LOGIC OF THE LAWS

VAN HET KONINKLIJK INSTITUUT

VOOR TAAL-, LAND-EN VOLKENKUNDE

75

DAVID S. MOYER

THE LOGIC OF THE LA WS

A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

OF MALAY LANGUAGE LEGAL CODES

FROM BENGKULU

THE RAGUE-MARTINUS NIJROFF 1975

The research upon which this thesis is based was financially supported by the Dutch and Canadian Governments. I received four consecutive doctoral fellowships from the Canada Council in the academic years from 1971 to 1975. I also received two of the Netherlands Government Scholarships which are awarded to Canadian nationals by the Dutch Ministry of Education and Science. The International Affairs Section of the Ministry has also provided financial assistance to help defray the printing costs of the thesis. Without this support the research, writing, and publication of the following could have been neither undertaken nor completed. Academic tradition at Leiden University does not allow me to thank the individual members of the teaching staff who have assisted me in the preparation of this thesis. I wish, therefore, to collectively thank the members of the Faculty of Letters and the Faculty of Social Sciences who have directly and indirectly contributed to the preparation of the thesis. The staff of the Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde have graciously assisted me in the innumerable ways that are only possible in such a research institution. In particular,

F. G. P. Jaquet introduced me to and helped me to decipher the of ten confusing patterns of Dutch archival and manuscript collections. My wife Gretchen, to whom this thesis is dedicated, in addition to typing and retyping drafts of the thesis, carefully edited the entire text. My friend and colleague F. E. Tjon Sie Fat provided much valuable assistance in puzzling through many of the mathematical subtleties of the legal codes of this study. AdditionaIly, our lengthy discussions which encompassed some of the most improbable topics were simultaneously refreshing and enlightening. To all of these individuals, many of whom must remain anonymous, I wish to express my thanks for without them this work would have never come to fruition.

NOTE ON ORTHOGRAPHY

In an anthropological study such as this where the majority of the material is drawn from sources dating from the nineteenth century, the problem of orthography is particularly acute. Thus I have attempted to adhere to the following rules. When there was confusion as to which rule to apply I must admit that I have tended to follow the procedure advocated by T. E. Lawrence (1940, pp. 18-20) for the transcription of Arabic.

1) When referring to indigenous concepts in a non-specific or general
sense, I have used the orthographic convention for Malay and Indonesian that has been in use since August 1972. The basic rules of this system are set forth in a pamphlet published by the Indonesian government and entitled Pedoman Edjaan Bahasa lndonesia Jang Disempurnakan. The ma in conventions that involve changes from previous usage are in the following tabie.

Malay (previously) lndonesian (previously) Combined System

j dj y y ny nj ny sh sj sy ch tj c kh ch kh

The approximate English equivalents of the combined system are as follows: j as the j in jump; y as the y in yes; sy as the sh in show; e as the eh in chop; kh as the eh in the Scottish pronunciation of loch. Though the ny sound does not normally occur in English it can be approximated by the combination of the last phoneme of "green" and the initial phoneme of "yacht" when the words "green yacht" are pronounced rapidly.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

2) When transcribing Arabic script into a Romanized form I have
also used the 1972 convention. This means that my transcription of the Arabic forms is not a completely accurate philological evaluation of the original. For example, though in Arabic script the "s's" in the words "semendo" and "fasal" are consistently represented by different forms I have only used a single "s". Since this is an anthropological and not a philological study I have taken the view that the exact transcription of the Arabic script into Romanized form either would have been unnecessarily confusing for the anthropologist or would have made this hook prohibitively expensive.

3) When directly citing published Dutch and English language sourees
I have retained the spelling of indigenous terms as in the original. A useful guide for converting these to the modern spelling can be found in paragraph 1. The Malay system roughly corresponds to English practice and the Indonesian system roughly corresponds to Dutch practice.

