members of d iff ere n t suku.

An important part of Indonesian marriage ceremonies is often the exchange of presents between the bride's and the bridegroom's genealogical groups, and frequenNy the goods exchanged grant us a revealing insight into the nature of the social organisation as it is. Unfortunately Minangkabau data on this point are very incomplete; on Negri Sembilan they are s'light1y more substantial, and we shall therefore return to this point in Chapter VIII. Practically the only explicit information on the demands of the adat as to gift exchange is that the presents 'Of both parties should be, as far as possible, of equal value, and that there should be true reciprocity: djoko' diudji samo merah,

djoko' dikati samo bare',

djoko' diukue samo pandjang,

djoko' dibidang samo laweh,

i. e.: "when they are tested they should 'be equally red,

"when weighed, equally heavy,

"when measured, equally long,

"when surveyed, equal in surface" 87.

If we may consider it proved that the Minangkabau social system ideally implies a circulating connubium of at least three clans, we must, finally, deal with the question: what forms the limits within which this connubium functions, nagari, luha' or Alam Minangkabau in its entirety? This amounts to the same thing as asking: what, if the parui', kampueng and suku are exogamous, is the endogamous unit, if any? Fay -Coo per Col e makes the very positive statement "the nagari is endogamous" 88. Now this statement as a description of present-day fact is incorrect: in practice marriage within the nagari is not demanded, marriage outside it is not punished, nor are marriages outside one's own nagari infrequent. We do agree, though, that nagari endogamy was, in all probability, formerly the rule, and it is stHl considered ideal in several parts of the country. We know for a certainty that e. g. the nagari Koto Gadang (near Bukittinggi) demands local endogamy, and that legal action was brought to bear on a girl of this village who violated the rule 89. In the luha' L Koto some nagari are explicitly stated to be endogamous in the Bestuursme.morie by J. P a u w, who further notes that in such nagari the parui', and not the kampueng, form the exogamous bodies 90.

L 0 e b, too, is of the opinion that nagari-endogamy was formerly obligatory, at least in cases when the bride was a virgin. This proviso fits in well with Minangkahau custom, as in general a girl's first marriage is considered of great importance, so that the many ceremonies connected with such a wedding are usually punctiliously carried out; while the re-marriage of a divorcee or widow arouses less interest, the choice of mates in the latter case is also more a question of personal choice and less of what is consMered desirable by the adat, and a greater freedom from traditional restrictions and ceremonial prevails 91. What may also be an indication of preference for nagari-endogamy is the custom, observed in luha' Tanah Data: women of the nagari Solo' may only marry men from he nagari Talang, Kinari, Saninghaka, Sao' Laweh, and Tandjung Bali' 92. Now here, too, further informa'tion is lacking just where we need it ; aU we can say is that these nagari do not border on one another. If they should prove to be related (Solo' being the "mother-nagari", the others the "daughters", i.e. founded by settlers originally from Solo') the custom would also be a rule of endogamy, only extended to related nagari as well. But even if this should not prove to be the case, it does at least point to a tendency to keep the marriage ring functioning within a limited extent of territory, as is the case with the, even in recent times not infrequent, true nagari-endogamy.

§ 3. The four suku.

If we accept the evidence that Minangkabau social organisation is based on an ideal pattern of circulating connUibium, functioning within the confines of each nagari, we have now to answer the question: how many clans does the system recognize as participating in the connubial ring? So far we limited ourselves to saying that there must be "at least three". Further investigation shows that the actual number was four.

In the first pl'ace, all legends on the origin 'of Minangkabau refer to the two ancestors, Kjai Katumanggungan and Parapatih nan Sabatang, whose followers were grouped together in the lareh Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago respectively 9:1 ; so each lareh bore a double name, and each half-name: Koto, Piliang, Bodi, and Tjaniago is the name of a suku, a word that itself also means "leg of an animal", .or "quarter". Nowadays too the word suku indicates the four original dans, as stated by J 0 u s t r a, among others 94.

J. Ph. D u y v end a k considers the four-suku organisation of such interest that in his "Inleiding tot de Ethnologie van de Indische Archipell" (Introduction to the Ethnology of the Indian Archipelago) he calls his chapter on Minangkabau after it: "Quadripartition in Minangkabau" .

V a n V 0 11 e n h 0 v e n also ,accepts this division into four suku as an institution of basic importance for the Minangkabau social system, and compares it with rather similar forms of quaddpartition elsewhere, viz. in Atjeh !)1'.

On the other hand a fact to be well noted is that nowadays Bodi, Tjaniago, etc. not only designate suku, but also kampueng, the units which at present can best be described as clans. There are 96 of them, according to W est e n e n ok ; some .of them occur in only one or two nagari, others practically in all Minangkabau. The most frequently met with are Koto, Piliang, Tjaniago, Ma}aju, Sikumbang, Tandjueng, Pajobada, Djamba', Mandeling, Bendang, Patapang, and Kutianjie 91l. There are two manners in which the original four suku developed into such a large amount of "sub-suku" or kampueng: subdivision and immigration. Subdivision has been described in Vet h and Van Has s e It' s "Midden-Sumatra" \17.

Supposing, Van Has s e 1 t says, that people belonging to suku Piliang settle in a strange nagari ; they then usually add the name of their original village as a distinctive mark to their suku name, and call themselves e. g. Piliang Kumpai. Gradually the non·distinctive "PHiang" drops off, and they are only designated as "Kumpai". In this way a new suku, or rather kampueng, Kumpai is born.

Immigration as a factor that forms new kampueng is attested to by the names of many kampueng, which are territorial designations. The most striking examples are "Ma~aju", i. e. Malay, and "Mandeling", a district in the Batak lands; this serves to show how settlers in Minangkabau, if they were not for ever to remain in the unpleasant position of utter outsiders, had to conform to Minangkabau structure in order to fit in, and either seek adoption into an existing Minangkabau kampueng, or form a new kampueng for themselves 9~. In the case of Mandeling we can even, as it were, see the Bata,k immigrants from the north spreading out over Minangkabau: the Minangkabau territory was under the Dutch administration divided into 17 "onderafdelingen" ; and from W est e n e n k' s statistics we can see that Mandeling is present in these onderafdelingen that form a more or less straight line from the fringe of the Batak territory southward, while it does not occur in the four which more or less bulge out westwards (Agam, Manindjau, Palambajan, and Padang-Pandjang), nor in the three in the extreme south (Supajang, Alahan Pandjang, and Muaro Labu) 911. In Negri Sembilan kampueng (there always suku) based on a common country of origin are even the rule.

So we have seen that the present day situation is that the original four suku have multiplied until 96 kampueng can be observed, but that conversely these kampueng * are traditionally grouped together into four kampueng-phratries, again called suku. Now it is worth mentioning that these four suku not only go by the names of Bodi, Tjaniago, Koto, and Piliang, but also by more prosaic terms, denoting the number of kampueng united in each suku. In many nagari of L Koto, for instance, the suku are called: '~Nine", "Five", "Four" and "Six Ancestresses", usually written "IX (etc.) Ninie' ", or "Nan IX", "Nan V", etc. Sometimes this new nomenclature runs parallel to the traditional one, so that Adatrechtbundels XXXIII can state that Nan IX corresponds to Koto, and Nan V, IV, and VI or VII with Piliang, Bodi, and Tjaniago respectively 100 ; !but in most cases we notice the remarkable fact that the old suku, Koto, Piliang, etc. are not divided evenly over the new, Nan V etc., but bunched together two !by ttwo. In this way we find, t'O take a random example, that nagari Gugue consists of Nan IX, Nan V, Nan IV, and Nan VI. Suku Nan IX comprises the kampueng : Koto, Piliang, Simabue, Sikumbang, Sipisang, Plajobada, Tandjueng, Paga Tjantjang, and Dalimo ;

Nan V: Djamba', Patapang, Kutianjie, Salo, Banuhampu;

Nan IV: Malaju, Mandeling, Bendang, Kampai ;

Nan VI: Bodi, Tjaniago, Sipandjang, Singkueng, Simage', Tjapue' Napa 101.

The data supplied by D e Roo y on L Koto 102, and by Wi Ilin c k on Minangkahau in general 103, are substantially in agreement with this outline.

This other form of quadripartition also finds its justification in legends dealing with the primeval settlements in MinangkaJbau : in the very earliest times, even hefore the first kings of Minangkabau had arrived in the country, there were fQur suku chiefs in the nagari Kumanih : Nie' Papatih (i. e. Parapatih) of suku Tjaniago, Nie' KatQmanggungan Qf Malaju, RadjQ Mangawa of Piliang, and Nie' Paduko of Patapang 104. The legend then goes on to tell of the honour paid to' Papatih nan Sabatang by the newly-arrived king, an honour shared by the nagari as a whole. It will be noted that the original Kumanih suku are drawn frQm each of the present-day suku, Nan IX, V, IV and VI.

Before we attempt to explain the discrepancy between the two forms which the four-suku organisation can assume, we would like to point Qut that the quadripartition as such is at any rate maintained. This appears to be the case in all parts of Minang,kabau where suku are recognized at all, !both in the eastern and in the western rantau, and in the dare'. In the Painan area in the west there are six suku, Malaju, Panai, Kampai, Sikumbang, Djamba' and Tjaniago, but the last three are grouped together as Tigo Zareh, so that again four groups emerge: Malaju, Pan ai, Kampai, and Tigo lareh 105. In exactly the same way the eastern rant au of Batang Hari has six suku which yet re-group to form a four-suku configuration. The suku are Malaju.

Panai, Kampai, Piliang, Tjaniago, and Patapang, Ibut here again the three latter suku together form a unit, called Tigo Iareh 106.

Native adat explicitly recognizes the four-suku configuration as ideal pattern, as is evident from the saying nagari barampe' suku, ampe' suku sakoto 107 ; (a nagari contains four suku, four suku make up one village) ; and W ilk en's hypothesis that originally each nagari consisted of one suku is almost certainly incorrect * 108.

Now why do the two forms of quadripartition in Minangkabau not coincide? In the first place we would like to point out that to a certain extent they do: if we compare the grouping given by de Roo y 110 :

Nan IX: Koto, Piliang, Pisang, Tandjueng, Pajobada, Pagatjantjang, Sikumbang, Gutji, Simabue;

Nan V: Patapang, Kutianjie, Djamba', Salo, Banuhampu ;

Nan IV: Malaju, Mandeling, Bendang, Kampai;

Nan VI: Bodi, Tj,miago, Sipandjang, Singkueng, Panjalai, Lubue' Batang;

with that given by Will inc k 111 :

1. Malaju, Mandeling, Kampai, Bendang, Adji, Domo, Panai ;

2. Bodi, Tjaniago, Dj'amba', Mandaliko, Sipandjang, Panjalai, KUtianjie, Lubue' Batang;

3. Patapang, Simarbue, Pauh ;

4. Koto, Piliang, Tandjueng, Sikumbang, Paga Tjangtjang, Pajobada, Gutjli, Dalimo, Sapisan;

and both with the situation registered in Padang in 1839 1l~ :

Koto-Piliang: Koto, Tandjueng, Balai Masiang, Malaju;

Bodi-Tjaniago: Djamba', Mandaliko, Lamageh, Pangalu;

it will become apparent that the Koto-Piliang-BO'di-Tjaniago grouping imposes itself on the other, certain kampueng 'being associated with each of the phratries Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago, even if they themselves do not share with Koto and Piliang the membership of Nan IX, or with Bodi and Tjaniago that of Nan VIm.

Still, the fact remains that Bodi and Tjaniago, Koto and Piliang :Ire grouped together in the "Nan ...... " system. There are two probable reasons for this: the first, that the coupling together of Bodi and Tjaniago, Koto and Pilriang had so long been sanctioned by usage and had become so familiar, that when gradually, with the increase in the number of kampueng, a re-shuffle took place, they more or less automatically were considered to ·belong, two by two, together. It may be remarked that the kampueng with the most strikingly "foreign" names, Malaju and Mandeling, are always classed together. It may well be that it was considered an anomaly to have these obvious aliens incorporated in the true-blue Minangkabau four-suku configuration, so that they, and other immigrants' kampueng, were first kept apart, while later on the four-swku system manifested itself anew, including the parvenus, but separating them from the traditional indigenous kampueng.

The other possible explanation is connected with exogamy rules. According to legend, Kjai Katumanggungan originally divided the Minangkabau nation into two sections (Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago), and no-one was permitted to marry within his own section, "besides the Regent of Menangkabo" 114. This phratry-exogamy was no longer met with in historical times, but the groups Nan IX, Nan V etc. certainly were, and in some parts still are, exogamous m. It is possible that the traditional ideal, if not the actual fact, of phratry exogamy exerted its influence in the re-shuffle which resulted in the Nan ..... . organisation, Koto and Piliang, not being allowed to intermarry accordmg to the phratry rule, coming together into a new group, Nan IX, which also prohibits intermarriage of its members (and the same with Bodi-Tjaniago, mutatis mutandis).

A final remark on present-day kampueng names: P r z y Ius k i 111; says that before the era of North-Indian Mahayanic influence in Indonesia, there was a period of South-Indian Saiwa penetration, which left its traces, i. a., in "Sumatran clan names". Examples given 'are: Choliya, derived from Chola ; Pandiya, from Pandya; Meliyala, from Malayalam; and Pelawi, from Pallawa. It may be as well to state here that these names do not occur in Minangkabau. P r z y I u sk i' s data are taken from an article by J 0 u s t rail 7 - later discussed by H. K ern 11M - in which the presence of these South-Indian names is noted among the Karo-Batak, and among them only.

* At least, the kampueng which occur in districts where the four-suku organisation still functions. This is not always the case in Bodi-Tjaniago nagari. as we have seen (p. 52).

':' In the light of the evidence to hand Will inc k 's supposition 109 that the town of Pad'ang, which recognizes eight suku, is the product of a meI'lging of two original nagari, is not a priori unreasona!Jlle; whether it is actually correct is another matter, however.

§ 4. Phratrics.

I hope the preceding § has convincingly shown that ideally the circulating connubium is shared in by four suku ; in the course of the expose we noticed several times that Koto and Piliang, Bodi and Tjaniago are supposed to belong together, and we already ventured to call these two groups "phratries". We shall now try to show that they were not only called so because they form a group of clans traditionally belonging together, but 'also because they do in fact show all the typical characteristics of phratries in a dual organisation, which H e 1 d has summed up in the expression "hostile friendship" J1!l. At the same time we shall see to what extent the phratries can be said to function in modern Minangkabau. We preferred not to call Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago "moieties", because, although they do ,bisect the entire community, they do not consist of clans that are, at present, genealogically related.

The .phratry-organisation takes us 'back to legendary times. It is said to have been instituted 'by the two ancestors, Kjai Katumanggungan and Datue' Parapatih nan Sabatang. There are different versions of the tales about their descent and adventures; the one given by Will inc k is 120: the first King of Minangkabau, Sri Maharadjo, married Indo Tjalita, their son was Parpatih. Later Indo Tjalita married a smith, Tjate Bilang Pandai, and from this marriage a daughter, Putri Zamilau, and a son, Katumanggungan, were born. In this version we meet with Parapatih as the oldest son, and the one of bluest blood; in the version related by Net s c her 1:.!t, too, Parapatih is the eldest. There are however, other legends in which it is the other way round, Katumanggungan being the eldest, and sometimes also the more aristocratic of the two half-brothers, as in that case Parapatih is the son of a man "of lesser rank", though of the same mother. So in various versions of the same story 122 there is already a continual struggle for supremacy ;between the two ancestors, neither is universally considered superior to the other in birth. (There are also yet other versions, in which Parapatih and Katumanggungan, together with a Radjo Mangawa and Nie' Paduko were already chieftains before Maharadjo Diradjo - i.e. Sri Maharadjo - arrived in Minangka'bau 123; or in which the first Minangkabau were of the generation of Katumanggungan's and Parapatih's mama') 124.

According to the legend given by Will inc k m, Parapatih as a young man goes on a long journey. After his return he marries his half-sister, Putri Zamilau, without knowing her for whom she is. When, after some time, they come to know of their being blood-relations there is such horror at the incest that Parapa'tih and Katumanggungan (or Katumanggungan alone) 126 divide the Minangkabau into two parts, Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago, and rule that henceforth nobody may marry within his own group.

Another form of the legend, found in a pantun, a short verse 127, has it that the bipartition is a result of a quarrel between the two primeval legislators, but this is not the usual explanation. All stories do agree that later on there was a long-drawn-out struggle between the two U~. It was a real ding-dong battle with, according to the source just quoted, Koto-Piliang finally gaining the upper hand. In parts of Minangkabau (and, in fact, in Negri Sembilan) one can still see monoliths pierced by a round hole, the so-called batu batikam, or "stabbed stones". The explanation given is that, during the period of strife, both antagonists drew their swords and thrust them into a stone, crying "Thus, too, I shall stab my adversary" 1~9. In spite of this enmity during their lifetime, the two great leaders, when near to death, exhorted their followers to preserve their unity. Katumanggungan's last message to his partisans was that Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago belong together in perpetuity lao; one writer gives a fuller report of what he is supposed to have said on this occasion: the two parties must remain together, for "Bodi-Tjaniago pays our taxes, decorates our balai, and mandirikan karadjoan kito; adopun mandirikan pajueng Koto-Piliang hanjo Bodi-Tjaniago" l.H. The last sentence may best be translated:" ...... and forms the foundation of our rule; it is only BodiTjaniago that sets up the umbrella * of Koto-Piliang". A well-known customary saying also expresses the way in which Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago are always united: Datue' Katumanggungan punjo karadjoan, Datue' Parapatih punjo pajueng i. e. Katumanggungan is the possessor of the kingship, Parapatih is the possessor of the (royal) umbrella 132.

All this is extremely typical for a phratry-relationship : the frequently sharp rivalry, with nevertheles an underlying sense of unity, as one cannot exist without the other, and the co-operation of both is needed to make up the total community. A striking illustration of this interlocking is afforded by the custom that when, in Koto"'Piliang territory, a panghulu had to be punished according to adat, the sentence was pronounced by "panghulu of Bodi-Tjan[ago" 133. Also, the councilhall of TaM', lin Koto-Piliang .territory, was the meetingi>lace of the Bodi-Tjaniago dignitaries 134.

Now it has frequently been observed that the opposition between two phratries serves as a point d'appui f'Or an all-pervading dichotomy, by which the most diverse phenomena are classified in either of the two groups; and so the phratry-dualism can coincide with contrasts such as: heaven--earth, ma'le--female, light---'darkness, etc. In Minangkabau such a dualism also appears, influencing many spheres of Minangkabau society. One of .the earliest Netherlands-Indies government officials in Minangkabau, DeS t u e r s, was already struck by this dualism. In a report of 1825 he described the "two larasses or tribes (geslachten), called laras Bodi-tjieniago and laras Kotta-pilihan", and went on to say "the distinction between these tribes is scrupulously observed, and brought forward with undescrlbable jealousy in all circumstances" 135. Some of the shapes this dualism assumes are as follows: we have noted the proverb Datue' Katwmanggungan punjo karadjoan, Datue' Parapatih punjo pajueng 136; a possible interpretation is: Katumanggungan holds the temporal power, Parapatih the area over which the power extends. A less cryptic saying attributes to Katumanggungan sway over salt, to Parapatih over fresh water 137, that is to say, over the coast and the interior respectively (a contrast also met with in other areas).

Katumanggungan is often more closely associated with the Minangkabau kings than Parapatih; one legend ma:kes Katumanggungan recognize the new rulers, while Parapatih remained "repUiblican" 138. Also Parapatih is said to have founded the customary law, adat, and Katumanggungan Muslim law, shara' 139. In the last two cases Katumanggungan was associated each time with a form of patrilineal organisation, so that possibly a contrast male-female is also latent here. There is also a legend that contrasts Katumanggungan's and Parapatih's attitudes towards crime: Datue' Katumanggungan demanded an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but Parapatih persuaded him to accept a fine in lieu of retaliation 140. This brings us to the presentday differences between the two phratries, for there is a clearly recognized distinction between the adat Katumanggungan and the adat Parapatih. One of the differences is just this attitude towards crimes and torts, the adat Parapatih striving after a reparation of the damage done, the adat Katumanggungan demanding vengeance.

A fundamental adat Katumanggungan rule is (in Malay) :

siapa berhutang siapa membajar

siapa salah siapa bertimbang

siapa bunuh siapa kena bunuh, in translation:

The debtor shall quit the debt,

The sinner shaH pay the forfeit,

The slayer shall be slain.

Adat Parapatih says: Tjentjang berpampas, bunuh berbalas;

..... . ,Anak-buah disorongkan balas, 141

i. e. : Whoso wounds shall atone, whoso slays shall replace,

. . . . .. Sending a clansman to replace the slain.

In matters of government Bodi-Tjaniago may be styled more egalitarian, Koto-Piliang more autocratic. We have already seen in § 1 of this chapter, how a Bodi-Tjaniago nagari is governed by the kapalo parui' together, while Koto-Piliang villages have a hierarchy, ranging from the kapalo parui' upwards to the panghulu nan ka-IV suku and sometimes the putjue'. The balai or council hall in which those chiefs hold their meetings reflect the same difference in spirit: a BodiTjaniago balai has a level floor, so that, as the proverb says of the panghulu, "when they sit they are equally low, when they stand they are equally tall" ; a Koto-Piliang balai has a raised dais at each end for the heads of the hierarchy w.

The adat Parapatih 'and Katumanggungan also differ in the way they regulate the succession to a function in the village community, adat Katumanggungan entailing a more or less automatic replacement of a dignitary by his successor, while adat Parapatih gives more scope to the principle of discussion and election 143.

During the reign of the Minangkabau kings, the two adat also differed in the wayan individual could appeal against a sentence of the chiefs of his own vHlage. According to Koto-Piliang adat the procedure was: GlPpeal to a rape' salareh (meeting of a federation of nagari) ; next to the rape' saluha', then to the Bandaharo of Sungai Taro'. Then to the Radjo Adat, 'Ind finally to the Jangdipatuan himself. According to the Bodi-Tjaniago custom, the procedure was to appeal to a rape' of all Bodi-Tjaniago, ta:king place in the balai of TaM', instead of to the Bandaharo IH. In this way more examples could be summed up, but the given examples may suffice.

Each nagari is considered to 'be either Koto~Pi1iang or BodiTjaniago, depending on whether the adat Parapatih or adat Katumanggungan prevails. There are no large compact areas of either adat, ,but nagan of both adat are scattered in a rather random fashion. It is true that luha' Agam is supposed to be Bodi-Tjaniago, L Koto, KotoPiliang, and Tanah Data "mixed", but this is more a generalisation than an actual description of fact; one gets the impression that all three luha' are pretty well "mixed", with indeed some preponderance of Bodi-Tjaniago nagari in Agam, and of Koto~Piliang in L Koto. Unfortunately we cannot plot out the areas of each adat in detail, as the most recent information of la'rge scope dates from 1715 14". In this report, reprinted in S tap e I's article, a list of 33 "Tziniago" and 28 "Cotta-Duplian" nagari and territories is given. Even allowing for a number of mistakes and changes (e. g. Agam can hardly have been Koto-Piliang), it yet shows that 'both adat are scattered fairly evenly over all Minangkabau 146.

Ley d s has mapped the area of the two adat in Tanah Data, from which it appears that the residences of the Basa IV Balai (see Chapter II) form an enclave of Koto-Piliang adat in otherwise BodiTjaniago territory 147.

As to the outlying areas, Alahan Pandjang in the south is said to have a mixture of Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago adat; Korintji is supposed to have been entirely populated by people of Bodi H~ (but the list of 1715 includes Korintsche among the Cotta-Duplian territories); Kwantan, in the east, is again said to be mixed, apart from the Koto-Piliang nagari Ibul and Pantai 149. It is remarkable that these are just the most easterly villages, i. e. farthest away from Minangkabau proper (this agrees with the classification of Katumanggungan and Parapatih with salt and fresh water respectively, and with the contra'St rantau--dare') J 50.

In the north, in Lubue' Sikaping and Rau, the entire contrast between the two adat is unknown 15J.

H we wish to observe phratries in action, the best occasion is probably offered by a wedding with all its ceremonial. It will be clear that a four-clan system with circulating connubium implies the existence of two exogamous phratries (see Chapter IV, Diagram VIII); and where, as in Minangkabau, the p'hratries are actually recognized and named, each marriage forges a new link between the two phratries. This ,is partly the significance of a marriage. The whole community is divided into two parts, which are mutually antagonistic, yet complementary; the total community can only exist if both OCCUT 'and if both actively come into contact with each other. A marriage is the occasion for them to do just that. It is a ceremony in which we may expect the phratry antagonism to manifest itself, but at the same time by its very nature it binds the two together and strengthens the community as a whole.

For a good description of Minangkabau engagement and wedding ceremonies we can turn to van E e r de 152. The overtures towards a match are often made ,by the parui' of the girl. If from negotiations it appears that the relatives of the bridegroom"to-be a're willing, the girl's relatives send a ring to the other party, which is henceforth the tando or token of the engagement 133. A little later they s'end a present of sirih (betel) to the prospective groom's parui', who send another parcel of sirih in return. Then the girl's people send money, with which the man's relatives buy veg'etables, fruit and other delicacies 154, to return to the other family. The engagement becomes, as it were, officially recognized through the bride's family inviting all relatives and notables to a gathering (each person being invited by a messenger bearing gifts of food) 155 and then holding an elaborate meal, to provide for which also cattle are slaughtered 156.

The wedding ceremony is also accompanied by gift-exchange, the girl's party giving rice and money, the man's rice and clothing 157. Towards the end of the festivities the curious custom called mandirikan panghulu, literally "installing a chief", takes 'place: relatives of the groom (and also less closely related kinsfolk of the bride? This is not clear in the account) in grandiloquent terms announce the presents they are going to give to the bride's parui', making believe they are offering a horse, or a buffalo, etc. Actually the gifts consist of small sums of money, usually about 50 Dutch cents (t'enpence).

The above is 'but a ,bare outline of the elaborate ceremonial, which is accompanied throughout by a spa1te of oratory. Van E e r de's description is much more detailed, but our account shows up some of the main characteristics. In the first place we see how the engagement is cemented by a ceremonial meal, with representatives of the whole nagari present. Such feasts have in them much of the nature of a communion: eating together makes all who are present, one 158. Thus the bringing together of the young man and woman at the same time brings together the entire community, it builds up the totality within which the social organisation functions. The joining together of the two marriage parrtners, representatives of the two phratries, takes place on a basis of strict reciprocity: each gift elicits a counter-gift of equal value, as is especially not:icea'ble when the groom's family spend the very money they have just received on a counter~gift of foodstuffs. We have already quoted a saying which demands the equality of gifts given and received (supra, p. 66). The significance of this reciprocity is so well-known that we need not enlarge on it here 1511.

Another striking trait is the conspicuous bestowing of largesse. The distribution of presents to all who are invited to the engagement feast is one instance of this, but a far more spectacular case is furnished by the mandirikan panghulu custom. This has the characteristics of a real potlatch, in the great value of the gifts offered (horses, buffaloes - even if in actual fact they are replaced by sums of money of only a fraction of their value); and in the vaunting of one' liberality and importance in being able to part with such valuables, this behaviour being markedly in contrast with the otherwise so decorous and self-effacing demeanour of all participants at the ceremony. The very name of the ceremony may be an indication of its potlatch character. It certainly is not appropriate to its role as part of the wedding ceremonies, but would seem to refer to the distribution of wealth that is needed if one is to acquire a social rank, each ascent in the scale of dignities being accompanied by new distributions, the "classical" potlatch, in fact 160. (A highly institutionalised form of potlatch ritual coupled with prestige grading persists in South Sumatra, among the Lampongs).

'IPotlatch is the typical ritual of the moieties" 161, and the potlatch has been described as a combat 162, a battle of gifts. This antagonistic aspect of the meeting of the two moieties, or, as we prefer to say in the present case, phratries, is even more apparent at Negri Sembilan weddings (or perhaps the descriptions of the ceremonies there only bring out this aspect better), but Minangkabau also had a form of marriage in which the spirit of rivalry was very much to the fore: the kawin djo galanggang, or "marriage with a cock-pit". As cockfighting had already for a long time been prohibited 'by the Netherlands Indies authorities, and was only practiced surreptitiously, this form of marriage, too, has long been extinct, and descriptions of it are few and incomplete. Cock-fights were held either purely as amusement (sabueng di-baZai, "cock-fight in the council house"), or as accompaIl!iment to private feasts given by people of high social rank(sabueng adat, "traditional cock-fight"). They also formed part of the ritual of house-building, the harvest festival and the construction of an irrigation-channeI 163• When it accompanied a marriage, the procedure apparently was as follows: the close relatives of a marriageable girl ordered a cock-pit to be built, and then let it be known that suitors could take part in the fight to be held there. Several days were then devoted to cock-fights, each slrltor bringing his own cock, and wagering great sums on the results. During this period the girl's relatives were enable to make their choice of a suitable husband among the gamblers 164.

The whole arrangement rather reminds one of the swayamwara of the Indian epics, in which the hushand for the marriageahle girl was chosen from several suitors on account of his skillfor instance, when SUa marries Rama 165, or Draupadi the five Pandawas 166.

Now one will notice that there are many points on which we are left in uncertainty: who were invited to the cock-fights? What decided the choice of a suita1ble husband? Were the cock-fights themselves a gaming-match omnium contra omnes, or did the gambling cock-owners group themselves into suku or Zareh or in some other way? We even do not know for how long the actual practice of the kawin djo galanggang persisted, for we only know it as it occurs in literature, Where it embodies certain social idea'ls; but eye-witness accounts are completely lacking. In spite of all this vagueness, some things do emerge rather clearly. It was'a privilege of the .people of rank, the urang baie', only the select could participate in the combat ]f;j. It was an occasion for frequently tremendous expenditUTe. In the old Minangkabau kaba, and even in modern Minangkabau historical novels, the "nobleman" returning home bankrupt from a far-off cock-fight is quite a cliche figure 168. It these things remind us of a potlatch, so too does the bearing of the combatants during the sabueng itself. A good eye-witness account comes not from Minangkabau itself, but from Celebes, where Mat 1: h e s describes how "before the fight each participant praises his own cock in high-flown language" 169. I think that for an interpretation of the gaZanggang ceremony we may agree with H e I d. Referring to the gambling scenes in the Mahabharata, he explains that the supernatural ris'k of the potlatch is expressed, and conventionalized, in games of chance and other forms of rivalry 170. So also in Annam a gril's initiation into the marriageable slate is accompanied by a game of chess with living "men", by competitions between a boy and a girl in eloquence, catching animals, etc. 171. This role was fulfilled in Minangkabau by the cock-fight. An aid to understanding the significance of the sabueng in Minangkabau culture might be furnished by considering it as one of the ritual batHes which accompany rites de passage, but this would surpass the scope of our present study. What we would like to point out is the fact that cock-fights are affairs which concern the entire community: they are held when works are undertaken that benefit the nagari as a Whole (harvest etc.). Also a cock-pit is one of the features without Which a nagari wouLd not be complete. A wellknown proverb says that each nagari should be babalai, bamusadji', baZabueh, bagaZanggang, batapi tampe' mandi 17!!, i. e. '~provided with a council-hall, a mosque, pathways, a cock-pit and a bathing-place". Von H 'e i n e -Gel d ern has also stressed the ritual character of the galangang : it is often surrounded by batu sandaran, "support stones', such as also feature in other sacred places in South-East Asia 173; and the significance of a cock-fight largely lies in its being an occasion for the total community to gather on sacred ground.

Like the cock-fight on the occasion of a wedding, there is one other ceremony in which the entire nagari resolves itself into two mutually opposed parties, and which, incidentally, forms a remarkable link with Negri Sembilan custom. In a very recent article on autobiographies of Indonesians (BKI commemoration number, 1951), Professor D r ewe s devoted several pages to a review of one of the liveliest and most attractive specimens of this genre, Muhamad Radjab's Semasa Ketjil Dikampung ("Childhood in the Village"), which was published in 1950 by Balai Pustaka in Djakarta. On pp. 172 seq. of this book we are given a description of a mock battle between two halves of a nagari, called karnpung, the built-up village area, and bukit, the outlying hill district. The field of battle was the yard of the balai adat; the pathway leading to the steps of the balaicut the field in half, and was itself neutral territory, on which the village chief and his assistants took up their positions. The native name for the custom is badunie, what may be translated simply as "merry-making".

One evening both parties appeared there in fancy dress, the bukit party dressed as soldiers and as "Arabs" (wearing the tarbush), the kampung men as sailors and as women. Both parties had ·bands playing and set off fireworks, and greeted the arrival of their opponents with loud cries of "The adversary is coming, the enemy is coming". They then each left the nagari, by tihe west and the east side respectively, then, making a full turn, reassembled on the balai courtyard. The subsequent happenings clearly demonstrate the rivalry between the two groups.

Both, still in fancy dress, started to cut capers and to perform all kinds of tricks. The group whose clowning drew the greatest number of onlookers was considered to 'have gained a victory at this stage of the proceedings; but the final outcome was decided ina firework contest. Both parties had, long before this feast, invested the money they had earned that year as tradesmen in foreign parts (the marantauperiod, of which we have already spoken) in stupendous quantities of fireworks. The last act of the contest now consisted of the letting-off of these fireworks, which were brought to the scene of the battle ·by crates at a time. At last kampung had used up all its supply, and had to admit defeat; bukit gained a resounding victory by keeping up the good wor:k for another full hour, until five o'clock in the morning.

Now there are several points on which precise information is lacking, as the author purposely refrains from comment or explanation, but only describes the night's hap'penings as seen by a boy of ~bout ten years old. Still, it permits us to draw this important conclusion, that in the nineteen-twenties a part, at least, of Minangkabau still knew manifestations of dualistic rivalry of a definite potlatch character. The dualistic opposition is obvious: "village" is contrasted with "hill", soldiers with sailors, west wibh east, and each group calls the other the "enemy" (musuh). We also note the conspicuous expenditure and waste, typical of a potlatch: the year's earnings all serve to 'buy fireworks, fantastic costumes for the men, and ornaments for the women - the women of both groups attended the feat with sometimes three bracelets on each arm, and with many rings on their fingers - and the whole proceeding hinges on the question which party had spent the greatest amount of money for the occasion.

We do not know wihe,ther this custom was, in one form or another, widely practised, or whether it was confined to the place where the author observed it, Tandjung Alai, in the luha" Tanah Data. 11 would be of even more interest to know whether the contrast of kampung and bukit coincided with that of Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago. What we can say is that we are faced ·by a very vigorous type of dualism, and that its manifestation as an opposition 'between kampung and bukit (which probably was an aspect of the true .phratry-dualism) has perpetuated itself, as willl be shown later on, in Negri Sembilan to the virtual exclusion of the Koto-Piliang - Bodi-Tjaniago dichotomy.

If the cock-fight and the badunie are to be seen as a ritual during which the nagari is split into two opposing halves, there was also another institution which had its foundation in a dualism, and probalbly in phratry-antagonism, but which overstepped the !boundaries of the village; I mean ,the parang adat, the "customary war", or parang batu, "war of stones". Information on this custom is even more incomplete than on the sabueng, but we at least know this much, that frequently regular ,battles were waged 'between the inhabitants of adjoining nagari which belonged to different lareh 174. Now our informant, W est e n e n k, here uses lareh in the sense of federation of nagari, but in the footnote he makes it clear that such federations were generally sa-adat, belonging to the same adat, so that fights 'between two federations may well 'be considered as fights 'between the two phratries, Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago, adat Katumanggungan and adat Parapatih. The parang adat was subject to definite rules : it was always fought on the strips of neutral ground between the nagari, the tanah kubu or tanah radjo 175; the panghulu of both parties looked on from a raised earthen wall alongside the arena 176, but did not themselves join in what was practically always a bloodless battle, the antagonists hurling stones and other missiles at each other at long range, or firing off 'blank cartridges.

Goldsmiths were neutral, and in the days of the Minangkabau kings they or their envoys could stop the battle at will by planting a royal yellow umibrella on the tanah radjo. The fact that the two sides never really came to grips makes it plain that W est e n e n k's view, that the parang adat were "safety-valves for a flaring-up of passions, or mere manifestations of hooliganism", is a'bsurd. It was obviously a ceremonial mocrk-combat, and in all probability one between the two phratl'ies. The role of the ,king here is of great interest, and will be further discussed in the next chapter, Unfortunately we do not know on what occasions such battles took place, but it is clear that, just as the clash of the phratries at a wedding cemented the unity of the nagari, so the ritual fight of the nagari was a manifestation of the coming-together, always antagonistically and yet always complementarily, of the two lareh which together make up the totality of the Alam Minangkabau.

* The umbrella used as symbol of sovereignty.

~ 5. Double descent.

So far we have come to know 'Minangk~bau social organisation as a typical matriliny, perhaps even quite an e~treme example of one, as it even to a certain extent sacrifices the nuclear family to the demands of the matrilineal descent group. In view of these facts Lev i - S t r a u s s can cite Minangkalbau as an exceptional case, as having a regime harmonique rnatrilineaire 177; and when M 0 ret & D a v y, after summing up the eight characteristics of matriliny as given by Sid n e y H art I and, say: "Ces caracteres evidemment sont theoriques et ils ne se rencontrent a l'etat pur dans aucun clan uterin" 170i, we can say that this last clause is incorrect, as all eight characteristics do in fact occur in Minangkabau: matrilineal descent, matrilineal clans, clan-exogamy, vendetta as a duty of the entire clan, dan authority theoretically in hands of the "mother", but rarely exercised by her in practice, authority of the mother's brother, matrilocal marriage or visits of the husband to his wife, succession of dignities from mo-<br to si-so *. Nevertheless I think that even in Minangkabau we can see that patrilineal descent is recognized too; that, although at present the importance attached to patriliny and the function it fulfills is minimal, yet it formerly was of greater weight; and that we can still observe traces of true dOUible descent, which system affords an explanation of some phenomena which must remain inexplicable from an exclusively matrilineal standpoint.

One example of an occasion on which both matriline ages and patrilineages appear to 'be recognized as such is the swearing of the sumpah djo piri', the most sacred Minangkabau oath. Oaths are an important element in Minangk~bau justice, and, although perjury in a court of justice. i. e. after swearing an oath on the Koran, is not considered a serious misdemeanour, a far greater value is attached to the sumpah djo piri', and such an oath is not lightly sworn. Their purpose is generally to testify to the innocence of an accused person. or, as is the case of the great oath to which we referred, to claim a piece of land and express one's certainty that one's own claim is just and the disputed plot does not belong to any other party. As part of the oath, the swearer invokes a curse on himself and his descendants in case his claim should be unjust.

There are three traditional oaths, the "oath with the great-grandchildren", the "oath on a sacred place", and the sumpah djo piri', what We s ten e n k translates as "oath with remote relatives" 180. Ballot calls it sumpah djo piring 181, but as this would give the nonsensical meaning "oath with saucers", piring must sumly be a mistake for piri'. This most awe-inspiring oath takes place on Friday, in front of a mosque p<~. Those who swear the oath stand within a charmed circle of leaves of the sugar-palm, and invoke curses on all their kin if their claim be unjust 183. Now the remarkable fact is that the participants in this ceremony are explicitly said to ,belong to both the male and the female lineages - this we read in Ballot's report 1M. This not very clear expression "male and female lineages" may, of course, refer to a man's own (matrilineal) clan and his father's, i. e. the clan that stands in bride-ta,ker relationship to his own. There is, however, no reason why that clan should be drawn into the dispute that in no way concerns it ; and as the participation of such a elan could be easily ascertained, one might expect other authors . - in the first place We s ten e n k and S t i b b e - to have mentioned this fact. None of them do, however, and therefore there seems to be a reasonable chance that the expression "male and female lineages" may mean what it says; lineages reckoned by patrilineal and matrilineal descent. W est e n e n k is even less precise, and only notes that those taking 'part "represent the entire family" ; but he does say that the principal actor in the drama is the "head of the family" (i. e. kapaZo parui') that claims the land, and he is joined in the magic circle ,by his tarueh and piri', translated as "close and remote relatives", each represented by one man and woman. Now "close and remote relatives" is of course also a very vague term, which makes it clear that W est e n e n Ie himself never investigated who exactly were classed as such. The literal meaning of the words tarueh and piri' is quite different. tarueh meaning the sum of money one staikes in a wager or bids at an auction, and piri' the amount by which one's opponent overbids the tarueh. Therefore, sumpah djo piTi' might 'be literally translated as "oath with a surplus" ; -and the words tarueh and piTi', if applied to groups of relatives, as We s ten e n k says they are, are then used figuratively. This being so, it is possible that nowadays the 'Minangkabau themselves do not attach a sharplydefined meaning to what maybe a traditional circumlocution. Even the slightly more explicit information given by B a II 0 t, and the fact that each group, tarueh and piTi', has to be represented 'by one man and one woman, not bring us very much further. A quite striking fact does emerge when we enquire upon which individuals the curse is invoked; they are: the swearer of the oath himself, ana', kamanakan, "child" (or son), "si chi:ld" (or si-son), grandchildren and great-grandchildren 185. If it was purely an affair of the matri-lineage no man could extend the consequences of his oath to his own children and grandchildren, but here Iboth his closest matrilineal (kamanakan) and patrilineal (children, grandchildren andgreat-grandchildTen) are involved. Here the objection might be raised that the words tjutju and piui', grandchild and great-grandchild, are used in a "generation" sense, so as to comprise also si-da children and si-da-da-children, i. e. grandnephews and great-grand-nephews and -nieces. The fact remains that none of our informants give this meaning for tjutju and piui', all limiting it to the meaning of (great) grandchildren.

Altogether we shall not insist on the sumpah djo piTi' being recognized as a clear case of double descent, but only as a ceremony where there do seem to be indications of 'both descent lines :being brought into play. If this conclusion is acce1pted, we might add that it is pro'bably no coincidence that the recognition of patrilineal descent, so weak as to be almost non-existant in present-day Minangkabau, crops up 'again precisely in a ceremony which the Minangkabau themselves hold in high veneration as an -age-old institution, and which is, as much as possible, preserved in its ancient form.

In societies with double descent inheritance genera'l1y also follows the two separate lines, some goods 'being inherited matrilineally, others according to patriliny. :In Minang.kabau there is a proverb which, although not clearly contrasting two types of goods, does distinguish between the two possible modes of inheritance, and makes it clear that both occur in Minangkabau. The proverb is: sako dati mama', warih dari bapa'186, "sako is inherited from the mama', waTih from the father". Now the question is : what is meant by sako and waTih ? Sako is a shortened form of pusako, that we have already met with as denoting ancestral prop~rty, in the expressions harto pusako and tanah pusako. Warih is derived from Arabic warith = heir, 'So one might object that the proverb simply contrasts the traditional Minangka:bau form of inheritance with the alien form introduced 'by Muslim law, but this would be an over-simplification. The 'Minangkabau themselves are perfectly aware of the distinction between aden and shara', ancestral custom and canon law, and if the proverb only meant to distinguish between the two, it is very likely that the IMinangkabau school-teacher, who comments on this and other sayings, woul have said so. The explanation he actually gives is: The adat rank of a mama' Ibecomes the rank of his kamanakan also; if their father is also a man of rank and standing (urang patui'), then these kamanakan become still better (bertambah bai'), so that one calls it 'gilding the lily' (literally: 'silver-plating steel'). He then goes on to state that such men are much sought after as bridegrooms, and are generally very well aware of their own high price on the marriage-market.

As one will have observed, the terms sako and warih do not manifestly distinguish between two types of goods, as each makes their possessor an urang patui' or baie' ; terms literally meaning "decent people", 'but always indicating the Minangkabau "nobility" - van de r Too r n translates: "man of property, man of rank". We do, however, find two modes of inheritance contrasted, the patrilinear (dari bapa') and the matrilinear (dari mama'); and this recognition of two lines of descent in matters of inheritance is quite different from the rules of Muslim law which might be suggested 'by the word warih, and appears to Ibe a native Minangkabau concept. The fact that one of the descent lines bears a name taken from the IMuslim shara' need not argue against the concept itself being native: after all, the very word adat, used to denote the whole complex of customs, rules, beliefs and etiquette handed down by tradition from immemorial times is also Arabic, but what is designated 'by the word certainly is not.

There are some customs that are in my opinion explicable only if we see them as part of a double"unilateral system. One of these customs is that a djurai, a branch of the parui', may only constitute itself as a separate parui' in the fifth generation - ko' limo kali turun - reckoned from the ancestress which this djurai still had in common with the other djurai of the parui' 187.

W ilk e n refers to the same rule, only considering it as it affects inheritance rather than social organisation as such, when he says that harto pusako, the ancestral property of the parui', may only be divided up into harto pusako of the rumah, branches of the parui', ko' limo kali turun 1 H~. It is, therefore, a highly important rule, as it affects the harto pusako, the fundamental store of wealth of the community, which also comprises greatly venerated heirlooms; it also affects the position of the head of the new parui', and it is of great influence on marriage regulations: as in actual practice the parui' is generally the exogamous unit, when a djurai (rumahJ becomes a separate parui'. this means for the men of this new group that the girls of the parent parui', whom they were formerly unable to marry, now become legitimate potential wives. In view of the many implications of this fivegeneration rule it is not surprising that a Minangkarbau work on native customs, the "Kitab tjurai-paparan adat-Iembaga Alam Minangkabau", draws up a whole table of numerical correspondences, in which the five generations are equated with the five parts of the communal dwelling, the five components of the universe, and other quinquepartitions 189.

Now it is interesting to note that Lev i - S t r a us s cites two cases in which a branching-off of a genealogical unit from a larger body can occur, but only in each fifth generation, viz. with the Manchu and in the "systeme hindou" H)O. They show striking similarities with the Minangkabau custom, but Lev i - S t r au s s describes them from a rather different angle: before the fission took place, the undivided genealogical group was the exogamous unit, but after fission, the offshoots. In this way it is possible to describe what has taken place as a limit set to the rule of exogamy, and this is indeed the way Lev i - S t r a us s puts it: "la regle d'exogamie Shang s'arretait apres la cinquieme generation" 191. When there is also a rule operative that the fission is not only permitted, but even obligatory in every nth generation (as is the case among the Yakut, Kazak and Buriat, the "n" among them being 9, 7, and 9 respectively) it is clear that there is a regular reduction of exogamy, a "rythme d'extinction exogamique" H)~, which Lev i - S t ra u s s elsewhere calls a pMnomene de periodicite J!I::. He explains the origin of this periodicite when discussing the continental Asiatic types of social organisation. In his study of the Burma-China-Siberia area he comes to the conclusion that there the social structures are changing (among the Naga and the Manchu) or did change (in China during the proto·historical Shang era) from a circulating to a symmetrical connu'bial type. The symmetrical connubh''Jl causes the clans - that used to be classes in an asymmetrical conIldhium - to split up into intermarrying halves. That this process is of recent date and still in an etat de devenir is indicated by the restrictions imposed on the splitting-up by the five-generation rule lU~.

Now we are loth to accept this explanation as universally applicable. For Minangkabau at least such an interpretation, based on a transient developmental stage, seems unsatisfactory, and we prefer to seek for an explanation of the periodicite in the nature of the social system itself. For one thing, Lev i - S t r a us s' interpretation fails to eX'plain why the splitting-up may only take place every five (c.q. 7 or 9) generations; for another, it is not proved that the newly formed units actually enter into constant symmetrical connubial relations with one another.

If we turn to Diagram VIII, Chapter IV, which summarises the working of a double-unilateral system with four clans taking part in an asymmetrical connuhium, we see that successive generations of members of one matrilineal clan he long to each patrilineal clan in turn. Each matri-clan circulates, as it were, through the ranks of the patriclans until they have each had their turn. The same combination of matriand patri-clan recurs after as many generations as there are unilateral clans participating, in this case after four. The fifth generation reproduces the type of the first. This, in our opinion, is the explanation, and indeed the only satisfactory explanation, of the situation that obtains in Minangk3'bau. The woman of the fif.th generation equals the ancestress of five generations back, and only she may therefore assume the role of becoming an ancestress of a new independent unit, a parui'. Furthermore, before the fifth generation, the cycle was not yet complete; a breaking-off the connubial process during that period would damage the integration of the entire community in its two aspects, patrilineal and matrilineal. The five-generation rule, or, to use Lev i - S t r a u s s' more inclusive formula, the periodical extinction of exogamy, is so firmly anchored in Minangkabau consciousness, and also occurs in cultures of such variety outside Indonesia, that it cannot be dismissed as a mere arbitrary convention. No conclusive ex'planation appears to be forthcoming if we confine ourselves to studying the unilateral descent groups, but as soon as we consider the Minangkabau social system as possibly having doubledescent, a perfectly satisfying result is gained. (It might be worth while considering whether, for instance, the Dobu way of reckoning descent, where ",back of the fourth generation is an ancestress common to all the susu of the village" 19a, is to be seen in a similar context. Dobu social structure has many doU'ble-unilateral .traits).

An element in the same complex is probably to 'be found in the adat sansako. As a matter of fact Lev i -S t r a u s s already connects the two. He refers to the Petchenegs, where succession to the post of clan chief was not 'by direct (viz. patrilineal) descent, but through the collateral lineages, a chief being succeeded tby his cousin or cousin's son, so as to avoid a perpetual inheritance of the chieftaincy by only one family of the clan. Lev i -S t r a u s s ,tentatively explains this by supposing a rule of periodicite which caused the clan to split up into SUb-clans as far as marriage regulation was concerned, while maintaining its "political" unity 196. Then the leadership of the clan would !be exercised 'by each sub-clan in succession.

This supposition is torne out by what we see in 'Minangkabau, where with adat sansako there is a similar rotation of functions through the subdivisions of a larger unit, 'but there is more to it than this_

We have seen how in Minangkabau succession can conform to either of two procedures, 'primogeniture or adat sansako. In the first case it is the oldest sister's oldest son, the "oldest" parui' of the kampueng, etc. who are entitled to the inherited dignities 197; in the second, a function will be claimed by all djurai of a parui' 198, all parui' of a kampueng 199, and all kampueng of a suku in succession 200. This is proba'bly a re-interpretation in exclusively matrilineal terms of what occurs in the same double-unilateral system we have just dealt with. There, the men of, say, clan C belong in successive generations to patricIans 1, 2, 3, and 4, and this also holds good for the clan chiefs. In each subsequent generation a clan-chief of a matri-clan 'belongs to a different patri-clan. At the same time the rule of primogeniture will probably have 'been in vigour, a natural manifestation of Minangkabau differentiation between older and younger members of the same generation - as manifested ty the use of separate terms for older and for younger sibling, for fa-br older and younger than father, etc. -and of the respect shown tby the younger to the elder. As ,patrilineal descent lost much of its significance and came to ,be almost overlooked, the fact that successive chiefs .belonged to different combinations of the same matri-clans with varyingpatri-clans may well have ,been re-stated as a rule that successive chiefs should ibelong to different subdivisions of the same matri-clan, that is to say, adat sansako arose. Where the principle of primogeniture within the unilateral descent-group outweighed in importance the process of double-unilateral com'binations between clans, this gave rise to the other mode of succession.

If we Ibaulk at this introduction of double descent to explain the adat sansako, and seek an explanation in "pure" matriliny, the only acceptable interpretation would be the idea of equity: all sU'bdivisions should have equal powers. As we have seen, this interpretation is actually given by the present-day inhabitants of Negri Sembilan ; but we have also already given as our opinion that it savours too much of a rationalisation, and is so foreign to the important Minangka'bau (and Negri Sembilan) ideas on the superiority of the elder member of a generation and the prior rights of the most "ancient" families, that we cannot accept it as an explanation.

Even at present, if we look beneath the surface, we now and then notice that not all consciousness of patrilineal descent, and of the contrastbetween the two unilateral principles, is absent. One of the ways in which a feeling for patrilineal descent could 'become manifest is in matters of inheritance. We have, earlier in this §, seen this in the rule sako dari marna', warih dari bapa', but also more material goods can, in fact, be inherited by a son from his father. What goods they precisely are is not (perhaps we should say: no longer), clearly defined by custom, and may therefore give rise to bad feeling and tension between a man's sons and his sister's sons; we shall treat of this more fully in Chapter VU,but we may 'point out here that this tension between two forms of inheritance is not only a recent development, arising from contact with Muslim and modern European practice. K 0 r n expressly states that to neglect the father-son relationship in matters of inheritance is not in accordance with the adat, the traditionally-based custom ~Ol. Legendary tales, too, do not accept a purely matrilineal form of inheritance and succession (adat karnanakan) as a self-evident fact that needs no further explanation, but definitely contrast it with the patrilineal mode, and consider the Minangka'bau adat a compromise between ·the two. The most frequently occurring version of the story ~O~ tells how the two ancestors, trying to launch a !boat, could not manage it, as the keel stuck in the ground. They thereupon told their sons to lie down on the slipway so as the serve as rollers over which the boat could ,be wheeled down to the water. They refused to risk their lives for this purpose, but Parapatih's and Katumanggungan's sisters' sons readily volunteered for the task. To reward this self-sacrificing act Tjate Bilang Pandai, the wonder-working smith who accompanied the two ancestors, instituted the adat kamanakan. This is one version; another, related 'by the authority of 1715 whom we had occasion to quote in the preceding ~, says that it was Parapatih who ordained that inheritance and succession should no longer be the exclusive prerogative of one's own children (Berpatty ontnam regt der erfflatinge en opvolginge d'eygen kinders), but be shared between own children and sister's children (de susters kinderen met d'eygen kinderen gelykelijck sullen erven en delen) 203.

This theme of interplay and tension between the two types of linear descendants, typified in the persons of the ana' and the kamanakan, constantly recurs in Minaugkabau life and lore. When reading a collection of Minangkabau proverbs and sayings with commentary by a present-day tMinangkabau, one is struck by the number of such sayings ,that refer to a conflict between ana' and kamanakan, the unpleasantness such a conflict causes, and the discretion with which one must try to appease the two parties. We shall quote one or two examples 204 :

Bab 26, proverb nr. 23. Tjantjang aie tidak' putuih, artinja : kalau basalisih orang nan bakarib, bakirabat atau ana' dengan kamanakan, i. e. :

"Water will not break, even if you chop it; this is applied to quarrels between relatives, or ,between children and sister's children".

Proverb nr. 43. Ba' mahelo rambui' dalam tapueng, rambui' djangan putuih, tapueng djangan taserah, ar,tinja: saperti ana' basalisih dengan kamanakan, disalasaikan sopaja dapat kebailkan, i. e. :

"Like drawing a hair out of flour, so that the hair does not break and the flour is not scattered; meaning: Uke when a child has a quarrel with a sister's child, it should be made up so that they can be reconciled."

On p. 43 we again meet with discord between ana' and kamanakan, where it is cited as a case that needs to 'be treated very circumspectly.

In spite of all possibilities of strife, ana' and kamanakan yet remain closely related !!O\ and in fact the expression "ana' atau kamanakan" is used to denote one's nearest relatives 20(;. This also appears from the proverb-collection, for instance in nr. 60: ...... saperti radja dalam negri anaknja atau kamanakannja membuat salah dihukum djuga ...... , i. e. :

...... "like a king who punishes a wrongdoer in his country, even though it be his own child or sister's child."

Altogether Minangk~bau social structures shows quite an amount of traits which are in contrast to a rigidly and exclusively matrilinear organisation. A fuller understanding of many of these traits is still desirable, and it seems likely that a study of South Sumatran sociopolitical organisation would greatly aid such an understanding. South Sumatra, with its kambil-anak marriage, its partition of children equally over the "families" of father and mother, and many other manifestation of double-unilateral structure * should be a territory where the working of double descent is more clearly observable than in areas with pronounced unilateral stress, such as Minangkabau.

Another interesting fact to bear in mind is that the societies to the north of Minangka:bau, the Bata'k and Atjeh, which are predominantly patrilineal, show cer,tain undeniably matrilineal features. Although it would be rash to draw any definite conclusions before a thorough re-examination of these societies has taken place, we may tentatively suggest that many facts in Sumatran social structure appear to point in one and the same direction, viz. that Minangkabau should not Ibe considered as a matrilineal island in the midst of surrounmng patrilineally organized societies, but the various Sumatran social systems may prove to be 'based on a double-unilateral organisation, whioh assumed a patrilineal stress in the Atjeh and Batak territories, and a matrilineal stress in Minangkabau, while the communities in South Sumatra show the slightest preponderance of one unilateral principle and the clearest form of double descent.

Weare inclined to think that patrilineal descent in Minangkabau was formerly of greater importance .than it is at Ipresent, for now it has been thoroughly forced into the background. There was, however, one field in Minangka'bau socio-political structure where until fairly recently patrilineal organisation came into its own: the institution of the Monarchy. A study of the position of the King in the Minangkabau World should make it much clearer to us how the dOUble-unilateral system functioned, and it may also give us some inkling of the circumstances under which the far-reaching matrilinear preponderance came about.

Hartland himself does not add the restricting clause' ;", although one would get that impression from reading M 0 ret & D a v y.

* N'en deplaise M u r doc k, who clearly distinguishes thf'm, as temporary forms of bilateral descent, from real double descent 207.

Chapter references.

1 Will inc k, 363. Will inc k, 78l. a Will inc k, 370; Be sseIi n g, 349. • see Van 0 sse n b rug g e n (1), 27. Jouslra (2),106,128. 0' Will inc k, 84. Will inc k, 170. • Will inc k, 362. • W jll inc k, 362 seq. 10 Will inc k, 25l. n S c h li fer 40, 42. 12 Van V 0 11 e n h 0 v e n, 38. 13 P.a u W, 4. H Adalrechlbundels I, 94. I. Ballo I (1 ), 343. 10 Lapre (2), 12. 17 J 0 us t r a (2), 114. IX Y.a n Vo 11 e n 'h 0 ve n, 255. "" S c h li fe r, 52. 20 Joustra (2), 116. 21 Will inc k, 218. "" Westenenk (1),220. ~3 Van R () n k e 1 & Pam 0 n - I j a k, 416. 2' Adatrechtbundels XI, 116. ., Adatrechtbundels XI, 121. 26 .L e y d 5, 403. 27 Adatrechtbundels XI, 116. • , Adatrechlbundels XI, 119, 124. 2. Van Ron k e 1 & Pam 0 n - :tj a k, 416. ao Joustra (2),118. 31 Vet h, 186. 3. W e'S ten e n k, (1), 103. 33 Adatrechtbundels XXVII, 335. .. Will inc k, 524. 35 Verkerk Pis t () r ius, 48. 30 J 0 ush a (2), 131. • 7 Will inc k, 622 . as Adatrecht!bundels XXII, 307. •• Wilken (2), 56 . •• Will inc k, 777 .

41 J '0 U s t r a (2), 13l. " Wilken (2),227. 43 V e r k e r k Pis tor ius, 45. H Will inc k, 776. " Adatrechtbundels XI, 120. " We s ten 'e n k (1), 104, " Wilken (2),54; Verkerk Pis tor ius, 44; Will inc k, 777. " V,e r k e r k Pis tor ius, 92. •• Vet h, 273. :," S c h li fer, 52. u 1 Van V 0 11 e n h 0 v e n, 254. :,2 Will inc k, 80l. " Ballot (1),340. 54 Lap r e (2), 10. ." e.g. Adatrechtbundels XI, 139; Will inc k, 431. 50 Will inc k, 431. .7 'H a r reb 0 m e e, 1284. 5. Hamerster, 1459. •• de R()oy (1),644; Ley d s, 41l. 00 W i 11 inc k, 452. 01 Col e, 23. 02 cf. W i 11 inc k, 45l. o. Be sse 1 i n g, 349. 64 Willinc,k, 451. o. Ball 0 t (1), 346 . 00 Loeb (3),44; (cf. Willin c k, 370). 6'i van E e r d e, 394 . o. Ka'ba Tjindue Malo, 41. 60 Ka,ba Mama' Si Helong, 55. 70 Encyc10paedie van Nederlandsch-Indie, 749. " Lev i - S t r a u s s, 488. 7. Wirllinck, 453; Loeb 0), 656; P r ins, 253. 73 Ve t h, 293. .. van E e r d e, 394; van Ron k e 1 & Pam 0 n I j a k, 426. 75 Fischer (2), 111. 7. Korn (1),324. " Rassers (3), 544; Duyvendak 0), 126; Fischer (2), 110. '" F i s c her (2), 110-112. 70 Korn (1),311. ~o Korn (1),313. ~1 Korn (1),323. ~2 Korn (1),312. xa K 0 r n ( 1), 334. Loeb (3),43. 85 Loeb (1), 655. ,. W i 11 inc k, 372. • , Van Ron k e 1 & Pam 0 n - tj a k, 450. Col e, 24. ,. Adatrechtbundels XX, 144. no Pauw, 17. • , Will inc k, 458; van E e r d ,e, 391, 449. U2 t e r H a a r, 201. .8 WillI inc k, 121; Nets c her, 51-68, etc. • , J 0 u s t r a (2), 106. ., van V o'll e n h 0 v e n, 251. "" Westenenk (7). U7 Vet h, 183 . • , W i 11 i n ck, 150; AdatrechtbundeIs XI, 131. 99 We s ten e n k (7). 100 Adatrechtbundels XXIII, 284. 101 Ley d s, 411. 102 de Rooy 0), 644. 103 Will inc k, 100. ]0' Westenenk (2),238. 105 Will inc k, 88. ]06 Adatrechtbundels XXVII, 323; Damste (2),337. 107 Will inc k, 91. lOS Wilken (2),34. 101) Will inc k, 265. 110 de Roo yO), 644. ]11 Will inc k, 100. 112 Adatrechtbundels XX, 160. 113 de Rooy 0),644. ]H S. M ii 11 e r, Bijdragen tot de kennis van Sumatra (Leiden, 1846),

80. '" H a r reb 0 m e e, 1284. 116 IP r z y 1 u s 'k i, 35. 117 J 0 us t r a (1), 542, 554 .. "" H. K ern III, 69 seq. 110 He 1 d, 298. 120 Will inc k, 121. 121 N e,t s c:h e r, 47. 122 S. M ii 11 e r, loco cit., 79; Will inc k, 22; S tap e 1, 463. 123 Westenenk (2),238 . 12<4 H 0 sma D, 1, 2. '"' Will inc k, 121. 1:!6 S. M i.i 11 e r, loco cit., 80. 120 Ka'ba Sutan Manangkeran, 210, 270 . 12. Net s c her, 58, 51. 129 Ley d s, 395. 130 Net s c her, 52, 68. Ham e r s t e r, 1455. 132 H 0 sma n, 11. ]33 Westenenk (1),173 . note 1. 181 Ley d s, 400; S c h a fer; 60. 185 K i e 1 s t r a (2), 136. 136 H -0 sma D, 9. 137 Westenenk (1), 115. ]38 Adatrechtbundels XX, 102. 130 MS School of Oriental & African Studies 46942, 13, 14. "0 Will inc k, 813. H] Humphreys (2),13,15. H. J 0 u s t r a (2), 180. m Westenenk (1), 122; Adatrechtbundels I, 114. ]" Ley d s, 400. 1 Hi S tap e 1, 464. "" Ley d s, 392. 117 Lapre (1),3. '" MHitaire Memorie Padang, 58_ 1'" Adatrechtbundels XXXV, 493_ ]:'0 Joustra (2),4. ];,I B a 11 0 t (1), 345. 102 van E e r d e, 393- seq. ".3 van E e r d e, 399.

16. van E e r d e, 401. 16. van E e r d e, 412. 16' van E e r d e, 422. 1&7 van E e r d e, 430, 436. 10' van.o sse n b rug g e n (3), 65. 16. M a us s. leo Boa S, 342, seq. 181 Rassers (2),379. 18. L 0 C her, 82. 108 Rookmaker, 9. 1.. Wi 11 inc k, 479. leG Ram a y a n I, 66, 67 (p. 106 seq.). ,., M a h a b h a rat a I, 175, - seq. (p. 713 seq.); cf. He 1 d, 33. ,.7 We s ten e n k (6). , •• Iskander (3). 168' Mat t :h e s, 123. 170 He 1 d, 248. m H e 1 d, 255; N guy e n van Huye n, 211. 173 S c h a f·e r, 39. 171 von Heine-Geldern (1), 301. 17< Westenenk (1),93. 176 Joustra (2), 113. 170 Will inc k, 119. 177 Lev i - S t r a 'll s s, 119. 178 M {) ret & D a v y, 49. 17. H art 1 and, 34.

18. S t i ,b b e, 225; We s ten e n k (1), 179. mBa 11 0 t (2), 22. m S t i b b e, 226. 1'3 We5tenenk (1), 179. '" BaIl 0 t (2), 22. 1'" S t i b b e, 226. 1>. Van Ron k e 1 & Pam 0 n - t ja k, 427. 18' Will inc k, 351, 362. m Wilken (2),55. 1.9 see ter Haar, 155. 190 Lev i - S t r a u 5 5, 482, 489. 191 Lev i - S t r a u s 5, 482. lill:! Lev i - S t r a u s s, 571. Hl3 Lev i - S t r a u s s, 510. 19. Lev i - S t r a u s s, 483. ,.5 For tun e, 30,31. , .. Lev i - S t r a u s s, 571. 197 P a u w, 9. 198 Will inc k, 801. 19. van V 0 11 e n h 0 v e n, 254. 200 Ve t h, 273. 201 Korn (1),315. 20' Net s c her, 61; G r a a f1 and, 41. S tap e 1, 465. 20< H 0 sma n, Bab 26. 20. H 0 sma n, 23. 20. H 0 sma n, 60. 207 Murdock (2),45.

CHAPTER VI.

MINANGKABAU POLITICAL ORGANISATION.

As we saw in Chapter HI the usually held point of view is, that a study of Minangka'bau kingship can hardly be of any use to eXJplain the socio-political structure, as the kings were of alien origin (usually being called either "Hindus" or "Hindu-Javanese") and always kept apart from the main current of Minangkabau life. They were mere excrescences on the 'body politic, exerting no influence during Itheir semblance of a reign and causing no commotion when they were finally, in the first half of ,the nineteenth century, set aside.

Some of our objections to this point of view have already been given, and others will become ,apparent in the course of this chapter; a,t this point we shall only make some remarks on the origin of the Minangkaibau rulers. A thorough research must of course 'be the task of ,the historian, we can only make use of the easily accessible data.

Apparently there was a state called <Malayu in South Sumatra about 500 A.D., which was soon (after the 7th century) completely overshadowed by the far greater power Sriwijaya, which completely dominated the Sumatran and Peninsular scene for well-nigh five centuries until decline set in, beginning in its Sumatran possessions I. The 13th century saw Sriwijaya dwindled away to insignificance in Sumatra (on the Peninsula it still had one century's lease of life), and a new Malayu, also styled Dharmmasraya, attaining some ipmortance. This realm centred on present-day Djambi. In 1275 * the Javanese king Krtanagara entered into close contact with Sumatra, and either reduced the king of Dharmmasraya, Tribho.wanaraja Mauliwarmmadewa, to the status of a vassal, or formed a very firm alliance with him. Inscriptions on a Manjusri-statue show that in 1343 a prince of Malayu, or a related dynasty, was in Java; possibly he was even born there. A few years later (1347) this same prince is 'back in Sumatra, and is extending his sway over Minangkabau, and he remained in Minangkabau as its ruler. The activity of this prince, Adityawarman, in the middle of the 14th century, may be said ,to mark the beginning of Minangkabau kingship 2. Now it is clear from this account that Adityawarman, proba'bly Minangka'bau's first king, was not such an alien as he has often ,been described. There is not rthe slightest reason for supposing him to have been a Javanese. The Malayu-Dharmmasraya dynasty, with which he was dosely related, seems to have arisen on Sumatran soil, and the royal house to which he belonged, the Kulisadharawamsa, was certainly Sumatran :1. The Dharmmasraya dynasty, together with its predecessors, Sriwijaya and Old-Malayu, together are responsible for an eight centuries' tradition of kingship in South Sumatra, and even without knowing any more about the ultimate origin of the institution in Indonesia we may surely assume eight centuries a sufficiently long stretch of time for it ,to become assimilated and integrated in the socio-political structure. While admitting the undenia1ble "Hindu" Indian influence on the Sumatran courts, we yet think ,there is more reason to believe kingship was brought to the Minangka,bau with, as it were, a ready-made technique for integration into the existing system, and by a people closely related in customs and ways of Hie, rather than as an utterly incongruous concept following in the wa.ke of foreign invaders.

Malay and Minangka'bau legends dealing with the advent of the Minangoka'bau kings fall into two groups: those as found in the Sadjarah IMalaju or Malay Annals, which we might call the Malay group, and a Minangkabau group.

The le'gend as found in the Sadjarah Malaju, ed. Shellabear 4, is, very briefly, as follows: Near Palembang, on the Malaju river, there dwelt a native chief, Demang Lebar Daun. He, or in other versions :; his daughters, first observed three mysterious strangers, who were endowed with supernatural powers: Nila Pahlawan, accompanied by Karna Pandita and Nila Utama. Their leader, Nila Pahlawan, was riding a cow or ox. The spittle of this ox (muntah lembu) becomes a man, Bata or Batala, who proclaims Nila Pahlawan king with the royal name Sang Sapurba Trimurti Tribuwana. This Sang Sapurba marries one of Lebar Daun's daughters, Wan Sendari, and 'becomes king of Minangka'bau after having killed the monster Si Katimono that was devastating ihe land.

Variants of this legend are rto be found in the Raffles text of the

Sadjarah Malaju Ii, in the Hikajat Hang Tuah, and other Malay histories. The differences 'between the various forms of the legend are of a relatively unimportant nature.

The legends of the Minangkabau group give ,the following account: Several brothers, descendants of Alexander the Great, sail round the world on a voyage of conquest. All accounts agree as to Maharadjo Diradjo, Maharadjo Alif, also called Radjo Rum (King of "Rome", i. e. Byzantium or Cons.tantinople), and Maharadjo Dapang * (King of Japan or China) ; sometimes a fourth is added, Sri Alam j, or else a Sultan HadUh Allah fZ'l'Alam I< ("Allah's Tradition upon Earth"; possibly Khalf.fat Alllah, "Allah's Successor upon Earth" is meant). They fall out among thereselves as they cannot agree who is the rightful owner of the crown they inherited, and during the struggle the crown falls into the sea, near Ceylon. Tjate Bilang Pandai, the goldsmith, who is a follower of Maharadjo Diradjo (and who, incidentally, is a very fine specimen of , trickster-cum-culture hero) II, makes an exact copy of it, and advises his master to claim that he has recovered the original crown. Maharadjo Diradjo folllows this advice, and his ,brothers 'believe him and admit his superiority. Then they separate, and each -claims one country for his own: Hadjo Alif takes Rum and becomes Sultan of Turkey, Maharadjo Dapang becomes Emperor of China or Japan, Maharadjo Diradjo King of Minangkabau. (Sri Alam, in a Peninsular version, becomes Sultan of Djohor).

Then there are the legends which serve to explain the name "Minangkabau", and are to be found in the Hikajat Radja-Radja Pasai IH. According to these stories, in the days of "Pa,tih Siwatang" and "Patih Katumenggungan" a Javanese army invaded Minangkabau. They were so n'umerous that, after they had all whetted their swords on a rock in the Kuantan valley, the entire rock was whittled away and had become a gorge, which to this days ,bears ,the name Kilieran Djao, the Javanese Whetting-stone. In the Minangka:bau country itself an agreement was reached, that the supremacy in the land was to be decided by the outcome of a battle between two ,buffaloes, one chosen by the Javanese, the other 'by the natives; in other versions the Javanese were represented by a tiger, the Minangkabau 'by a buffalo 11. This battle was won by the buffalo of the natives, and henceforth the inhabitants call themselves MinangKubau, i. e. "The buffalo was victorious". The

Jll.vanese army then withdrew, but during their retreat were fallen on by the local population and massacred in such numbers that the dead could not be buried, and the scene of the slaughter is even today called Padang Si Busue', the "Field of Stench". This legend has been explained as referring to an attempted invasion and subsequent retreat of Kl'tanagara and his newly-gained ally, Tdbhuwanaraja of MalayuDharmmasraya, in the Malay Expedition, Pamalayu, of 1275-1292 I~. A more detailed treatment of tihs legend lies outside the scope of this study. We would only like to say that it would be worth while to deal with the tiger-and-buffalo fight not only in connection with the "ancient legend" from Palembang, noted in the "Chu fan-chi" 13, about a supernatural herd of buffaloes, but also with the Javanese ceremonial a.nimal fights 14, and, more in general, the opposing roles played by the tiger (or lion) and the >buffalo (or bull) in Indian myths I"~.

The legendary history in the Sadjarah Malaju may well also be based on the Pamalayu, as here, too, there is a King Tribuwana who enters Minangkabau from the south. The difference is that this king is not defeated and chased out of the country again, but is a benefactor (killing the monster Katimono), who founds a permanent dynasty there. It is possible that the two kings, Tfiibhuwanaraja Mauliwarmmadewa a.nd Adityawal'ffian, and their two penetrations into Minangkabau terri· tory, are in the Malay Annals' legendary version merged into one.

The legends belonging to what we termed the Minangkabau group have been discussed by T. Bra d dell, who points out their resemblance to Persian tales. He first notes that in the Sadjarah Malaju three kings occur, Radja Heiran, Radja Suran and Radja Pandan, who may be equated with the three kings in ·the Persian Feridun-saga. Then. he says, it is noticea'ble that a triad of kings figure in other parts of Indonesia as well, and cites as example the three rulers of Minangkabau legend: Maharadjo Diradjo, Radjo Rum, and Radjo Dapang HI. We may add that the version of the Minangkabau legend in which four kings play a part appears to ,contain some Indian elements. India makes much use of quadripartition in cosmological classification-systems, and one of the forms it can take is the idea of the Four Rulers of the Earth; they may be called narapati, gajapati, aswapati, and chatrapati, i. e. Lord of Men, Lord of Elephants, Lord of Horses, and Lord of Umbrellas; or they are specified as Maharaja of India, RajMiraja of Persia, Kaisara of Rum, and Dewaputra of China Ii, There is, indeed, a striking correspondence to the Minangkabau versiO'n, with this difference that in Minangka'bau there are usually O'nly three princes (O'r, if there is a fO'urth, he is a r<l'ther ne-bulO'us, unimpO'rtant figure>. The LO'rds O'f RO'me and Japan (China) are fO'und in bO'th Indian and Minangkabau versiO'ns, but the ruler O'f Minangkabau seems to' cO'mbine in his persO'n the roles O'f King O'f India and King Qf Persia; he is, in fact, styled MaharadjQ DiradjQ, a CQmbinatiO'n O'f the Indian Maharaja and the Persian Rajatiraja. The title serves to' accentuate the Minangkabau ruler's absO'lute supremacy as LO'rd O'f the WO'rld. This is apparent frO'm an inscriptiO'n Qf 1286, in which the lesser king Tribhuwanaraja is called Maharaja, ibut the ParamO'unt LO'rd, Krtanagara: Maharajadhiraja IX. As the Jangdipa-tuans O'f Minangkabau had nO' O'verlO'rd abO've them, they toO' CQuld assume the title MaharadjO' DiradjQ.

Of greater interest for O'ur present purpO'se are thO'se legends which tell Qf the Ruler's PO'sitiO'n within the Minangk<l'bau cO'mmunity. There are, fQr instance, many stQries which relate that Sri 'MaharadjQ DiradjQ cO'ntracted marriages with creatures frO'm different parts O'f Minangkabau, and that the present inhabitants are the O'ffspring O'f that cO'uple. When the first King married a tigress (hari'YIULu Tjampu), the O'ffspring became the inhabitants O'f Agam; and in the same way the people O'f L KO'tO' and O'f XIII KotO' (i. e. SQlO" and envirO'ns) are descendants Qf Sri Maharadjo, and a cat (kutjieng Siam) and a dog (andjieng MQalam) respectively 10. Other legends shO'W sO'me variatiO'ns, in that Sri MaharadjO' marries variO'us animals, each match resulting in the birth O'f 'a girl; the girls then marry abO'riginal men, and becQme the ancestresses O'f the present·day luha' 211. Or again, the mO'de O'f descent is the same, but the cO'rresPO'ndence between the luha' and the animal is different :!I. The present authO'r has met with fO'ur versiO'ns ; in all fO'ur Agam's PO'PulatiO'n resulted frO'm a marriage O'f Maharadjo with a tigress;

SO'lO" in all fO'ur versiO'ns descended from a dQg,

L KO'tO' frO'm a gO'at (2 X), O'r a -cat (2 X),

Tanah Data frO'm a cat (1 X), O'r frO'm a wO'man (2 X).

Now in my O'piniO'n this legend-grO'up shO'WS up the essential functiO'n and PO'sition O'f the Minangkabau Ruler. He was the representative O'f the patrilineal, male, principle which enters intO' cO'mbinatiO'ns with the matrilineal, female principle as expressed by Minangkabau sO'cial structure. The different parts Qf Minangkabau, divided intO' matrilineal clans and phratries as far as its sO'ciO'-PO'litical O'rganisatiO'n is cO'ncerned, are gathered together, find their focus, as it were, in the Ruler. who acts as a kind of universal husband; the male, patrilineal principle (the Minangkabau dynasty) being wedded to the female, matrilineal principle, the Minangkabau territory ~~. Just as, in a system of double descent, the patrilineal clan encompasses all matri-clans in its connubia, so the Ruler by his marriages gathers the different luha', in their female aspects, into one fold.

Why Agam has to be represented by a tigress, L Koto by a dog, etc., cannot be stated with certainty. It may well be that the tigress, the dog, and other animals were the matrilineal totems, either of the luha' as a whole, or of the "first families" of each district. Animal names as titles are far from scarce in Minangkabau. The formerly very mighty chief, the Tuan Gadang ("Great Lord") of Batipueh was styled the Harimau K oto-Piliang J "Tiger of Koto-Piliang" (other chieftains bearing titles as "The Mirror", "The Bright Torch", etc.) ~;l. A whole district may also be called after an animal: Kubueng XIII is known as "The Elephant", etcetera:!4.

Indications of real totemism (what the cases just mentioned, of course, are not) are quite frequent, and are generally connected with a kampueng. The kampueng Domo may never cut down a lasa-tree, as their ancestress (ninie') came forth from one ; nor may they kill a domo-bird. Kampueng Tjaniago must show respect towards tijuengbirds, as their ninie' was saved from danger by one :!C,. Kampueng Piliang must always be careful to show due honour to crocodiles, for instance when washing or bathing in in a river, as their ancestor Katumanggungan was reborn as a crocodile :!Ii. In the same way kampueng Djampa' must carefully observe certain ceremonial practices and taboos (pantangan) towards sharks, for a shark once helped their ancestress ~7. In view of this evident totemism, it is not surprising that the Radja of Djambi should be described as the son of a female tortoise, that had become pregnant through swallowing the betel-quid of a Jangdipatuan of Minangkabau :!~ ; and the stories of Sri Ma-baradjo's marriages must also be seen in this light *.

So far we have always spoken of the Minangkabau Ruler, or King; actually there were three, of whom one was the most prominent in political matters. He is the one we mean, and he was the only one who bore the title Jangdipatuan Basa, "He who is recognized as Great Lord". (W ilk ins 0 n perpetrated what must surely be one of the most fantastic etymologies in the Indonesian field when he wrote that the expression da-punta-hyang, occurring on an ancient inscription, "suggests dipeTtuan".) :Ill

The Three Princes together were called the Radjo nan Tigo Selo, a term which comprised the actual Jangdipatuan, or Radjo Alam (King of the World), the Radjo Adat (King of Custom), and Radjo l!badat (King of Religion). The residence of the Radjo Alam, and therefore what one may call the capital of Minangkabau, was Pagarrujueng. The Radjo Adat and Radjo Ibadat were connected with the nagari Buo and Sumpu Kuduih respectively; probably they held these villages in feoff. All three Rulers dwelt in Pagarrujueng (nowadays called Nagari Tigo Balai, a village near Batusangkar), in which each had one third part as his residence. The part belonging to Radjo Alam was Gudam, to Radjo Adat: Balai Djanggo, and to Radjo Ibadat: Kampueng Tangah 31. Another name for Gudam was Batu Patah (not, as Ve r k e r k Pis tor ius says, Batu Ampil) :\~.

This system of feoffs and residences has given rise to some misunderstanding. Datue' Sangguno Diradjo for instance, whose work on adat has the tendency to classify the most diverse elements of Minangkabau culture by fives, also mentions five Radjos, those of Pagarrujueng, Buo and Sumpu Kuduih, and two extra Radjos A:dat, at Kampueng Tangah and Balai Djanggo.

There is a tradition, mentioned in the Encyclopaedie van Nederlandsch-Indie, that in 1680 a -king of Minangkabau, Radjo Alif, on dying divided his realm among his three sons, who henceforth were to reign at Sungai Taro', Suruaso, and Pagarrujueng a::. As Win s ted t pOint out, this story is extremely improbable; no mention of it is made in the Dagh-register of 1680, as would almost certainly have happened in a matter of such importance a4. The earliest reference to the supposed partition would appear to have :been made by Van Bas e 1 (1761> :1\ and this seems to have been the source for the article in the Encyclopaedie. W i 1 -k ins 0 n accepts the story as fact:l6, and Will inc k equates this partition of iMinangkabau into Sungai Taro', Suruaso, and Pagarrujueng with the occurrence of the three Radjos at Pagarrujueng, Buo, and Sumpu Kuduih, and the division of the Alam into three luha's, Agam, L Koto, and Tanah Data:17. It is obvious that this theory is internally contradictory, and it is also geographically impossible, as all five places mentioned are within the luha' Tanah Data, and can therefore impossibly be connected with a division of the country into three luha'. It seems safest to reject the story of the tripartition of 1680 in toto.

As we have already said, the Royal House of the Radjo nan Tigo Selo was patrilineally organised, and succession was from father to son. We repeat th'is on purpose, as Beg 'b i e, apparently confusing the rules applying to the ruling dynasty with those of the "commoners", says that the succession to the dignity of Ruler at Pagarrujueng went by matriliny "instead of, as it naturally shou~d do", by patriliny :{~, and in another passage states that in Rem'bau, Sungai Udjong, Naning, and Djohol succession went to the oldest sister's son, as in Pagarrujueng 39_

The Radjo nan III Selo were considered to belong to three different parui' with one common ninie' ; intermarriage between the parui' was permlitted, as was even marriage within one's own parui'. K 00 r em a n, from whom this information comes, explains it as a device to keep the royal blood pure 40.

It is worth mentioning that the institution ,and even the title, of Radjo nan HI Selo is also met with outside the Minangkalbau nuclear territory, notably along the Batang Hari, where Radjo nan TIgo Selo (or Silo) are met with either as district rulers 41, or as representatives of the Jangdipatuan of Pagarrujueng 4:!.

Another group of high dignitaries, whose functions were narrowly bound up with those of the rulers, and who seem to have disappeared from the scene when the Minangka!bau dynasty was forcibly expelled in the eighteen-twenties, was formed by the Basa Ampe' Balai, the Great Men of the Four Council Halls. We know little ahout their rights and, duties (a rather vague indication is given in the Kaba Tjindue Mato) 43, but as to their titles all sources agree; they were the Bandaharo of Sungai Taro'

Tuan Kali of Padang Gantieng

Mangkudum of Sumanie'

Indomo (or Tuan Pandjang) of Suruaso H.