4) When directly citing manuscripts written in Romanized Malay
I have retained the spelling of the original. All of the Romanized Malay manuscripts used in this study were prepared using Dutch orthography as a reference. Thus the consonant values tend to follow the pattern presented in paragraph 1 for the previous Indonesian system. The patterns for vowels and diphthongs is unfortunately perversely inconsistent and especially confusing for the native English speaker. The following observations on Dutch orthographic practice should provide some assistance. Dutch oe, e.g., boek (hook) like the vowel in the English word "tooI" but shorter (longer hefore r), e.g. loeka = luka (Ind. wound). Dutch ij, e.g. mijn (mine). This diphthong is problematical hecause there is considerable variation among Dutch speakers. Thus to the English speaker the diphthong may sound like the vowel in "mine" or "main". However, with regard to texts from South Sumatra the form is found in association with the modern Indonesian "ai", which may he approximated by the vowel in the English word "mine", e.g., soengij = sungai (Ind. river) or sampaij = sempai (Ind. reaeh, extend to). Dutch ie, e.g., ziek (sick) like the vowel in the English word "week" but shorter (longer hefore r), e.g., lakie lakie = laki laki (Ind. man). Dutch ou, e.g., koud (coId), similar to the vowel in the English word "how" and the Indonesian diphthong au. However, hecause this may he represented in a variety of ways in Duteh, e.g., blauw (blue); hout (wood); saus (sauce); and bouw (building, structure ) there is

NOTE ON ORTHOGRAPHY IX

considerable vanatlon in South Sumatran texts, e.g., atouw = atau (Ind. or); karbauw = karbau (Ind. buffalo); and Soengij Lemou = Sungai Lemau (Ind. place name).

5) When referring to a marriage form or legal concept specifically
(i.e., with reference to a single law text) I have regarded the reference as a direct citation and thus either the rule in paragraph 2 or 4 applies, depending on the nature of the text.

OF CONTENTS

Preface

A Note on Orthography.

Chapter 1: Introduction...

Chapter 2: The Reference Law

Chapter 3: The Sungai Lemau Laws

Chapter 4: The Sungai Hitam Laws

Chapter 5: The Silebar Law's

Chapter 6: Conclusion

Appendix I.

Appendix II.

Key to Manuscript References

Bibliography.

Maps.

Indexes

page V

VII

INTRODUCTION

In 1888 Prof. G. A. Wilken published an article in the Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië entitled "De Verbreiding van het Matriarchaat op Sumatra" (The Spread of Matriarchy on Sumatra). The Royal Institute, which was responsible for the publication of the article, sent a numher of copies of the article to the Minister of Colonies together with a request that they he forwarded to civil servants in Sumatra so that they might conduct research in the field in order to fill any gaps in the data (Wilken, 1912, II, p. 220; 1891, p. 150). As aresult the Ministry received a number of memoranda that were forwarded to the Royal Institute and ultimately to Wilken. Nine of these memoranda were from the Residency of Palembang and provided excellent ethnographic data covering most of the region.1 With these memoranda available, Wilken wrote an article entitled "Over het Huwelijks-en Erfrecht bij de Volken van Zuid-Sumatra" (Concerning the Marriage and Inheritance Law of the Peoples of South Sumatra) which was published in Volume 40 of the Bijdragen in 1891.2This article was the first major attempt to produce an anthropological synthesis of the apparently widely disparate marriage forms to be found in South Sumatra. Among the early Dutch ethnological scholars Wilken was exceptional in that he "firmly placed the study of Indonesian societies in the context of the dominant ethnological theory of his time, evolutionism" (De Josselin de Jong, 1968, p. 3). The marriage forms of South Sumatra, or as Wilken points out (Wilken, 1912, II, p. 219; 1891, p. 149), that part of Southern Sumatra formerly encompassed by Palembang, Bengkulu, and the Lampung Districts but excluding Jambi, presented an analytical problem that was bound to fascinate any nineteenth century evolutionist. In Wilken's own words, "Nowhere does one come across so many marriage forms so close together that are in the most divergent stages of development and with so many nuances and transitional forms as in South Sumatra" (Wilken, 1912, II, p. 223; 1891, p. 153).