Not included among the Basa IV Ba'lai, but of equal rank and importance, was the Tuan Gadang of Batipueh, the "Tiger of KotoPiliang".

Win s ted t appears now and then to confuse the Basa IV Ba'lai with the Radjo nan III Selo, as appears from his articles of 1934 and 1935. In the first he says that the Radjo nan HI Selo were under the Jangdipatuan 4~'. This is incorrect, as we have seen: the Jangdipatuan himself was one of the Radjo nan III Selo. In the second article he writes of a Jangdipatuan, Sultan Ahmed. "Below" him there were three "great chieFs", i. a. the Makhdum 411; actually the Makhdum (Mangkudum) was one of the four "great chiefs".

Their function, as described in the Kaba Tjindue Mato, was something like that of messengers or inspectors sent out by the Jangdipatuan to different parts of his realm. The Bandaharo and Tuan Kali acted as deputy to the Radjo Adat and the Radjo Ibadat respectively, and as a preliminary court of appeal. The Kaba says that disputes on points of custom were to be heard by the Bandaharo first, and then could come up before the Radjo Adat; in the same way religious problems were a matter for the Tuan Kali, and subsequently for the Radjo Ibadat. In both cases in final instance an appeal was possible to the Radjo Alam 47.

The settlements of disputes on matters of custom is described more fully in Ley d s' article 48. They were £.irst to be discussed, if they assumed a more than purely village importance, by a council of the n(Zf'ari-federation (rape' salareh'); next by a rape' saluha' (luha' council) ; and at last to come before the Bandaharo, Radjo Adat, and Radjo Alam successively. This applies to matters affecting people of the Koto-Piliang phratry; Bodi~Tjaniago procedure followed three stages: a rape' salareh, next a rape' saluha', finally a rape', in the Balai nan Pandjang, at Tabe'. This is characteristic, as it shows how Bodi-Tjaniago custom by-passes both the Hasa IV Balai and the Radjo nan :111 Selo. All the Basa IV Balai were, in fact, bound up with the adat Katumanggungan. Their very titles prove this, as a honorific for the Bandaharo was Pccmuntja' Kato-Piliang (Apex of Koto-Piliang), and so also for the Tuan Kali: Sulueh Bendang (Clear Torch) KotoPiliang, and for the Indomo: Pajueng Pandji (Umbrella-Flag) KotoPiliang 49. The MangkU'dum, according to a different source, was styled Peti Buniu (probably Pati Bunian, Treasure.Chest) Koto-Piliang 50. Furthermore, Ley d s has pointed out that the territory in which the four nagari Sungai Taro', Padang Gantieng, Sumanie', and Suruaso were situated, formed a solid 'block of Koto .. Piliang adat within a iarger Bodi-Tjaniago area; and he notes that this Bodi-Tjaniago area had a panghulu whose title, Datue' Bandaharo nan Kunieng, (the Yello\v Bandaharo) appears to be in deliberate contrast with that of Datue' Bandaharo nan Putih (the White Bandaharo), one of the designations of the Bandaharo of Sungai Taro' ~>1.

Now the data on these four dignitaries are hardly sufficient to allow us to venture an explanation of what facts we have. One does get the impression that the Basa IV Balai, were local panghulu, with other words, subjected to the usual adat as applied to Minangkabau outside the royal household; but to what circumstances they owed their special position, and why these powers "close to the throne" should all come forth from the Koto-Piliang phratry, is hard to say, and proof of any hypothesis would be even harder to give. Possibly the fact that the adat Katumanggungan laid greater stress on the principle of one chief per nagari (or at most four chiefs, one per suku) made it more suited to supply ministers to the ruling house than Bodi-Tjaniago with its 7roj,V)(OlP2VlT]. Or it may be that the dichotomy Koto-Piliang versus Bodi-Tjaniago was also bound up with the contrast, familiar in dual organisations, of male-female, and that this was the reason why Koto-Piliang was considered to some extent analogous to the group of the Ruler, who embodied the male principle. Even if this last supposition is correct, we know 'so little of how that idea took shape in practice, that it seems wiser to refrain from what must be mere speculation until, perhaps, more information can be gained, or another writer draws more satisfactory conclusions from the available data.

Of the Basa IV Balai, the Mangkudum merits some special attention, as he was rather exceptional in several respects. An UndangUndang (Code of Laws, generally preceded 'by an historical introduction) tells of the appointment of the Indomo, the Tuan Kali, and the Pamuntjak of Sungai Taro', but the Mangkudum is not mentioned; nor is he among the chiefs who receive honorific titles (gala) ~,~. F ran cis, administrator of the Minangka'bau territories about 1830, speaks of three of the Basa IV Balai - not of the Mangkudum ~,:;. When the Jangdipatuan levied a toll, the inhabitants of Suruaso, Sungai Taro', and Padang Gantieng were exempt - but not those of Sumanie', the Mangkudum's nagari :;4. The inference is, that he did not really ,belong to the group of four. His task, too, was extraordinary. The Kaba Tjindue Mato describes him as the authority in military matters, but his important task was to maintain the relations with the Minangkabau settlements on the Malay Peninsula: "Rantau Makudum: Rembau, Si Mananti, diuleh urang Pahang Patani" (The Mangkudum's sphere of influence is Rembau and Sri Menanti, and the people of Pahang and Patani) G=>. Now as regular political relations between Minangkabau and the Negri Sembilan territories seem only to have commenced circa 1770, when the Peninsular Minangkabau sought help in the home-land for their struggle against Djohor, it is possible that the Mangkudum only rose to prominence at this relatively late date, and that his exceptional position among the Basa IV Balai is that of the newly-arrived interloper; but here again we leave the realm of hard !'acts and substantiated. hypotheses, and we must leave the question open for the present.

Now that a description has been given of the position of the Radjo nan III Selo and their close collaborators, the Basa IV Balai - unfortunately a very sketchy one, based on very scant information - we may return to a closer examination on the role the Jangdipatuan played in Minangkabau life, and what he was really supposed to be and do according to the socio-political ideal.

As we saw, the generally accepted view is that he did nothing whatever; Will inc k characterized him as a real roi /aineant, and as far as I know this opinion has never been refuted. This point of view is !based on the application of too exclusively European norms. We undoUlbtedly do not know much of the Jangdipatuan's activities in the purely political sphere, but this does not mean that the Minangkabau considered him a nO'nentity. Mar s den, writing in 1783, describes hO'W the Jangdipatuan was "seen in a sacred light" by the inhalbitants, and how an "air of mystery" surrounded him 56. This is already an indication that, whatever the Ruler's role in prO'fane matters, he appears clearly to have been of sO'me significance from a cultic, sacral st'andpoint. The veneration for his person was also felt outside the Minangkabau World, viz. in the Batak lands, where this attitude of respect was also extended to' the "sacred messengers" whO' from ,time to time arrived there from Pagarrujueng 57.

At the beginning of this chapter we described hO'W in the legend the Jangdipatuan gathered together, SO' to' speak, the different matrilineal groups and united them by the action of the patrilineal principle he represents. As to a certain extent similar idea appears to underlie the partition O'f Minangkabau into three luha'. Agam is considered

Bodi-Tjaniago, L Koto : Koto-Piliang, while Tanah Data is said to be "mixed", i. e. to combine Bodi-Tjaniago and Koto-Piliang features 58. In actual fact a plotting of the two adat according to nagaris shows all three luha' to be more or less mixed, and the two adOJt fairly evenly scattered over all Minangkabau. The characterisation of the three luha' given by Minangkabau tradition therefore must be taken to refer to the ideal pattern, not to actual fact. Now Tanah Data is very much the luha' of the Radjo nan III Selo and the Basa IV Balai: all seven of their nagari are within the Tanah Data boundaries, and occupy quite a large part of the northern half of the district.

Our conclusion can only be, that Agam and L Koto each represent one of the phratries which divide the whole Minangkabau World, while the third, the luha' of the Jangdipatuan,combines the two, and holds them together. The Jangdipatuan again is the representative of the total community, and the Minangkabau two-three principle of partition (two phratries, and a third party representing the totality) appears as a Minangkabau variant of similar partitioning elsewhere in Indonesia, such as the four-five principle found in Java, and ably described by van 0 sse n b rug g e n 59.

Parenthetically we may remark that Minangkabau too has an institution that manifests a four-five partition. The Javanese mantjapat is an organisation of five villages, grouped in such a way that four of them form a ring round a fifth in the centre. The author just mentioned convincingly demonstrates that in this federation of villages the fifth is the representative of the group as a whole. The fact that Minangkalbau also recognized a special bond between a central territory and its four surrounding neighbours (not necessarily associated with the cosmological theories which are bound up with the mantjapat) appears in disputes about landownership: to decide such disputes the unanimous testimony was required of the heads of the four "families" that owned the surrounding plots of land, who are called the pasupadan 60. We shall refer to the pasupadan-complex again in connection with Negri Sembilan political organisation.

The Jangdipatuan's function of unifying, of almost literally incorporating all of his territories could not be fulfilled by his residence in Pagarrujueng alone; he had actively to maintain the bonds connecting him with his realm, and this was done by travelling through the country, along a route immutalbly fixed by tradition, spending an equal amount of time at each, also traditionally determined, point along the route. On some of these traces we have reasonably precise information, e. g. on the prescribed journey from Pagarrujueng to Mapat Tunggul, in Rau 6\ or the circuit through the Kampar area 62. This prescribed track with its equally prescribed stO'pping-places was for Will inc k one more indication of the insignificance of the Jangdipatuan: his subjects never came to him, but he had to visit them; and even then he could not go as he pleased, but his subjects forced him to keep within certain limits; nor was he allowed to sojourn for a more than short amount of time in each of the places he visited 63. Actually the journey and the sojourn was a means of cementing the union 'between Ruler and realm, and between the different parts of the realm inter se.

This is probably also what Ham e r s t e r meant when he wrote to W est e n e n k that the prescribed route "connects the Ruler with his domain" 64. The same procedure was followed in Korintji. This country was subject to Djambi; when a new King of Djambi ascended the throne, the bond with his subjects in Korintji also had to be renewed; this was done by sending envoys to collect tribute, and these envoys always followed the same traditionally fixed route, with the three high dignitaries of Korintji always included in the circuit 65. In fact, the Minang'kabau "commoners" themselves observe a similar custom, annually visiting the nagari where dwell the people with whom they are traditionally related, and in this way preserving the ancient connection 66.

In the Kaba Sutan Manangkeran the bond between Solo' and Singkara' on the one hand, and Sungai Pagu on the other, is also manifested by a traditional route: a man in legendary times once travelled from Tjinangkie' to Sungai Pagu, and therefore "when we * visit Sungai Pagu, we must always say we come from Tjinangkie'" 67.

The role of the Jangdipatuan as third party, comprising both phratries, is also apparent in the way he can make an end to the ceremonial battles of the lareh, the parang adat. H he, or his envoy, appears between the two antagonists, and his emblem, the yellow umbrella, is planted on the field of battle, the fight must stop. Here again the ruler reconciles, combines the two phratries.

The very ground on which the parang adat took place also testifies to this: it was called tanah radjo, King's Ground, and .belonged to neither nagari. Each nagari was surrounded by such a plot, which was neutral territory, neither Koto-Piliang nor Bodi-Tjaniago, hut directly connected with the Radjo, the ruler. W est e n e n k tells that the inhabitants of the nagari always had (perhaps have, even now, after the abolition of the kingship) a certain feeling of awe towards these stretches .of land, so that no one could be induced permanently t.o settle on it, or cultivate it; one would not feel safe there 68. Undoubtedly a feeling of deference towards the supernatural powers of the Jangdipatuan and everything connected with him is an important factor here.

As is the case in the Javanese courts, the Jangdipatuan had in his entourage persons whose abnormality in one respect or another made them feared and considered to he particularly richly endowed with m.ana. In Java the Rulers of Surakarta and Djokjakarta were (are?) accompanied by the palawidja, i.e. hunchbacks and other freaks 69. Their m.ana served to strengthen that of the Ruler. The Ruler himself was the depositary par excellence of a mysterious power, the royal "mana", or "daulat", to use the Arabic·Minangkabau term 70. Thus too, the Jangdipatuan's entourage included criminals who came to him seeking sanctuary, which was accorded them if they ,became servants, or slaves, of the Ruler, harlidam di rumdh gadang, i. e. "confined to the Great House" 71. Illegitimate children also became slaves of the Jangdipatuan 72. In -both cases the "handam" are individuals who are outside the adat, true "out-laws", and who therefore constitute a danger to the community; but in the Jangdipatuan's surroundings there was place for the weird and the dangerous.

It is probably this danger inherent in the royal daulat, that finds its expression in the legendary history of the early days of the Jangdipatuans' rule 73. First, according to this story, they reigned at Sungai Taro' ; but at that place their rule was harsh and severe, "sangat keras parentah", so that the residence had to be transferred to Batu Patah (Pagarrujueng *).

All in all, the conclusion seems justified that the Jangdipatuan's duties were mainly of a sacred nature. He imparted his daulat to the country and embodied the unity of the Minangkabau World as a whole. Possibly this can also be deduced from the Jangdipatuan's position among the Radjo nan III Selo. All three were members of the patrilineal royal family. The Radj~-Adat, however, bore the title of Tuan Gadih, i. e. "Lord Virgin", or "Lady" 75. Was this Radjo actually a woman, or a man bearing a female title? I do not know; the last descendant of the Pagarrujueng Royal House, who died in 1912, 'bore the title of Tuan Gadih Reno Sumpueh, and she was a woman 76. Legend also says that the first Radjo Adat was a sister of the Jangdipatuan 77. On the other hand, in Mapat Tjangtjang one of the three branches of tlie ruling family had a hereditary gala, "Datue' Parampuan", "Female Datue'" ; but the person who bore this title was a man 78. Djohol, one of the Negri Sembilan states, also has a Datue' who is a male, but has (or had until recently) to wear his hair in female style, and whose office is said first to have been filled by a woman 79. A possible conclusion is, that whether Radjo Adat was a man or a woman, he (or she) at any rate represented a female, or female principle. Combined with the title "Radjo Adat", the King of, or: who deals with, Custom, this would appear to indicate that Radjo Adat represents the matrilineal grouping, which is predominant in social and political matters. The Radjo Ibadat is King in sacred matters, i. e. represents the community as organised for sacral purposes, in which case patrilineal grouping is predominant. The Radjo Alam is able to combine both functions (in matters belonging to the jurisdiction of Radjo Adat as well as of Radjo Ibadat, final appeal to the Radjo Alam is permitted) 80,as in dealings with his subjects he stands for the royal house in its entirety, and even for the unity of Minangkabau in all its aspects.

Our idea of the meaning and function of Minangkabau kingship is still far from complete, and the very brief sketch we have just given is still largely tentative and may prove to need correction on various scores. To get a clearer picture of the role played by the Ruler and especially of this triad of kings, which is not infrequently met with in other parts of Indonesia as well 81, one would need to study comparable institutions in a wider field, say western Indonesia, or Indonesia in its entirety.

Professor K 0 r n, in a recent article, has indicated what the most suitable approach for a study of this kind woulld be 82 ; it is of course understood that the data gathered from each society should be seen in the context of that society's culture as a whole, but in spite of variations it is very well possible that the situation in one society, on which the data are abundant, may clarify at least some features of another, on which we are less well informed.

We ventured the opinion that Minangkalbau society assumes its matrilineal aspect in socio-political matters, and that patrilineal organisation is bound up with religious, or sacral, life. This was based partly on an observation of the way in which the patrilineal royal house, represented by the Jangdipatuan, comes into contact with its Minangkabau subjects: the Jangdipatuan's actions and contacts serve mainly supernatural ends. The other reasons for our opinion was the contrast Radjo Adat-Radjo Ibadat. The contrast social and profane matterssacred matters is evident here; and whereas the Radjo Adat appears to have been classified with the female principle, there is no such indication for the Radjo Ibadat, so that we may tentatively draw him into a male-female dichotomy, as representing the male side (with which he was closely connected anyway, qua member of the patrilineal royal family). It should be noted here again, that although the word Ibadat is Arabic and specifically denotes the religion of Islam, that does not necessarily mean that the post of Radjo Ibadat itself only arose with the introduction of the Muslim faith. Islamic Canon Law is definitely based on patriliny; and if the theory is accepted that sacred functions were connected with patriliny, we may even suppose that the advent of Islam, a religion laying obvious stress on patrilinear organisation, did not cause a great upheaval, 'but rather introduced a new religious system which could more or less fit in with the accepted order of things - the details of this process can of course not ,be discussed here, although such a study should prove extremely interesting.

The contrast: male-female, sacred-profane need not necessarily always coincide with the bipartition royalty-commoners, but also finds its expression in the life of the Minangkabau "common man"; this would seem to be the explanation of the patrilineal traits discussed in the preceding chapter, which imparted to Minangkabau social organisation some of the characteristics of double descent. Here again, in our opinion, the patrilineal organisation makes its appearance as soon as supernatural, or sacred, matters are involved. This would explain the recognition of patrilineal and matrilineal descent groups during the ceremony of the "sumpah djo piri' ", which undoubtedly bears a sacred character, and perhaps further study along these lines would also supply an explanation of the rather cryptic saying "sako dari mama', warih dari bapa'''.

In this connection, too, we should consider the part played by Islam, as it may well largely explain the present day predominance of the matrilinear principle. As Islam gained ground, more and more "sacred", or "religious" matters would be considered the domain of this Faith; and as Islam absorbed these interests, they were proportionately withdrawn from the grip of the adat, so that finally there were very few sacred affairs with which the adat had to concern itself (the ''magician'', in Negri Sembilan called "pawang", does not appear to be a person of much importance in Minangkabau). As the adat came to deal almost exclusively with socio-political, legal and economic matters, and sacred affairs were drawn into the Muslim orbit, the patrilineal organisation, so closely bound up with the supernatural, dwindled into insignificance, leaving only slight traces in the field of ancestral custom, but assuming new importance as part and parcel of the shar:X'a.

We have little more to add to this expose of our views of the significance of Minangkabau royalty and their place in a double-unilateral organisation. There is, however, one more question which we should not altogether ignore; it may be discussed here, as it were in an appendix to the rest of the chapter. There is a legend which says that 'before Maharadjo Diradjo came to Minangkabau there were already four sukuchiefs in function in the nagari Kumanih, viz. Papatih of suku Tjaniago, Katumanggungan of Malaju, Radjo Mangawa of Piliang, and Nie' Paduko of Patapang ~a. When the Maharadjo arrived at Kumanih he called to Papatih nan Sabatang, asking to be admitted to the latter's house, and using the word Datue' as mode of address. Papatih refused, and did so again when Maharadjo repeated his request, now using the term "Father" (Pa'). Only when Maharadjo addressed Papatih as "Grandfather" (Ninie'), was he permitted to enter. For this reason tRe panghulus of Kumanih were always addressed by the Jangdipatuans as Ninie', and they need never perform dbeisance (sambah) before the Ruler. Two other dignitaries, the Bandaharo nan Kunieng of V Kaum, and the Tuan Gadang of Batipueh (respectively a Bodi-Tjaniago and a Koto-Piliang panghulu of Tanah Data) were likewise exempt from making the customary humble bow before the Jangdipatuan, and were permitted to greet him standing and accompanied by their insignia of office, the umbrella. Such manifestations of an opposition between Rulers and the customary chiefs of their subjects are met with in other parts of Indonesia as well *. Van N a e r sse n 85 explains a comparable phenomenon in Java as an aversion to Hindu-Javanese acculturation on the part of communities on the periphery of the slphere of influence of the royal courts * *. A similar explanation is given by J 0 u s t r a 86 for the situation in Minangkabau, while W est e n e n k more explicitly describes it as a conflict between the ancient inhabitants of Minangkabau, who were settled in the country prior to the advent of the Jangdipatuan cum suis, and these comparative newcomers, the members of the royal dynasty 87. This explanation - which is essentially in agreement with the one given by the Minangkabau themselves in the legend just quoted - mayor may not be correct; but as long as Minangkabau ancient history is still so little known it may be safer not to put forward unverifiable historical hypotheses. Let us rather confine ourselves to a purely descriptive statement: in the legend and the customs just mentioned there appears a deli/berate confrontation of the royal power on the one hand with, on the other, the social organisation of the "commoners", represented in one version by one chief of Bodi-Tjaniago and one of Koto-Piliang (together standing for both phratries, that is to say, for all Minangkabau), in another version ,by one of Minangkabau's two ancestors, Parapatih nan Sabatang. (As Koto-Piliang was the phratry closest to the royal house, Parapatih prdbably acts here as foreman of Bodi-Tjaniago, the phratry most sharply distinct from it). The Jangdipatuan, for all his power, is represented as showing deference to the local chiefs, who are described as belonging to an older, more venerable form of government. The whole situation thus resolves itself into an opposition between the Jangdipatuan and the local chiefs, who are represented as more closely connected with the Minangkabau territory. It is at the same time a contrast between two principles of social organisation, the patrilineal and the matrilineal.

It may be worth while to note that in eastern Indonesia, where the double-unilateral organisation is much more clearly expressed than in Minangkabau, and even entails a true double dualism, one often finds four rulers in a remarkable interrelationship. In Fialarang (Timor), for instance, the Astanara (chief ruler) is contrasted to the Fettor (his "Right Hand"), as each -belongs to a different patrilineal phratry; but a matrilineal dualism contrasts both to the Surik ulun and the Mak o'an 88. :

Now Minangka'bau has a far less pronounced double-unilateral organisation, let alone a true double dualism, so it would be foolish to expect far-reaching resemblances to the East~Indonesian system. All the same, there may be this analogy, that the legend we are dealing with also contrasts Parapatih and Katumanggungan on the one hand to the Jangdipatuan on the other, as representatives of two different principles of social organisation. The difference from the Timorese pattern is obvious, but one gets the impression that, as in the eastern part of the Archipelago the double-unilateral system finds its expression in the political organisation, so also Minangkabau expresses a contrast between the patrilineal rulers and the matrilineal ancestors in its own way, in accordance with its own peculiar social structure.

* Or 1292, according to a new theory of Professor 'B erg's - see his article ·'Kertanagara" in the periodical "Orientatie", No. 34.

* In other versions Dipang or Djipang.

,;, In the story of the tortoise and the betel-quid, he latter would ,Sleem to repres·ent the male principle. So alIso Bundo Kandueng (the Queen-Mother) in Minangkabau legend), and a buffalo-cow, a mare, and a hen all become pregnant by eating a piece of the same coconut '''.

* "we" are prdb3Jbly tlhe inhabitants of Solo' and Singkara', the area where the Kaba in question had its origin.

* There is a remarikable correspondence between this legend, and the tales about the "Sonnebait" (or rather SoDlba,i) dynasty on the island of Timor, who are descr1bed as harSh and cruel; and .the purport of this characterisa.tion is probalMy the same in both Minangka;bau and Timor 7._

* Atjeh, for instance 8 ••

** J: am indebted to Mr. J. B. A v e for ,this reference.

Chapter references.

van Nederlandscl1.Indie (Amsterdam Han g T u a h, 22. 1938), I, 248. 7 Wil ,kinson (10),9.

15. 10 Singapore.edition.

• S tap e I, loco cit., 280. Jl Will i n ck, 38; H ij man s • Sed jar a h M a I a j u, van An roo y, 295. • Wilkinson (4),28. Westenenk (5), 16. o Stutterheim (2), 11,92; ' Ve,th, 2e gedeelte, 177. IAL 1938, 101; Westenenk (5), • de Josselin de Jong (1). tjeritera II. 12 Westenenk (3),257;

I F. W. S ,t ape I, Geschiedenis • Sed jar a h Mal a j '11, 55 seq.;

116

18 Blagden (1),127. H Vet h, Java (Haarlem, 1896-1907), IV, 382. 10 C hat t e r j i, 81. 16 T. Bra d delI, 132, 133; R. iB r add e I, 43; W ilk ins 0 n (3), 168. 17 P r z y 1 u ski, 33. 18 K rom, 333. 19 WiUincK, 22. 20 Netscther, 44. 21 Joustra (2), 51; Graafland,77. .. Korn (2),180. 28 H 0 sma n, 14. " Kalba Tjindue Mato, 45. 2. deW a a 1, 106. '6 G r a a fl and, 76. n G r a a f 1 and, 76. 28 Damste (1),282. 2. Encyclopaedie van Nederlallidsch-Indie, 744. 80 W ilk ins 0 n, Early Indian Influence (JMBRAS Xlll), 7. 31 Westenenk (1), 135. 82 V e r k e r k Pis tor ius, 81. 83 Encyclopaedie van Nederlandsch·lndie, 739. 84 Winstedt (4),59. 3' Kielstra (1),500. 3. W il kin son (9), 4. a, Will inc k, 126. "' Beg b i e, 134. • W Adatrechtbundeis XXVI, 129. to Adatrechlbundels Xl, 141. H Adatreahbbundels XXVII, 318; Dam s t e (2), 328. .. Will inc k, 253. 43 K~ba Tjindue Mato, 8. U Encyciopaedie van Nederlandsch-Indie, 739. •• Win s ted t (4), 59. 46 Winstedt (6),166. 41 Schafer, 54. " Ley d s, 400. •• Hosman, 14. Co. S c h ii fer, 55.

5 1 L e y d s, 392. 52 Hosman, 14. 33 Kielstra (1),500. ,. Adatrechtbundels XX, 163. 55 Ham e r s t e r, 1466. 56 Mar s den, 269. 57 Mar s den, 305. .8 Encyclopaedie van Nederlandsch-Indie. •• van Ossenbruggen (1). 69 van V 0 11 e ill h 0 v e n, 258, 259. 61 Ballot (1),381. o. W i Iii n ck, 241. 68 Willinck, 224, 227, 235. 6' Ham e r s t e r, private letter to W est e n e n Ie, September 16, 1912. (In the library of the National Museum of Ethnology, Leiden). .5 K 0 rn (2), 184. 06 Adatrechbbundels X, 110. 67 Kaba Sutan Manangkeran, 210. 68 Westenenk (1),99. 69 G ron e man, 18. 70 Kooyman, 74--79. 71 Will inc k, 228. " Will inc ok, 135. '" Netscher, 52; Hosman, 14. .. van Wouden, 117. 7. Westenenk (1), 143. 70 Westenenk (1), 117. 77 Westenen-k (2),245 . " Dams t e (2), 338; Ballot (1), 368. 7. L. i st e r (1), 35 seq. 80 S c h ii fer, 54. 81 van W 0 u den, 105. •• Korn (2), 184. "" Westenenk (2),238 . •• Snouck Hurgronje (1). I, 140 . • 5 van N a e r sse n, 10. so Joustra (2),50. '7 W est e n e n k (2), 239, 236 . " van W 0 u den, 110.

CHAPTER VII.

MODERN TRENDS IN MINANGKABAU.

Towards the end of the previouschlll}>ter the time perspective was introduced, both by the theory of a conflict between the Rulers and the pre-monarchical functionaries, and by our description of the possible influence of Islam on Minangkabau religious and political system. Such reconstructions may have the disadvantage of always being largely speculative, but they serve the purpose of underlining the fact that adat is not an immutable entity, but is continually subjected to stresses from within and without, and is therefore continually undergoing readaptation and change.

This process is most clearly observable when we no longer try to envisage the changes wrought in past centuries, but look to descriptions of the most recent trends, say during the twentieth century. The most active forces with which Minangkabau culture has to contend are undoubtedly Islam and modern European influence. We do not intend to give an analysis of the way in which the culture contact took place in Minangka:bau, but will limit ourselves to a purely descriptive survey of recent tendencies in Minangkabau adat, which may well show that we cannot dismiss the impact of European civilisation as a "disruptive force" acting on the static body of native custom, but that the latter is attempting to find its own way of adaptation to outside influence, as it has done before in its history - although the strains to which it is subjected now may be greater than anything it previously experienced.

One of the changes most frequently commented on is the closer bond between father and child (especially son), as manifested in various situations. J 0 u s t r a already observed this tendency in 1920 1 ; it is also noted by van 0 sse n b rug g e n 2, who refers to the growing popularity of the hibah. According to this practice a man may, during his lifetime, give a present out of his individual earnings (pantjarian) to whomever he may choose. If, as nowadays frequently happens, a father makes this kind of gift to his son, the amount given is of course n'O I'Onger liable t'O revert t'O the father's matrilineal family, to be administered perhaps by the father's oldest sister. D e M 0 u bra y has pointed out that the hibah thus tends to weaken the unilateral cohesion of the matri-clan 3. In a previous chapter we cited evidence to show that the custom of a son receiving goods from his father (as inheritance or as a present) is not only a recent development, but one recognized by tradition. It does, however, appear to be taking place on a larger scale now than formerly, and the absence, or weakening, of any legal or moral objection to a man's absolutely free disposal of his pantjarian may in all probability also 'be accounted a modern feature 4.

Parallel to the favouring of the 'S'On by his father is the tendency to consider the education of a boy the responsibility of his father rather than of his matrilineal relatives. It has become customary for the father t'O pay his son's school fees 5.

We also meet with a 'case, recorded in 1933, of a father acting as guardian of his son. Formerly this role would certainly be played by one of the boy's mama' (preferably has mama' par excellence, mother's old est brother), or at least a male clan-mate 6.

Concomitant with the lessening of parui' and kampueng solidarity is the diminution of the chief's importance. As far back as 1913 W est e n e n k convened a meeting of Minangkarbau authorities on adat matters to discuss the modern tendencies and the attitude to adopt towards them. On that occasion one of those present, Datue' Nawawi, mentioned the increasing lack of respect for the rule pai tampe' batanjo, pulang tampe' babarito. According to this rule the mama' (probably used here as meaning parui'-chief) has t'O be consulted in all kinds of actions: before a house is built or a wedding is arranged; before any important financial transaction, etcetera. As the saying has it: "On going he (the mama') must be asked, on returning he must be informed". This, then, appears to be 'So seldom done that Nawawi complained of the ignoring of the mama' in matters on which he ought to be consulted 7

'If this points t'O a lessening of the family spirit in the face of more individualistic action, the same can be said of the attitude towards marriage. The point of view that marriage was largely an affair between genealogical groups (parui', kampueng, or suku), and therefore also to be arranged by the leaders of the group - a 'point of view closely connected with the system of connubia, as described in

Chapter V, § 2 - is attacked by the moderns who consider marriage an affair solely of the young people directly concerned. The conflict between romantic lovers whose plans of marriage are frustrated Iby scheming parents who had planned a different match for their children, and the evils of marriages arranged without consideration for the affections of the ,bride and groom .to~be, furnish favourite themes for the Malay * novels of the nineteen-twenties and thirties 8.

Not only the way marriages are arranged, but also the marriages themselves run counter to many traditional conceptions. The novel "Karena Mentoea" 9, written in 1932, deals with the conflict that arises when a young Minangkabau, who had gone to the Sunda-Iands (West Java) to seek his fortune, returns to his village accompanied by his Sundanese wife. The older people, and especially his mother, are shocked that he should have married a "foreign"girl. As the novels of the period generally dealt with questions which were uppermost in the minds of the reading 'public, we may safely assume that conflicts of this kind were - to some t:xtent probably still are - no infrequent occurrence in Minangkabau.

Thus also the younger generation is more ready to Ibreak with the rule of preferential marriage with mo-br-da 10, and feels less aversion towards marriages within the kampueng (or even parui') 11.

Not only is the influence of the "family" declining when it comes to arranging marriages, but also as property-owning unit its importance tends to become less. ,According to adat ancestral ,property may only be sold for certain purposes, explicitly laid down in sayings, and generally known. In areas which have been subjected to the greatest changes, such as Padang, these rules are neglected, and sale of harto pusako is no longer considered such a weighty matter that one only resorts to it in utmost need 12.

Some far-reaching changes have also :been noted in the rantau. Indragiri is said to show a gradual increase of traits foreign to a matrilineal organisation. Originally husband and wife were considered as remaining in their own suku also 'when married, and each remained an inmate of his or her own communal dwelling. In recent times, however, husband and wife with their children tend to have a house of their own, or else they settle in the communal dwelling of the spouse whose suku ranks highest in social prestige 13.

In Painan, too, a tendency prevails for the nuclear family to have its own house. The result is that members of the same suku, and even of the same parui', no longer live together. As a unit which lives scattered far and wide begins to show less cohesion, the authority of the panghulu also diminishes, and finally the government official has to step in. His solution, as reported in 1938, was to institute territorial panghulu, thus marking a definite break with the old principles H.

Even where the socio-political organisation is not so thoroughly put out of joint as in this case, there is still a continual shifting of emphasis from one form of organisation to another within the confines of the adat itself. Thus it has been observed that the adat Parapatih is 'penetrating further and further in the luha' L Koto. This is shown by an increased importance of the panghulu andiko (heads of parui') ; and also by a more marked preference for succession to a post to be arranged through discussion, and consideration of the wishes of the present occupant - according to the rule hidui' bakarilahan ("while alive he - the present head - exercises free will") - rather than to admit an automatic inheritance by the kamanakan of the present dignitary, as is the rule according to adat Katumanggungan 15.

So we may end the part of our work devoted to Minangkabau on this note of flux and change. The recent tendencies are, no doubt. largely due to Occidental political, social, and economic influence. It may be remarked that the Minangkabau has proved very much alive to the demands of the modern age, placing himself well to the fore both in the Malay literary revival, and in the political action of the Indonesian Nationalist movement. On the other hand, as we have already remarked, all culture change must not Ibe reduced to a breakdown of ancient ways of life by the impact of an alien system; in other words, we must avoid the tendency, stigmatized by Herskovits as ethnocentrism, to "see native cultures everywhere forced out of existence by the overwhelming drive of European techniques", and "the feeling that these 'simpler' folk must inevitably accept the sanctions of their more efficient rulers as they do some of the outward modes of life of those under whose control they live" 16. In fact, some, of the conflict-situations which have just been described are perhaps not a typically modern development at all. When a panghulucomplains that the mama' are no longer consulted as frequently as they ought to and used to Ibe, or when a young man shows a marked lack of enthusiasm for a bride whom the adat considers ideal, we should probably rather see these situations as, in the first case, an idealisation of the past and, in the second, a conflict between the ideal pattern and practice. Neither is typically modern.

A fuller insight into the whole problem can only be gained by a study in the field, based, of course, on a theoretical knowledge of the culture concerned.

'" Malay, because written in that language. Those referred to 'are, however, by Minangkabau authors, and have their scene set in Minangkabau.

Chapter references.

1 J 0 u s t r a (2), 132.

2 van Ossen,bruggen (2),220.

3 de M 0 u bra y, 202.

• J 0 u s t r a (2), 132.

Co L., 670.

" t e r H a a r, 237.

7 Adatrechtbundels X, 210 .

• Drewes (1),316 seq., 331; Spat, 123; Go'nda (1),28.

• Iskandar (2).

,. Pam 0 n t j a k.

11 Iskander (1).

12 Joustra (2),132.

13 G r a a f 1 and, 43--46.

u Lapre (2),20.

,. P a u w, 22. 1. Her s k 0 v its, 31, 32.

Negri Sembilan is a state on the west coast of the Malay Peninsula, mainly Minangkabau in culture and history. It is ruled by a Jangdipertuan Besar whose residence is at Sri Menanti. Before the war it was one of the Federated Malay States.

Its history is closely bound up with that of Malaka and Djohor (Johore, in Anglo-Malay spelling). In 1365 the Nagarakrtagama - a poem originating at the Javanese court - mentions Tumasik, a town on the site of present-day Singapore, as a tributary of the Javanese kingdom of Majapahit. Some fifteen years later a ruler of Tumasik. has to flee from the city (·because of a Javanese attack ?), and he founds Malaka, further up the Peninsula on the west coast, in 1403. This is the beginning of the rule of a line of Malaka Sultans, which ends with the capture of the town by the Portuguese in 1511. The reigning Sultan escaped to Djohor, and the dynasty continued to rule, now ·based on Djohor instead of in Malaka; it is in fact reigning to this day, as both the ruling families of Djohor and of iPerak are descended from the Sultan Mahmud who fled from Malaka to Djohor in 15111. Until the eighteenth century Negri Sembilan, as far as it was centrally governed at all, formed part of the Malaka-Djohor Sultanate, and was apparently held in feoff by the Bendahara, who may ibe described as the hereditary Prime Ministers of the Sultanate 2. This is, at least, fairly certain for the districts of Klang and Djohol 3• This lasted until the period of confusion, between 1717 and circa 1725, when iDjohor, the Bugis, and Radja Ketjil, te adventurer from Siak, were involved in continual warfare, with varying success and ever-changing alliances. In 1748 the battles flared up again, with the Bugis now being led Iby Daeng Kambodja 4.

The Dutch attempted to install him as ruler of the Negri Sembilan territories, but to no avail. The inhabitants then took the initiative and invited iPagarrujueng to send them a man of their own nationality to ·be their ruler. With the installation of the Minangkabau

Radja Malewar (ca. 1770) Negri Sembilan enters history as an independent state.

New Jangdipertuans were sent over from Minangkabau whenever one of the Sri Menanti rulers died, and this practice continued until the eighteen-thirties, probably terminating on account of the massacre of the Minangkabau dynasty by the Padris. Since then the office of Jangdipertuan Besar, Sri Menanti, has 'been hereditary.

When the Minangkabau element of population initially immigrated into Negri Sembilan, is still far from certain. All we can say is that the notions of S c h e'b est a i\ and L 0 e b 6, that the entire "Malay" population of the Peninsula is of Minangkabau origin, is certainly incorrect; and we know that they w ere present in considerable numbers in 1602, as they are mentioned by God i n hod e Ere d i a, and another 17th century author, Car e r i, mentions a king, '~Pagarioyon", residing in Naning 7. According to R. A. K ern, the coming of immigrants from Minangka'bau from across the Straits is already mentioned by Alb u que r que in 1512 8 • Local legends 'place the immigration in 1388 9 , or make it follow the Javanese attack on Tumasik (1377) 10. Win s ted t puts the immigration in the 15th century or -before 11, Wi 1 kin son from the first half of the 16th onwards 12. Gull i c k is fairly definite as to the dates; 'by the beginning of the 17th century the Minangkabaus had been permanently settled in the districts of Rem-bau and Naning for a considerable amount of time, but their occupation of 'Sungai Udjong was just beginning 13.

When the Minangkabau crossed over to the Malay iPeninsula they found it inhabited ·by a totally strange population, nowadays considered as belonging to two main groups: the Negrito Semang, and the Veddoid Senoi (often called Sakai) 14. According to Negri Sembilan tradition the iMinangkabau immigrants married Sakai women, and the offspring of these mixed marriages inherited the rights to ownership of the land from their mothers - the legends presuming the Sakai to agree with the Minangkabau in having a matrilineal organisation 15. In this manner each of the districts, negeri or luha', making up Negri ,Seflllbilan, has one clan which is supposed to be descended from the aboriginal women, and which is therefore considered originally to have owned all the land, and to which the district chief, the Undang, must always belong. This privileged clan is called the Biduanda or Waris clan. The legend is undoubtedly a fiction, with the tendency to justify the immigrants' possession of the land. The theme of immigrant males marrying aboriginal women is very frequently met with in legendary history, in other countries also. The first king of Bengkulen, to cite only one example, who came from Minangkabau, married the daughter of one of the original inhabitants of the country 10;. In spite of the fairly obvious fictitious character of all the tales about the intermarrying with Sakai females, it has not always been accepted as such by European writers. Win s ted t, for instance, raises the possibility of its being "a Minangka1bau fiction" 17, but on the very next page appears to accept the descent of the Biduanda from "aborigines" or "naked savages" as a fact, and he even interprets a fragment of another legend as showing how the men of Minangkabau were "hoodwinked by a simple jungle tribe" IX. Actually I think that to the idealised picture of the iMinangkabau colonists peacefully acquiring land through intermarriage, or even being cheated by the earlier inhabitants, should be opposed S k eat & B I a g den's testimony that there is "as little likelihood of Malays being cheated by any of these wild races as there would be of the wolf of the fable being deceived Iby the lamb" 19. Or we may refer to the many descriptions of the manner in which the simpler tribes were eX'ploited and oppressed by the Malay and Minangkabau population, beginning with Jan Jan s z. Men i e, who in 1642 described the ravages caused Iby the "Manicabers" among the "inlanders" 20, and amplified in more recent works by Mar tin :!I, Skeat & Blagden~:!, Wilkinson2~, and others*.

The position of the Waris may be likened to that of the privileged "families" in Minangkabau who are considered to be the founders of the nagari in which they dwell.

Negri Sembilan socio-political organisation at first gives the impression of greater simplicity than is met with in Minangkabau. Here we no longer need to thread a maze of djurai, parui', kampueng, and suku, but the units appear to be more sharply defined and clear-cut. The smallest unit is the perwt (the same word as Minangka!bau parui'), headed by an ibu-bapa' (literally: mother-father), buapa', or according to de M 0 u bra y, ibu-buapa' ~;, (this last term seems rather improbable). I cannot recall ever having found a definition of the extent of a perut, but it probably corresponds to a Minangkabau parui'. Related perut form a suku (most closely resembling a Minangkabau kampueng) , having as its chief a lembaga. The suku is often designated as a "tribe", but the word "clan" seems preferable. In all Negri Sembilan there are only twelve suku, viz. Simalanggang, Pajokumbuh, Mungkar, Sri Lemak, Hatu Hampar, Batu Balang, Tanah Datar, Tiga Batu, Tiga Ntme' , Ana' Atjeh, Ana' Malaka, and Biduanda ~(;.

The next highest unit, above the suku, is no longer genealogical, but territorial. Negri Sembilan is, as its name "The Nine States" implies, traditionally a federation of nine negeri. In actual fact the number has varied in the course of history; at present thirteen would appear to be recognized: Sungai Udjong, Djelebu, Djohol, Rembau, Tampin, Ulu Muar, Teratji, Djempol, Gunung Pasir, Inas, Gementjeh, and Linggi ~7. Another word for these negeri is luha' ; in English we shall use the word "district", reserving "state" for Negri Sembilan as a whole. The luha'-chief's title is Undang, and the Undang, as we have seen, is always * a member of the Biduanda-clan. In each district four suku occur (one Biduanda and three others), and sometimes a suku in one district is considered related to its namesake in another; in this way "a Sri Lemak tribe (i. e. clan; d. J. d. J.) in Teratji may not intermarry with a Sri Lemak tribe in Muar" :!H.

We can now deal with Negri Sembilan social structure in rather greater detail.

Data on kinship terminology are less complete than for Minangkabau, and must be almost exclusively drawn from two articles, one by Win s ted t~" and one by T a y lor :W. They give the following picture:

br: saudara (older br: abang; younger br: ade')

si: saudara (older si: kaka'; younger si: ade')

br-wife, si-husband, br-so, Ibr-da : ?

si-so: ana' buah

si-da: ana' buah

grandchild: tjutju

great-grandchild: tjitjit great-great-grandchild, etc. : piut, oneng-oneng, and antah-antah da-husband: minantu so-wife: minantu half-siblings: saudara sabaka, or saudara sakadim (same father), saudara sa-indok (same mother) rno: ibu, ma', or indo' rno-rno: wan rno-fa: to' aki rno-rno-si: wan sana' ibu rno-rno·br: to' aki rno-si: ma' sana' ibu rno-si-husband : ? rno-br: bapa'; (bapa' ketjil if younger than rno) rno-br-wife: ? rno-si-so: sana' ibu rno-si-da: sana' ibu rno~br-da: saudara rno-br-so: saudara fa: bapa' fa-fa: to' aki fa-rno: wan fa-fa-si: wan fa-fa-br: to' aki fa-br: bapa' (bapa' ketjil if younger than fa) fa-br-wife: ma' saudara (?) fa-si: ma' saudara fa-si-husband: ? fa-br-so, fa-br-da, fa-si-so, fa-si-da: saudara (?) wife's si: ipar wife's br: ipar wife's si-husband: biras wife's br-wife: ? wife's si-so, wife's si-da, wife's br-da: ? wife's rna: mintua wife's fa: bapa' mintua (a neologism) wife's rno-br, wife's rno-si: mintua sana' ibu husband's si: ipar husband's br: ipar husband's si-husband: ?

husband's br-wife: biras

husband's si-so, husband's si-da, husband's br-so, husband's br-da: ?

husband's mo: mintua

husband's fa: bapa' mintua (a neologism)

husband's mo-si: mintua sana' ibu.

To this need only tbe added the way, noted by T a y lor, of designating more remote cousins: sana' ibu, sana' dato', sana' rnojang, etc. denote sana' (cousins) whose ibu, dato', or mojang (mother, grandmother, great-grandmother) were sisters.

It will be noted that the terminological system closely approximates the generation type; its lack of unilateral stress is even more pronounced than in Minangkabau, as here even a separate word for mama' is missing, mo-br and fa-br both being called "father", bapa'. The remark that lack of a separate term for one special relative often is a sign that the relative in question is of slight importance to the speaker ~1 seems to hold good in this case, as the mama' is actually a less important personage in Negri Sembilan than in Minangka'bau.

Marriage is regulated 'by a fairly intricate set of rules. Monogamy would appear to preponderate. The inhabitants themselves explain this by the rationalizing argument that a man married to several wives would never be able to give all his attention to the work he is expected to do for his wife's clan, but would have to divide his energy over various clans 2;{. We do meet with an uncorroborated statement that the Jangdipertuan was permitted four, an Undang three, and a Lembaga two wives ~2, but even if correct it apparently refers to privileges accorded to leaders of the community over and above the single marriage as customary with the majority of the population. When polygyny does occur, one very strict prohibition is. in force: a man may not be married to two women of the same suku ~4. This is called "putting two ladders against the same palm-trunk" (enau sebatang dua sigai) , and who broke the rule was liable to be sentenced to death 2". It is remarkable that the same expression occurs, in a different context, in a N aning Legend. Parapatih and Katumanggungan prefer to divide the country into two halves rather than together 'become its dual rulers, as that would be enau sebatang dua sigai 26. Not only simultaneous, but also successive marriages in the same suku are to be avoided: after a divorce, a man should not remarry in his divorced wife's suku. A breach of this rule is, however, a less serious matter.

That the role of the father is not entirely ignored when descent

IS traced is shown by the prohibition of marriage between half-siblings, which holds good also when the half-brother and half-sister have only the father in common 27. Such a marriage would probably be reckoned among the worst kinds of incest, one in which closest relatives are involved: sumbang balai melintang. This term is translated by Par r & Mac k ray as "incest traversing the Law-giver's Hall of Audience" 2S, but its actual meaning is, in our opinion: "incest of the Transverse Council-House" ; this gives us a clue to the history of the term, for Balai Malintang is the name of a well-known council-house in Buo, luha' Tanah nata, Minangkabau ~!l. Now Buo was the territory of the Radjo Adat, so that sumbang balai melintang probably originally meant: a case of incest forming an exceptionally grave breach of adat, to be dealt with in the Balai Malintang, the court of the Radjo Adat himself.

-Marriage between sisters' children is prohibited, as it would obviously be a breach of matrilineal exogamy ~". Marriage between Ibrothers' children is not allowed either, and this has puzzled various writers. Win s ted t calls it "illogical" ~I, and B I a g den explains it as Muslim influence ~~. As Win s ted t, in making a comparison with the social structure of the matrilineal Khassis, notes that among them the same prohibition obtains ~:\ that explanation falls to the ground. What we have here is, of course, a prohibition of parallelcousin marriage. We need not go into details on this subject, and will only note that a prohibition of marriage with parallel-cousins and a preference for cross-cousin marriage is compatitble with any social structure recognizing exogamous moieties (phratries).

Now we have nowhere found indications that such a preference, or demand, for c.c.m. is still in vigour in Negri Sembilan, but only that c.c.m. (apparently in both its forms) is per mit ted H. There are, however, certain data which can, in our opinion, best be interpreted as traces of such a connll'bium. From three districts, Teratji 4\ Naning ~H, and Ojempol47, cases are reported of functionaries always having to marry women from one special suku or perut. Although the information is far from complete, it does suggest a regular relationship of bride-giver and bride-taker between the suku or peru;t concerned. Nevertheless, such indications are rare, and there does not seem to be any pronounced preference for mo-br-da marriage in Negri Sembilan today - except, perhaps, among adat chiefs, as noted above, who may be expected to be more meticulous in upholding old customs.

As in Minangkabau, there is a tendency to keep up the bonds between descent groups which a marriage has forged, through the custom of ganti tikar, "changing one's sleeping-mat", i. e. remarrying in the clan of one's deceased wife 4X. In Kuala Pilah (the area round Sri Menanti) the expression ganti tikar is only used for a remarriage with the deceased wife's full sister, sa-ibu sa-bapa' 411 - another indication that descent from the father is taken into account in certain circumstances.

If sororate is favoured, levirate is, remarkably enough, prohibited, at least in Kuala Pilah 50.

As to the basic exogamous units, the sources contradict one another. In Rembau, we are told, perut belonging to the same suku may intermarry, unless a common ancestress can still be traced ~1 (traceability appears to extend to two generations back). On the other hand, another informant says that the rule of exogamy applies not only to perut, but also to suku, even to suku of the same name in different districts ~.~. The most enlightening information is given by Engku Abdul Aziz : in the suku Pajokumbuh, luha' Muar, in all Djempol, and also elsewhere, marriages within the suku sometimes occur. This is said to be permitted by custom, but the Lembagas prefer not to talk about it ~a. This is typically a case of conflict between theory and practice: the theoretic&lly ideal marriage is outside the suku, Ibut one does not always conform to the ideal now, and has not done so for a considerable length of time; all the same, the Lembagas' reluctance to discuss it proves that the ideal has not yet lost all its force.

In some luha' the Biduanda clans make a habit of endogamous marriages. Such is the case with the Biduanda of Djempol anrl. Djahol r.4, while the Biduanda of Djelebu are said to have practiced endogamy until ca. 1820.·It would appear to be a case of the "first families" having developed caste-like tendencies.

Several wedding-ceremonies greatly· aid us in understanding the fundamentals of Negri Sembilan social organisation. Wi 1 kin son gives a useful survey of the happenings during the wedding week: the first three days are devoted to the henna-staining ceremony, berhinai; the fourth day, with the ceremonial)meeting and sitting in state of the young couple (bersanding), marks the climax. The fifth and\sixth days are less important, and the final· stage is reached on the seventh with <l ritual bath :;~'. What interests us 'most at present is the way in which the two g r 0 ups, the bride's and the groom's, confront i one another.

The groups concerned may be the perut, if it is a marriage within the suku, but ideally it is the suku. Hum p h r e y s' description probably refers to cases where two sukuicome into contact, as it tells how the "headman of the tribe" of the bride-groom addresses the "headman of the clan" of the bride 56. When anthropologists complain of the trouble caused by vague and inconsistent terminology, this reference may., well be cited as a case in/point; but from the context one does get the impression that "clan" and "tribe" are here used synonymously, and then they are more likely to refer to a suku than to a perut *.

When speaking of Minangkabau social organisation we gave as our opinion that the ceremonies accompanying a marriage were partly to be explained as expressive of the rivalry, the antagonistic co-operation, of the two phratries. This is perhaps even more evident in Negri Sembilan. We have, for instance, a very suggestive description of the contest in eloquence which ,ensues when the spokesmen of the two parties each make their speeches. Anyone who reads the account will be struck Iby the atmosphere of quite sharp antagonism during this ceremony 59.

This rivalry can also manifest itself in mock battles, as when the bridegroom's party has to fight its way in to the ,dwelling of the bride 60. When the bridegroom and his followers arrive in procession at the bride's house, they are welcomed by handfuls of 'sweetmeats which are hurled as missiles. The groom's suite reply in kind, and this battle gives rise to much cheerful excitement 61. Here again the two phratries clash as they come together to make the marriage possible. The fight itself exerts its beneficent influence, and the throwing of sweetmeats might possibly be considered as a kind of fertility rite, or even as one form of that well·known potlatch feature, the conspicuous spending and distribution of foodstuffs; on ,this point we are, however, far from certain * *.

It is also remarkable that, on his marriage, the bridegroom has an honorary name or title, gelar, conferred on him by the relatives of the bride, sometimes by her male relations ***, sometimes by her sisters I'''. The gelar is a token of a man's maturity, of his initiation as a fullyfledged member of the community; he is entitled to this status through the fact of his being married ti4. The fact that this is an initiation into the community as whole makes it a concern of both phratries; they co-operate on this occasion fi~', and a man <belonging to one phratry is formally accepted as member of the community by people belonging :to the other, i. e. of the phratry into which he marries.

In Negri Sembilan, where each luha' has four suku, we notice the attitudes of the bride-giving towards the bride-taking suku which are characteristic of asymmetrical connubium in Indonesia; the superiority of the bride-giving clan. This is especially manifest in the relationship between a married man, orang semenda, and his bride's relatives, tempat semenda. As T a y lor expresses it: "A man is very definitely subordinated" to his tempat semenda fiU. This statement refers to Rembau, but the same applies to Kuala Pilah 67, and in fact to the entire territory. In a description of a wedding ceremony in Naning we notice the respect paid by the "headman of the tribe" (i. e. Lembaga) of the bridegroom to the "headman of the clan" (i. e. Lembaga) of the bride: thrice he makes an obeisance (sembah) before him, with the words "sembah Datu' " tiH.

It is also worth noting that, during the engagement ceremonies, the future husband is addressed in a series of verses, in which the following lines occur un :

kalau tida' mas dikandong

badan dahulu diserahkan, translated:

"If you have no money in your purse

"You will have to surrender your ,body first".

The meaning is : U you have no money to pay for the customary presents to the bride's clanspeople, you will first have to spend some time as a labourer in their service. This threat to the husband-to-be, representing the bride-taking clan, of having to work for his bride's relatives, expresses the subservience of the bride-takers to the bridegivers ':'.

It is also useful to observe the exchange of presents between the two groups before and during the wedding ceremony. It appears that such exchanges take place twice. The first time the groom's clan gives a gold ring, and receives a present of sirih (betel) ; the second time the bride's clan takes the initiative, giving a dish of food, and receiving a dish with money in exchange 71. So we see that the Ibride-givers' present is always supposed to be produce of the land, the bride-takers' money and gold. This reminds us of well-documented cases from other Indonesian cultures, in which such exchange of goods of two types is a regular concomitant of circulating connubia, one article being always associated with the bride-givers, the other with the bride-takers *'~. Among the Toba-Batak, for instance, the bride-givers always present the bride-takers with a cloth (considered to be a "female" article), while the bride-takers give "male" goods, i. e. cattle or money, to their hula hula (bride-givers) 7;1. Whatever the goods may be that are actually given as presents and counter-presents, they are always designated as ulos, i. e. "cloth", in the case of gifts to the bride-takers, and piso, i. e. "a knife", for gifts from these to the bride-givers. The custom as it is found in Negri Sembilan can probably 'be considered a phenomenon of the same kind, although when seen in connection with a circulating connubium it is - in Negri Sembilan - of the nature of a survival.

The data are confusing when it comes to the locality of the marriage. The remarkable Minangkabau system, with the husband commuting between his own and his wife's dwelling, seems at any rate not to prevail in its most rigid form, although there are reminiscences of It, but that is about all we can say with any certainty. Newbold states that the bride (if, at least, she is an adult), is taken by the bridegroom to live "in his own house" H. Does that mean in his familyOne may compare the situation in Java, where the bridegroom is some· dwelling? Or does the newly-married couple build a house of their own? It is even doubtful whether the information is correct at alL E. N. T a y lor definitely states that in Rembau the husband normally resides with his wife's family"'; but Wi 1 kin son only says that a married man settles in his wife's "'village" '''. What if he was living there already before the marriage? All these questions can only be answered by a field survey. A priori we have greatest faith in T a y lor's description, and note that in Rembau, too, a man does not, on hs marriage, break the bonds connecting him with his own maternal dwelling, but resorts thither "in times of stress, ...... for in his wife's house he is little more than a lodger". There are probably local differences, also in Negri Sembilan.

We have no information on a married man's being enjoined. to avoid his mother-in-law; all we can say is that there appears to be a remarkable number of fables in which birds, or mouse-deer, quarrel with their mother-in-law, often with dire results". I do not know whether we would be justified in considering these stories as illustrative of the dangers connected with a contact between mother-in-law and son-in-law.

Much information is to hand on the rules of inheritance. The categories are largely the same as in Minangkabau. Using the criterium of manner of acquisition the goods can be divided into ancestral (pesaka) or acquired (tjarian) ; the acquired into those acquired by a couple during marriage (tjarian laki-bini, or suarang), and by one individual alone (tjarian budjang) ,~. A man's tjarian budjang may be acquired while he was a bachelor or a widower. In diagrammatic form:

harta pesaka /"'" harta tjarian /\ Ii. laki·blnl Ii. budiang of a bachelor /"'" of a widower

From the point of view of the sex of the person who owns, or has the loan of, the inheritable goods, the categories are:

harta suarang - of husband and wife together.

harta pembawa - of the husband.

harta dapatan - of the wife.

The fundamental rule of inheritance, as in Minangkabau is :

Tjarian behagi,

dapatan tinggal,

pemnawa kembali.

"Joint acquisitions are divided, the wife's goods remain (with her relatives), the husband's return (to his relatives)".

Each of these lines needs some further discussion.

Par r & Mac k ray give the saying just quoted in this version ~

bersaorangan beragih,

berkutu belah,

tjarian behagi,

dapatan tinggal,

pembawa kembali,

and translate:

"On separation to each what is due,

"While at one, share alike,

"Divide earnings,

"Relinquish the wife's separate estate,

"Take back effects brought" 7U.

In our opinion both text and translation here are dubious; for "bersoarangan" it may be preferable to read "bersuarangan", and a better translation of the second line would Ibe : 'the partnership is dissolved'. A more important point is that we must distinguish between the treatment of the suarang on the occasion of a divorce, and a 'partition caused by death of husband or wife. In the first case the application of the "suarang beragih" rule is simple, the goods being divided between husband and wife 80. The only noteworthy features are that the house always is allotted to the wife 81 (this obviously only applies if the married couple had a house of their own), and that adult children may claim a share of the entire suarang, the remainder being divided in the usual manner; if the children are minors, the husband may give them a part of his share 82. The treatment of the suarang may also be subject to the clauses of the IMuslim marriage contract, if the marriage took the form of a nikah ta'lik * 83.

When the suarang has to Ibe divided because of the death one of the spouses, complications arise, and our various sources of information are mutually contradictory. The cardinal point is whether or not there are children to join in the sharing. If not, then the suarang is, on the death of one of the spouses, divided Ibetween the other spouse and the relatives (probably the perut) of the deceased; at least, ,according to De M 0 u bra y 8;). According to T a y lor, the entire suarang goes to the surviving spouse 86. This contradiction may be caused by local differences as De M 0 u bra y's data specifically refer to Djelebu, while the generally accepted rule appears to be : mati laki tinggal kabini, mati bini tinggaZ kalaki, i. e. "When the husband dies it (the suarang) remains with the wife and vice versa". Now De M 0 u bra y has observed that this rule does not always seem to hold good, as Par r & Mac k ray had noticed that on the wife's death the suarang went to her daughters, instead of to the husband. The apparent contradiction between this practice and the customary saying just quoted has been solved by T a y I 0 r,as he pointed out that the saying as quoted is incomplete, and actually runs:

mati laki tinggal kabini,

mati bini tinggal kalaki,

kalau tiada ana' antara berduanja 87,

i. e. "When the husband dies it remains with the wife and vice versa - unless they have children." But even when we know that the children are taken into account, the details remain uncertain. In Djelebu again, the children get the entire suarang on their mother's death 88; this agrees with Par r & Mac k ray, who say that on the death of either husband or wife, the suarang is allotted to the female children 89. T a y lor, however, distinguishes between what happens on the death of a husband and on the death of the wife. In the first case the suarang goes to wife and children together (the mother administering it for all of them together), in the second it is divided between the widower and the children 90. The main unresolved point of contradiction lies, therefore, in the widower's rights to joint earnings.

The next type of possessions are the pembawa, the goods which the husband "'brings" with him on his marriage. They may consist of three variously acquired groups of belongings:

1. what he acquired as a bachelor (tjarian budjang) ;

2. his share of the suarang of a previous marriage;

3. part of the harta pesaka of his suku, which he may use during his marriage 91.

According to Par r & Ma c k ray 92, the last group of belongings is designated as harta TERbawa, but d e M 0 u bra y objects to the use of this term !la, and, in our opinion, rightly so.

Ta y lor also uses the term terbawa, but takes it as meaning the husband's share in the suarang !14. It seems doubtful whether the term has gained any general acceptance; as we find it in T a y lor's essay, it appears to have been introduced more or less pour besoin de la cause by a witness in a lawsuit, and then in a very confused statement. I do not think it will be a great loss if we drop the term terbawa altogether.

B I a g den, in a description of a part of Malaka where "Minangkabau custom" prevails, introduces the term membawa. He says. that a man's pesaka and membawa are, on his decease, divided amongst his children 11\ Here membawa apparently means tjarian budjang ; but the whole 'passage is improbable, as it is out of the question that pesakagoods belonging to a man's matri-clan should be divided among his children. If this ever should occur, we can no longer speak of "Minangka1bau custom".

Pembawa kembali, "the husband'sbringings return", and this applies both to the pesaka and to the tjarian budjang. Pesaka-goods of which a man may have the loan and usufruct during marriage may consist of money, ornaments, or cattle !lti. At the wedding a list of them is read, in order to preclude any disagreement if the possessions have to be returned on divorce or death; only weapons and cattle are exempt from this stock-taking. During the marriage the wife is said to be held responsible for the pembawa, the husband being responsible if the dapatan are consumed "7. This pfOlbably refers especially to the pesakagoods, as a diminution or disappearance of these is a really serious matter. In case of divorce, or when a married man dies, the pesaka which were lent to him return to his suku.

A man only has the usufruct and loan of the pesaka, he has free disposal of his pentjarian (= pentjarian budjang) !IX. De 1M 0 u'b ray considers this an anomaly, as matriliny, in his opinion, entails "communal" ownership; he supposes the entire idea of pentjarian to have arisen in Negri Sembilan during the pioneering days of the Minangkabau immigrants, when it was each man for himself, and the "tribal" bonds were slackened. Actually pentjarian is also met with in Minangkabau, so it cannot be explained as a purely Peninsular speciality. If a man has not disposed of his earnings during his marriage, they are claimed by his perut on his decease !II'. They are then inherited by

"his mother's family", according to Par r & Mac k ray 10", who later on state, with grec:ter precision, that any property he leaves at death is inherited by his sisters WI.

Special mention is always made of a man's batang tuboh, his personal equipment. On her husband's death, a widow returns his knife, a hat, coat, and pair of trousers, and his bedding (tikar-bantal) to his perut 1U~. According to Par r & Mac k ray, the widow returns his coat, trousers, and weapons, and the tikar-bantal only if she remarries 111:1.

Finally there is the dapatan, the wife's belongings. As it is usual that the husband comes to dwell on his wife's land, this land is the most important part of the dapatan; and as the husband is dependent on it for his sustenance - unless he leaves the village to make his fortune elsewhere - dapatan (or pendapatan) can be interpreted as the benefit a husband derives from his marriage, in the first place: land, a house, and food 104. The position therefore is that each woman, through her share of the pesaka land, is assured of a dwelling (tempat tinggal), but at .the same time is under the obligation to "keep" her husband III:; ; the husband works for his board and lodging, and for his own share in joint earnings (from which, as we have seen, a house is always excepted, as being considered the wife's share) lUI;.

When a marriage is dissolved by divorce or by the death of the husband, the dapatan "remain", i.e. their position is not affected. When the wife dies, her part of the ancestral land is divided among her daughters 1117 ; according to de M 0 u bra y, the oldest daughter inherits the house and the plot of land surrounding it, while the sawah (wet rice·fields) are partitioned 111M.

In the preceding passage we always spoke of ancestral (pesaka) land, for the reason that it is only this kind of land that is subjected to 'the rule of female inheritance in .the form we just descflibed. When a married couple acquire new land for themselves, e.g. by cultiva.ting land that so far had lain waste, or had been part of the jungle, it is suarang, and is treated as such. If either a man or a woman acquire it individually, it is pentjarian; but an individual's pentjarian·.]and, or his/her share of the suarang,becomes pesaka after having been once inherited from the original acquirer 1119. D e M 0 u ,b ray "hazards" the rule that only orchards and sawah become ancestral after having been inherited once, while plantations need two generations to pass before they become pesaka 11". Once it has 'become ancestral, it is reckoned as property of the perot or the suku, and administered by the women 111. It is then "strictly entailed in tail female" 112. This important and fundamental ruleexdudes the male members of the perut from practically all interest in the perot land; and this fact, together with the custom of 'partitioning the land held by a woman among her daughters when she dies, makes the Negri Sembilan system very closely approach one of individual female landownership, in spite of the theoretical pesaka character of the sawah, orchards, and plantations. This is probably the reason why in descriptions one so often encounters expressions as "women land-owners", female "ownership" of the land, etc. 113, although this is contrary to Negri Sembilan legal theory. De M 0 u bra y has contrasted the custom in present-day Negri Sembilan with the rules of a "theoretically pure matriarchy" lH ; and although his reconstruction of this "theoretically pure" stage is rather too hypothetical, it is good to bear in mind that in Negri Sembilan the individual female's control of ancestral land has progressed further than in Minangkabau.

In spite of the female preponderance, the male is not altogether neglected. It is incorrect to suppose that the adat delbars him from inheritance on principle, as has Ibeen expressly pointed out by T a y lor m. Some special provisions for males may be 'briefly men· tioned. In Naning there is always a fruit tree reserved for the male in the ancestral kampong 116. Then there is the tjenderong mata : even particles of the harta pesaka may, as a favour, be inherited !by males; such goods are weapons, male clothing, and ornaments, which a man may inherit from his mother or other female relatives via his sister 117. Even more striking :is the Kuala Pilah custom: when a woman dies, her dapatan are divided, her daughters getting gold, women's ornaments, and tanah pesaka, her sons non-ancestral lands, men's clothes, cattle, and weapons 118. Now if a man has once inherited these goods, it is noteworthy that, when he marries, cattle and weapons are exempt from the declaration he has to make of his pembawa. According to Par r & Mac k ray this is because their possession would be a "matter of notoriety" 119, but this explanation seems insufficient, although it is possible that this rationalisation is nowadays generally accepted. It would rather 'appear to indicate that these goods are traditionally excluded from the treatment accorded to a man's other possessions (they having to return to his matri-clan), and can be disposed of by himself. Taking 'both data together (and bearing in mind that a man will often give his share in the tjarian laki-bini to his child,.. ren) 120, the exceptional position accorded to male-owned cattle and weapons can, in our opinion, best be explained if we assume these goods to have been formerly inherited in the male line, as contrasted to land and houses, which were inherited in a strictly female line. In brief, a division of goods into those which are patrilineally and those which are matrilineally inherited, as is often met with in doubleunilaterally organized societies 121.

ISO far we have dealt with the inheritance of tangible goods. For the inheritance of "tribal" dignities and functions other rules are in force.

The head of a perot, the ibu-bapa', is elected to his office by the perut-members. The election result is subject to the confirmation by the Lembaga, Ibut the interesting thing about the election itself is that in assessing the relative worth of the candidates to the office, both saka and baka are taken into account. Saka, i. e. pesaka, is a man's genealogy in matrilineal line, but baka "is a more complex conception; it is both hereditary characteristics and the lustre of a good family name or of inherited wealth. It relates more particularly to the paternal side of the pedigree but so far as my enquiries go it seems that male ascendants in the maternal line are also taken into account" 122. It is quite possible that the Minangkabau term warih correspond to baka, and also meant "prestige". ,In discussing the Minangka1bau expression we noticed that it referred to a man's patrilineal antecedents, and here too there is a striking similarity with the Negri Sembilan concept of baka. We see, therefore, a very remarkable double·unilateral trait here; it even seems likely that the very title of the dignitary also refers to a system of double descent: ibu-bapa', i. e. mother-father. If he is elected on account of his matrilineal and his 'patrilineal relationships, one may say that he rep res e n t s both the patriand the matriclan, and the suitable combination of the two; this would be expressed in a title which 'also brings out the combination of matrilinear and patrilinear aspects in one person 123.

If our theory is accepted that the adat sansako can also only 'be explained satisfactorily by seeing it in the context of a double-unilateral system (as put forward in Chapter V) then not only the ibu-bapa', but also the suku chief, Lembaga, is elected according to an originally double-unilateral technique. All sources agree that the Lembaga is elected by adat sansako, i. e. that all perut of the suku in turn supply the suku chief. In Negri Sembilan instead of sansako the usual term is giliran or pesaka bergelar 124.

There are some features of organisation within the suku which should be touched on here. In the first place, there is an important difference from Minangkabau custom inasmuch as a man on his marriage is incorporated into his wife's suku, and definitely becomes subjected to the authority of his wife's Lembaga. This even applies to a Lembaga himself, according to T a y lor 1 ~\ so that a married Lembaga has, in a sense, a dual personality: he is the highest dignitary of the suku to which he belongs by birth, but in his own ·private and family life he concedes authority to the chief of !tis wife's swku. D e M 0 u bra y, on the other hand, considers the Lembaga to be exempt from submission to his wife's Lembaga 1~6. Here again an apparent contradiction may perhaps be caused by local variations in custom, as T a y lor was dealing with Rembau, while d e M 0 u bra y based his opinion on information given by the Undang of Djelebu. (An Un dang is certainly freed from the jurisdiction of his wife's suku's Lembaga, also according to T a y lor).

The Lembaga's right - and duty - is to attend all feasts where a buffalo is slain (if only a goat is slaughtered, an ibu-bapa's attendance is sufficient). Par r & Mac k ray (p. 106) quote a Rembau saying in which the feasts are summed up at which a Lembaga has to be present; they include weddings and circumcisions. Then he has judicial 'powers to deal with cases involving serious 'bodily hurt. and with matters of debt, both within the clan and in cases where one of his own clansmen is debtor to a member of another suku. The rule given ,by Par r & Mac k ray (p. 47) : "No transfer or mortgage of landed pl'operty trenching on the direct female entail is valid today without his (i. e. the Lembaga's) sanction" may at first sight seem very important, but loses much of its weight if we remember the predominant role played by women in administering ancestral property, as described earlier in this chapter - and by Par r & 'M a c k - ray themselves, i. a on p. 75 of their study on Rembau.

There are some traces of totemism in Negri Sembilan, as in Minangkabau. The suku Tiga Batu is considered to be related to tigers, and certain individual tigers are held to be what one might term re-incarnations of the ancestors m. Other reminescences of totemism have been noted in Djohol; in a legend the inhabitants trace their descent from a siamang and an ungka (two species of monkey) ; and amDng the ancestors Dne meets with names as Ular Bisa lPDisDnDus Snake), Mutan Djantan (Male Rambutan-plant), Nime' Kerbau (GrandmDther Water-BuffalO') I:!". In Malaka, tDD, descent is traced frDm a crDCDdile and a tiger I:!!l.

It is remarkable that nDne Df the names Df 'Minangka'bau suku are perpetuated in Negri Sernbilan : the names Dn the Peninsula are mainly territDrial. The sUPPDsitiDn that the immigrants grDuped themselves accDrding to' the district they came frDm 1:111 is nDt unUkely. ~omething Df the same kind is still practiced as, in Rembau, immigrants frDm Djambi are always secDnded to' the suku Batu Hampar, men frDm Kampar to' Tanah natar, frDm Siam to' ,PajDkumbuh, and frDm Java to' Biduanda Djawa 1:11. The descriptiDn Df the Negri Sembilan suku as a "quasi-tribal unit Df fDreigners" Iii:! is acceptable if it is taken to' indicate that the immigrants are actually Drganized Dn a territDrial basis, but Dnce the units intO' which they are divided exist, these units, the suku, functiDn as purely genealDgical grDups.

TheDretically each luha' has fDur suku (except Sri :Menanti), an ideal Dften fixed in tales about the first inhabitants, whO' were alsO' grDuped intO' fDur clans 1:13. In Rembau there are mO're suku nO'wadays, but four have traditiO'nal privileges, and are probably the most ancient, Dr cO'nsidered to' he sO'1:H. MO'st Df the suku O'f present.ctay Rembau are divided intO' twO' halves, Baroh and Darat, i. e. LO'wlands (O'r CDast) and Uplands 1a". The Baroh half is cDnsidered to' be the elder, and ranks higher UB. This bipartitiO'n may well be a cDntinuatiDn O'f a mDre ancient phratry dualism; the cDntrast adat Parapatih - adat Katumanggungan is nDt met with in Negri Sembilan (at least nDt as an element in a dual DrganisatiO'n), but the ·bipO'larity O'f CO'ast-Inland, Older-YO'unger is the same as in Minangkabau, while the O'ppO'sitiO'n SuperiO'r-InferiO'r is alsO' a familiar O'ne in the cO'ntrast Ibetween twO' phratries.

A sImilar dichO'tO'my is met with in Sungai UdjO'ng: here again CO'ast is cO'ntrasted with Inland (here called Air and Darat); each phratry here has its Dwn chief, the Bandar and the KIana respectively 1 iii : but the superiDrity ranking is nO't the same as in Rembau, Darat with its KIana being cDnsidered rather superiDr to' Air and the Bandar. (G u 11 i C k, to' whO'm we Dwe these data, apparently fails to' see hDW the Bandar fits in to' the Sungai UdjDng 'bDdy pDlitic, and cDnsiders his pDsitiO'n as an inexplicable anDmaly). In Sungai UdjDng the dual system alsO' cDmprises the cDntrast Df male and female, Kiana being connected with the male, Bandar with the female principle, as is also expressed in their genealogy: a Bendahara of Djohor married a daughter's daughter of his Sultan. The issue of this marriage was again a daughter, who in her turn had one daughter and one son. The Klanas are descendants of the son, the Bandars of the daughter m.

Practically the only occasion on which the influence of this dual organisation makes itself felt nowadays is the appointment of an Undang. In Minangkabau the dualism Parapatih-Katumanggungan (with which the contrast Inland-Coast is connected) could 'pervade the whole social structure and influence the life of every individual, because the nagari itself, within which the Minangkabau's everyday life is led, was divided into two halves, containing as it did both Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago suku. In Negri Sembilan a much larger territorial area, the luha', took the place of the nagari, and here it is the luha' which is bisected. Whether this partition of the luha' into Air and Darat, Darat and Baroh, etc., ever exerted any influence on the affairs of the "common man", e. g. by regulating marriage, I do not know; I believe it does not do so nowadays, although this has never lJeen investigated, and a field study might show remarkable results. The descriptions we have only describe the functioning of the two halves as dealing with the appointment of the Undang.

Sungai Udjong might be said to have two Undangs, the KIana and the Bandar, one far each phratry. The KIana is the real Undang, or Penghulu, but on all state occasions when the various luha' are represented :by their Undangs, Sungai Udjong sends two representatives, the Datu' KIana Putra, and the Datu' Bandar 139.

In Rembau ,the position is rather different; the Undang is, in alternating generations, a member of the Biduanda Djawa and of the Biduanda Djakun 140. Later on in this chapter (p. 146) we shall try to find out what this ruling implies.

As we have gradually drawn the Undang into our field of vision, we may now consider his position and manner of acquiring office. In its simplest form the custom is as follows. In each luha' there is one suku which is the Waris, i. e. the "Heirs" to the function of Undang. Usually this honour is accorded to the suku Biduanda. The waris suku, as most other clans, will usually be divided up into perut. Each perut then takes turns to supply the Undang, so that here again we encounter the giliran rule.

Which individual member of the perut shall become Undang is decided by a meeting of the district's Lembagas, who elect the new Incumbent 141. Now this is a purely theoretical construction, based on scattered data and set down for the sake of clearness. In practice each luha' rings its own changes on this theme, and perhaps nO't one of them wholly conforms to the mO'del.

Sungai Udjong would appear to conform to it closely, as we know that there the Undang (i. e. the KIana) is appointed by giliran and election 142. Gull i c k gives a diagram showing the interrelationship of the perut that, each in turn, see one of their members appointed Undang 143.

Muar is also said to enforce the giliran rule, with the Undang being elected out of each three waris perut in succession 144 ; Ibut if we turn to a list of Muar chiefs, we find that in the last four generations an Undang was three times succeeded by his si-so, and once by his :brother 14;), so always by a member of his own perut. Perhaps this is a case of one family arrogating unto itself the status of a reigning dynasty, in spite of the traditional constitution, which decrees otherwise. It is also possible that actually and theoretically succession, in Muar, is by primogeniture, and our informant was wrong when he said that the giliran rule held good there.

The account of Djelebu custom is rather confused, but I think the following will give a fair picture of the situation. An Undang is assisted by five Lembagas and four waris. The four waris (probably the term here is used as meaning: the chiefs of the four waris perut) ·are: Radja Balang, Maharadja Indah, Radja Penghulu and Datu' Umbai. The perut of the Datu' Umbai is excluded from the succession, but a giliran rule applies to the three others. Of the first two it is always the chief who becomes penghulu, in the case of the third it is not the Radja Penghulu himself, but a member of his "family" 146 (who is, presumably, elected to the post).

Naning explicitly rejects the giliran rule as it applies to Undangship in the :proverb : "Jang besar menurun, jang ketjil bergilir", "Great (posts) are inherited, small ones follow the rule of rotation". So while the office of Lembaga devolves on each perut of the suku in turn, the Un dang is succeeded automatically by his si-so. Naning's four suku are Semelenggang, Tiga Batu, Ana' Malaka, and Mungkar, so a suku Biduanda is lacking. The waris suku in this case is Semelenggang ; to' be precise the Undang is always a member of the sub-suku (probably the same as a perut) Semeh'mggang Naning, and must always marry a woman from the sub-suku Semelenggang Taboh 147.

The same rules hold good in the Alor Gadjah district of Malaka. which, although outside the Negri Sembilan area, yet has a very similar adat, and is historically connected with Naning.

Lis t e r mentions Teratji as an exceptional luha' for not having the Biduanda suku as waris 14S ; actually Naning deviates further from the usual pattern than Teratji, for in this latter district the Undang is indeed a man of the suku Sri Lemak (or Sri Lema' Pahang), but he must always marry a Biduanda woman. Win s ted t, describing the Teratji custom, considers the last clause to be relatively unimportant, as referring to a secondary development, probably under Sungai Udjong influence 149. We cannot agree with Win s ted t in this respect, but rather consider the final clause to be essential to the rule of succession. The position seems to be that here, as usual, the Biduanda are the waris suku, with only this difference from the rule in other districts, that here it is the women, and not the men, of the Biduanda clan to whom the dignity of Un dang is entrusted. As the Undang is apparently expected to be a man *, a Biduanda woman's husband is not so strange a choice. We have here a situation which a writer on Korintji has concisely characterized with the words: the woman is the keeper of the title, the man only the temporary bearer l:iO. The same custom is also to ,be observed in Djempol.

Here the chief of the waris perempuan bears the title of Shahbandar. He is the husband of a woman who belongs to the waris perempuan 1 ~d. As information on Djempol is very incomplete - for instance, we are not told if the name waris perempuan forms a contrast to another kind of waris, the waris lakJi-laki - we cannot draw any further conclusions, such as whether at the same time there is a functional opposition of two dignities, Shahbandar and Un dang, as in Sungai Udjong, with the KIana and the Bandar. It seems likely, however. Earlier in this chapter (p. 128) we noted that the Teratji custom of prescribed marriage of a Biduanda woman with a Sri Lemak man can best be interpreted as a case of regular connubium. Now an asymmetrical connubial relationship in a four-clan system such as Negri

Sembilan acknowledges as ideal * is ipso facto a relationship between two phratries, and we are back again at a local form of the dual organisation: in Teratji the office of Undang can only be occupied after a marriage between representatives of both phratries; in Djempol there is a waris perempuan ("female waris"), the chieftainship of which is pli'limarily in a woman's hands (a man only obtaining the chieftainship through being married to her), and, apparently in opposition to this waris, the waris Djempol. The heads of the two waris groups, Shahbandar and Undang, do indeed resemble the Bandar and the KIana respectively in Sungai Udjong.

Different again, but nevertheless showing some points of similarity, is the political organisation in Djohol. Here we are faced by difficulties caused by the deficiencies in the quantity and quality of our information. Briefly, the situation here is that formerly the Undang were chosen from two perut of the suku Biduanda alternately, the waris Djohol perut laki-laki and the waris Djohol perut perempuan ; later from three perut in turn. Apart from the Undang there is an important dignitary, the chief (kepala) of the waris perempuan. Now on p. 11 of their article on Djohol, Nat han & Win s ted t write: "To'Jenang, the Malay officer with the Batin title ...... , head of the waris perempuan Johol and their representative at all elections, studied the genealogical tree which is in the keeping of his memory"; but on p. 13 : "The kapala waris perempuan sat directly behind him, having the Batin Muar on her right and 'To Jenang on her left". So in the first quotation the chief of the waris perempuan is a man bearing the title Djenang, in the second a woman, whose title is not mentioned, but who at any rate is not the same as the Ujenang. We are not told whether there is also a kepala waris laki-laki, and, if so, how he (or she?) is elected and what is his position. In spite of these gaps in our knowledge we shall attempt an interpretation of the facts as far as we know them.

The giliran rule may be interpreted in the same manner as has been done elsewhere, as the result of a double-unilateral system. In the limited form in which it occurred here (an alternation between two perut only) that would mean a functioning of two patrilineal clans. perhaps moieties or phratries, giving rise to the distinction between laki-laki and perempuan. As here too the patrilineal influence declined, the system took a twist in the matrilineal direction, the laki-laki - perempuan distinction being abandoned, and a Baroh·Bukit one taking its place 152_ Win s ted t & Nat han describe the change in the following words: As this distinction (viz. between laki-laki and perempuan) was one requiring, as time went on, genealogical exactitude beyond the genius of the Malay mind, territorial division has taken its place." The crude psychological explanation of the switch-over is of course untenable, but it does clearly show up the difference between the old and the new arrangement. Under the present disposition there is no longer an alternation between two, but between three perut: Baroh(or Tanggai), Gementjeh and Bukit. Now Gementjeh makes the impression of being an interloper, as it is properly the name of one of the Negri Sembilan districts. Baroh and Bukit, on the other hand, mean "Lowland" and 'IMountains", thus designating a bipartition similar to the ones we found in Rembau (Baroh and Darat), and Sungai Udjong (Air and Darat). Presumably we may consider them the original matri-moieties, to which later a third unit, the perut Gementjeh, came to be added, through causes which the present author cannot trace. The fact that Win s ted t & Nat han call the three waris perut "territorial" - even though they do not explain exactly what they mean by it - makes it clear that they are not ordinary peru-t-subdivisions of the suku Biduanda. They do not occur in the list of Biduanda perut (p. 16 seq.) either. These facts, together with their suggestive names Baroh and Bukit make us incline to see the present-day succession to the Undangship of Djohol not as an ordinary giliran, but as, originally at least, an alternation between two moieties bearing the now familiar kind of name. This still leaves us, of course, with quite an amount of points we are unable to clear up ; for example we cannot draw any conclusions as to the position of the kepala waris perempuan, in order to make out whether he - or she - plays a role similar to that of the Bandar in Sungai Udjong. Altogether we can only reconstruct the large framework of the political organisation with some degree of probability, but we remain in the dark when it comes to the details.