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

For any of thc evolutionists the most significant marriage forms in South Sumatra would have been jujur and ambil anak. These two types of marriage, when considered in their most extreme forms, are virtually ideaI types for the evolutionists' notion of patriarchy and matriarchy. This is so much the case that it is perhaps useful to use WiIIiam Marsden's description of these forms because it is rather difficult to argue that Marsden, who was writing in thc eighteenth century, was influenced by the dominant theoretical themes of the nineteenth century. "The jujur is a certain sum of money, given by one man to another, as consideration for the person of his daughter, whose situation, in this case, differs not much from that of a slave to the man she marries, and to his family" (Marsden's History, 1811, p 257). In direct contrast to this there is ambil anak. "In the mode of marriage by ambel anak, thc father of a virgin makes choice of some young man for her husband, generaIly from an inferior family, which renounces all further right to, or interest in, him ... He lives in the family, in a state between that of a son and a debtor. He partakes as a son of what the house affords, but has no property in himself ... He is liable to he divorced at their pleasure, and though he has children must leave all, and return naked as he came" (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 262 f.). What made this problem interesting to the evolutionist, and continues to make the problem interesting for the modern anthropologist, is the fact that these forms occurred not only in societies which were in close geograph- icaI proximity but also in the same society, simultaneously and in direct contrast to each other. While the forms of jUjUT and ambil anak marriage, both in extreme and attenuated forms, dominate the ethnographic picture of South Sumatra, there is a muitiplicity of forms th at may be roughly labelled, if not in essence then by implication, as cognatic.3Such cognatic forms are usuaIly matrilocal; however, the status of the children may vary substantially. Sometimes only one child must return to the father's family, sometimes the children are divided, and sometimes both parents have equal rights to all of the children. And in some cases, as if the whoie system was far too complicated for any definite mIes, the decision is left to the child himself. Still further complicating the picture is the fact that in certain divorce situations jujur and ambil anak forms have acquired cognatic features (c.f. DuIken, 1862, pp. 303-304). Wilken's solution to this problem, not surprisingIy, follows strict evolutionary lines. As a starting point he argues that, "In contrast to the inhabitants of Middie Sumatra, i.e., the various tribes of the Minang-

South Sumatra have patriarchy" (Wilken, 1912, II, p. 223; 1891, p. 153). Thus Wilken believed that the people of South Sumatra had passed through the matriarchal phase and had progressed far enough to he considered in the patriarchal phase. The key transitional step was when matriliny a_nd patriliny existed side by side, i.e., a lineage could be continued by either a man or a woman. However, at least according to Wilken, the system gradually progressed until the rule hecame th at the lineage was continued by sons unless there were no sons, in which case it was continued by a daughter (c.f. Wilken, 1912, II, p. 247; 1891, p. 176f.). At this point, by implication, the stage of patriarchy had been reached. Wilken's argument is supported by the fact that in many cases it appears that ju)ur marriage was considered to he the norm, while ambil anak marriage was an optional rule most frequently applied when a family lacked sons. In this regard Wilken singles out Van der Meulen's memorandum which applied to Ogan Ulu and Kumering Ulu. It is worth quoting from the original document in detail not only because it is relevant to Wilken's argument but also hecause it helps to answer the still important question of what was the relation between patrilineal and matrilineal forms when they appeared as alternatives in the same society. However, any judgments on this latter point must he tempered by the fact that the memorandum was written in response to a query related to Wilken's original article on "The 'Spread' of Matriarchy in Sumatra".

When the brideprice (djoedjoer) is paid, the woman follows her husband to his family. Completely in agreement with the frequently expressed idea that the man has purchased (beli) his wife, the children stay with the family of the father. If the father does not have any sons then one of the daughters (if possible the eldest) marries by "terambil anak lepas". In this case the man is obliged to live with his wife [i.e., matrilocally]. The woman is the head of the family (gezin = strictly speaking, nuclear family) "tegah djoerei" because she is completely equated with a son. The chirdren stay with the family of the mother. If there are marriageable daughters and only one young son then one of the daughters marries by terambil or "ka'ambil" anak (without, however, establishing a descent line (?) (stam)) until the son can marry and there is no fear that the descent line will die out in the male line. The woman is then free to follow her husband, who returns to his own family. If the son dies hefore he has any descendants, then the daughter's marriage is changed to the "ka'ambil anak lepas" form and with a feast it is made known that she has established a "djoerei".

OF THE LAWS

Ey way of exception, it sometimes happens that an elder daughter establishes a "djoerei" while the father stil! has a young son, but according to the current superstition this may result in the sick ne ss or death of the son. The reason for this exception is that the father is rich and powerful and fe ars that his "djoerei" wil! die out or that because his daughter has followed her husband she may be forced to do heavy work in thp fields. (Algemeen Rijksarchief, Ministry of Colonies Archives (non-secret), 27 Sept. 1894, No. 41, Memorandum Van der Meulen, 12 Nov. 1889).