Rembau is different again, as this lUha' does have a Baroh-Darat dualism, Ibut the Undang is always a member of the Baroh group, i. e. of the Baroh half of the suku Biduanda. Within this (semi-) clan there is an alternation between the suku Biduanda Djawa and Biduanda Djakun. An Undang from among the Biduanda Djawa bears the title

Sedia Radja, from the Biduanda Djakun: Lela Maharadja 153. Mter what we have said about the systems in other districts we can dispense with a reiteration of our opinion on the signif<icance of the Rembau custom.

In the foregoing pages there is undoubtedly an element of speculation; and, what is more, there is one uncertain point to which attention should be drawn: when we explain the giliran as a product of a double-unilateral organisation, the Darat-Baroh contrast as a moiety grouping etc., this in itself does not imply that the inhabitants of the Negri Sembilan districts were conscious of the socio-political pattern we have theoretically reconstructed. It is also quite possible that the rules governing the Undangs' succession were, ,in manner of speaking, imported ready-made from Minangkabau. We must also take into account the possible influence exerted by the political organisation of the pre-Minangkabau population, especially as these affected ,the position of the Malaka Bendaharas. These questions will again crop up in Chapter XI, which is devoted to a comparison of the Minangka'bau and the Negri Sembilan social systems.

In his function as head of a luha', an Undang is member of the council that installs, and theoretically also even elects, the Jangdipertuan Besar. He is also member of the governing body of Negri Sembilan, the Council of Jangdipertuan and Undangs. Within his own district, his position is, to single out one or two of the most important aspects, that of court of appeal dealing with decisions of the Lembaga. He dealt with the most serious crimes, ,being entitled to demand the penalties of death and banishment. In matters of Muslim law the Undang, in Rembau at least, used to act as Qadl" Ibut this has ceased to be so since the end of the last century 154.

Finally we would like to make a remark on the word "Undang". Lis t e r may have been the first to translate it as "Lawgiver" m, and most other writers on Negri Sembilan have followed suit m. Aotually it does not mean "Lawgiver", but simply "Law", and as such may be compared with another title, viz. "Lembaga", literally meaning "Custom". A clue to the understanding of these titles is furnished by the Minangkabau title, "Panghulu limbago" m. Now limbago or lembago is practically synonymous with adat. "Adat djo limbago" is the usual Minangkabau way of denoting the entire system of customary regulation and etiquette.

The Negri Sembilan title "Lembaga" is probably an abbreviated form of "Penghulu lembaga" and "Undang" of "Penghulu undang" ; in our opinion they can best be translated as, respectively, "the chief who deals with Custom" ; to which the socio-familiar relationships are subjected, and "the chief who deals with Law", governing the luha' as a whole.

Winstedt (10),49. au Hum p 'h r e y s (2), 11, 24. 37 B I agd e n (2), 311. :J' Par r & Mac k ray, 78. a" S C h a fer, 62. 41 Win s ted t (10), 49. ,. Blagden (2), 31l. ,a Winstedt (3),11. " Blagden (2), 31l. 40 Win s ted t & Nat han, 62. •• Ramsay, 97. 47 Win s ted t & Nat han, 47. {S Par r & Mac k ray, 78. •• A b d u I A z i z, 210. '0 Abdul Aziz, 208. 51 Par r & Mac k ray, 77. o. Winstedt (4),80. "3 A b d u I A z i z, 209. ", Win s ted t (4), 43, 81, 82. 0'" W:ilkinson (7),28. .,,, Humphreys (1),26. 07 Taylo r (1), '8. '8 T a y lor (1), 268. '0 Hum p h r e y s (2), 3. ,,0 S k eat, 38l. 01 Wilkinson (7), 3l. 02 "Holding back in c111sis ceremonialism". A.A. XVIII, 44. O. De 'Moubray, 148. 64 R ass e ,r s (4), 396. .,. Duyvendak (1),173. "0 Taylor (1),7. o. A b d u I A z Ii z, 199. os Humphreys (1),25. tl9 S 'k eat, 367. .0 R ass e r s (3), 544.

" As Win s ted t accepts the story of the abol'tginal descent of the Biduanda as being true, he sees an imposs~oi1ity in ,the Minangkabau accejp,ting an Undang ,belonging to a family of despised woorigines, and granting ·that family all manners of privileges. He solves the difficulty by not admitting the synonymity of Waris and Btduanda, but taking Biduanda as meaning the semi· aborigines, and Waris the descendants of the Malaka Bendaharas. The privileged, Undang· supplying, familie~ are therefore only the Waris, not the Biduanda". In our opinion there is no justification for this construcHon.

" Except in Naning and, in a way, in Teratji.

* In his speech .the 'headman says "ana' buah dihantar", what H u ill P h - r e y s translates as "a br~degroom i,s sent". Actually ana' buah means "subordina,te", or "peI'!son under one's authority"; in its narrowest ,sense it means one's sri-so, and it is often used for members -of a perut vis-a.-vis their ibu-bapa' ; but it may also refer to "subjects" of a Lemoba,ga "', and even of an Undang ".

** The mock battle at the entrance to the bride's house has too often, even in quite recent wOl"ks, Ibeen ,interpreted as a survival of an ancient marriage by capture. This theory 'has been we'll discussed, and refu.ted, by E. C. Parson s "".

':":' :' Lis t e r says "by the orana semenda of the ,bride", with orang semenda here meaning "male relations", a very unusual meaning of the word.

times pro forma offered to the bride's family as santri, i. e. cowherd, or servant '''. The underlying meaning is the same.

,;,* In a society with circulating connubium the gift exchange as described above results in the two types of goods circulating, jn opposite directions, through the whole community. It seems possuble that the kula-system of he Trobriands IS derived from such a situation, although ,M ali now ski nowhere as much as hints that it is so ".

,;, This nikah ta'ltk should not be translated as "marriage of convenience" (see Chapter X, p. 166) ".

'., An enquiry into th~ reason why practically all dignities, from buapa' upwards, should be in male hands even in a matrilineal (in fact, almost mao triarchal; society, is 'beyond the scope of this study.

Actually in present·day Teratji there arp six clans.

Chapter references.

1 Winstedt (6),46,142. Win'Stedt (4),42. " Win s ted t & Na t han, 8. , Win s ted t (5), 5. o Schelbesta (2),13. " Lo e b (1), 653. 7 R. A. K ern, 342. Ham e r s t e r, 1446. oDe M 0 u bra Y. 20. '" Hamerster, 1445. 11 Win s ted t (6), 163. to W:ilkinson (9),12. 1:1 G'U 11 i c k, 10. U Mar ti n, 207. ,. Lister (1),37. 16 Tambo Bangkahoeloe, 34. 17 Woj n s ted t (4), 81. 18 W Ii n s ted t (4), 82. 16 S k eat & B I a g den 'I, 523. 20M art in, 128. 21 M 'a r tin, 858, 881, 1016. 22 S k eat & B I a g den 1, 556. 2. Wilkin'Son (9),5,10. 2. Win s ted t (4), 82. 2" De M 0 u b ra y, 23. 20 H a, mer s t 'e r, 1457. .7 B Ii r c h, 20. 2. Winstedt (4),80. 2. Winstedt (11), 112. 80 T a y lor (1), 275. 31 Murdock (2), 137 .• •• Par r & Mac k ray, 95. 33 Winstedt (10), 4l. 3< Winstedt (10),48; Abdul Az:iz, 208. 3r, Par r & Ma. c k ray, 79.

a A b d u 1 A z i z, 205. " Malinowski (1). ,S Vergouwen, 67-72, 225, 247; van Ossen'bruggen (3), 13. a New b old I, 254. 70 Taylor (1),8. 76 Wilkinson (11), 10. 77 S k ea t, 121, 318; Wi 1 'k in· son (5), s.v. tebang, mentua. 7S Par r & Mac k ray, 65. 79 Par r & Mac k ray, 90. so Par r & Mac k ray, 75; Taylor (1),18,20. " De M oUib r'ay, 120. '" T a y lor (1), 26. Taylor (1), 18,20. • , Par r & Mac 'k ray, 89. '" De Moubray, 161. b6 T a y lor (1), 30. " De Mou,bray, 159. b8 De M 0 u bra y, 161. .9 Par r & Mac k ray, 75. Taylor (1),30. ll! T,aylor (1), 14. ~.2 Par r & M ,a elk ray, 70, 86. 6" D e M 0 u bra y, 12l. •• T a y lor (1), 129, 133. •• Blagden (2),312. 90 D e M 0 u'b ray, 139. 97 Abdul Aziz, 207. 98 Lis t e r (1), 44; ·H a 'm e r - s t e r, 1631. 99 Taylor (1),30. 100 Par r & Mac k ray, 76. lUl Par r & Mac k ray, 92, 102 De Mou:bray, 150. 103 Parr & Mackray, 88. 101 Parr & Mackray, 87. 105 De Moubr1ay, 139. 100 De Moubray, 120. 107 D e M 0 u b ra y, 129. lOb Lis t e r (1), 44. 109 Taylor (1),9. 110 D e M 0 u b r 'a y, 126.

111 Winstedt (10),85; Parr & Mackray, 67; De Moubray 89. II' Taylor 0),9. "" Win s ted t (10), 85; De M 0 u bra y, 120. 111 De M ou bra y, 128, 129, 130. 110 Taylor (2), 117. D e M '0 u bra y, 132 note. '" DeMo u bra y, 132; Par r System and Social Organisation of the Herero (Utrecht, 1933), 101; Murdock (2), 38 . Gull i c k, 25. cf. Du yv e nd,ak (1), 175. L ,i s t e r (1), 45; Winstedt (10),71; Gullick, 24; Ram say, 99. m T a y lor (1), 8. aUD e M 0 u bra y, 119. '", Zain al-Abidin (1),36, ,"' W,j n s ted t & Nat h 'a n, 3, 4, '26 Wilken (1), 72 . Gull i c k, 21. "" Par r & Mac k ray, 5. "'" D e M 0 u bra y, 184. '". Winstedt (4), 81; Newbold I, 199, etc. "" Wilklinson (9),47. '''', Par r & M 'a c k ray, 119. '''6 Par r & Mack ray, 4;

& Mac k ray, 69. '" Abdul AZ1iz, 214. "" Parr & IMackr;a,y, 87. '"" Taylor (1),26. "I L u t Hg, H. G., The Religious

Her v e y, 250. 13. Gull i c k, 12, 40. 1:," B 1 and, 56. 1:1lI B ire h, 13, 15. It" Hervey, 242. "' Winstedt (10), 72. '" Gull i ck, 24. Gull i c k, 40.

,,. Lister (1),47. Win s ted t & Nat h a, n, 32. o ' B r i e n, 340. loJ, Ramsay, 97, 98. Lister (1),47. W'i n s ted t & Nat han, 62. "0 M 0 r is 0 n, 19. '"' Win s ted t & Nat ih a n, 47.

>C," Win s ted t & Nat han, 14. '"' Hervey, 242; 'P,a,r,r & '" Par r & Mac k ray, 52. ",', Lister (1).

Mac'kray, 49, 3,5.

",. Hum p h r e y s (1), 26, for instance.

'r.7 Will i n ck, 167.

CHAPTER IX.

POLITICAL ORGANISATION IN NEGRI SEMBILAN.

The federation of luha' called "Negri Sembilan" has undergone many vicissitudes in the course of its history. Klang, the senior luha' of the original Suku Jang Empat, from which present-day Negri Sembilan originated, is nowadays a district of Selangor 1; and Segamat, Naning, and Djelai, in the 16th century component luha' of Negri Sembilan, are now parts of Djohor, Malaka, and Pahang respectively. Not only do the luha' vary in the different periods of Negri Sembilan history, but there is als..; the fact that we can hardly find two writers on the subject who agree with each other as to which districts make up Negri Sembilan a's a whole. Win s ted t and Nat han preface their own enumeration with the lists drawn up by New b 0 I d, Lister, Wilkinson, and Parr & Mackray2. The lack of agreement is quite considerable, 'but all the authors have one thing in common: they have all carefully listed n i n e luha', no more, no less. In doing so they have, I am afraid, been rather too prone to take the literal meaning of the name "Negri Sembilan", the "Nine States", at its face value and to make tile facts fit the name. Actually at the installation of the Jangdipertuan in 1898 there were present representatives of the following districts: Sungai Udjong, Djelebu, Djohol, Rembau, Tampin, Muar, Teratji, Djempol, Gunung Pasir, Inas, Gementjeh, and Linggi 3, making twelve in all; if we include the Ruler's own district, Sri Menauti *, the result is a federation of Thirteen. The same luha', with the exception of Tampin, paflticipated in the ceremQny Qf 1934 '. NQr is it Qnly in mQdern times that the traditiQnal name Qf the State dQes nQt agree with its actual cQnstitutiQn. fQr when, after a periQd Qf dissQlutiQn, in 1889 Rembau, DjQhQI, and Sri Menanti fQrmed a federatiQn, they called it Negri Sembilan, traditiQn being held in greater hQnQur than mathematical exactness. Nevertheless a study Qf present-day practice reveals a strQng tendency to' bring intO' prQminence just nine luha' Qut Qf the greater number nQW making up the FederatiQn. An answer to' the questiQn: hQW and why is this dQne, will prQve Qf the greatest impQrtance fQr an understanding Qf the ideal pattern underlying the PQlitical QrganisatiQn.

When a new Jangdipertuan Besar has to' be designated, fQur Lembagas Qf Muar set Qut to' invite the Undangs Qf Negri Sembilan to' be present at the ceremQny. (Muar is the luha' within which Sri Menanti fQrms an enclave). FQur Qf the Undang, viz. Qf Sungai UdjQng, Djele'bu, DjQhQI, and Rembau, are ElectQrs, and to' each ElectQr Qne Qf the Lembagas Qf Muar is sent as emissary. The envQY to' Sungai UdjQng is accQmpanied by a Lembaga Qf Teratji,

to' Djelebu, by a Lembaga Qf UjempQI, to' Rembau, by a Lembaga Qf Gunung Pasir, to' DjQhQI, by a Lembaga Qf DjQhQP.

When the fQur electQrs cQnverge Qn Sri Menanti fQr the installatiQn ceremQny, they each make their residence in Qne Qf the luha' en route, and the result is again a pairing'Qff Qf luha' accQrding to' the same principle as applied when the invitatiQns were cQnveyed to' the fQur main Undang, as the Un dang Qf Djelebu makes his halt at DjempQI, etc. - the Undang Qf DjQhQl's stQPping-place is Muar 9. The fQur great districts are said, in Negri Sembilan parlance, each to' have Qne district as their serambi, their "verandah". (Muar's PQsitiQn as serambi to' DjQhQI explains the apparent anQmaly in the cQmpositiQn Qf the delegatiQn bearing the invitatiQn to' DjQhQl. FQrmerly - in 1887 at any rate - DjQhQI exercized supremacy Qver 'Muar) III.

Once a Jangdipertuan has been apPQinted, the ceremQny O'f his installatiO'n takes place, and in the ceremO'nial hall the seating arrangements fO'r the Undangs is as fQllQWS II : (see diagram O'n next page).

Taking all these data tO'gether, we may cO'nclude that Qut Qf the thirteen districts making up the "Nine States", nine are indeed specially impQrtant, and these nine may be divided intO' three grO'ups, thus:

1. Sri Menanti, the fQCUS and centre O'f all the activities;

2. An inner circle of four luha' : Muar, Teratji, Djempol. Gunung Pasir;

3. An outer circle of four: Sungai Udjong, Djelebu, Rembau, Djohol.

This ceremonial grouping roughly corresponds to the actual geographical position of the luha', the "inner circle" clustering round Sri Menanti, and the four large districts of Sungai Udjong, Djelebu, Rembau, and Djohol lying further out in the west. north, south, and east respectively (see map 5).

o E F G

A - Jungdipertuon 8 - Undong. of sol Ud lonp Djelebu ~embou Dlohol C - Undongs of Muor Dlempol rerolll Gunung Poslr o - Lembogos of sol Udlong E - .. Olelebu F - .. Rembou G - .. Djohol

In dealing with Minangkabau we mentioned ,the pasupooan complex, a group of five landowners, consisting of one in the centre and four round about 12. We then noted the resemblance to the Javanese mantjapat-complex, which Van 0 sse n b rug g e n has explained as a self-contained conglomeration of four villages round a fifth, central, village, the latter representing the totality of the complex as a whole. Now in our opinion a very similar idea underlies the organisation of the Negri Sembilan federation, with the only difference that round the centre, Sri Menanti, there are grouped not four, but twice four territorial units *. Here also the centre represents the totality, that is to say that the royal district Sri Menanti, and more especially its ruler, the Jangdipertuan Besar, is the representative of the unity of Negri Sembilan as a whole, and as it were embodies the whole State. In Minangkabau, as we have seen, the Jangdipatuan's rOle was of the same nature, and was expressed by, among other things, the way in which he was said to combine both phratries: luha' Agam was said to be Bodi-Tjaniago, L Koto was Koto-Piliang, but the Jangdipatuans' own luha', Tanah Data, was "mixed", i. e. contained both. Now in Negri Sembilan the phratry-opposition is so slight as to be almost nonexistent, but here too the royal luha', Sri Menanti, is seen as the one that gathers together the distinct elements of each separate district: Negri Sembilan as a whole has twelve suku, of which four traditionally occur in varying combinations in each single luha' ; but in Sri Menanti all twelve suku are met with 14. Although the actual facts do not always tally with the traditional formula (severalluha' having more than four suku), the ideal pattern is obvious; Sri Menanti comprises the entire society, of which each district only contains a part, and therefore represents the entire Negri Sembilan "World" 1u.

We saw that in Minangkabau the contrast between the :patrilineal organisation of the royal house and the matriliny of the populace is also explicable point of view which sees the Ruler as the focus of his realm, and his position as a husband of his country. The rules to which a Negri Sembilan Jangdipertuan is subject show a very similar line of thought. He always has to marry a woman who is not of royal descent, but is one of his, matrilineally organised, subjects. According to the legend, in the days when a new Jangdipertuan was ·always sent over from Minangkabau, a certain continuity in the succes$ion was nevertheless preserved by the rule that the newcomer was to marry his predecessor's daughter; this lady's title was Tengku Puan. Although nowadays this rule is not accepted as obligatory, the royal consort - who is still styled Tengku Puan or Ampuan - should "according to some authorities" always be a member of the Air Kaki perut of the suku Batu Hampar, this perut being in theory, the descendants of Malewar's (the first Jangdipertuan's) wife 16. Even today an installation of a new Jangdipertuan would, in She e han's words, not be considered complete if the ruler-to-be were to lack an official consort 17 ; that is to say, a Ruler is not fully suited for his tasks unless he is united with a representative of his subjects, thus perpetuating the union of the first Jangdipertuan, Radja Malewar, with a woman of Negri Sembilan.

A concomitant of the obligatory marriage rule was the point of view, held as recently as 1914, that a member of the ruling house is only eligible to the post of Jangdipertuan if his mother is by birth a member of the perut Air Kaki t~. Whether this regular connubial relationship between Air Kaki and the dynasty is still maintained nowadays is not clear from the most recent description of an installation ceremony, that of the Jangdipertuan Abdulrahman in 1933. We are told that a Tengku Ampuan was "chosen", but not from among whom and according to what principles. Probably the meaning is that from among the four wives a Jangdipertuan may legitimately have according to both shar' and adat ttl the one who was matrilineally a member of the Air Kaki was designated as official consort; but all we are told about this Tengku Ampuan's descent is, that she is her husband's fa-br·da ~", and no information is supplied as to her matrilineal descent. All we can say is that there is no reason to suppose that the Air Kaki connection has been severed, and that to the contrary all evidence points to the fact that in 1936, when Tengku Abdul Aziz wrote his article on the Adat Kuala Pilah, the Air Kaki was at least intimCl.tely connected with the Jangdipertuan dynasty. The Air Kaki, for instance, always supply two out of the four highest court officials, the Orang Empat Astana ~t. Also it is clear from the whole article that the Air Kaki is not considered to be on a par with other Sri Menanti perut, but has, so to speak, a foot on either side, the two sides being the Rulers and the suku. The author even discusses at some length the consequences of a marriage between a member of the Air Kaki and of an "ordinary" perut. The result is - and this indicates that Air Kaki is Jnly a privileged group among the suku, and not an offshoot of the dynasty itself - that matriliny always prevails; whether an Air Kaki woman marries a man who is a "commoner", or vice versa, the husband is seconded to his wife's st~ku, and the wife retains her control of the tanah pesaka ~~. This rule also holds good when one of the On.i.ng IV A.stana marries a wife from the suku-folk. As Abdul Aziz expresses it: the children of such a marriage follow their mother's adat. The situation is different, however, when a male member of the ruling house marries a non-royal woman; in this case the wife joins the pMrilineal family of her husband, and the offspring will also be considered members of their father's lineage. In spite of this the court circle claim for the issue of such a "mixed marriage" the right to their mother's tanah pesaka. The Lembaga of the mother's clans of course vigorously combat this point of view ~:l. Court and commoners also disagree on the position of another group of court dignitaries, the "Ninety-nine officials", Pegawai jang sembilan puluh sembilan. These functionaries consider themselves ex officio excluded from the authority of any Lembaga. The latter, on the other hand, contend that even a court Pegawai is subjected Ito the rule: Orang semenda pada tempat semenda: "a bridegroom has to defer to his in·laws", and thus comes under the jurisdiction of the Lembaga of his wife's clan 24. The Jangdipertuan 'actually has two functions: he is Un dang of his own luha' Sri 'Menanti, and chief of the Negri Sembilan federation. In his status as Undang he automatically succeeds his father, but as Jangdipertuan Besar he is, theoretically at least, elected ~~. The electors are the Undangs of the four greatest districts, Sungai Udjong, Djelebu, Djohol and Rembau, but already in 1914 Wi I kin son wrote: "'Nowadays the choice of a Yamtuan is a foregone conclusion; his election is a mere form" :!6. When, in 1934, the old Jangdipertuan died, his son, Tuanku Abdulrahman, appears to have automatically succeeded him, but during the installation ceremony the Datu' KIana of Sungai Udjong, acting as spokesman for the four Elector Penghulu, spoke: " ...... This day we have installed Tuanku Abdulrahman, son of the late Jangdipertuan Besar Muhammad Shah, on the Lion Throne of the Kingdom of Negri Sembilan ...... " ~7.

Lis t e r mentions a quite different group of Un dang who act as electors : "In dealing with the election of the Yam Tuan Besar of Sri Menanti, it is now only necessary that the Dato's of JoMI, Muar, Jempol, Terachi and Gunong Pasir should be d'accord" 2~. Even if this was correct in 1887, it no longer holds good for the present day.

The installation of the Jangdipertuan consists of two main ceremonies : ,the bersiram and the tabal. For the bersiram, the Ruler-elect and his consort drive to a raised seat, the name of which, pantjapresada, shows that in its original, Indian, form it consisted of five superimposed platforms - nowadays the number is greater, as appears from a photograph of the 1934 ceremony 29. Bersiram means "bathing" or "lustration", and implies that the participant is actually sprinkled with holy water and/or rice-flour. In the ritual described by She e han, however, a bowl containing "powder and lime" were carried round the dais seven times by court officials, the Jangdipertuan and the

Tengku Ampuan afterwards only dipping their hands into it four times.

The tabal is the installation proper; here the Undang proclaim the new Ruler elected, and Undang and Lembaga ascend the seven steps of the singgasana, the "Lion Throne", to make obeisance to the now duly installed Jangdipertuan. The ceremony closes wi:th the burning of incense and the reading of a prayer to Allah *. According to W ilk ins 0 n this is really the crux of the ceremony, as this prayer confers the royal mana, the dauZat 30.

Once in office, the Jangdipertuan is by no means a despot. Par r & Mac k ray quote the Rembau saying: "Now the raja is not the owner of the land, nor can he raise a war levy, but justice is with him, and to him is due for his sustenance a tribute of money, a measure of rice,and a cluster of coconuts" :11. The Jangdipertuan was the final court of appeal, and theoretically he could deal with crimes punishable by beheading :U. Altogether his actual political power was, and is, slight, but his importance, like that of the Radjo Alam of Minangkabau, lay in his supernatural powers. The prerogatives of the Ruler included the sole use of many forms of attire and ornament and of certain architectural features in his dwelling. The Jangdipertuan alone could have a cannon fired to mark the end of the Ramadan fasts; he alone had the right to sound the drum (taboh) to summon people for his own purposes :1:1. All these pantang-Zarang, although perhaps trivial in themselves, combined with the detailed court etiquette, the veneration in which the regalia are held, etc., are indications of a certain awe towards the Ruler and his dauZat.

At certain festivals, such as a marriage or a circumcision in the ruling family, the Jangdipertuan had a right to claim tribute (mas manah) , and also at cock-fights - in itself an indication that the cock-fight was not just a simple amusement, but an adat ceremony on par with circumcision and marriage. His perquisites were also all weird freaks and rarities, which are considered to be exceptionally well endowed with supernatural power: bezoar stones, freak buffaloes, and also, as in Minangkabau, illegitimate children :14. Win s ted t apparently considers the saying that "the high-road and its steppingstones" also belongs to the Ruler a cynical joke :;:', but here again the idea probably is that objects which cannot find a place in the ordinary categories of everyday life are the Jangdipertuan's, and there is no reason to assume the saying to be meant as a joke (after all, in English too one speaks of the "King's Highway").

It is Win s ted t's great merit to have pOinted out that in discussing the position of the Jangdipertuan one should not confine oneself to stressing "the real weakness and poverty of this high titular magnate", but should always take his supernatural powers into account. If one fails to do so, numerous features of Negri Sembilan custom will be insufficiently understood_

At the installation ceremony, for example, the Jangdipertuan must sit absolutely motionless; this has been explained by reference to the Indian belief that the ability to sit still for hours was considered "to be a sign of the commencing divinity of a king" OJ,;.

More important is the presence of a Meru within the precincts of the Jangdipertuan's estate. A replica of Meru, the Hindu Olympus, is often a feature of the palace grounds or the royal temples in those parts of South-East Asia which have undergone Indian influence *_ A common way of reproducing the divine mountain is by a building with a roof in superimposed tiers :J~. Through this local Meru the divinity enters into contact with humanity, and in the first place with "The deputy elected by the Lord", the King 39_ Now the Jangdipertuan Besar too had his Meru ; in the first place, behind the palace at Sri Menanti a hill is dedicated to the god Indra ~U, but also within the palace grounds itself a Meru played a part in the installation ceremony. In Perak, where the palace is the Meru, the Sultan who is being installed performs a pradakshina round it, a clockwise circumambulation H; with this ritual, he symbolically "takes possession of his kingdom in little" 4~.

in Negri Sembilan the custom is slightly different; the Jangdipertuan sits enthroned on the raised dais, the pantjapresada, while the Orang IV Astana perform a circumambulation round him (see p. 156) ; so here the Jangdipertuan is already acknowledged as Lord of the Meru, and is venerated accordingly.

In Indian cosmology, the Meru is also the centre and pivot of the universe: it stands in the middle of the human world, Jambudwipa, and round it are grouped the cities of the eight lokapdla (the "Protectors of the World"} and the four points of the compass 43. The preoccupation of Indian cosmology and astrology the number 4 and its multiples is also found in Indonesia, and so it is no wonder that the regalia of the Jangdipertuan come in groups of eight: 8 spears of state, 8 tapers, 8 umbrellas, etc. 44. Salutes numbered 8, 16, and 32 45, and the principal members of the dynasty and the court were the Putra jang Empat and the Orang Empat Astana, the "Four Princes" and the "Four Gentlemen of the Palace" 4';. It is even likely that the idea of Negri Sembilan as a State of nine districts arises from the same classifying tendency, which has its roots in cosmological theory: eight districts symmetrically grouped round the Ruler who, as Lord of the Meru, is the fixed point and centre of the Alam.

We may note here that as the Meru is the centre round which the heavenly bodies revolve, it is also the symbol of an ordered universe, and of an orderly and cultured human society, as contrasted with chaos and barbarism. When a Javanese myth tells of the transportation of Meru from India to Java, this has been interpreted as meaning that an ordered society was founded in a previously bar,baric country 41. Now in Minangkabau legend ISapurba, who was to be the first King of Minangkabau, appears on earth on the hiB Siguntang Mahameru; so here too a bringer of culture, who slays the dragon Si Katimono and institutes monarchical government, is associated with a Meru.

In some Peninsular States the supernatural character of the Ruler becomes manifest not only through his position as centre of the world, but also in a more active manner through the actual participation of the Ruler or other members of his family in ritual practices. Sultan Jusuf of Perak "was placed shrouded on the wizard's mat with the wizard's grass-switch in his hand to await, as at an ordinary seance the shaman alone awaits, the advent of the spirits invoked" 4". Also in Perak there was the hereditary post of State Magician; the occupant, who bore the title Sultan Muda (Junior Sultan), was a member of the princely dynasty, but could never inherit the Sultanate. His task was to mediate with and to propitiate the djin keradjaan, the Genii of Royalty 4!J.

In Negri Sembilan the connection between Ruler and Magician (pawang) is not quite as evident as in Perak, but even so Win s ted t is probably justified in pointing out the significance of the fact that the Jangdipertuan's insignia include a ring and a hair, objects used for divinatory purposes in many societies, not only among "Karens and

Malays" ~(). If in the course of this chapter we have come to the conclusion that the function of the Jangdipertuan is largely of a sacred or ritual nature, there is one question that should not be left unanswered, namely: With what supernatural powers is he associated? If we are not mistaken, a description of the archaic Indonesian religious system should take into account the difference between the heavenly and the ,earthly or subterranean powers. In our opinion the pawang has to deal, perhaps not exclusively, but mosBy, with the typically chthonic powers, who grant wisdom and fertility. Among the possessions of the Batak magician were books containing ritual formulae and symbols, and the wooden covers of these "pustaha" bear as most characteristic decoration relief-carvings of snake,s or lizards;'1, creatures that live mysteriously close to or under the earth. Or, to take an example from an area nearer Negri Sembllan: an inhabitant of Kelantan (on the north-east coast of the Malay Peninsula) who wishes to acquire a magician's powers sits on the grave of a murdered man, making believe the grave is a boat, and using the midribs of the leaves of a coconut palm as paddles. He then calls upon the murdered man to grant magical powers .-.~. The chthonic character of this ritual is evident, both in the use made of the grave and in the symbolic paddling of the canoe on the sea; the sea is intimately connected with the underworld and the powers therein.

On the other hand the Ruler appears to be associated with the upper-world or heaven. In the first place this is indicated by the fact that he dwells on the Meru, the mountain which forms the trait d'union between heaven and earth; but it also appear from the fact that it is the Huler who is par excellence entitled to use the umbrella as his emblem. Now according to Mlle. A u boy e r the umbrella is, in India, essentially a symbol of the world as a whole, and the meaning of the umbrella as an emblem of royalty is that the entire world shelters beneath the power of the Universal Ruler, the cakrawartin ~.;l. Possibly it is, at the same time or in a different cultural context, a symbol of the dome of heaven that spans the whole world. Win s ted t quotes a Selangor account of the creation of the universe: " ...... The Creator ...... made the magician's universe, a world of the breadth of a tray, a sky of the breadth of an umbrella" .;4. Here we find the pajong (umbrella) contrasted with another object as heaven to earth or underworld. In Java, where quite a hierarchy of umbrellas of different sizes and colours has been evolved among the courtiers, the regents, and the

Muslim religiQus Qfficials, such umbrellas may be set Qut in racks; Qur phQtQgraph shows such a rack with the umbrellas standing Qn a base in the shape Qf twO' entwined naga, Qr serpents. The naga is undQubtedly an underwQrld creature, and this umbrella-rack, with its pajong resting Qn a naga, may surely be said to' depict the upper-wQrld Qr heavens standing Qn the nether-wQrld belQw. FQr IndQnesia at least Qne dQes get the impressiQn that the pajong is prQbably a symbQI Qf the heavens, Qr at any rate Qf the upper-wQrld aspect of the earth, as cQntrasted with the nether regiQns. NQW the Ruler is the dignitary whO' is par excellence entitled to' the use Qf this sky Qr upper-world symbQI: nO' regalia are cQmplete withQut Qne Qr mQre State Umbrellas (Negri Sembilan has eight, accQrding to' Wi I kin s 0' n ,,5; 16, accQrding to' Win s ted t ~B) ; when Qther pajong-bearing Qfficials apprQach the Ruler they have to' clQse their umbrella, and SO' fQrth. SO' we think that, in spite 'Of the undQubted resemblance between the role of the pawang and Qf the Ruler in sO' far as bQth have supernatural PQwers and have certain ritual functiQns in the cQmmunity, there is this essential difference, that the Ruler deals with the PQwers abQve, the pawang with thQse belQw. The pawang is assQciated with chthQnic symbQls, the Ruler with a celestial Qne ; and it may be that the use Qf an umbrella by a pawang is, in principle, fQrbidden. In this CQnnectiQn it is interesting to' nQte the remarks made by W. W. S k eat in his "Malay Magic". After qUQting B I a g d 'e n's 'accQunt Qf the pawang's activities, he says: "...... the priestly magician stands in certain respects Qn the same fQQting as the divine man Qr king - that is to' say, he Qwns certain insignia which are exactly analQgQus to' the regalia Qf the latter, and are, as Mr. B I a g den points out, called by the same name (kabesaran). He shares, mQreQver, with the king the right to' make use Qf cloth dyed with the rQyal CQIQur (yellQw), and, like the king, tQQ, PQssesses the right to' enfQrce the use Qf certain ceremQnial wQrds and phrases, in which respect, indeed, his list is IQnger, if anything, than that .of royalty" "7. It may be significant that there is nO' mentiQn Qf the umbrella fQrming part Qf the magician's insignia.

AlthQugh we CQuid Qnly deal briefly and rather superficially with the PQsitiQn Qf thE> Ruler, it seemed preferable toO make at least SQme attempt at a clQser definitiQn, rather than to' characterize it as "supernatural" Qr "sacred", and leave H at that.

Finally we WQuid like to' draw attentiQn to' ,the fact that, in all the texts dealing with Negri Sembilan, we have nowhere found a reference to the Mangkudum, ,that member of the Basa IV Balai in l\Hnangkabau whose "rantau" the Negri Sembilan were considered to be. We are therefore left in the dark as to what dealings Minangkabau really had with Negri Sembilan. 'Generally when some territory is said to pertain to a high dignitary, it means that he ha,d the right to levy taxes there, or ,to draw income from it in other ways. It is possible that the Mangkudum held such "concessions" in Negri Sembilan; but in practice his influence cannot have amounted to very much. Even in the years 1773-1832, when ,the Jangdipertuans of Sri Menanti were invited or sent over from Minangkabau, the Negri Sembilan were probably well· nigh independent of the Sumatran motherland.

* The translation of "Sri Menanti" as the place where the first limmigrants found "Rice awaiting" them is first given Iby Lis t e r', and 'has ,been accepted by many later wrIters G. I do not know whether it ,is popular etymology or an invention hy Lis t e r himself, 'but 'as an interpretation of the name it is absurd. Sri Manganti, the '~Illustl'llous Waiting" is the name of a gate and a courtyard in the Javanese principalities". In NegrJ Sembilan the name has been extended to the 'palace and even .to the district as a whole, showing a development ra,ther .similar to that of the expression "The Sublime Porte".

Such an 8-9 instead of the 4-5 grouping is not unique: a Javanese king, intending to unify Ibis whole reaLm :by SUbjecting a rebellious va'ssaI, had !the principle of unification embodied in a weapon which 'he ordered to :be forged out of iron taken from eight points of the compass and a ninth place in the centre. This totality-weapon was the kr.is sembilan desa, the "Dagger of the Nine Vil· lages" or "Nine 'Directions". Even more striking is the sitting in state, in the Javanese Principalities, of the Ruler surrounded by four, or concentric oirCles of each four, officials. The 8-9 grouping (the Ruler in the centre, and twice four officials round him) is then called mantja.lima '''.

* Sheehan calls it Arahic (p. 240), bu( the text as he gives it is Mal a y only (241).

,. But not only in the area where Indian influence has penetrated: the sacred -ID()untain apllears to have been a pre-Hindu concept also ".

Chapter references.

1 Lis t e r (1), 35. 2 Win s ted t & Nat han, l. S B i r c ob, 20. • L;ister (1), 37. • e.g. Wilk inson (10), l. • Stutterheim (3),60; Gericke & Roorda, s.v. manganti. 7 She e han, 230. " She e han, 272. " Wi 1 kin so n (10), 36. 10 Lis t e r (1), 38. 11 She e han, 235. H van V 0 II e n h 0 v e n, 258. 13 K 0 r n (2), 171; Encyclop'aed·ie, first edition only, IV, 612. H Ham e r s t e r, 1460. 15 She e han, 237. ]. Wilkinson (10),22,27. 17 She e ha n, 244. ]. Wil,kins on (10),39. 19 Winstedt (10), 4l. 20 She e han, 243, 272. 21 A b d u I A z i z, 21l. 22 Abdul Aziz, 217. 23 A b d u I A z i z, 211. "' A b d u I A z i z, 204. •• Wilk:inson (10),13.

211 WilkInson (10),39. 27 She e han, 237. 28 Lis t e r (1), 52. 29 She e han, facing p. 231. 30 W i lk i n oS 0 n (10), 44. 31 Parr & Mackray, Saying IX. 32 WHkinson (10), 15. •• W,ilkinson (10),17; Winstedt (10),76. •• Wilkins,on (10), 14. 3' Winstedt (4), 9l. 3. Win s ted t (4), 93. 37 Stutterheim (1),348. 3R von H e i n e - G e Ide r n (2), 67. 3. Stu t t e r h e i m (1), 342; ,R ass e r s (2), 406. '0 W.lnstedt (9),27. 11 WIn s ted t (8), 139. 4. Winstedt (10),57. 13 von H e i n e - Gel d ern (2), 29. u Wilkinson (10), 19. '" Winstedt (10),58. '" Wilkinson (10),23,30. 17 Stu t t e r 'h e i m (1), 3-±O .

"' Winstedt (2),50. 4\) Win s ted t (2), 42, 50; Wilkinson (7),49. 50 Winstedt (10),75; Win s ted t (4), 91. 51 Catalogus VIII, 129, 130, 134, 137.

c., Win s ted t (2), 45; S k eat, 60. c." A u boyer, 26, 27. 57 S k eat, 59.

[·4 Win s ted t (2), 48.

.... Wi l.k,i ns 0 n (10), 19.

56 Winstedt (10),58.

CHAPTER X.

MODERN TRENDS IN NEGRI SEMBILAN.

In the preceding chapters we have repeatedly come across situations which we interpreted as showing a conflict between the theoretical demands of adat, and the practice 'Of everyday life. Such situations might conceivably be held to illustrate cultur·e change, as showing immemorial custom yielding ground to the demands of the modern age. Such a view WOUld, however, not always be justified, as it is far from certain that such a deviation from the ideal adat is a typically modern phenomenon. In this chapter we shall therefore confine ourselves to these changes in native custom which have actually been observed, that is to say, which represent deviations not from an ideal pattern, but from an earlier custom that has been duly recorded and described. As we remarked in the analogous chapter on Minangkabau, this subject is eminently one for which field-work is required. Lacking any field-work data of our own we can only utilize published accounts, and this really means: only the book "Matriarchy in the Malay Peninsula" by d e M 0 u bra y. He is in fact the only author who consistently brings out the time perspective in his account of Peninsular Malay custom.

On the very first page of his work he proves to be well aware of the difficulties confronting Civil Service 'Officers in a country where native custom is appreCiably changing, while conversely the very inability of the magistrates to understand ,the nature of the changes adds to the uneasiness and lack of certainty on the part of the native population. The resulting situation is described as a rapid evolution of the custom under the impact of modern economic conditions, taking place in an atmosphere of uncertainty I.

Coming now to concrete facts, the main line of change appears to be the weakening of the clan bonds with a corresponding increase in the importance of the parental family. D e M 0 u bra y sees the origin of this development in the very fact of the immigration from

Minangkabau with its consequences, a social life more adapted to pioneering circumstances:!. This 'attribution of far-reaching consequences to the immigration itself is really axiomatic for d e M 0 u - bra y, but is not, in our opinion, entirely justified. In Chapter VIII we first raised this point, in connection with his views on the effect of the immigration on the laws of inheritance :1. The fact itself nevertheless remains, and is especially noticeable in the revised customs for dealing with inheritance.

One of the fundamental rules is: suamng diagih, jointly acquired property is divided. This implies that after the decease of the husband. his clansfolk are entitled to his share of the suamng. Nowadays, however, they often refrain from pressing their claim and permit their share to go to the offspring of their deceased clansman 4. It should be remembered that this tendency only makes itself felt at division on the death of one of the spouses. On divorce equal division takes place, whether there are children or not \

D e M 0 u bra y has a theory that the very fact of acquired property being recognized as such and being subjected to rules differing from the ones applied to ancestral property, is a case of "disintegration of communal ownership", symptomatic of the "decay of matriarchy". In our opinion this is going too far, but we can agree with him that the custom of disposing of acquired property by hibah (or by surreptitious presents) does conflict with the rights of the matri-clan to such property. This is the case in Minangkabau, but "in the Malay Peninsula the relaxation went much further ...... and the tribal restrictions on the alienation of acquired property became very small" n. The increase in the importance of personal at the expense of clan property is largely the result of the cultivation of rubber by the population Rice lands yield mainly a subsistence crop with a small surplus, while rubber lands yield a product which can bring in a relatively large profit, but is subject to the fluctuation of the market. When rubber-growing became a major concern for Peninsular agriculturists, "rubber land receded as it were from the category 'land' and took its place in the category 'goods' ". "Moreover, on the death of the owner there is a very strong tendency for rubber land not to become ancestral" i, One of the results of the way in which rubber lands are treated as "goods" is that they can be divided on divorce. Formerly the wife awlays took all the land, even if it was jointly acquired, 'but "jointly acquired rubber land is joint property and is halved on divorce". Not only is this again an example of the progress made by the idea of more individualized ownership, but it would also appear to indicate that the tendency of Negri Sembilan adat to favour the women at the expense of the men has passed its climax. This may well prove to be a development of importance, and it would be worth while to note any possible further evidence that points in the same direction.

The dwindling of the clan's importance in social life is also reflected in the decay of the custom of adoption. Formerly an immigrant into Negri Sembilan had necessarily to join one of the clans in the luha' of his residence. Some clans even bear names that prove them to be entirely of foreign origin: Ana' Atjeh, Ana' Malaka, etc. Nowadays the custom of adoption is practically dead. Both the enormous influx of foreigners, especially Chinese, into Malaya, and the modern system of government have played a part in bringing this about, and now "it is no longer necessary to be under the formal protection of a lembaga in order that life and property may be safe. There is, in fact, no need for a foreigner to be affiliated to a tribe in order to live in Rembau", or, in fact, in any of the other districts S.

Another change affecting family life is the increase of the divorce rate. D e M 0 u bra y writes that "in innumerable cases" divorce follows marriage within a few months ". Possibly this, too, is a result, if indirectly, of the weakening of the clan cohesion. As a marriage was formerly to a great extent an alliance between two clans, a divorce implied a rupture of this alliance, and was therefore a momentous decision, not to be taken lightly. If this consideration has lost much of its importance nowadays, a powerful deterrent to divorce has been abandoned.

Again according to d e M 0 u bray, "the most potent cause" of subsequent divorce is the fact that "boys and girls are married while still absolutely strangers to each other", and he thinks these marriages between youngsters, which have been arranged by the parents of both parties without the consent of the bride and groom-to-be, are on the increase HI.

Judging from Par r & Mac k ray's article, in Rembau at least the Muslim marriage form of nikah ta'lik is not infrequent. Par r & Mac k ray style it a "marriage of convenience" 11, what gives a totally false impression. It is a legal procedure by which a bridegroom makes a declaration, immediately after the Muslim marriage contract, that his wife shall be divorced if he, the husband, prove guilty of neglect, desertion, ill-treatment, or any other specifically defined misdemeanours, and his wife registers her protest before the qadi H. (Hence the name nikah ta'lik, "marriage with suspended divorce": the divorce, as it were, "hangs on" certain conditions).

In Indonesia this form of marriage appears to be as old as Islam itself, but the modern feminist and social progress movements have greatly encouraged it as strengthens the wife's position in marriage against possible masculine tyranny. Now under Negri Sembilan adat a wife being helplessly domineered by an overbea~ing husband is a very remote contingency indeed, so it would be interesting to know to what circumstance the nikah ta'lik owes its existence there. It may be that, with the change taking place in the adat, the protection accorded to women is diminishing (as we noticed earlier in this chapter), and other means of safeguarding their interests are needed. Or has the nikah ta'lik followed in the wake of a general progress made by Islamic law? Or is it a case of outside influence, being introduced by immigrant Malays? To br able to answer these questions we would need data more recent than those of Par r & Mac k r a y'-s article, now forty years old.

Chapter references.

1 De M 0 u bra y, 3.

2 De M 0 u bra y, 8.

a D e M 0 U bra y, 109.

4 De M 0 U bra y, 155.

5 D e M 0 ub ray, 169. 10 D e M 0 u ,b ray, 20fi. 11 Par r & Mac k ray, e9.

6 D e M 0 u ,b ray, 202.

, D e M 0 u ,b ray, 203.

• De M 0 u bra y, 175.

9 D e !VI 0 u bra y, 205, 206.

>2 J u y n boll, 207, 208.

COMPARISOS

As we have now concluded our description of the socio-political systems of Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan, it is only natural that we should next draw a comparison between the two cultures with which we are concerned. They do, indeed, furnish a very interesting object for a comparative study, as the cultures are now, and have been for more than a century, totally independent of one another, while on the other hand it is beyond doubt that the one is an offshoot of the other. The details of the historical proces3 are, however, beyond our observation. We do not know for certain when the emigration from Minangkabau became a really large-scale movement, nor what was the state of Minangkabau culture at that time. Neither do we know what form of contact arose between the immigrants in Negri Sembilan and the Malay and Sakai 'population alrea'dy present there, nor the influence those previous inhabitants exercised on the Minangkabau way of life, nor also in how far the Peninsular Minangkabaus kept up the relationship with the homeland. These and other lacunae in our knowledge prevent us from imagining that we can study Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan culture under laboratory conditions: taking them as two related organisms that separated at a given moment and henceforth developed independently, giving us a chance to observe their different reactions in different surroundings. We shall therefore limit ourselves to a synchronic comparison; perhaps the material thus gathered may prove suitable for drawing some tentative historical conclusions. *

The first important difference between our two societies is that Minangkabau consists of villages (nagari), Negri Sembilan of districts luha'), and in Minangkabau there is a hierarchy of dignities culminating in the government of the nagari, while in Negri Sembilan the head of the luha' stands on the highest rung of the official ladder. It is remarkable that fOl purposes of adoption in Negri Sembilan a man who is a member of one's suku, but belongs to a different luha', is considered a stranger 1. In Minangkabau it is the inhabitant of another nagari who is the foreigner~.

There is this difference between the constitution of the nagari and the luha', that the latter is always headed by one man alone (with the possible exception of Sungai Udjong with its KIana and Bandar), while the Minangkabau nagari is mostly governed by a council, either of panghulu andiko or of the panghulu ka-IV suku, and the institution of the putjue', the single village headman, is less often met with. In view of these facts Par r & Mac k ray's opinion that in the Negri Sembilan social structure an Undang was needed to "conform to Sumatran model":J is obviously incorrect.

Ham e r s t e r noted the resemblance between the Negri SembiIan Undang and the Minangl:abau putjue', and considered that the putjue's powers were formerly much the same as the Negri Sembilan Undang's 4. This does not seem very likely for the Minangkabau darat, although it may be true for the rantau, where the institution of the putjue' was most common.

To a certain extent luha' and nagari also resemble each other in the ownership of uncultivated land: in Minangkabau the nagari owns the "virginal, uncultivated waste land" ~, in Negri Sembilan not exactly the luha' as a whole, but the luha's "original family", the Waris and Penghulu U (only in Rembau and Sri Menanti the Waris do not own the uncultivated land) 7. Even the saying in which these principles are laid down show great resemblance in both countries. In Negri Sembilan there is the proverb 8 :

Gaung, guntong, bukit bukan, Waris dan penghulu jang empunja Sawah jang berdjindjang, pinang jang berdjidjik, Lembaga jang empunja;

"The mountains and hollows are the possession of the Waris and Penghulu

"The rice-fields and palm-trees are the possession of the Lembagas" .

In Minangkabau 9 :

Gunueng nan tinggi, rimbo nan dalam, padang nan laweh, radjo nan punjo;

"The high mountains, the deep forests, the wide plains are the possession of the radjo".

Will inc k takes radjo in this context to mean "Jangdipatuan", but mistakenly, in our opinion. Not only does the proverb then disagree with the actual facts as he himself gives them, but it has been observed that in customary sayings radjo indicates any chief, panghulu in general, and not, as We s ten e n k expressly adds 111, the Jangdipatuan. The proverb just quoted must therefore be taken to mean: "The hills, the jungle and the plain are owned by the panghulu of the village".

Within the Negri Sembilan luha', as within the Minangkabau nagari, the four-suku configuratioJ? forms an ideal pattern. As we have dealt with this at some length we need not go into it again here, but will only refer to the publications by New b old, Wins ted t & Nat han, Hum p h r e y s, and W ilk ins 0 n (the "Notes") for Negri Sembilan 11, and Wi 1 ken, Ley d s, and Dam s t e for Minangkabau 1~.

It should nevertheless be noted that the term "IV suku" has different connotations in Negri Sembilan and in Minangkabau. In Minangkabau it usually simply refers to the four clans of a nagari (as in: Panghulu ka-IV suku) ; but there is also a case on record that the Basa IV Balai are called "Ampe' Suku" 1:1.

Negri Sembilan uses the term with the special meaning of the four original settlements of the Sakai in the Negri Sembilan area: according to the legend the Sakai migrated from the southern tip of the Peninsula northwards. The four chiefs by whom they were led each chose a district for their followers to settle, viz. Djohol, Djelebu, Klang and Sungai U djong. These are called the Suku jang empat H. The names of the suku are totally different in the two countries: not one of the twelve Negri Sembilan suku-names occurs in We s ten e n k's list of 96 names of Minangkabau suku, or rather, kampueng 1~. The explanation probably lies in the circumstance that the people who immigrated into Negri Sembilan grouped themselves into "quasi-tribal units" III based on locality of origin. Of the twelve Negri Sembilan suku listed on p. 125, Biduanda is a special case; Ana' Atjeh and Ana' Malaka indicate by their very name that their members come from a certain territory; III Nime' is the suku of people of mixed Siamese blood ; the other nine are suku of the Minangkabau, and all * names denote nagari or districts 11. The fact that none of the Minangkabau suku are to be encountered in Negri Sembilan would seem to show that, although the p r inc i pie of clan-organisation stood the strain, the suku themselves were disrupted by the emigration and subsequent resettlement in Negri Sembilan, and possibly also by the ab~ sorption of many non~Minangkabau. inhabitants into a clan system on the Minangkabau model.

The phratry-dualism, which has a quite considerable "social value" 18 in Minangkabau, plays only a very small role in Negri Sembilan. Practically the only manifestation of it is the bipartition of some luha' into Baroh and Darat, Air and Darat, etc., with sometimes other contrasts (male-female) joining in. This form of dualism comes into action, as we have seen, when a new Undang has to be appointed. If we had not known of Muhamad Radjab's description of the badunie ceremony, with its conflict between the bukit and the kampung group lin a Minangkabau nagari (see p. 81), we would have been prone to consider .the Negri Sembilan form of bipartition (baroh - darat, etc.) as an institution with its main development on the Malay Peninsula. As it is, we observed the same type of dichotomy in Minangkabau. It can hardly be doubted ,that both these forms of opposition are manifestations in a new shape, re-interpretations perhaps, of the traditional phratry-dualism of Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago. Phratry-dualism is known often to comprise local bipartitions, such as Hill-Plain, East-West; the stressing of just this territorial aspect of the dual organisation now appears to ,be not purely a Peninsular development, but to have its counterpart, and perhaps its origin, in the Minangkabau mother-country.

In Minang·kabau we observed ritual battles, either 'between two nagari or between the bride's and the bridegroom's followers at a wedding, and these fights appeared ,to be a stylised expression of the phratry rivalry. Now in Negri Sembilan there is also an occasion when such a mock battle is held: every three 'Or four years ,before preparing the rice-fields for planting. The two opposing par-ties hurl banana stems or thin rods at one another across a gully, "until a -blow makes the face of one of the combatants bleed and ends the fray" 19. Here again the battle itself has a beneficent effect, probably that of increasing fertility, as has the battle at the commencement of a wedding. As we are not told, however, how the two opposing parties are constituted we cannot say whether this Negri Sembilan combat also derives from the dual organisation, although it seems very well possible.

In Minangkabau the contrast between the two phratries entailed a contrast ,between two forms of adat: the adat Parapatih which favours government by councils and lenience in legal matters, is contrasted with the adat Katumanggungan (or Tumanggung) which stands for monarchic government and retributive justice. No such dualism prevails in Negri Sembilan. There are, of course, local variations in custom, 'but there is no clear-cut opposition of two different adat principles within the confines of the state itself. The expressions adat perpatih and adaIt tumenggung do occur, but on the Peninsula they designate the custom of Negri Sembilan as a whole (adat perpatih) and that of the Malay states (adat tumenggung). In a previous chapter we raised the question whether this distinction is made by the native inhabitants themselves, or is only due to a misapplication of Minangkabau terms to Peninsular conditions by European writers. This is the place to examine the evidence in greater detail.

To begin with, let us briefly re-sta:te the Minangkabau situation as we see it. Minangkabau social structure is fundamentally doubleunilateral, with matrilineal descent governing social life and the inheritance of material possessions, patriliny being of importance for the inheritance of prestige and superna:tural powers. At present - and probably for several centuries now - this double-unilateral system has taken a turn towards matrilineal preponderance, the only recent manifestation of the patrilineal principle that was of really grea:t importance being the succession to the dignity of Jangdipatuan Basa. This system has a matrilineal phratry-dualism, and with each phratry one form of adat was associated: adat Parapatih with Bodi-Tjaniago, adat Katumanggungan with Koto-Piliang. Bot had a t s we r e, howe v e r, v a ria t ion s 0 f the g e n era I Min a n g k a b a u c u s tom, bot h w ere ass 0 cia ted wit h mat r iii n y, and the contrast ad at Parapatih - adat Katumanggungan was definitely not one of Minangkabau matrilineal adat contrasted with patrilineal forei g n a d a t. The differences between the two were on points of relatively minor importance; it is noteworthy, however, that the

Koto-Piliang phratry was considered to be more closely eonnected with the Jangdipatuan dynasty than was Bodi-Tjaniago.

And now for the adat perpatih and OOat tumenggung on the Peninsula. Whenever a European author uses these terms he means with adat perpatih: the Negri Sembilan custom, and with adat tumenggung: the custom of the other Peninsular States. The difficulties begin to arise when he attempts to define the adat tumenggung. Mr.C aid e cot i, Commissioner of Lands in Negri Sembilan, wrote in a memorandum on the inheritance of land first on the conflict between adat perpatih and adat tumenggung, and then on conflict between adat perpatih and "Mohommedan" law, apparently considering OOat tumenggung and Mohammedan law to be much the same thing, at least as far as inheritance is concerned. T a y lor, in an article in the JMBRAS, points out how erroneous this point of view is 20. De M 0 u bra y, however, tends to make this same equation of adat tumenggung and Muslim law, as he writes: " ...... AdOJt Temenggong, a form of patriarchal custom which has now assimilated itself almost entirely to Muhammadan Law ...... " 21.

Win s t edt's views are rather different. He translates adat perpatih as "Law of Ministers" and adat tumenggung as "Law of the Minister for War and Police", thereby completely obscuring the real character of the two systems. In the first place adat has a much wider meaning than "law", as it means custom and etiquette and also extends to the legal system, while "law" "does not ,coincide wih any other system of rules of conduct" 22. Then the translation of perpatih by "Ministers" and of tumenggung by "Minister of War and Police" not only fails to recognize that actually Parapatih and Tumenggung were the names (or HUes) of the two legendary Minangkabau ancestors, but also Europeanizes the whole atmosphere of the word. When "the custom instituted by our ancestor Kjai Katumanggungan" becomes "the Law of the Minister for War and Police", we are whisked away from the village elders' council-house to the office of some ministerial bureaucrat. As he sees adat tumenggung as a "composite patriarchal law" Win s ted t ,traces its development through various legal digests and port regulations to "regulations of the kind India knew from the days of Chandra Gupta and embodied in the Mogul Tarikh-i-Tahiri" 23. This of course does not aid us in understanding the adat tumenggung as a system of Malay customs.

In refuting C a Ide cot t's views, T a y lor referred to Wi 1kin son for what he considered a better definition of adat tumenggung 24, Wi I kin son correctly sets Muslim law apart from the two nauve adat, and then descrIbes the aaat tumenggung as follows: the adat perpatih is the Minangkabau custom which was transferred directly to Negri Sembilan. Other Minangkabau only reached the Peninsula by way of Palembang, and ,there, in the "ancient Malay kingdom of Palembang" the Minangkabau adat came under Hindu influence, and reached the Peninsular states outside Negri Sembilan in its revised, Hinduised, form. Mter the Hindu influence it also underwent the influence of Muslim law, so that at present the adat tumenggung "simply represents the old Minangkabau jurisprudence - the true law of the Malays - in a ~tate of disintegration after many centuries of exposure to the influence of Hindu despotism and Moslem law" 25. Our objection to this theory is that the writer (possibly led astray ,by the careless use of the word "Malay" for both true Malays and Minangkabau) makes the custom of the entire Peninsula come from Sumatra. We know that the inhabitants of Minangkabau settled in Negri Sembilan, but the idea that ,the adat of the whole Peninsular Malay population was derived from Palembang, and that subsequent to the Minangkabau emigration, is preposterous.

To demonstrate the common origin of the adat perpatih and adat tumenggung, Wi 1 kin son adduces several facts. Although we reject his conclusions, the facts themselves are of the greatest interest. He says "Succession to titles and dignities in Perak (so in an adat rtumenggung country; d. J. d. J.) follows the male line; succession to lands and houses suggests the adat perpatih". He ,then quotes Sir Will i a m M a x well: "In that State (perak) the lands and houses of the deceased descend to his daughters equally while the sons divide the personal property" 26. The same is said by Gull i c k: "The adat temenggong recognises matrilineal relationships for clan purposes, but stresses patrilineal descent in ,the devolution of office and property" 21. As this is, after all, a study of Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan culture we shall not go into details on the custom of the "adat tumenggung" states, but we would like to indicate what, in our opinion, is the significance of these data. When we had characterized the social structure of Minangkabau as double-unilateral we observed that this also affects the way in which we would henceforth see the relationship between Minangkabau and the other Sumatran societies: we are no longer justified in considering Minangkabau as an island of matriliny in patrilineal surroundings, but should rather consider the various Sumatran social systems as showing different modifications of a doubleunilateral pattern. In Minangkabau this double descent system has taken a turn towards matriliny, in the other societies towards patriliny, but the double-unilateral traits are to be observed quite clearly in the South Sumatran regions, and, although they are less obvious there, probably also in Atjeh and the Batak territory. Now what we are told of the adat tumenggung on the Malay Peninsula makes us wonder whether, mutatis mutandis, the same situation prevails there. The data on Perak which we have cited, although obviously far too incomplete to allow us to draw any definite conclusions from them, do seem to point in the direction of a double descent system operating in matters of inheritance. A further study of the Peninsular Malay types of social organisation may well prove very rewarding.

Returning to the question whether the terms adat perpatih and adat tumenggung in their Peninsular meaning are used as such by the native inhabitants themselves, or were only introduced by European writers, I must admit that I cannot answer with any degree of certainty. I have never encountered the terms, with the meaning we have been discussing, in any Malay or Minangkabau text that is undeniably free from all European influence; but this cannot serve as proof that they never did so occur. It may 'be best to leave the question unanswered for the present. Should the expressions prove to be indigenous to Negri Sembilan, then perhaps the following hypothesis can account for the change in meaning they underwent since the Minangkabau migrations : As the emigration to Negri Sembilan disrupted, as we have seen, the Minangkabau form of clan-organisation, the traditional grouping of the clans into either the Koto-Piliang or the Bodi-Tjaniago phratry was also given up, and no longer made sense for the members of the new, to a certain extent synthetic, Negri Sembilan clans. The contrast between the two adat likewise lost its meaning, and, the names themselves being preserved, were re-interpreted. Adat tumenggung, in Minangkabau rather closely associated with the patrilineally organized Radjo dynasty, came to be applied to the largely patrilineal Malay states, adat perpatih to the obviously different custom of Negri Sembilan as a whole.

Before leaving the subject of phratry-dualism, there is one more problem to be faced, viz. : given the fact that within Negri Sembilan the contrast between adat perpatih and adat tumenggung has lost its meaning, to what Minangkabau type of adat does the Negri Sembilan custom correspond? The answer is : it appears to combine features of both. The Minangkabau adat Katumanggungan was, in legal matters, harsher than the adat Parapatih, at times even appearing as a real lex talionis. The difference between the two principles is expressed in customary sayings. A Koto-Piliang proverb is 28 :

siapa bunuh siapa kena bunuh

siapa berhutang siapa membajar siapa salah siapa bertimbang, i. e. : "Who kills shall be killed, "The debtor shall quit the debt, "The sinner shall pay the forfeit."

A Bodi-Tjaniago proverb is 29 :

Tjintjang berpampas

bunuh berbalas, i. e.

"Whoso wounds shall atone,

"Whoso slays shall replace."

Now in Negri Sembilan a current proverb is 30 :

Jang mentjintjang jang memapas Jang berhutang jang membajar, i. e. : "Who wounds shall atone, "Who has a debt shall pay it off."

Here the first line is practically the same as in the Bodi-Tjaniago proverb, the second occurs in the Koto-Piliang saying. The saying hilang darah ganti darah, "Blood for blood" is purely Koto-Piliang 31, but another, also from Negri Sembilan 32, is just as completely BodiTjaniago in its implications

salah makan dimuntahkan,

"What has been wrongly drawn towards oneself should be returned."

salah tarik dikambalikan, meaning

"What has been wrongly eaten should be spat out,

The same ambiguity strikes us when we study the nature of and the succession to the adat-dignities in Negri-Sembilan.

In Koto-Piliang nagari there is quite often one dignitary who heads the village government (the putjue'), with three assistants (manti, maHm, dubalang), together forming the Urang IV djinih; in BodiTjaniago nagari the village is governed -by the combined panghulu andiko 33. Negri Sembilan does have the equivalent of the putjue', the Undang, but does not know the institution of the urang IV djinih. Succession to the dignity of panghulu is, according to Koto-Piliang, through direct succession, the kamanaikan succeeding his mama' ; BodiTjaniago grants greater powers to the rape', the council of panghulu who elect or co-opt the new incumbent 34. In this respect Negri Sembilan comes closer to the Bodi-Tjaniago principle, as in addition to the giliran, election plays -a prominent part. All in aU we may say that, with the breakdown of the adat Parapatih - adat Katumanggungan dichotomy, Negri Sembilan custom has resulted from a fusion of both principles.

An important difference 'between the political structures of Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan is that the latter State still has its own Ruler, while in Minangkabau the power of the Jangdipatuans came to an end in the eighteen-twenties and thirties. Some authors, anxious to bring out the weakness and unimportance of the monarchical system in Minangkabau, have used the abrupt end of the Radjo rule as proof for their arguments: after the Jangdipatuan and his family had been practically exterminated by the Padris, life went on much as before and 'no great disruption was caused. by the sudden removal of the highest dignitary of the State. Still, this need not mean that he was a negligible figurehead. For the "common man" his disappearance may not, indeed, have made much difference, as the occasions he noticed anything of the Jangdipatuan's activities must have been few and far between. For the country as a whole the shock was, in our opinion, rendered less disruptive than it might have been through the remarkable fact that the Padri revolt almost coincided with the permanent esta'blishment of Dutch rule in the Minangkabau territory. The result was thalt the Netherlands Indies government happened to be ready to occupy the place left vacant by the Jangdipatuan as Cluthority over the country in its entirety. This fact was clearly recognized by DeS t u e r s, who was Resident of Padang in the very period when the Dutch authority was being extended over the west coast. In a memorandum dated August 30th, 1825, he advised against the plans to concentrate authority by restoring the Jangdipatuan, as the Radjo's authority had been maintained by "the sword of tyranny", and such means were not suited for "introducing a financial system according to the principles of an enlightened European government" 35. So we observe that, until the late war, Minangkabau (the Residence West Coast of Sumatra) was always directly administered, in contrast to Negri Sembilan, that retained its own Ruler. It is quite possible that, had Minangkabau been left on its own for some length of time after the assassination of the Radjo, the absence of a central authority would have made itself more painfully felt. Even so, the Minangkabau sense of unity would have been a potent counter-force, and to the development of this sense the Jangdipatuan as a centralizing agency have, beyond doubt, greatly contributed.

If we next turn from the political organisation to the family, we first observe a considerable likeness between the Minangkabau and the Negri Sembilan kinship terms. As appears from our lists, the most striking difference is the absence, in Negri Sembilan terminology, of a distinctive word for mo-br. We have already commented on this in the beginning of Chapter VIII, and all we need add here is that not only is the term mama' missing as designation of a certain relative, but also as a name of 'a "family" chief. The head of a perut, who in Minangkabau might be called mama', or mama' rumah, is, in Negri Sembilan, always called ibu-bapa' or buapa'.

As to marriage regulations, it is remarkable that, while in Minangkabau levirate is encouraged, it is prohibited in Negri Sembilan, at least in the Kuala Pilah areaS6 • Another difference is that Negeri Sembilan does not have the Minangkabau arrangement by which a husband spends the night in his wife's dwelling, and may also use it as his pied-a-terre in daytime, but is still considered as belonging to ;the house of his own matri-lineage. In Negri Sembti.lan the usual procedure is that he permanently takes up his abode in his wife's house'7. He even is seconded to his wife's clan, becoming an ana' buah of his wife's Lembaga 38, a situation that never arises in Minangkabau. Both countries agree, how-ever, in "very definitely subordinating" the orang semenda (bridegroom) to his tempat semenda (his in-laws).

While we saw that in several parts of Minangkabau a marriage outside the nagari is, if not forbidden, at least frowned on, we have nowhere in Negri Sembilan seen any signs of preference for luha'- endogamy.

It is in accordance with the altogether smaller role played by the mo-br in Negri Sembilan that there does not appear to be any very pronounced preference for marriages with mo-br-da. In fact most manifestations of an intimate relationship between kamanakan and mama', so noticeable in Minangkabau, 'are lacking in Negri Sembilan. A case as that recorded as Bidin VS. Ibrahim in Rembau 39, where the infant Bidin's mama' is living (Kassim), but the "de facto guardian" is not the mama' but mo-mo-si (Rembut), would be very exceptional indeed in Minangkabau.

There are, it is true, also examples to be found of a mama' playing a more important part in family life. In the interior of northern Malaka (a "Minangkabau custom" area), the mama' administers the pesaka-land for his kamanakan'o, but even this is unusual. All writers agree that generally pesaka-lands and suku goods are not only "entailed in tail female", but also administered (some writers even say "owned") by the women of the suku41 • Here we come upon a very important difference between the adat of the two countries. While the effect of Minangkabau custom is to make a wife entirely independent of her husband as far as material possessions are concerned, Negri Sembilan custom goes even further: there a woman is not only independent of her husband, but of all her male relatives as well. One may even say that when it comes to the control of ancestral property the women have the whip hand, and in this particular Negri Sembilan comes very close to being a matriarchy.

D e M 0 u bra yonce or twice compared the rules concerning property, but then sometimes saw differences that do not actually exist. An example is his opinion that acquired property is an anomaly in the matrilineal organisation, and only arose in Negri Sembilan as a result of pioneering conditions 42. Here he apparently overlooked the fact that harto pantjarian are also recognized in Minangkabau. On the other hand, he rightly notices the similarity that in neither country did the adat kamanakan apply to the inheritance of material goods: the kamanakan could not inherit directly from his mama' 43.

We could, of course, continue almost indefinitely with summing up differences or resemblances, but the preceding survey only means to list these features that bring out the essential character of the relationship between the socio-political structures of Negri Sembilan and Minangkabau.

The most important fact is of course their very comparability. For all the difference, they have sprung from the same origins and still unmistakably show a family likeness. We have, in the course of this chapter, already indicated what changes were wrought by the migrations: the clan-system was preserved, but the clans themselves succumbed. The phratry dichotomy, still very much alive in Minangkabau, has all but disappeared in Negri Sembilan. Regular connubia are almost non-existent on the Peninsula, and as for manifestations of double descent, apart from the patrilineal organisation of the Jangdipertuan caste (obviously a feature directly derived from Minangkabau), we can only adduce the giliran rule. This too occurs in Minangkabau, although less universally than in Negri Sembilan. We may, perhaps, conclude that at the time of the large-scale emigrations the double-unilateral system 'in Minangkabau had, as it were, become fossilized into certain features as adat sansako, the sako-bako contrast, etc., but was no longer a consciously recognized principle. Not only the giliran rule gained ground in Negri Sembilan, but the women's power also increased since the immigration into the Peninsula. Here we must be on our guard against any "post hoc ergo propter hoc" reasoning.

Finally, as we said on p. 147, it is quite possible that for an understanding of the rules governing the succession to the Undangship we should also bring the other Peninsular states, especially MalakaDjohor, within our field of vision. Mterall we know that the penghulu of Rembau, Sungai Udjong, Djohol, and Naning obtained their rights and their titles from Djohor 44. Of the Negri Sembilan districts, Djohol was certainly held in feoff by the Bendaharas of Malaka and Djohor 45, of whom one, Bendahara Sekudai, (who probably lived in the middle of the 17th century) 46 has become a legendary figure and, in the guise of a Sakai, sometimes even of a Sakai woman, figures prominently in the ancient history not only of Djoho147, but also of Rembau,48 Sungai Udjong 49, and other luha'.

So, just as a further study of South Sumatra may clear up some obscure points in Minangkabau social stucture, it is possible that data from the other Peninsular states may still shed light on the adaJt of Negri Sembilan.

* Although in this chapter it is necessary to go over much of the same ground that has alre.a:ly been covered in the descriptions of Minangkabau and Negeri Sembilan, I hope it will not be found too repetitive.

* With the possible exception of III Batu.

Chapter references.

I Taylor (1),240. 23 Winstedt (10),79. 2 Will inc k, 145. 21 Taylor (2), 77, 47. • Par r & Mac k ray, 4. 2' Wilkinson (11),36,2. • Ham e r s t e r, 1632. '" Wilkinson (11),36. , Will inc k, 635. '7 Gull i c k, 18. 6 Wilkinson (11),28. "" Hum p h r e y is (2), 12. 7 Ham e r s t e r, 1637; Lis t e r ,. Hum 'P h r e y is (2). (1), 39, 40. 30 Wi 1 kin son (11), 18. s Wilkinson (11),28. 'u Wilkinson (11),31. • Will inc k, 65!. ." Wilkinson (11),32. 10 We s ten en k (1), 103. 3" van V 0 11 e n h 0 v e n, 255. .. KQrn (1),316. 11 New b old I, 199; W i ns ted t & Nat han, 46; H U Iffiph r e y s (2), 7, 21; Wi 1 kin son 35 Kielstra (2), 138. 36 A b d u 1 A z i z, 208. (9) 47. " Taylor (1),8. 12 Wilken (2),211; Leyds, ,,. Taylor (1),8. 410 seq.; Dam s t e (2), 337; Adat ". T a y 10 r (1), 161, 163. rechtbundels XI, 139; XXVII, 323. '0 Blagden (2),309. " MS School of Oriental & African Studies No. 46942, p. 13. 41 Win s ted t (10), 85; T a ylor (1),9; de l'Ioubray, 120, i.a. 14 L i 's t e r (1), 35. ,. We s ten e n k (7). 12 De M 0 u bra y, 109. ,. D e M 0 u bra y, 184. '8 De M 0 u bra y, 107, 162. '7 Ham e r s t e r, 1457. H Beg b i e, 50. 's Radcliffe-Brown (3). 45 Win s ted t & Nat !h a n, 8. 20,23. 46 Winstedt (6), 164. ,. Winstedt (2),92. ., Winstedt & Nathan, 74. 20 T a y lor (2), 77. .s Hervey, 242. 21 De M 0 u h ray, 5. •• Hum p h r e y s (2), 125, 136; 22 de Josselin de Jong (3), 3. Gull i c k, 9 seq.

CHAPTER XII.

SUMMARY, AND SOME WIDER IMPLICATIONS.

In this concluding chapter we shall Hrst summarize the conclu· sions reached in the preceding pages, and ,then return to a theoretical consideration of the Minangkabau social structure. We shall afterwards first discuss two other possible interpretations of the Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan data, and, secondly, see how our facts fit in with two important recent works on kinship and social organisation.

Briefly, then, our conclusions are as follows: the ideal pattern of Minangkabau social organisation implies a system of double descent, with pronounced matrilineal stress. Four matri-clans (Koto, Piliang, Bodi, and Tjaniago) are grouped in two phratries, Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago, each tracing their descent from one legendary ancestor, and showing the "hostile friendship" characteristic of phratry~dualism. The marriage-organisation was, in its ideal form, one of asymmetrical connubia, achieved by mo-br-da marriage. The patrilineal principle is at present hardly observable at all except in certain traces <it left. We did, however, find several indications that it was formerly of much greater <importance. On the other hand the data did not allow us to draw any conclusions as to how the two principles combined to form marriage-classes. The contrast matriliny-paitriliny manifested itself as one between "commoners" and the rulers, in itself probably largely a product of a contrast between the profane and the sacred, between social and religious functions and powers.

Negri Sembilan, on the Malay Peninsula, was settled by emigrants from Minangkabau; it has preserved the contrast' etween the different principles governing descent and inheritance among rulers and "commoners", but otherwise the double-unilateral principle has been forced even further into the background than in Minangkabau, as it exhibits an even more marked skewing towards matriliny, in some respects almost approaching matriarchy. In both societies Islam may have usurped many of the functions formerly allotted to the - named or unnamed - patrilineal descent groups. The phratry-dualism also plays a smaller role on the Penir.sula than in Sumatra, almost exclusively governing the succession to the dignity of district chief (Undang). The relationship of these Undang to the central ruler (Jangdipertuan Besar) brings out the latter's position as focus and unifier of the State as a whole. Marriage regulation in both Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan tends to become what Lev i - S t r a u s s calls a "structure complexe", one in which the preferred spouse is not in the first place indi.- cated by his or her position in the kinship system. This tendency appears to have evolved furthest in Negri Sembilan, witness the much slighter importance of the mama' (mo-br) there than in Sumatra. An examination of both societies' closest neighbours may, ~n the future, rob both Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan of their exceptional position as matrilineal enclaves 'in an area of patriliny and prove both them and their neighbours to have evolved. variants of fundamentally similar types of social structure.

We may now return for a mument to our theoretical consideration of the Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan form of social organisation. It will have been noted that, after we reached the conclusion that certain facts in Minangkabau social structure could best be explained as resulting from the operCl!tion of the patrilineal principle, we nowhere committed ourselves to a further definition of these patrilineal descent groups. Neither did we bring into discussion the way 'in which possibly resultant marriage-classes functioned. The reason is simply that, in our opinion, no such definite conclusions could be drawn from the facts at our disposal. We avoided all mention of marriage-classes (sections or sub-sections) 1, even as hypothetical units, as we do not 'know what the Minangkabau class-organisation was like. Nevertheless there are facts which might make it seem quite plausi·ble to derive the Minangkabau social organsation from a four-class system. We have always kept to the view that Koto, Piliang, Bodi and Tjaniago should be considered as matri-clans, grouped together ~n the matri-moieties Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago. But, it might be objected, cannot this have originated from a system whereby Bodi and Tjaniago were the matrilineal, Koto and Piliang the patrilineal moieties? We would then have a four-class system, of the Kariera type, as shown in a diagram on the next page, whereby the vertical line denotes the ·division into patri..moieties, the horizontal into matri-moieties. This hypothesis would have in its favour that it explains the association of Koto-Piliang with the patrilineally organized Radjo dynasty and, on the Peninsula, the use of the expression adat tumenggung to denote the predominantly patrilineal custom of the non-Minangkabau states.

This reconstruction is nevertheless open to such serious objections that it must be abandoned. It is, to put it briefly, neither necessary nor sufficient as an explanation of the present-day Minangkabau facts. It is insufficient as it does not shed any light on the five-generation rule, nor does it adequately explain the giliran, and it is certainly not n e c e s s a r y to derive a four-clan, two-phratry organisation

from a four-section system. To the contrary, such a derivation would necessitate assuming a whole concatenation of intermediate stages, for none of which we have any evidence. The phratry-rivalry, to take one example, is nowadays manifest between Koto-Piliang on the one hand, and Bodi-Tjaniago on the other. The four-section system would however, entail such a rivalry between Koto and Piliang, and Bodi and Tjaniago. This presumptive double opposition has left no traces whatsoever.

Also one would have to assume that Koto, Piliang, Bodi, and Tjaniago, all four nowadays matriHneal clans, have developed from, respectively, patrilineal couples and matrilineal cycles ,in a system with unnamed sections and pairs*. None of the facts at our d'isposal justify such an assumption.

Another type of kinship organisation to which one might conceivably look for an explanation of the Minangkabau system, Is one with four classes, united in a circulating connubium ; Lev i - S t r a u s s has interpreted ,the Murngin system in this manner.

For Minangkabau, with its matrl-clans, the following type would be the most relevant:

That is to say: a woman B marries a man A, their daughter is D. She marries a man C, their da is B, and so forth. It will be seen that this system implies two phratries based on matriliny, v.iz. BD + DB and AC + CA. Supposing we take this 10 be a clue to an understanding of the Minangkabau system, with, for instance, BD = Bodi-Tjaniago and

AC = Koto-Piliang. If we work out this system in ,the form of a genealogy, the result is the diagram on page 185.

In this way four matri-lineages emerge, I, II, III, and IV, but at 'the same time the weaknesses of this interpretation become apparent. Either we assume Bodi, Tjaniago, Koto, and PiHang originally to have been the names of the four classes (A, B, C, and D in the diagram), but then the hypothetical earlier form of organisation was very markedly different from Minangkabau organisation as we know it, and we are again forced to add one hypothesis to another ,to explain a whole series of unprovahle changes; or we take the lineages I, II, III, and IV to be the predecessors of the present-day suku (e.g. I = Bodi, II = Koto, III = rjaniago, IV = Piliang), but then nothing essential has been added to our picture of ;the "ideal type" of Minangkabau social structure. To put differently: hereagain the reconstruction offered is not sufficient ,to explain our contemporaneous Minangkabau data, as both the five-generation rule and the adat sansaJro remain ,incomprehensible, nor is it necessary. To the contrary, it 'brings in fresh complications ('the marriage classes and their circulating connubium) without any imperative need for them *.

Altogether the system depicted in Chapter IV, Diagram VIII, seems to offer the most satisfactory explanation, as it closely approaches Minangkabau social organisation as we know it, entails a minimum of speculation on historical development, and is relatively soimple. As we remarked at the beginning of 'tms chapter, we did not at the time work out the diagram so as to show the operation of the marriageclasses, as that would not be relevant to Minangkabau or Negri 8embilan. Here we may parenthetically 'point out that, if a social system as described were to recognize marriage-classes, they would be sixteen in number viz. A 1-4, B 1-4, C 1-4, and D 1-4. The classes' role in the connubial relationships could be described as follows: the matrilineal clans show a circulating connubium, thus:

the patri-clans also, thus:

The classes combine the two circulating principles, as could be diagrammatically expressed in the figure on the next ,page.

The four sectors of the circle represent the matri-clans A, B, C, and D, and are each subdivided by the patri-clans 1, 2, 3, and 4. The chords connecting A 1 ~ B 2 ~ C 3 -+ D 4 ~ A 1 indicate the con- I nubial relationships between the classes. In order to avoid complicating the diagram only two of the four connubial cycles have been indicated. The arrows following the circumference of the circle indicate the class to which females of successive generations belong: A 1 has a daughter A 2, her daughter is A 3, etc. By tracing both groups of arrows one can follow the system in action: starting from A 1, the arrow forming the chord of the circle takes one to B 2, i. e. a woman A 1 marries a man B 2. The arrow from A 1 'along the circumference of the circle points to A 2, i. e. the offspring of the marriage A 1 x B 2 is A 2. From A 2 again two arrows set out, the dotted chord indicating the spouse, the other one the offspring, etc.

This diagram is based on the system seen from the woman's point of view. From a male standpoint the four sectors of the circle would be 1, 2, 3, and 4, each sector being subdivided by A, B, C, and D.

As we said, however, this discussion of the 16-class system is set

down as a theoretical intermezzo to show briefly how classes could function in the system in question, rather than for any imme<Hate relevance to Minangkabau or Negri Sembilan matter.

To conclude, we would like to see how our Minangkabau data square with the general theories on social structure propounded ~n the significant recent publications "Les Structures Elementaires de la Parente", by CIa u deL e v i - S t r a u s s, and "Social structure" by G. P. M u r doc k.

To give a detaUed criticism of Lev i - S t r a u s s' impressive work would be beyond our competence, but that is not necessary here either. Several times in the foregoing pages his views have come up for discussion, and as there are only a few passages referring directly to Minangkabau (Negri Sembilan is not mentioned at all) it will be sufficient if we deal with them briefly.

Of essential importance and, in a sense, the backbone of the whole book, is the distinction Lev i - S t r a u s s makes between the echange restreint and the echange generalise, corresponding to what we called symmetrical and asymmetrical or circulating connubia. A further distinction is made between regimes harmoniques, in which the rules of descent and residence coincide (so a system is "harmonic" if it has patriliny and patrilocal residence, or matriliny and matrilocal residence) and regimes dysharmoniques, i. e. sy,stems with matriliny and patrilocal residence, or vice versa. Now these two basic distinctions in social type are correlated: the echang'e restreint is only possible in a regime dysharmonique, while a regime harmonique needs a system of echange generalise for its integration, and to prevent it falling apart into several intermarrying groups that are mutually unconnected:l.

It is clear that this theory is also applicable to Minangkabau. There we have a matrilineal regime harmonique - as a matter of fact Minangkabau is one of the "extremely rare" examples of this type of social organisation 3. A system of echange generalise would therefore be expected, and this does indeed agree with our conclusions as to the ideal type of marriage, that of a man with his matrilineal cross-cousin. The progress, made of late in Minangkabau, by the idea of romantic love, and the view that only the affections of the husband and wifeto~be should be taken into consideration when it comes to marriage, are facts of a quite different order. In Lev i - S t r a u s s' terminology one could say that Minangkabau social organisation is tending to become a "structure complexe", one in which marriage is not in the f,irsi place determined by genealogical factors.

Although it does not directly refer to the Minangkabau situation, we would like to make one remark on Lev i - S t r a u s s' correlation of regime harmonique and echange generalise. We admit the cogency of the argument that a "harmonic" system needs an extended exchange to prevent its disintegration, but on the other hand we fail to see the necessity for reversing the theorem and assuming that a circulating connubium can only occur in a "harmonically" organized society. Yet this view is implicit in the passages at the bottom of p. 272 and the top of p. 293. We find it a point of such importance for ethnological theory, that it deserves to be further clarified.