Thus Wilken's argument that the dominant form is patriarchal in nature is based on the fact that at the level of norms the patrilineal form of marriage takes precedence over the matrilineal form. It is interesting to note that most modern social anthropologists, while avoiding the term patriarchy, would interpret this passage from Van der Meulen's memorandum as being primary evidence for the existence of a patrilineal descent system. Wilken's argument is not based solely on the material provided by this memorandum but reflects a general feature associated with South Sumatran marriage systems that is to be perceived in the early literature, i.e., there is astrong general p~eference for the jUjUT or patrilineal and patrilocal form of marriage. The term preference is used advisedly. Although with regard to important positions and tides, the preference for patrilineal descent seems to acquire the strength of a prescription, even here the exceptions are frequent and important. And further, the status implications of jUjUT marriage derive not only from the positive values surrounding the principle of patrilineal descent, but also from the ability to pay what in many cases was an exorbitant bride price. Indeed, one has the impression that the major obstacle to the extensive use of jUjUT was the financial implications of the marriage payment. Thus, in the Lampung Districts where the size of jUjUT payments reached the most extreme proportions, Forbes (1885,

p. 152) suggests that only the eldest son married hy jUjuT while all of the others married by one or the other of the matrilocal forms. In contrast to his view that patriarchy has replaced matriarchy as the dominant form in South Sumatra, Wilken argues that the cognatic system has begun to develop but has not yet replaced the patriarchal system. Wilken uses a very precise definition of cognatic, i.e., a system in which both parents have equal rights to all of the children (Wilken, 1912, II, p. 265; 1891, p. 193). While one might quibble about the precise definition of transition points, Wilken's argument accords weU with one aspect of the early literature. Where one finds Ïnternal reform pressures there is of ten evidence that either a marriage form already

fOnTI is introduced, or the jujur and ambil anak forms are reshaped in such a way that in certain circumstances cognatic rules apparently apply. For example, in John Marsden's laws for Lais a semendo form cognatic in its implications is presented explicitly as a reform 4 that is to overcome certain hannful effects of both jujur and ambil anak marriage (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 225). Consistent with his view that the evolutionary sequence is matriarchy, patriarchy and cognatic Wilken mentions this example (Wilken, 1912, 1I, p. 267; 1891, p. 196) and emphasises the equality aspects of the marriage form by quoting Marsden, i.e., "This marriage is a regular treaty between the parties, on the footing of equality" (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 263). There are, however, a number of marriage forms in South Sumatra which are neither exclusively matrilineal nor exclusively patrilineal but do not imply legal equality between the marriage partners. The most common of these is a form frequently referred to as se.mendo balik jurai. This is a form of matrilocal marriage according to which one child belongs to the family of his father while the rest belong to the mother's family. Another situation th at frequently arises either as a distinct marriage fOnTI or as a circumstantial aspect of another form is the division of the children, i.e., the child belongs to his mother's family or to his father's family but not to both. Largelyon the grounds that such fOnTIS are usually matrilocal and the man has an inferior legal position with respect to his wife, Wilken views forms such as these as being representative of a transition stage between patriarchy and matriarchy. Contrary to Wilken, largely as the result of the structural analysis of marriage laws, I have grouped together all fOnTIS that are neither strictly matrilineal nor strictly patrilineal. However, modern British Social Anthropology, using different criteria, would partition these nonlineal forms into two groups that are virtually identical to Wilken's division. On the one hand, the definition of cognatic as equal rights to all children is still largely accepted. On the other, systems in which same of the children belong exclusively to one group and same of the children belong exclusively to another group, are of ten described as ambilineal. Wilken's salut ion to the problem presented by the multiplicity of South Sumatran marriage forms was consistent with the dominant evolutionary theories of his day. However, to regard this analysis only as an historical curiosity from a bygone anthropological era, is to do