The contrast between regime harmonique and regime dysharmonique can also be considered from another angle, which raises a fresh set of problems. We shall return to this question in our discussion of M u r doc k's book (p. 194).

We have already discussed the significance for the study of

Minangkabau social structure of Lev i - S t r a u s s' methodological observations on the "class" system in chapters IV and V, so that this point need not be raised again. We can now turn to pp. 571 seq., where the geographical distribution of the two types of echange is plotted.

The author draws a line from western Burma to eastern Siberia, this line forming the "axis" of the generalised exchange. This line is determined ,by its two extremities, where lie the Kachin and the Gilyak, among whom the echange generalise occurs in a ,simple form. To the west of the axis we find societies with the characteristic "extinction periodique de la regle de l'exogamie", interpreted by Lev i - S t r a us s as a symptom of an evolution from echange generalise towards echange restreint. To the east of the aixs lie Indonesia, Oceania and Australia, an area through which so many migrating and invading cultures have passed that there is not much hope of finding the ancient systems in their places 4. Nevertheless, the -author gives the fol'lowing description of the situation in Indonesia: in Sumatra, the Batak and Lubu have echange generalise; the same can be said of Nias and of the Lesser Sunda Islands, and considerable parts of the island-groups further east. Echange restreint is met with in parts of Flores *, some small islands east of Timor, and in the Aru-group. In Java "marriage classes of the Aranda type, with sister-exchange" have been thought to occur, before the Hindu era; and traces of such classes are supposed to be observable In Sumatra.

When Minangkabau is brought into this over-all picture, our first conclusion is that this society can join up with the Batak and ;the Lubu as having the echange generalise as ideal connubium. We hope that this has -been convincingly demonstrated in the foregoing pages. On the other hand we are equally sure that in Minangkabau, at least, a search for traces of marriage classes of the Aranda type would be in vain. Our own opinion on the relationship between Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan social structure on the one hand, and their immediate neighbours' on the. other, has been summarized at the end of the preceding chapter. That survey covered an area much more restricted than Lev i - S t r a u s s' comprehensive synthesis, and so only tries to supply some detail where Lev i - S t r a u s s draws broad outlines.

The other recently published book of considera·ble theoretical importance is M u r doc k's "Social Structure". Its very novel method - it gives a classification and, in places, a theory of the development of different types of social organisation based on a statistical evaluation of their component elements - is such that the reader feels he can only form an intelligent, well-founded opinion of the work by judging the very principles of the method as such. It is quite possible that inexactitudes will appear in its 352 pages, but, we repeat, the book as a whole stands or falls by the practical value which the statistical method will or will not be considered to have for social anthropology. All the same, we shall again avoid the large issues and set ourselves the humbler task of cons1dering only these passages that deal more or less directly with the Minangkabaus of Sumatra and the Peninsula.

In a I'tudy as undertaken in "Social Structure" it is of the greatest importance what elements, or facts, of the different cultures are chosen for comparison, and one must be absolutely sure of their comparability. This again is to a large extent dependent on one's definitions: both on the way one draws up a definition, and the way one makes sure it fits all the phenomena included under it. To take an example, the definition of community as the "maximal group of persons who normally reside together in face-to-face association" 5 seems to me to be less a definition than a figure of speech. When the communities are then classified as, on the one hand, gathering, hunting or herding and, on the other, agricultural, this grouping is, after all, rather rough and ready. J a cob s & S t ern's typology is 6 :

simple food-gathering economies,

advanced food-gathering economies,

simple agricultural economies,

advanced agricultural-pastoral economies.

We then notice how, again and again, the two "advanced" economies are more alike in the influence they exert on the other aspects of culture than are the two types of food-gathering or agricultural economies 7.

We raised this question of definition and classification as it is of direct relevance to the treatment accorded to the Minangkabau data. On p. 68 seq. the name "clan" is applied to a "compromise kin group", which "includes wives with their husbands but not married sisters with their brothers". According to this definition, neither Minangkabau nor Negri Sembilan have clans: two spouses are never member of the same group (to choose a neutral term) in Minangka'bau, and not even in Negri Sembilan. In .the latter society a husband is "seconded", as British writers call it, to his wife's suku, i.e. he is subjected to the authority of that suku's Lembaga, but he never becomes a member of that suku. In M u r doc k's terminology, we suppose a Minangkabau parui' (Negri Sembilan peTut) would be lineage, a Minangkabau kampueng (Negri Sembilan suku) a sib, and a Minangkabau suku a phratry H. Although then, by M u r doc k's own definitions, Minangkabau has no clans, it is yet classified as having clans in Table 70 (p. 244). The only explanation is that the author, !'leading the article that supplied him with his data on Minangkabau (L 0 e b (3) ), came across the word "clan" and therefore utilized it is this Table, without making sure whether it agreed with his own definition. We may add that the open spaces left in the Table under the headings "Cousin terms" and "Niece terms" could be filled in with respectively 'an H (Hawaiian type) and a G (Generation type).

On another subject there is a conflict between the Minangkabau facts and M u r doc k's general theory. This becomes apparent when the author says: "Husband and wife cannot both remain with their own families of orientation in founding a new family of procreation" 9. But this is exactly what does happen in 'Minangkabau (not in Negri Sembilan). In Chapter II we already expressed our agreement with o pie r's opinion that iM u r doc k has tended to overestimate the importance of the nuclear family, at least in parts of South-East Asia; thi's appears to ,be a case in point. As a result of his rather a-pl'lioristic refusal to recognize the Minangkabau custom of residence, the writer later again comes into conflict with the actual facts. Accoroing to Table 70, the Minangkabau have matrilocal residence; and on p. 217 he says: "The only forms of marriage that are consistent with matrilocal residence are monogamy, polyandry, and exclusively sororal polygyny". Now this is definitely incorrect. The (admittedly infrequent) Minangkabau polygyny also assumes other forms than the sororal. The reason for this contradidion between fact and theory lis that it was incorrect to characterize the Minangkabau residence as matrilocal; and according to M u r doc k the real Minangkabau form of residence simply does not exist.

Although we cannot agree with all he says, M u r doc k reaches several conclusions of which we think that they may well open up interesting new vistas for the study of the tw.o societies with which we are concerned here. An instance is his listing of factors which "facilitate the establishment of independent households by married couples". The "pioneer life in the occupation of new territory" is, as we have seen, not satisfactory as an explanation for the process as observed in Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan, but some .or all of the others have undoubtedly played their part. Then there is the theory, tentatively brought forward after some 33 societies, including Minangkabau, have been typified as having "Iroquois type" social organisation, that "the frequent appearance of generation terms for aunt's and cousins presumably reflects the comparative recency of a prior bilateral organization" 1". Our own conclusion as to the historical development of Minangkabau social organisation would rather be, that a form of double descent was formerly more pronounced than at present, but it might be worth while considering in how far bilateral and double-unilateral descent reckoning can have similar effects.

As a matter of fact, we get the impression that M u r doc k somewhat underestimates the possible influence of double descent [n social organisation. This refers, i. a., to his statement on p. 218: "The observation has often been made that in many parts of the wodd patrilineal and matrilineal peoples are found side by side [n restricted areas with cultures showing unmistakable evidences of historical connections. It should now be clear that wherever such a situation exists, if the two types of structure are in fact genetically related, the patrilineal tribes must have evolved from a matrilineal organisation, and not vice versa." The possibility that both types evolved from a former double descent is apparently discounted; in fact, the author seems rather to incline to the view that matriliny is necessary as a first stage ,before double descent can arise: "It must likewise be true that in all societies with full-fledged double descent the matrilineal kin gJ'loups were the first to he evolved, the rule of patrHineal descent representing a secondary development. These generalizations, of course, can in no way be taken as supporting the evolutionist theory of the universal priority of the matrilineate. On the contrary, since the ancestors of nearly all groups wich have survived until today must have undergone many changes in social organization during the long course of human history, the fact that the last transition in a particular series has been from matrilineal to patrilineal or double descent (my italics, d. J. d. J.) by no means implies that the matriline ate came first in the entire series."

Our reactions to this hypothesis are as follows: if, in studying any particular society, one reaches the conclusion that its unilateral descent system was probably preceded by a system of double descent, this conclusion is not necessarily invalidated ,by M u r doc k's theory not taking such a development into account. And, of course, to assume a yet earlier 'Stage of matriliny is only justUied if there are actual indications for it to bear out M u r doc k's views (in actual practice it is very unlikely one can ever make such a long-range reconstruction).

Naturally this also holds good for societies which are double-unilaterally organized at present. M u r doc k says that "whenever the ethnographer presents actual historical evidence as to the preexisting structure 'it nearly always supports the inferences from internal evidence" 11. We would like to add that if it does not, the "internal evidence" should be reconsidered. In brief, it is quite possible that detailed studies of single cultures will result in modifications of M u r doc k's generalized cross-cultural theory, as his conclusions are drawn from 250 societies, what is, after all, a small percentage of the total number of human societies all over the world. We presume that M u r doc k himself would agree that such revisions, if made on good grounds, can only benefit his theory as a whole.

As the situation in Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan aroused our interest in double descent, we were struck by what seemed an inconsistency in M u r doc k's ,book. On p. 242 we read "double descent can appear only in a socie'ty with matrilineal descent which adopts patrilocal residence and on this basis evolves patrilineal ~in groups without losing its previous matrilineal kin groups", and on p. 258: "double descent requires a matrilineal antecedent and there is no other alternative". Yet on pp. 211 and 212 the writer had first expressed this same opinion, ,but then added: "It may be pointed out that there is another, though much less common, origin of double descent. A 'bilateral society with distinct rules of inheritance for two types of property can evolve lineages on the basis of each type of ownership." This may be a relatively minor point, but it serves to show that the book's inductions may still ,be open to qualifications in other details as well.

The conclusion that what the author calls "cycling" (asymmetrical or circulating connubium) is "normally characteristic only of structures with double descent" 12 makes us look forward to an interesting discussion on this subject between M u r doc k and Lev i - S t r a u s s, whose own conclusions flatly contradict this view la. Lev i - S t r a u s s nowhere uses the expression "double descent" or its equivalent, but it is obvious that what he calls a regime dysharmonique, which opposes one descent line to the line of inheritance of locality, is ipso facto a regime with double-unilateral organization. Now he says (p. 293) that a regime harmonique demands an echange generalise, and conversely a system .of echange generalise demands a regime harmonique, so that this amounts to saying that echange generalise, i. e. a circulating connubium, can never occur in a "dysharmonic", i. e. a double-unilateral, system.

We can only briefly indicate our views on the two theories just mentioned. As to M u r doc k's theory, we should like it to be put to the acid test of comparison with the data of several reliable monographs (M u r doc k himself has nowhere, as far as we can see, indicated how he reached this particular conclusion). Lev i - S t r a us s' conclusion is the result of the extensive process of reasoning and analysis set forth in his "Structures Elementaires", and it seems almost an impertinence to sum up our opinion of this work in a few lines only. Nevertheless, the limits set by our actual subject force us to be brief, while on the other hand the importance of this matter, also for Indonesian kinship studies, is too great to leave it altogether undiscussed.

As to Lev i - S t r a u s s, we have already raised a word of protest against the way he suddenly reversed the quite acceptable theorem that a regime harmonique demands an echange generalise, and smuggled in, we might almost say, the axiom that echange generalise requires a reg.ime harmonique. But now we are faced with an additional clause: an asymmetrical connubium can only occur in a regime harmonique, and therefore never in a double-unilateral system. May we accept this ? In our opinion we may 'not, as a marriage rule entailing asymmetrical connubia can quite well operate in an organization with double descent. An example i,s furnished by Lev i - S t ra u s s himself: the Murngin. Murngin social organisation undoubtedly recognizes eight sub-sections: it is, <therefore, undoubtedly double-unilateral, and we should therefore place it squarely among the regimes dysharmoniques, and not in a half·way position, as Lev i - S t r a u s s does (fig. 44, p. 273).

So we see that a double-unilateral system can function equally well with asymmetrical connubia (e. g. the Murngin) as with symmetrical

(e. g. Aranda and Kariera) ; and we cannot accept fully either the conclusion reached by Lev i - S t r a u s s or the statement made by M u rd 0 c k.

There are many more points raised by M u r doc k which are directly or indirectly of interest for a study of Negri Sembilan and Minangkabau, but we think the most importan:t have, however briefly, been reviewed. To conclude, we might point out that also dn the larger field of the Pacific area as a whole there is still anything but a communis opinio on the interrelation of the various cultures. This is apparent even if we only compare M u r d 00 c k's statement "Despite occasional allegations to the contrary, the complex social systems of eastern Indonesia, of the Naga tribes of Assam, ...... 'bear n'O relationship to those of Australia" 14, with Lev i .. S t r a: u s s' tentative sketch of the cultures of South-East Asia and Australia as mutually comparable units in one ,complex, characterized by echange generalise.

Before any ·ambitious typology of the culture of Asia can be set up, a lot of spade-work will still have to be done.

* We have here adopted oR a d c 1 iff e - B row n's terminology: A marr1age-cla'ss (in a 4.clalSS system) is a section; two interman-ying seo!l:ons together form a pair; two sections, of which one contains the mothers and t'he other their d'aughters, together form a cycle; and ditto, but with fathers and their sons, a couple.

* Even as an interpretation of t1he Murngin marriage system, -1 do not think this type of presenta'tion should supersede those given by Web band E 1k in (Oceania III, 406-416).

* Endeh and Manggarai are not separate islands, as one might -think from Lev i - S t r 'a u s s' words, ibut districts of central and west Flores respectively.

Chapter references.

, Radcliffe-Brown (2), I, 38, 39. Lev i - S t r au s s, 27l. " Lev i - S t r a u S s, 149. , Lev i - S t r a U 5 5, 57l. M U r doc k (2), 79. " J a cob 5 & S t ern, 125 seq. J a cob s & S t ern, 174, for instance. , Murdock (2),46,47. " M u r doc k, 16. '" M u r doc k, 245. " M u r doc k, 258. '" Murdock, 243. '" Lev i - S t r a u S 5, 548. " Murdock (2),56.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Abbreviations:

AA: American Anthropologist.	AA: American Anthropologist.
AS:	AA: American Anthropologist.
AKI:	AS: L'Annee Sociologique. BKI: Bijdragen tot de Taal·, Land· en Volkenkunde, uitgegeven door het
	BKI: Bijdragen tot de Taal·, Land· en Volkenkunde, uitgegeven door het Koninklijk Instituut voor de Taa!., Land· en Volkenkunde.
IAL:	IA: Indisch Archief.
IAL:	Indian Art and Letters.
IG:	Indische Gids.
ITR:	Indisch Tijdschrift voorhet Recht.
JFMSM:	Journal of the Federated MaIay States Museum.
JGIS:	Journal of the Greater India Society.
JIA:	Journal of the Indian Archipelago.
JMBRAS: JRAS:	Journal of the Malayan Branch, Royal Asiatic Society.
JStBRAS:	Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.
KS:	Journal of the Straits Branch, Royal Asiatic Society.
KT:	Koloniale Studien.
KT: MKAWL:	Koloniaal Tijdschrift.
	Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. afdeling Letterkunde.
MLS: PMS:	Malay Litera:ture Series.
TRR	Papers on Malay Subjects.
TBB:	Tij.dschrift voor het Binnenlands Bestuur.
TBG:	Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal·, Land· en Volkenkunde, uitgegevcn
TNAG:	door het Koninklijk Bataviaas Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen.
VGB:	Tijdschrift van het Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap.
VKI:	Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Bataviaa's Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen.
	Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor de Taal-, Land· en Volkenkunde.
VMKAWL:	VMKA WL: Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, afdeling Letterkunde.
WB:Wi	WB: Wiener Beitrage zur Kunst· und Kulturgeschichte Asiens.
A b d u 1 A z i z, Adat Kuala Pilah; JMBRAS 1936. A d at r e c h t bun del s I, VI, X. XI, XX, XXH. XXVI. XXVII. XXXIII,

Ann and 'a I e, N. (1), Primitive beliefs and customs of the Patani Fishermen; Fasciculi Malayenses I; Liverpool 1903. --, (2), Religion and Magic among the Ma'lays of the Patani States; Fasciculi Malayenses I1a; Liverpool 1904. Au boyer, J., The symbolism of sovereignty in India according to icon(}grapthy ; IAL XII no. 1. Ba II 0 t, J. (1), Het inlands bestuur in de onderafdeling Loeboe' Sikaping en Rau. --, (2), Bestuursmemorie van den Gouverneur van Sumatras West Kust: Aug. 1915. Beg <b i e, P. J., The Malayan Peninsula; Madras 1834. Ben e d i c t, R, Patterns of Culture; Boston 1934. B e sse lin g, O. P., Over de verb'Oden graden by huwelijken in de Padangse Bovenlanden; TBB XXVII. B i r cn, E. W., Election and installation 'Of Tuanku Muhammed 'a's Yangdipertuan Besar; JStBRAS 1906. B I a g den, C. O. 0), Notes on Malay History; JStBRAS 1916. --, (2), Minangkabau Custom, Malacca; J'MBRAS 1930. B I and, R N., Aturan Sungei Ujong; JStBRAS 1895. B o-a s, F., The social organisation and the secret societies of i,he Kwakiutl ,Indians; United States Nationa:l Museum Rep'Ort 1895. Bra d dell, R, Notes on ancient times in the Malay Peninsula; JMBRAS 1936. Bra d dell, T., Abstract of the Sijara Malayu or Malay Annals; JIA V. Cat a log us van het Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde; 23 vols., Leiden 1910- 1932. C hat t e r j i, R, The f.oundations of civilisation in India; TBG LXVIII. C 0 e des, G., A propos d'une nouvelle theorie sur Ie site de <;:riwijaya; JMBRAS 1936. Col e, F. C., Clan and phratry in Central Sumatra; in Essays in Anthropology in Honor of A. L. Kroeber; Berkeley 1936. C 0 u v r e u r, J., see Adatrrechtbundel XXXV. D a g h reg i s t e r 1640-1641, ed. J. A. van der Chijs ; Batavia/The Hague 1887. Dam s t e, H. T. (1) Een Maleise Iegende omtrent de afstamming der vorsten van D~ambi; TBB XX. --, (2), Het landschap Oelang-Aling aan de Batang-Hari; THB XXXI. Del p rat, Th., Hulde<blijk aan H. M. de Koningin; Eigen Haard 1904. Dr ewe s, G. W. J. (1), Oud en nieuw in de hedendaagsche Indonesisohe Letterkunde; in De Gids 1932 (HI). --, (2), AutQlbiografieen van Indonesiers; BKI CVU. DuB 0 i s, C., ·People of Alor; Minneapolis 1944. D u y v end a k, J. Ph. (1), Het Kakean-genootschap van Seran; Almelo 1926. --, (2), Inleiding tot de ethnologie van de Indische Archipel; Groningenj Batavia 1946. E e r de, J. C. van, Een thuwelijk bij de Minangkabause Maleiers; TBG XLIV. En c y c lop a e die van Nederlands Indie; 4 vols., The Hague/Leiden 1917- 1921.

E van s, I. H. N., Ethnology and archaeology of the Malay Peninsula; Cambridge 1927. F i s c her, H. Th. (1), Het asymmetrisch cross-cousin huwelijk in NederlandsIndie; TBG LXXVI. --, (2), Inleiding tot de volkenkunde van Nederlands-Indie; Haarlem 1940. For t e s, M., Descent in Tale social structure; Africa XIV. For tun e, R., Sorcerers of Dabu: London 1932. G e rick e & Roo r d a, Javaans-Ne·derlands Handwool1denboek; 2 vals., Amsterdam/Leiden 1901. Go n d a, J. (1), Maleise Romans; KT 1934. --, (2), The compara·tirve method as applied to Indonesian langua,ges; Lingua il. G r a a f la n d, A. F. P., De verbreiding van het matriarchaat in het landschap Indragiri; BKI XXXIX. G ron e man, J., De garebe.gs te N.gajogyakarta; The Hague 1895. Gull i c k, J. M., Sungei Ujong; JMBRAS 1949. H a a r, B. t e r, Een inheemse verhandeling over Minangkabaus adaArecht; ITR CXL. Ham e r.s t e r, A. J., De Minangkabause staten op het Maleise Schiereiland; KT 1914. Ha r r e Ib 0 me e, G. J., De VIII Kotas VII Loerahs; IG XVU. H art 1 and, E. S., Primitive society; London 1921. Hasselt, A. L. van, see P. J. VetJh (00.). He i n e - Gel d ern, oR. von (1), Die Me.gaIithen SUd-Ost Asiims; Anthropos 1928. --, (2), Weltbild und Bauform; WB IV. H e 1 d, G. J., The Mahlilbharata; Amsterdam 1935. Her s k 0 v its, M., Acculturation; New York 1938. Her v e y, ,0., Rembau; JStBRAS 1884. Hi kay at Awang Sulong Merah Muda, ed. Winstedt; JStBRAS 1909. H i kay a t Hang TU'ah; MLS, Singapore. Hi kay a t Raja-raja Pasai; Singapore. H 00 g k a mer, W. C., see Adatrechtbundel VI. H 0 sma n 'gl. Baginda Chatib, Oendang-oendang Minangk3Jbau; MIS in the library of the Koninklijk Instituut voor de Taal-, Landen Volkenkunde, The Hague, number M-CLX. Hum.p h r e y s, J. L. (1), A Naning wedding-speech; JStB.RAS 1916. --, (2), A Naning recital; JStBRAS 1921. H y d e, A., A Naning terumba; JMBRAS 1928. H ij man s van An roo y, H. A., Nota om trent het rijk van Siak; TBG XXX. Is k and 'a r, N. St (1), Salah pilih; Batavia 1928. --, (2), Karena mentoea; Batavia 1932. --, (3), Hoeloebalang Radja; Batavia 1934. J a cob s & S t ern, Outline of anthropology; Cambridge 1948. J 0 sse lin d e Jon g, J. P. B. d e (1), De oorsprong van den goddelijken bedrieger; MKA WL 68 B l. --, (2), De Maleise Archipel 'als ethnologisch studieveld; Leiden 1935. --, (3), Customary law, a confusing fiction; Mededelingen van de Koninklijke

Vereniging Indisch lnstituut no. LXXX; Amsterdam 1948. J 0 u s t r a, M. (1), Mededeling omtrent ..... het dodenfeest der merga Sembiring; TBG XLV. --, (2), Minangkabau; Leiden (1920). J u y n boll, Th. W., Handleiding tot de kennis van de Mohammedaanse wet; Leiden 1930. K a:b a Mama' Si Hetong; ed. Trap; Leiden 1893. K a Ib a Moerai Batoe; in Veth, part III. K a 'b a Sabaj nan Aloeih; TBG LVI. K ab a Si Mandjau Ari; VBG XLV. K a ib a Si Oemboet Moedo; ed. Trap; Leiden 1896. K a b a Soetan Manangkeran; BKI XXXIV. K a b a Tjindoer Mato; VBG XLV. K a ib a Toeankoe nan Tjerectek; in Veth, part III. K a r din e r, A. (1), The individual and his society; New York 1946. --, (2), The concept of nasic Personality Structure as an operational tool in the social sciences; in The Science of Man (ed. 'R. Linton); New York 1947. K ern, H., Verspreide gesehriften; 16 vols., The Hague 1913-1929. K ern, R. A., De ver,breiding van de Islam; in Geschiedenis van NederlandsIndie I (ed. F.W. Stapel); 4 vals., Amsterdam 1938. K i e ,Is t r a, E. B. (1), Onze kennis omtrent Sumatras West Kiust omstreeks het midden van de 18e eeuw; BKI XXXVI. --, (2), Sumatras West Kust 1819-1825; BKI XXVI. K I u c k h 0 h n, C., The concept of culture; in The Science of M'an (ed. R. Linton); New York 1947. K 0 0 y man, S., Saihala, Tondi; Uitrecht 1942. K 0 r n, V. (1), De vrouwelij'ke mama' in de Minangk3Jbause familie; BKiI C. --, (2), Het oude rijk Djambi; in Bingkisan Budi; Leiden 1950. K roe sen & S t i b Ib e, see Resumes. K rom, N. J., Hindoe·Javaanse Geschiedenis; 'J.1he Hague 1931. L., Over het stamwezen in Oost-Indie, Indie 1920. Lap r e, E. (1), Bestuursmemorie van den Oontroleur van Alahan Pandjang; 1936. --, (2), Bestuursmemorie van den Controleur van Painan; Jun. 1938. Lev i - S t r a us 8, C., Les structures elementaires de la parente; Paris 1949. Ley d s, W. J., Larassen in Minangkabau; KS 1926. Lis t e r, M. (1), The Negri Seffilbilan; JStBRAS 1887. --, (2), Mallay law in Negri Seffilbilan; JStBRAS 1890. --, (3), Pantang-larang of Negri Sembilan; JStHRAS 1891. --, (4), The Putri of Mount Ophir; JStBRAS 1891. L 0 c her, G. W., The serpent in Kwa,kiutl religion; Leiden 1932. L 0 e b, E (1), Die soriale Organisation Indonesiens und Ozeaniens; Anthropos 1933. --, (2), Patrilineal and matrilineal organisation in Sumatra, 'Part I; AA XXXV. --, (3), Ditto, Part U. Low i e, R. (1), Some moot problems in social organization; AA XXXVI. --, (2), Social organization; New York 1948.

M a h Ii b h a rat a, Poona edition (ed. Vishnu S. Sukthankar); Poona 1933_ M 'a lin 0 w ski, B. (1), Argonauts of the western Pacific; 'London 1922. --, (2), A scientific theory of culture; Chapel Hill 1944. Mar s den, W., History of Suma,tra; London 1783. Mar tin, R., Die Inlandstiimme des Malaiischen Hal.binsels; Jena 1905. Mat the s, B. F., Bijdra,gen tot de ethnologie van Zuid-Cele'bes; The Hague 1875- M a u s s, M., Essa'~ ,sur Ie don; AS Nouvelle serie I. Me d e del i n g e n betreffende de Kwantan-di'stricten, vanwege het Departement van Kolonien; BKI LXIII. Mil ita ire M e m 0 r i e Padang 1928. M 0 ret & D a v y, Des clans aUX empires; Paris 1923. 1\1 0 r is 0 n, H. H., De mendapo Hiang; Batavia 1940. M 0 s z k 0 w sk i, D., The pagan races of Sumatra; JRAS 1909. M 0 u bra y, G. A. de, Ma,triarchy in ,the Malay Peninsula; London 1931. M u r doc k, G. P. (1), Dou!ble descent; AA XLII. --, (2), Social structure; New York 1949. N a e r sse n, F. H. van, Culture contacts and social conflicts in Indonesia (S-E Asia Institute, Occasional Papers no. 1); New York 1947. N guy e n va n H u yen, Les chants alternes des garQOns et des fiUes en Annam; Paris 1934. Net s c her, E., Een verzameling van overleveringen van het rijk van Minangkabau; IA II deel 3. New hoi d, T. J.,Political and statistical account of the British settlements in the Malaeca Peninsula; London 1839. 0' B r i e n, H. A., Jelebu; JStBRAS 1884. o pie r, M., Review of G. P. Murdock, Social Structure; AA LII. Os s e nib rug g en, F. van (1), De oorsprong van het Javaanse begrip montJjapat; VMKAWL 1917 (5·3·1). --, (2), Verwantsohapsen huwelijksvormen in de Indische Archipel; TNAG XLVII (1930). --, (3), Het economisch magisch element in de Tobase verwantschapsverhoudingen; M'KAWL 1935 (80 B). P a I mer van d e r B roe k, C. L. J., Nota over de middelen van bestaan Kota Besar en de Batang·Hari districten; TBG XLIX. P a om 0 n t ja 'k, A. St., Pertemoean; Batavia 1927. Pa r r & Mac k ray, Retm:bau; JStBRAS 1910. P a u w, J., Bestuursmemorie van den Assistent-Resident van L Koto; Jut 1932_ Pel I i 0 t, P., La tMorie des quatre fils du ciel; T'oung Pao 1923. Pi d din g ton, R, An introduction to socia,l anthropology ; Edinburgh 1950. Pig e a u d, Th., Javaanse wichelarij en classificatie; in Feestbundel van het Bataviaas Genootschap, 2 VQIs. P r ins, J., Enige gegevens betreffende Semendo en Semendo's volksrecht; TBG LXXV. P r z y Ius ok i, J., Sailendrawamsa; JGIS 1935. Qua r it c h W ale s, H. G., Recent Malayan excavations and some wider implications; JRAS 1946.

R ad c I iff e -B row n, A. it. (1), A further note on Ambrym; Man 1929, no. 35 --, (2), The social organisation of Australian trihes; Oceania r, II. --, (3), Taboo; Cambridge 1939. --, (4), and Darryll Forde, f;ditoTs, African systems of Kinship and marriage; London 1950. R a d jab, Muh., Sema'sa Ketjil di Kampung; Djakarta 1950. Ram say, A. B., Some notes on -kampong offici,als in the Alor Gajah district of Malacca; JMBRAS 1950. Ram a y a n a, BOInbay edition (ed. T. R. Krishnacharya) ; Bombay 1912. R ass e r s, W. H. (1), De Pandji-roman; Antwerp 1922. --, (2), De oorsprong van het Javaanse toneel; BKl LXXXViII. --, (3), The Jav'anese kris; BKI XCIX. --, (4), Kabajan; BKI C. --, (5), De JavaallrSe kris; MKWAL Nieuwe reeks I, 8. Res u m e s van het onderzoek naar de rechten welke in de gouvernementslanden op Sumatra op de onbebouwde grond worden U'~bgeoefend; Batavia 1896. Ron ok e I & N. Pam 0 n t j a k, van, Een verzameling Minangkabause adatspreuken; BKI CI. Roo 'k m a k e r, H. R, Het hanenvechten; IG 1905. Roo y, J. F. A. d e (1), De positie der volkshoofden in een gedeelte der Padangse Bovenlanden; 'IG XII. --, (2), see Adatrechtbundels X. R y van B ee s tHo Ii e, G. d u, Aantekeningen ,betreffende de landschappen VI Kota Pangkalan en XII Kota Kampar; TBG XXIV. R ij n van A Ike mad e, J. A. van (1), Versla,g ener reis van Siak naar Paja Komibo; TNAG 2e serie 2e deel Ie stuk. --, (2), Een reis ven Siaik naar Poelau Lawan; TNAG 2e serie 3e decile stuk. San g g 0 e noD ira d j 0, Dt., Kitab tjoerai-paparan adat-Iembaga alam Minangkabau; Bukittinggi 1919. S au s sur e, F. de, COUl'S de linguistique generale; Paris 1931. S c ih ii fer, R., Bestuwrmemorie Fort van del' CapeHen; J-an. 1938. Sc'beibesta, P. (1), Bei den Urwaldzwergen von M,alaya; Leipzig 1927. --, (2), Orang-Utan; Leipzig 1928. S c h war t z, H. J. E. F, Nota over de politieke en economische toestand van het landschap Kwantan; TBG XXXVI. Sed jar a h M a I a j u, ed Shellabear; Singapore 1343/1924. --, version Raffles MS 18; JMBRAS 1938. She e han, J. J., Installation of Tk. Abdul Rahman; JMBRAS 1936 S ke a t, W. W., Malay magic; London 1900. S k eat & B I a' g den, Pa,gan races of the Malay Peninsula; 2 vols, London 1906. Snou ck Hurgronj e, C. (1), De Atjehers; 2 vols., Batavia 1893. --, (2), Verspreide gesooriften; 7 vols, LeidenILeipzig 1923-1927. Spa t, C., Moderne Maleise litteratuur; KT 1929. S poe h r, A., Observations on the study of kinship; AA LII. S tap e 1, F. W., Het Minangkabause rijk en zijn adat; BKI XVH. S t i bib e, D. G., De adat-eed ibij de Minangkalbause Maleiers; Wet en Adat III. Stutterheim, W. F. (1), Oost-Java en de lbeffiibellberg; Djawa VI.

--, (2), Leerboek der Indische culluurgeschiedenis; 3 vols, 1931-1935. --, (3), De kraton van Majapahit; VKI VII. T a y lor, E. N. (1), Customary law of Rembau; JI'dB'RAS 1929. --, (2), Inheritance in Negri Sembilan; JMBRAS 1948. Too r n, J. L. van de r (1), Aantekeningen over het familieleven van de Ma:leiers in de Padangse Bovenlanden; TBG XXVI. --, (2), Minangkahaus·Maleis - Nederlands woordenboek; The Hague 1891. T u uk, N. H. van de r, Bataks,Nederduits woordenboek; Amsterdam 1861. T wee die, M. F., Prehistory in Malaya; JRAS 1942. V erg 0 u wen, J. C., Het rechtsleven der Toba-Bata'ks; The Hague 1933. V e r k e r k Pis tor ius, A. W. P., Studien over de inlandse volkshuishouding in de Padangse Bovenlanden; ZaItbommel 1871. Vet h, P. J. (editor), Midden-Sumatra; 9 vols, Leiden 1881. V 0 11 e n h 0 v en, C. van, Het adatrecht van Nederlands-Indie; 3 vols, Leiden 1918-1933; Vol. I. W a a I, G. de, Een vra.ag; TBB III. W a a 1 van An c k eve e n, G. de, see Adatrechtbundels I. We s ten e n 'k, L. C. (1), Ue M'inangkabause nagari (Mededelingen van het Encyclopaedisch Bureau nr. VIn); Batavia 1915. --, (2), OpsteHen over Miinangkaobau I; TBG LV. --, (3), Opstellen over Minangka!bau II; TBG LVII. --, (4), De Boekit Segoentang en Goenceng Mahameroe van de Sedjara Malajoe; TBG LXI'll. --, (6), Adat-onderzoek nagari; ManuScript in the library of the National Museum of Ethnology, Leiden. , (7), Het soekoe-wezen; M'anuscrrpt in the Hbrary of the National Museum of Ethnology, Leiden. Wi e neck e, C. A., see Adatrechtbundels XI. Wilken, G. A.' (1), Het animisme ,bij de Volken van de Indische Archipel; Leiden 1885. --, (2), Opstellen over adatrecht (edited by van Ossenbruggen) ; Semarang 1926. Wi 1 kin son, R. J. (1), The Putri of Gunung Lectang; JStBRAS 1899. --, (2), Some Malay studies; JMBRAS 1932. --, (3), Further notes on a study of ancient times in the Malay Peninsula; JMBRAS 1937. --, (4), Malay beliefs; London/Leiden 1906. --, (5), Malay-English Dictionary; Mytilene 1932. (6), History of the Peninsular Malays; PMS. --, (7), Malay life and customs; PMS. --, (8), Hilstory; 'PMS. --, (9), Notes on the Negri Sembilan; PMS. --, --, (10), Sri Menanti; PMS.

--, (5), De Hindoe-Javanen in Middenen Zuid-Sumatra; in Handelingen van het Eerste Congres voor de Taal-, Landen Volkenkunde van Java; Weltevreden 1921.

--, (11), Law.; PMS.

W,illinck, G. D., Het rechts1even der Minangkabause Maleiers; Leiden 1909 Winsted1, R. O. (1), (ed.), Malaya; London 1932. --, (2), Shaman, Saiva, Sufi; London 1925. --, (3), Mother-right among Khassis and Malays; JMBRAS 1932. --, (4), History of Negri Sembilan; JMBRAS 1934. --, (5), History of Selangor; JMBRAS 1934. --, (6), History of Malaya; JMBRAS 1935. --, (7), Indian influence dn the Malay world; JRAS 1944. --, (8), On Malay legal digests and Malay customary law; JRAS 1945. --, (9), Malaya and its history; London (1946?). --, (10), The Malays, a cultural history; Singapore 1947. --, (11), Family relationships in Negri Sembilan; JFMSM IX. W,i n s ted t & Nat ill a n, Johol; PMS. W 0 u den, F. A. E. van, Sociale structuurtypen in de Grote Oost; Leiden 1935. Z a i n - a 1- A'b i din i,bn-Ahmad (1), Tiger-breed families; JStBRAS 1922. --, (2), Dt. Paroi; JMBRAS 1925.

As most terms occur very frequently in the text, we only give the number of the page on which they are translated or defined for the first time.

adat ........................ 12, 75 adat kemanakan ............ 92 adat katumanggungan .. 12, 106 adat Parapatih ......... 12, 172 adat perpatih ............ 33, 172 (adat) sansako, see sansako adat temenggung ...... 33, 172 Air ...................... 141, 171 Alam (Minangkabau) ...... 7 ana' ........................... 92 ana' buah ..................... 130 ana' pisang .................. 65 andiko ............. ..... 11, 52 Andjieng Moalam ......... 101 badunie .................. 82, 171 baka ........................... 139 bako ........................... 65 balai ........................... 76 Balai nan Pandjang ......... 105 Bandaharo ................... 14 bapa' ........................... 45 Baroh .................. 141, 171 Basa Ampe' Balai ...... 14, 104 batang tuboh . . . . . . . . .. ... . . 137 batu batikam . . . . . . . ... ... . . 74 batu sandaran ............... 81 Bendahara ............... 9, 122 berhinai .. . .. .. ........... ... 129 bersanding .................. 129 bersiram .... ....... .......... 156 Biduanda ..................... 123 binantu ........................ 66 Bod! ........................... 12 Bodi-Tjaniago ............... 12

buapa' ........................ 125 dansana' . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . .. . . 50 dapatan .................. 57, 134 Darat .................... 141, 171 dare' ........................... 7 Datue' ., ..... ....... ...... ..... 113 Datue' Bandaharo nan K unieng ....................... 106 Datue' Bandaharo nan Putih ........................... 106 djin keradjaan ............... 159 djin keradjaan ............... 159 djurai ..................... 10, 20 domo (bird) .......... ... ..... 102 dubalang ............. '" . .. .. 52 enau sabatang dua sigai .,. 127 gala ....................... 22, 60 galanggang ................... 81 ganti tikar ................... 129 geZar ........................... 131 giliran .................... 32, 140 handam dirumah gadang 110 harimau Koto-Piliang .... ;. 102 harimau Tjampu ............ 101 harto dapatan, see dapatan. harto manah .................. 21 harto pambao (an), see pambao(an) harta pembawa, see pembawa harto pusako, see pusako harto suarang, see suarang harta terbawa, see terbawa hibah ..................... 58, 117 hidui' bakarilahan ......... 120 ibu-bapa' ...................... 125 orang bar:ipo ...... .. .... .. .. 50 Indomo ....................... 14 orang Empat Astana ...... 155 Jangdipatuan (Basa) ...... 13 orang semenda ............. 131 kabesaran ..................... 161 Padang Si Busue' ........... 100 kamanakan .............. 10, 92 Padri ........................... 8 kambil-anak .................. 93 Pagarrujueng .......... 20, 103 ko' limo kali turun ... 11, 87 pantangan .................... 102 Koto ........................... 12 pantang-larang ...... ........ 157 laki uwai katji' .............. 45 pantun ........................ 74 lareh ........................... 12 parang adat ............ 83, 109 lasa (-tree) .. ........ ........ 102 parang batu ................. 83 mas manah .................. 157 pusako .................... 21, 56 muntah lembu ...... .. .... .. 98 putjue' ................... 13, 52 negeri ......................... 125 qadi ............................ 147 nikah ta'lik .................. 134 Radjo ..................... 54, 170 ninie' ........................... 113 radjo Adat ................... 14 orang babako .... . ..... 50, 65 Radjo Alam .................. 13

Jangdiperrtuan Besar ... 10, 123 kaba ........................... 63 kampung ................ 27, 81 kampueng ............... 11, 69 kapalo parui' ........ ........ 10 kaum .......................... 51 kawin djo galanggang ...... 79 Kilieran Djao .... ... ........ 99 Kinship terms ............... 46 Kjai Katumanggungan .... 12 K oto-P,iliang .................. 12 Kutjieng Siam ............... 101 lembaga .. .. .... .. .... .... .. .. 125 limbago ....................... 147 luha' ........................ 7, 125 malim ......................... 52 mama' ................... 10, 51 mandai ........................ 45 mandirikan panghulu ...... 78 manggantikan lapie' . . .. . . 64 Mangkudum ............ 14, 106 manjalahkan djangdjang.. 63 manjiliehkan lapie' ......... 64 manti .......................... 52 mantja-lima .................. 153 mantuo ........................ 66 naga ........................... 161 nagari .................... 12, 20

pa' ............................. 113 Padang Gantieng ........... 104 pag(lwai .... ................... 52 pajong ........................ 160 Pajueng Pandji Koto-Piliang 105 patmbao(an) .................. 57 Pamuntja' K oto-Piliang ... 105 panghulu kampueng ....... 11 panghulu nan ka-ampe' suku .................. 12, 53 pantjapresada ............... 156 pantjarian ............... 57, 117 Parapatih nan Sabatang ... 12 parui' ..................... 10, 50 pasumandan .................. 65 pasupadan .................... 108 Pati Bunian Koto-Piliang 105 patih ........................... 8 pawang ................. 113, 159 pembawa .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. 134 perut .......................... 124 pesaka ......................... 133 Piliang ........................ 12 pinang kabhu ............... 7 piri' .~.......................... 85 piuW ............................ 86 putjue'aue .................... 52 putra jang empat .......... 159 shar',shara', 'shari'a ... 75, 113 Tuan Gadang ............... 102 siamang . . . . . ...... ... . ... .... . 140 Tuan Kali .................... 14 singgasana ............ ........ 157 tungganai ..................... 10 sinh ........... ..... ........... 78 tuo rumah ... .. .. ... .... .... . 50 suarang .................. 57, 133 Undang ....................... 125 suku .................. 12, 68, 125 Undang-Undang ....... 22, 106 Sulueh Bendang Koto-Piungka .......................... 140 liang ..... .............. ..... 105 urang ampe' djinih ........ 52 sumando ...................... 65 urang baie' .............. 61, 80 Sumanie' ...................... 104 urang bako .................. 65 sumbang balai melintang 126 urang patui' ............ 61, 87 sumpah djo pirri' ............ 84 warih .......................... 87 Sungai Taro' ................ 104 War:is ......................... 123 Suruaso ........ '" .... '" . .. . . 104 Waris laki-laki ....... . . ... .. 144 tabal .... .................. ..... 157 Waris perempuan .......... 144

Radjo Ibadat ................ 14 radjo panghulu ..... .......... 54 rambutan ........... .......... 141 rant au ..................... 7, 54 rape' .... .... ......... .......... 53 rape' salareh ............ 76, 105 rape' saluha' ............ 76, 105 sabuah parui' , see parui' sabueng ....................... 79 saka ........................... 139 sako ........................... 87 samandai ..................... 10 sambah ........................ 113 sana' .... ....................... 127 sansako .................. 13, 91 sawah .......................... 137

tanah pusako ................ 59 tanah radjo .................. 60 tanah sabrang ............... 9 tando .......................... 78 tarueh ......................... 85 tempat semenda ............ 131 tempat tinggal ............... 137 terbawa .. ... ... .... ... .... .. .. 136 tijueng (-bird) ............... 102 Tjaniago . . .. .... .. .... .... .... 12 tjarian .................... 57, 133 tjarian budjang ............. 133 tjanan laki-bini ............. 133 tjenderong mata ............ 138 tjutju .......................... 86

MAP 1.

Minane:kabau and Negri Sembilan.

~ ~ M. = Mjnan kabau. ~ N. S. = Negri Sembilan. ~ 1 = Malaka. 2 = Singapore. I = Atjeh. o II = Gajo-land. In = Batak-land. IV = Djambi. V = Palembang. VI = Lampong. R. = Rokan. S. = Siak.

MAP 2.

The surroundings of Minangkabau.

R. = Rokan. T. = Tapung. S. = Siak. K. = Kampar. 1. = Indragiri or Kuantan. B.-H. = Batang Hari. 1 = Lubue' Si Kaping & Rau. 2 = Korintji. 3 = Siak Sri Indrapura. 4 = Djambi. 5 = Palembang. 6 = Moko·Moko.

MAP 3.

The surroundings of Negri Sembilan.

I = Kedah.

II = Kelantan.

III = Trengganu.

IV = perak.

V = Pahang.

VI = Selangor.

VII = Malaka.

VIII = Djohor.

MAP 4.

Minangkabau .

• R , -UKE • AGAM 1111111111111- t. KOTO ~_ .. Tanah Data x • M! t1ARAPI .LA

A. P. = Alahan Pandjang. PI. = Paiembajan. B. = Buo. p.m. = Pariaman. Ba. = Batipueh. Pn. = Painan. C. = Batusangkar. P.P.P. = Pariangan Padang Pandjang. (Pagarrujueng) . R. = Rau. F. = Bukittinggi. S. = Suliki. K. = Kumanih. S.D. = Si Djundjung. K. B. = Koto Baru. Sg. = Supa,jang. L. = Lubue' Si-kaping. Si. = Sing-kara'. L. A. = Lubue' Ambatjang. S. L. = Sawah Lunto. M. = Manindjau. So. = Solo'. P. = Pajokumbueh. S. T. = Sungai Taro'. P.G. =Padang Gantieng. Suo = Suruaso. Pg. = Padang. T. = Tiku.

MAP 5. Negri Sembilan.

I = Sri Menanti. IX = Sungai-Udjong.

II Ulu Muar. A. = Gementjeh.

III = Djempol. B. = Tampin.

IV = Gunung Pasir. c. = Naning.

V = Teratji. D. Klang.

VI Djelebu. E. Segamat.

VII Djohol. x. Mt. Ledang.

VIII = Rembau.

MAP 6.

Koto-Piliang and Bodi-Tjaniago.

CHAPTER XIII.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

The present edition of this book is a virtually unchanged reimpression of the first and second printings (respectively: E. Ydo, Leiden & Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague 1951, and Bhratara, Djakarta 1960), except for the addition of this chapter, which aims at bringing the text into relation with more recent material, both descriptive and theoretical.

§ I. Fonnat.

F or the sake of unifonnity, in this chapter I shall retain the system for transliterating Malay and Indonesian words used in the rest of the book, although Malaysia and Indonesia adopted a new spelling in 1972. It may be useful to list the main differences between the spelling used here and the new, official Ejaan Yang Disempurnakan or EYD system. (For some other spelling matters I refer to the Preface pp. I and 2.)

In this book: EYD:	In this book: EYD:
j y	y
dj j	dj j
nj ny	nj ny
sj sy	sj sy
tj c

Chapter XIII, however, does not follow the book's cumbersome procedure of chapter references which in tum refer to the Bibliography at the end of the volume: it concludes with its own miniature bibliography (p. 227-231).

§ 2. Factual data.

A number of statements, left unchanged in the body of the text, need emendation, In the first place, we noted on p. 59 that the diagram (taken from Adatrechtbundels, Vol. XI), showing the rules for the inheritance of newly made clearings, is incorrect. It is satisfactory that in his review Bertling (1953: 291) points out that my proposed correction is confirmed by another Adatrechtbundel article, (XVIII: 253), which I had overlooked.

On pp. 175 and 184 the Peninsular Malay societies are described as "predominantly patrilineal". This is literally a terminological inexactitude; a correct description would be "cognatic with strong patrilateral emphasis.".

Speaking of the historical connection between Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan, several references are made to Radja Malewa, the first Ruler of Negri Sembilan, who was sent over by the ruling dynasty of the Minangkabau homeland: see pp. 9, 10, 107, 122, 123, 162. Later research has shown that this event, which is supposed to have led to the establishment of the Negri Sembilan dynasty, never actually took place, historically speaking (P.E. de Josselin de Jong 1975). However, this does not diminish the importance of what we may call the Radja Malewa legend taken as the Negri Sembilan people's own conceptualization of their link with Sumatra and of the legitimecy of their royal family.

One important question remains to be answered in the present section, namely whether changes in the Minangkabau and Negri SembiIan societies over the past twenty-five years, and/or post-1951 published material on these societies, has affected the character of our book - in other words whether it should now be read (if at all) as a work of history, rather than as a contemporary anthropological description and analysis. Several answers can be given to this question.

In the first place we should remember for what purpose this book was written. It did not come out of research in the field, and therefore its aim was not to describe and analyse the most recent status quo; its main purpose was, and remains, to give an interpretation of the recorded data available at the time of writing. Interpretation of data is a vague phrase; in this case it means that the author tried to discover the structuring principles that underly, and give meaning to, the often confusing welter of things known or at least presented as known. We shall reconsider that interpretation, in the light of more recent developments in anthropological theory, in § 3.

The question remains, however, whether the recorded data have become obsolete. My answer is: no. Developments over the last twentyfive years have not affected the fundamental structure, but have brought about a change in emphasis in the observable phenomena. If I were writing Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan today, the book would necessarily have expanded Chapters VII and X on "Modem Trends", but given the book's purpose as stated above, it is more appropriate for me to be sparing in efforts to give the most up-to-date factual information, and to confine myself to offering the reader a short list of post-1951 studies of our two societies, as far as they contain material that is relevant for the present book (see p. 217 below).

The "modem trends" I consider most relevant for our purpose are the following.

For Minangkabau, above all the great increase in emigration, and certain changes in its character. Merantau (i.e. "outward movement" or "emigration") has been such a prominent feature during the entire known history of Minangkabau, that this society has been characterized as "centrifugal" (Kato 1977); but one analysis of statistical data shows that the percentage of Minangkabau living outside their homeland has risen from 11 % in 1930 tot 44% in 1971 (Mochtar Nairn 1973 a: 38, 39,47, 68), with the sharpest increase in the years 1958 - 64 (Mochtar Naim 1971: 11). A more conservative estimate (Kato 1977: 155,156) still puts the number of Minangkabau in the rantau at more than one million. This has had as one consequence that remittances from abroad (from the rantau) have become an important factor in West Sumatra economy: for example, in one village, the total amount of money received by postal money-orders alone over the years 1967 - 71 reached the sum of about 62 million rupiah (Kato 1977: 302; cpo Mochtar Nairn 1971: 14; 1977: 408).

The increasing importance for the economy of cash influx, entailing a relative decline of the economic role of pusako land, combined with the brain and manpower drain of males in the prime of their life, have led to a shortage of suitable candidates for the function of panghulu, and a diminution of his prestige and influence.

Another "modem trend", crucial for the future development of Minangkabau culture, is tied up with the struggle that adat has had to wage for at least two centuries with other normative and legal systems. While Islam, and in casu Islamic Law, was already a factor to be reckoned with when our book was first published (see e.g. Prins 1948), Indonesian national law has become a more formidable contender (de Josselin de Jong 1978).

The confrontation of Islam and Adat is also a major issue for the Minangkabau society of Negri Sembilan, although it assumes slightly different forms there: see de Josselin de Jong 1960 for a description of a specific case, (where the permanent and latent antagonism became acute as an open conflict), and 1978 for a comparison of the Sumatran and the Malayan situations.

Negri Sembilan also offers us an interesting case of the mechanical model (to use Levi-Strauss's term) being affected by events that can be expressed in a statistical model. There is a "current and ever increasing changeover of land use from subsistence rice farming to cash crop farming. The land coming into production is not tanah pesaka and only some of it will be charian laki-bini. The bulk of it is freehold and unconnected with adat but connected by inheritance to Islamic law" (Hooker 1972: 216). In ()ther words, the inroads of Islam into adat territory we had already noted in 1951 (e.g. on p. 165, above) are becoming deeper.

Nevertheless it is striking, to what extent Peninsular and Sumatran Minangkabau adat has shown resilience and vitality: not by digging itself in and refusing to admit change, but by adaptability. "Accommodation to changing circumstance is certainly observable; but the Minangkabau matrilineal system has, contrary to many predictions, managed to survive in health" (Kato 1978: 2).

This is the principal reason why in this Chapter we need not offer more information to try and keep our book (which is interpretative rather than descriptive) factually up to date, but can refer the reader to recent publications which give reliable data. Besides those already mentioned in this Chapter, the following are of value; it is noteworthy that, compared with the original 1951 biliography included in this book, several of the most outstanding contributions now listed are by Minangkabau anthropologists.

Bibliography. Mochtar Nairn 1973 b.

Minangkabau, descriptive. Cordonnier 1972, Harsja Bachtiar 1967, Muhammad Radjab 1969, Tanner 1969, Taufik Abdullah 1972, Umar Junus 1964.

Negri Sembi/an, descriptive. Nordin Selat 1970 a, Wahab Alwee 1967, Swift 1965.

Minangkabau, the dynasty. Taufik Abdullah 1970.

Minangkabau, comparative. (Le. in relation to Schneider and Gough 1961 and Douglas 1969) de Josselin de Jong n.d. (1977).

Islam versus Adat. Taufik Abdullah 1966.

Merantau. McNicoll 1968, Mitchell 1969, Nordin Selat 1970 b.

We have mentioned several recent developments and, in the case of meran tau , an element deeply rooted in Minangkabau culture that has expanded its sphere of influence. Of the "modern trends", I am convinced it is this last one which is of importance for the "sociopolitical structure" of the society we are studying. This needs to be made more explicit than it is in the book as it stands. In my short article of 1977 (de Josselin de Jong n.d.) I outline the hypothesis that one can distinquish a system based on:

Female - Male

Homeland - Rantau

Adat - Islam

In the context of the present book, this system would have to be seen as an expansion of the (very fundamental) relationship of the female and the male, the matrilineal and the patrilineal, principles, as described e.g. on pp. 84-93, 101-115, 141-147, and 154-157. However, this brings us out of the domain of factual information as it involves interpretation, Le. theory.

§ 3. Theory.

The two principal theoretical issues in which Minangkabau and Negri Sembi/an is directly involved are Leach's criticism of this book, and this book's criticism of Levi-Strauss.

In his review Leach (1952) objected to the application of circulatory connubium, as an explanatory model, to the Minangkabau data. He stated that this type of connubium is incompatible with the superiority of the bride-giving group: "It is precisely this formal difference of status which demonstrates that 'circulating connubium' cannot be the expected pattern ... "

This theme was more fully developed in the well-known article of 1951 (reprinted in Leach 1961). Among the Kachin, "the two most general principles that govern marriage" (Leach 1961: 84) are that in this hierarchical society a man will avoid marrying into a class beneath him, and will try to obtain maximal bride-price and political advantage out of his daughter's marriage. This leads to women marrying into an equally high or a lower class, and to economic goods, in the form of brideprice, moving upwards. In other words, the higher class tends to be bride-giver to the lower, and the "status relations between wife givers and wife receivers must conform to the status relations implicit in other (non-kinship) institutions" (1961: 102). Therefore, as the bride-givers are socially superior, they will also be superior in their political and territorial rights. In such a system, it is logically impossible for the connubial chain to be circular, as the lower wife-receiver can never act as wife-giver to a higher class group.

Now I shall leave out of consideration Leach's discussion of the relationship between the model and the empirically observed practice. Although in my opinion this is the most valuable part of his 1951/1961 article, we are at present discussing (circulating) connubium on the level of the model: cpo page 215 above. I reject Leach's criticism that circulating connubium is logically impossible as the "lower" can never enter into the bride-giving, i.e. the "higher" position. Leach's error is that, having analysed the situation among the Kachin, he presents the marriage system of the Kachin as the "Kachin type marriage system" (1961: 68 and passim), that is to say as the system also found in Indonesian societies with asymmetric connubium.

This is incorrect. The Indonesian pattern is not that the socially superior group acts as bride-giver, but that the bride-givers are superior as such. They do not rank higher in a hierarchy, but have a higher status as bride-givers. Each "group" (be it a clan, a lineage, or a local descent group) is at the same time superior to its bride-taker and inferior to its bride-giver. In diagrammatic form, the system as a whole is not:

but:

ABC "B"C"D, so that the circle can be closed

by D"

These asseverations require proof. As Leach (1961: 91-95) adduces the Batak as a specimen of the Kachin type marriage system, we shall begin with the Batak -scil. with the standard work by Vergouwen (Dutch edition 1933), which was not yet available in English translation (1964) when Leach was writing.

The bride-taker shows respect to the bride-giver, particularly to the clan-segment which is held to have initiated to hulahula - boru relationship. But if a hulahula (Le. bride-giving) group declines in numbers, wealth, or prestige, the boru (bride-receivers) end the connection (1964: 49). In other words, it is the boru who select profitable hulahula. The usual course of events is either that an enterprising man cleared, cultivated, and settled in virgin territory, with his boru as assistants; or else the first settler later arranged a marriage for his daughter, and adopted his son-in-law's line as his boru if that son-in-law "became prosperous and the union was fruitful" (1964: 51).

This is markedly different from the Kachin situation, where "if there is a difference of class between mayu (bride-givers) and dama (receivers) it is the mayu who rank higher than the dama. ,- (Leach 1961: 94). The difference is increased by the fact that class does not enter the Batak picture at all. Vergouwen (1964: 124, 125) distinguishes between de facto and de jure leaders. Some districts only have de facto leaders (whom we might call "big men"), and in the districts with de jure leaders, their position and function is vague and fluid.

Finally we should note that, again in contrast to what is found among the Kachin, goods do not move ''upwards'': the ulos (i.e. female) goods, which move with the bride, are of great importance, as land is often one of the ulos prestations. This is expressed by the Batak in such proverbs as: "Fortunate is he who has an extended group of hulahula" and "the boru is the landing net, the hulahula the well" (1964:61).

Vergouwen described the Toba Batak. It is significant that a recent work on the Karo Batak (Singarimbun 1975) agrees with the much earlier source in all essentials. Each village has its "ruling lineage" in the meaning of the lineage of the founders of a village; but for a settlement to be recognized as a true, "structurally complete", village it must be occupied by the ruling, i.e. founding lineage and its bride-givers and bride-receivers (1975: 23). So we note that the ruling lineage also has its bride-givers, and furthermore that the "relative statuses" of participants in ceremonies and in everyday events are determined by their position in the connubial chain: high prestige accrues to the kalimbubu vis-a-vis the anakberu because, and only because, the former are bridegivers for the latter (1975: 116-145).

On the society with which this book is mainly concerned I am only required, because of Leach's criticism, to demonstrate that the superiority of the bride-givers (see pp. 65, 66 above) is not due to their being members of an aristocracy or nobility who bestow brides to lineages of lower rank. Minangkabau has a village-specific aristocracy very similar to that of the Karo and the Toba Batak: the "oldest" or founding lineages. My own experience of discussions with Minangkabau in their own country about their own society (in 1971 and 1973-74) is that their arguments in favour of MBD marriages generally concentrated on aspects of the personal relationships involved: as the MB already fulfills a tutelary role (pemelihara) towards his ZS, he will also be a benevolent father-in-law; an MBD marriage builds on an existing relationship of familiarity and trust, etc. If village prestige-ranking is referred to at all, it is usually in terms such as: in an MBD marriage one knows what one is doing, one cannot be unwittingly contracting a mesalliance. This last point has also been made, with greater precision, by Umar Junus (1964: 311-318).

If Ego marries his MBD, he will be replicating his MB's marriage, as MBD belongs to the same lineage as MBW; and if it was correct for the MB to marry into lineage A, so it will be for Ego. However, if Ego were to marry his FZD this would mean marrying into his father's lineage, B, which could rank higher than Ego's own, and "a family does not want, or at least hesitates, to let its woman member marry a man from a lower or less respectable class" (NB: just the reverse of the Kachin situation!). One reason for this "hesitation" is that the child born of such a union, who would also belong to matrilineage B, would lose status compared with its mother's generation, as "the paternal line influences the children's position" (1964: 318). We shall return to this matter on p. 225 below, but at present, for reasons of space, these few Minangkabau data must suffice as proof that, no more than the Batak, do the Minangkabau conform to a "Kachin type marriage system".

Reasons of space also do not allow me to do more than offer the following small sample of data on Indonesian societies outside Sumatra. All of them have lineal descent organization, asymmetrical connubium, and a superior status of the bride-giving lineage as such.

For eastern Sumba (Nooteboom 1940: 17, 19, 20, 29, 30, 107- 11 0; Onvlee 1977: 160, 161 j the asymmetrical connubium has been described as practised within the class of the nobility, which is subdivided into the higher (maramba) and the lower nobility. In this patrilineal society the children lose rank relative to their father if the latter marries "beneath" him; conversely a member of the lower nobility may raise his children's position by marrying a maramba woman (Nooteboom 1940: 29, 30).

Among the Atoni of western Timor, the classes are ideally endogamous, "but rulers do give wives to commoner lines ..... forming affinal cum political alliances in which they, as wife-givers, remain superordinate" (CunIlingham 1967: 79; italics added).

There is also a unilateral affinal relationship between the chiefs of the sub-territories (amaf naek) of a princedom and the ruler, where they are his bride-givers. "In this case (the ruler) is inferior, as he receives brides, or, in other words, life, from his amaf' (Schulte Nordholt 1971: 377).

In the Kei (or Kai) archipelago, the "rank and influence of the bride's family" constrain them to "confme the circle of acceptable" bride-receivers to "those who are ebenbiirtig or equivalent". The patrilineage of the bride-givers "acquired a certain precedence and authority" over the bride-receivers (Geurtjens 1921: 293, 302).

The data on the near-by island of Tanimbar are very similar; we need only remark that here the ethnographer found an actual circulating system in practice. He describes the connubial chain, beginning with "Ditilebit house in Awear" seeking brides, and ending with the "house" which "acquires its wives again from DitiIebit in Awear". In his own words, "It is a circle without end" (Drabbe 1940: 151).

We conclude our rapid survey with the island of Umbata, where the inhabitants themselves conceptualize their connubial system as a closed cycle; this is also reflected in the relationship terminology (Barnes 1974: 244, 274). Here again, the superiority of the bridegivers as such "does not mean that actual lineages are ordered in a series of ranked statuses", so that the anthropologist to whom we owe the study of the Kedang district of Lembata can fittingly contrast the data from this Indonesian society with what Leach termed the Kachin type marriage system in these words: "The Kachin are a society with both asymmetric prescriptive alliance and a class system, and this combination seems to have caused Leach difficulty in seeing the important distinction to be made between the relation of superiority and inferiority in a complementary pair of categories on the one hand and on the other the status inequalities of social groups" (Barnes 1974: 245).

While our discussion with Leach has been mainly concerned with ethnographic data, the disagreement between Minangkabau and Negri

Sembi/an and Les structures eiementaires de la parente raises questions of greater complexity and of nuances.

The argument of our book is that what we know of Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan institutions, practices, and beliefs becomes more comprehensible in terms of the model of Indonesian social organization devised by Van Wouden (1968/1935), J.P.B. de Josselin de Jong (1977/ 1935) and others. The twin components of this model are asymmetric connubium and double descent, and at this point our book comes into conflict with Levi-Strauss, who reasons that these two features are incompatible with each other. I accept his statement that in a social system with asymmetric connubium, double descent is logically redundant, but I maintain my objections (stated on pp. 271, 272 and 293, above) to his elaboration of this proposition.

Since 1951, however, I have come to the conclusion that in these passages I have overemphasized the opposition between my views and Levi-Strauss's, and that the latter are fundamentally correct. The reason for my change of opinion is a careful reading of a neglected passage in Levi-Strauss 1949, where the author first observes that "no society absolutely ignores one of the (descent) lines", but adds that for the purpose of arranging the connubial relations, it is always either the patriline or the matriline exclusively which comes into action (1949: 506). This general statement was strikingly confirmed in the Indonesian field by Van Wouden's research on Sumba (1977/1956), which demonstrated that western Sumba has clearly defined patrilineal and matrilineal descent groups, but "there are no fixed marriage arrangements", while in eastern Sumba "a system of unilateral circulating connubium underwent a remarkable development, but at the cost of double descent" (1977: 218).

On theoretical and ethnographic grounds, I now think the following is a fair assessment of the relationship between double descent and asymmetric connubium in the Indonesian field of ethnological study. First, in terms of the model, there is no reason to abandon the combination of these two structural principles, as proposed by Van Wouden (1968: 90-94) and as outlined in our book on pp. 38-40, and applied in Chapters V and VIII. The first part of the passage in the Structures elementaires is in agreement with this: where patriliny is manifest, matriliny is also recognized, and vice versa. But the second part of the passage adds the crucial rider that in practice (which implies: in the participants' application, hence also in their perception, of the structure) only one of the descent principles acts on (or is activitated by) the connubia. This final amending clause can and should serve as a hypothesis to be tested in the Indonesian field. It should be noted that the study by Van Wouden (1977/1956) confinns it, and that Moyer (1976: 1-4) has put forward a variant of this hypothesis, under the significant title of "Exchange versus double descent".

In the foregoing paragraph I used the expressions "structural principles" and "descent principles" when speaking of patriliny and matriliny. I should make it clear that, more than in 1951, I am now convinced that, when investigating "double descent" in Indonesia, we are concerned with principles; in other words, with the question whether, and to what extent, the social participants themselves prove to have the idea or notion of properties transmitted by social and/or biological inheritance through the paternal and the maternal line. We are concerned with cognition in the first place, and only secondarily with the question whether either or both principles become socially manifest in the fonn of patrilineal and/or matrilineal descent groups.

At this point a critic might raise the question whether the problem of double descent, even as I have just defined it, is relevant for the study of Minangkabau, as this is such an obviously, and even extremely, unilineal society. This brings us back to the authors to whom I referred above: to Levi-Strauss (1949: 506) and to Moyer (1976: 3): "The first part of my hypothesis is that the more strongly a society manifests a unilineal idea the more likely the other principle is to emerge. One might call this the paradox of unilineality". It also ties up with p. 93, above, namely that one should not study Minangkabau in isolation, as a matrilineal enclave, but as one variation on an Indonesian theme. We shall therefore conclude this chapter by considering, first: recent data on the occurrence of the patrilineal idea in Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan; next: the double unilineal idea in a few other manifestly unilineal Indonesian societies; and finally, the same question as regards our societies' manifestly cognatic neighbours.

In this book, the patrilineal notion in Minangkabau was discussed on pp. 84-93, and on pp. 101 and 104-115 (where it was associated with the patrilineal dynasty): for Negri Sembilan, on pp. 139, 140, 145-148, and 154. I should add in the first place that in Negri Sembilan, several years after this book was written, I was surprised to find how strongly the participants held the idea of the patrilineal principle, and how often the tenn bako (which also means the father's matri-group) was applied to this principle (P .E. de J osselin de J ong 1977: especially 248).

Comparable data can be cited for Minangkabau.

Vmar J unus (1964: 318) gives a number of instances of "how the paternal line influences the children's social position' . One of the outward marks of a person's social position is his title (gelar or gala), and several Minangkabau informants gave me specific examples of men who had inherited their title from their father or from their bako. Korn (1941: 313) and Taufik Abdullah (1972: 219) also describe this procedure. While Taufik Abdullah is dealing with unmistakable patrilineal inheritance (due to influence from Atjeh), in the other cases one can wonder whether we are dealing with patriliny or with patrifiliation (Fortes 1970); but as our concern, as said above, is at present with the participants' idea of the patrilineal principle, we should beware of forcing our data into two rigidly distinguished compartments. The more so as Fortes himself remarks: "Most far-reaching in its effects on lineage structure is the use of the rules of complementary filiation to build double unilineal systems" (1970: 88).

The concept of bako is often discussed in Minangkabau. It was interpreted several times for me as hereditary traits which a son acquires from his father (and which his prospective "bride-givers" try to ascertain before he is accepted as a son-in-law). Further comment was: "Bako and sako (i.e pusako, the status and heirlooms one inherits socially in the maternalli~e) come together in every individual" - an interpretation very similar to the one given to me twenty years before in Negri Sembilan (see P.E. de Josselin de Jong 1977: 248).

One could almost say that a certain mystique is attached to the patrilineal idea; one more example must suffice. A very well-known expert in silat explained that one learns this Minangkabau art of selfdefence from one's father's-father. Not that you inherit your aptitude from him, but the FF will watch out among his sons'-sons for signs of fitness to become a silat pupil. The FF (and after his death, the F) is the link between the young practitioner and the ancestors who established the art of sila!.

After these additional notes on the significance of the idea of the patriline principle for the Minangkabau, we should, however briefly, consider the role of the alternative line in a few manifestly unilineal societies in Indonesia. Sumba is a fitting example, as we saw (p. 223 above) that Van Wouden demonstrated the difference between the western half of the island, which is double-unilineal, and the eastern half, which has asymmetric connubium, "but at the cost of double descent": the connubium is between patrilineages. Nevertheless, it is from eastern Sumba that Onvlee (1930: 346) reports a discussion about marriage arrangements, during which one of the older inhabitants refers to his son and his son's wife as "our children", and explains that his son's wife is also his child, because his son and his son's wife have a common MMM.

In Nooteboom's compendious monograph on eastern Sumba we again see how irrelevant the distinction is between filiation and descent when we are concerned with the bilineal principle. In this patrilineal and hierarchical society, a person's rank is also determined by his maternal descent: he will for example only be recognized as a member of the highest nobility (maramba), if he can prove his maramba descent in the paternal and the maternal line "without a single ancestor of lower nobility". Nooteboom also includes a specimen pedigree, which "except for the most recent period, only reckons with matrilineal descent" (Nooteboom 1940: 28, 22).

Finally we should turn to societies around Negri Sembilan, as they confirm the opinion expressed on p. 93, above, that Negri Sembilan and Minangkabau are not matrilineal islands, but emphasize matriliny while sharing with their neighbours the notion of two lineal principles. The social organization of these Malay neighbours is cognatic with patrilateral stress (see above, p. 215).

Each of these Malayan Malay states has its royal family, and "royal descent on the maternal as well as the paternal side conferred higher status than patrilineal royal descent alone" (Gullick 1958: 67). Here the alternative (i.e. the matrilateral) principle only modifies the dominant, patrilateral one. But in other contexts both principles become almost equivalent. Towards the end of the 19th century - the period mainly discussed in Gullick's book - marriage was uxorilocal. As the daughters remained in residence in their natal homestead, "in later generations the group of kinsfolk consisted of sisters (or women more remotely related in the matrilineal line), their husbands ... and their children" (Gullick 1958: 33,34). For the Malay state ofPerak we have data covering a period of roughly a century or more which point in the same direction. The 18th-century Laws of Perak lay down that "house and garden, crockery, kitchen utensils and bedding" are inherited by the daughters, "iron tools or weapons, rice-fields and mines" by the sons. An article (by W.E. Maxwell) of 1884 states that "the lands and houses of the deceased descend to his daughters equally, while the sons divide the personal property, being expected to acquire land for themselves by clearing and planting it or by marrying women who have inherited it" (Winstedt 1947: 38, 39) - a very "Minangkabau' situation.

In a review of Javanese Villagers I had already remarked that the Javanese rules of inheritance "could be described almost in their entirety in the Minangkabau-Malay terms of pembawa, dapatan, and tjarian" (P.E. de Josselin de Jong 1970: 1129; cpo above, p. 57 -59). After this brief survey of some manifestations of the matrilineal idea in patri1ateral-cognatic societies, we shall conclude this section by returning once more to the patri-principle among the Minangkabau. We saw on p. 225 that the word bako can be used there to designate features in character which a son inherits from his father. In the Malay state of Kelantan the same word (in the form baka) means the hereditary talent for being a medicine-man (bomor); this feature passes from father to son (Zainal Abidin bin Sulong 1957; cpo Endicott 1970: 17).

To sum up. First, we owe to Levi-Strauss (1949: 506) a hypothesis that should be tested for Indonesia, namely that, also in double-unilineal systems, only one of the lines is concerned with connubia. In the second place, there is additional evidence to support the propositions I avanced in 1951: that the patriline is recognized in Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan, and that these societies show one transformation of an Indonesian double-unilineal structure. Finally, that "double-unilineal" refers to the participants' notion of matriliny in conjunction with patriliny (which justifies the anthropologist's model of double-unilineality), but not necessarily to double-descent groups. "I shall hold at the same time that all 'features' or 'elements' are deeply altered by their position, and that the sum total of all 'features' or 'elements' is constant in all societies" (Dumont 1966: 31).

Chapter references

(See list of Abbreviations on p. 197)

Abdullah Alwee		see Taufik Abdullah see Wahab Alwee
Alwee Bachtiar		see Taufik Abdullah see Wahab Alwee
Bachtiar	1974	see Harsja Bachtiar
Barnes, R.H. Bertling, C.Tj.	1974 1953	Kedang. Oxford: Clarendon Press Review of 1st edn. of this book.
Cordonnier, J.C.	1972	Indonesie· 6-3: 290-292
Cunningham, Clark E.	1967	Agriculture et commerce au Sumatera Barat. Paris: Centre d'Etudes de Geographie Tropicale Soba: an Atoni village of West
Douglas, Mary	1969	Timor. In: Koetjaraningrat (ed.): 63-89 Is matriliny doomed in Africa?
Douglas, Mary	190)	Is matriliny doomed in Africa?

Drabbe, P. 1940

Dumont, Louis 1966

Endicott, Kirk Michael

Fortes, Meyer Geurtjens, H. de Josselin de Jong, J.P.B. de Josselin de Jong, P.E.

Gullick, J .M.

Harsja Bachtiar

Hooker, M.B.

In: Mary Douglas and Phyllis M. Kaberry (eds.), Man in Africa.

London: Tavistock Press: 121- 135

Het leven van den Tanembarees. Leiden: EJ. Brill

A fundamental problem in the sociology of caste. Contributions to Indian Sociology 9: 17 -32

1970 An analysis of Malay magic. Oxford: Clarendon Press

1970 The structure ofunilineal descent groups. In: Fortes, Time and social structure. London: Athlone Press: 67-95. (First published in 1953) Uit een vreemde we reid. 's-Hertogenbosch: Teulings

1958 Indigenous political systems of Western Malaysia. London: Athlone Press

1967 "Negeri" Taram: a Minangkabau village community. In: Koentjaraningrat (ed.): 348-385

1972 Adat laws in modern Malaya. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press

1977 The Malay Archipelago as a field of ethonological study. In: P.E. de Josselin de Jong (ed.), 164- 182. (First published in Dutch in 1935)

1960 Islam versus adat in Negri SembiIan (Malaya). BKI 116-1: 158- 203

1970 Review of Robert Jay, Javanese Villagers. American Anthropologist 72-5: 1128,1129

1975 The dynastic myth of Negri Sembilan (Malaya). BKI 131- 2,3: 276-308

1977 The participants' view of their culture. In: P.E. de Josselin de Jong (ed.): 231-252. (First published in Dutch in 1956)

1978 The confrontation of customary law and Islam: a Malaysian and an Indonesian experience. In: S. Eto & S. Ichimura (eds.), Proceedings of Asian colloquium on culture conflicts. Tokyo: Japanese Society for Asian Studies: 1-16

(1977) Deductieve anthropologie en Minangkabau. In: Festivalnummer l. Leiden: Instituut voor Culturele Anthropologie: 83-95 1977 Structural anthropology in the Netherlands. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff see Umar Junus 1977 Social change in a centrifugal society: the Minangkabau of West Sumatra. Ph. D. Thesis, Cornell University (typescript) 1978 Change and continuity in the Minangkabau matrilineal system. Indonesia 25: 1-16 1967 Villages in Indonesia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1952 Review of 1st edn. of this book. Man 52, Dr. 229 1949 Les structures elementaires de la parente. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France 1968 Internal migration in Indonesia. Indonesia 5: 29-92 1969 The socio-cultural environment and mental disturbance. Indonesia 7: 123-137 1969 Sistem kekerabatan di Minang-

n.d. de Josselin de Jong, P.E. (ed.) Junus Kato, Tsuyoshi Koentjaraningrat (ed.) Korn, V.E. Leach, E.R. Levi-Strauss, Claude McNicoll, Geoffrey Mitchell, Istutiah Gunawan Mochtar Nairn Moyer, David S. Muhammad Radjab

1941 De vrouwelijke mama' in de Minangkabau~che famille. BKI 100: 301-338

1961 The structural implications of matrilateral cross-cousin marriage. In: Leach, Rethinking anthropology. London: Athlone Press: 54-104. (First published in 1951)

1971 Merantau: causes and effects of Minangkabau voluntary migration. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies

1973a Merantau: Minangkabau voluntary migration. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Singapore (typescript)

1973b Bibliografi Minangkabau. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies

1976 Paris - Leiden and other oppositions. Leiden: Instituut voor Culturele Anthropologie kabau. Padang: Center for Minangkabau Studies see Mochtar Nairn 1940 Oost-Soemba, een volkenkundige studie. VKI 3. 's-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff Some facts and fallacies with 1970a regard to the position of men in adat perpateh. Federation Museumslournal15: 101-120 1970b The concept of merantau in adat. Federation Museums lournailS: 121-128 1930 Opmerkingen over verwantschapsbetrekkingen bij de Soembanezen. TBG 70: 343-347 1977 The construction of the Mangili dam: notes on the social organization of eastern Sumba. In: P.E. de JosseJin de Jong (ed.): 150- 163. (First published in Dutch in 1949). 1948 Adat en Islamietische plichtenleer in Indonesie. 's-Gravenhage: W. van Hoeven see Muhammad Radjab 1961 Matrilineal kinship. Berkeley: University of California Press 1971 The political system of the Atoni of Timor. VKI 60. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff see Nordin Selat 1975 Kinship, descen t and alliance among the Karo Batak. Berkeley: University of California Press 1965 Malay peasant society in lelebu. London: Athlone Press 1969 Disputing and dispute settlement among the Minangkabau of Indonesia. Indonesia 8: 21-67 1966 Adat and Islam: an examination of conflict in Minangkabau. Indonesia 2: 1-24 1970 Some notes on the Kaba Tjindua Mato. Indonesia 9: 1-22

Nairn Nooteboom, C. Nordin Selat Onvlee, L. Prins, J. Radjab Schneider, David M. and Kathleen Gough (eds.) Schulte Nordholt, H.G. Selat Singarim bun, Masri Swift, M.G. Tanner, Nancy Taufik Abdullah

1972 Modernization in the Minangkabau world. In: Claire Holt (ed.), Culture and Politics in Indonesia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 179-245

Some remarks on Minangkabau social structure. BKI 120-3: 293-326 The social organisation and customary law of the Toba-Batak of northern Sumatra. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. (First published in Dutch in 1933) Rembau. Ned1ands, W.A.: Centre for Asian Studies The Malays: a cultural history. Singapore: Kelly & Walsh Types of social structure in Eastern Indonesia. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. (First published in Dutch in 1935) Local groups and double descent in Kodi, West Sumba. In: P.E. de Josse1in de Jong (ed.): 183- 222. (First published in Dutch in 1956) The pawang (bomor) in Kelantan. Academic exercise, University of Malaya in Singapore (typescript).

231 UmarJunus 1964 Vergouwen, J.C. 1964 Wahab Alwee, A. 1967 Winstedt, Richard 1947 van Wouden, F.A.E. 1968 1977 Zainal Abidin bin Sulong 1957

ERRATA

Page 2, line 2	2, line 2	2	Page 2, line 2 Read: e = e (e.g. besar = besar)
p.	4,1.	15	p. 4,1. 15 for Deviatons read Deviations
p.	8,1.	11 f.b.	p. 8,1. 11 f.b. for occuring read occurring
p.	12,1.	17 f.b.	p. 12,1. 17 f.b. for and read an
p.	14,1.	14	p. 14,1. 14 for policy read polity
p.	21,1.	14 f.b.	p. 21,1. 14 f.b. for one the read one of the
p.	26,1.	18 f.b.	p. 26,1. 18 f.b. for authors read author's
p.	26,1.	18 f.b.	p. 26,1. 18 f.b. for recogn-ized read recog-nized
p.	26,1.	13 f.b.	p. 26,1. 13 f.b. for his read this
p.	30,1.1	13	p. 30,1. 13 for works read work
p.	36,1.	4	p. 36,1. 4 for symbalized read symbolized
p.	50,1.	4	p. 50,1. 4 for eight read eighth
p.	53,1.	7	p. 53,1. 7 for or read of
p.	62,1.	15	p. 62,1. 15 for This read The
p.	64,1.	7 f.b.	p. 64,1. 7 f.b. for with read in
p.	65,1.	1	p. 65,1. 1 for cases read case
p.	80,1.	14	p. 80,1. 14 for enable read unable
p.	81,1.	4	p. 81,1. 4 for gril's read girl's
p.	81,1.	19	p. 81,1. 19 for galangang read galanggang
p.	82,1.	7 f.b.	p. 82,1. 7 f.b. for feat read feast
p.	86,1.	9	p. 86,1. 9 for not bring read does not bring
p.	93,1.	3	p. 93,1. 3 for structures read structure
p.	97,1.1	10 f.b.	p. 97,1. 10 f.b. for ipmortance read importance
p. I	03,1.1	10 f.b.	p. 103, I. 10 f.b. for point read points
p. 1	06,1.1	16	p. 106,1. 16 for 1TOAVXOLPQVL11 read 7TOAVK OLPQVL11
p. 1	11,1.	2 f.b.	p. 111,1. 2 f.b. for woulld read would
p. 1	20,1.	5 f.b.	p. 120,1. 5 f.b. for some, of read some of
p. I	22,1.	8 f.b.	p. 122,1. 8 f.b. for te read the
p. 1	31,1.1	13	p. 131,1. 13 for Indonesia; read Indonesia:
p. 1	42,1.1	17 f.b.	p. 142,1. 17 f.b. for far read for
p. 1	54,1. 2	21	p. 154,1. 21 for point read from the point
p. 15	59,1.	2	p. 159,1. 2 for the number read with the number
p. 16	67,1.	7	p. 167,1. 7 for as read as it
p. 173	73,1. 1	11	p. 173,1. II for Mohommedan read Mohammedan
p. 178	78,1.1	12 f.b.	p. 178,1. 12 f.b. for Negeri read Negri
p. 18	84.1. 1	10	p. 184,1. 10 add Tj in the fourth quarter
B. 18	86.1. 1	14	p. 186,1. 14 for put read put it
p. 1	92 1 1	12	for is read in
p.	92, 1.	12	p. 192,1. 12 for is read in

f.b. = "from bottom", from the foot of the page.

MINANGKABAU AND NEGRI SEMBILAN

P. E. DE JOSSELIN DE JONG (Third impression)

CONTENTS

CHAPTER XI.

PREFACE

CHAPTER 1.

INTRODUCTION.

Chapter references.

CHAPTER II.

PRELIMINARY SURVEY.

Chapter references.

CONSIDERATION OF SOME PREVIOUS WORKS ON MINANGKABAU AND NEGRI SEMBILAN.

Chapter references.

THEORY.

Chapter references.

CHAPTER V.

MINANGKABAU SOCIAL ORGANISATION

§ 1. The units making up the nagari.

Joustra:

Wilken:

Willinck:

Schafer:

§ 2. Circulating connubium.

§ 3. The four suku.

§ 4. Phratrics.

~ 5. Double descent.

Chapter references.

CHAPTER VI.

MINANGKABAU POLITICAL ORGANISATION.

Chapter references.

116

CHAPTER VII.

MODERN TRENDS IN MINANGKABAU.

Chapter references.

SOCIAL ORGANISATION IN NEGRI SEMBILAN.

Chapter references.

Mac'kray, 49, 3,5.

CHAPTER IX.

POLITICAL ORGANISATION IN NEGRI SEMBILAN.

Chapter references.

CHAPTER X.

Chapter references.

COMPARISOS

Chapter references.

CHAPTER XII.

SUMMARY, AND SOME WIDER IMPLICATIONS.

Chapter references.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Abbreviations:

CHAPTER XIII.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

§ I. Fonnat.

§ 2. Factual data.

§ 3. Theory.

Chapter references

ERRATA