OF THE LAWS

a fundamental injustice to his work. In particular, the manner in which he differentiated between types of forms is in many respects still acceptable. For example, the implicit distinction that he makes between cognatic and ambilineal types of marriage is still valid. And further, his assertion that the marriage system of South Sumatra is essentially patrilineal anticipates a style of argument that is still dominant in British Social Anthropology. However, sophisticated as these arguments are, they are nonetheless dominated by a theoretical bias that is no longer accepted in modern social anthropology. Thus when Wil ken attempted his synthesis of the marriage systems of Sou th Sumatra and found the solution in evolutionism, one might say that he was asking the right question but providing the wrong answer. As Wilken correctly observed, the marriage systems of South Sumatra provide an unusually complex but exceptionally interesting problem for analysis. While modern anthropology rejects Wilken's approach, the problem is to find a useful and hopefully valid alternative to evolutionism. In contemporary anthropology there are two basic trends that may be employed to descrihe the relationships between the various marriage forms occuring in South Sumatra. One is the British social anthropological approach; the other is the Paris-Leiden structural approach. The social anthropological approach focuses on soc~al interaction, especially with regard to institutionalized forms of behaviour. The structural approach focuses on the conceptual aspects of the social system, especially with regard to formally organized systems of categories. In social anthropological terms the marriage farms of South Sumatra represent a series of institutionalized alternatives that regulate marriage. Accordingly, the study of the alternatives is primarily concerned with an examination of the factors that influence or govern the choice of marriage type. Thus the passage from Van der Meulen's memorandum quoted above can he interpreted as meaning that jujur marriage is used uniess: 1) there are na sons to continue the family line, in which case a matrilineal and matrilocal form is used; 2) there is some doubt as to whether a son will survive, in which case a daughter marries by a matrilocal form which can he converted to a strict matrilineal form or to a patrilocal form as circumstances require; or 3) a wealthy man does not wish to marry his daughter out of hls family. Van der Meulen clearly indicates that the lack of sons or the concern for their survival is the dominant factor governing the choice of alternatives. In more general terms, the choice of alternatives is ultimately related to the demographic characteristics of the population.

In particular, how many individuals are there in the sibling group and what is the probability that at least one will be a male who will survive to produce offspring? However, this is not a simple demographic problem but is itself in turn dependent on certain aspects of the marriage system. The Substance of the Report on the Condition of Society published in The Proceedings of the Agricultural Society established in Sumatra presents a detailed discussion of the situation in the early nineteenth century (+ 1820). "I t appears that on an average of marriageable persons of both sexes, no less than one fourth, and of ten more, are in a state of celibacy, of which the majority are females. The excesses of unmarried females is chiefly owing to the emigration of young men, who wanting the means of marrying in their own country, pass into the neighbouring ones, where the difficulty of obtaining wives is less (p. 3 f.) ... The late age at which marriages frequently take place may have a further effect in diminishing the number of children (p. 5) ... The proofs of the obstacle which this custom, [jujur marriage payments] combined with poverty, presented to marriage, are obvious in every village throughout the country, where the number of Gadises or virgins, many of whom are bending under the weight of years, is not a little remarkable" (p. 15) (Proceedings II).5 The essential point made by this material is that the analysis of the factors influencing the choice of alternatives requires the study and evaluation of circurnstances and variables external to the marriage forms themselves. ln South Sumatra the most significant of the extern al factors are of a demographic and economic nature. Another approach within the general realm of social anthropology bases the analysis not so much on the factors governing the selection of alternatives but on the cumulative effects of the making of choices among the forms. Thus Jaspan's (1964) argument that in the twentieth century the Rejang people have passed from a patrilineal system to a matrilineal one is in a large way based on the fact that the pattern of choice has changed from the regular selection of a patrilineal form to a regular selection of a matrilineal one. Thus the social anthropological approach treats the various marriage forms of South Sumatra as institutionalized alternatives. By viewing these forms as alternatives one is obliged either to analyse the factors governing the choice between alternatives, or to analyse the cumulative effects of making choices, and preferably both. Furthermore, the analysis of these factors must ultimately become involved with circumstances

LOGIC OF TIIE LA WS

and conditions existing in the society which are external to the system of formally organized marriage categories. On the other hand, the structural approach treats the marriage farms not as alternatives but as categories. This approach has one important additional aspect and that is the insistence that the relationships between categories be analysed in so far as possible in terms of the system itself and with as little reference as possible to external cÏrcumstances. The structural approach in anthropology can be succinctly summarized by a postulate, a specification, and an application rule. The postulate states that the relations between elements are more important than the elements themselves. The specification is that elements are named categories. And, the application rule states that given a closed system of formally organized categories, the structural approach is especially appropriate to the analysis of that system. Because there is substantial evidence th at the marriage farms of South Sumatra form a closed system of formally organized categories, I have adopted a structural approach in an effort to elucidate the nature of the marriage systems. While the chapters that follow are a demonstration of how structural analysis can he used to describe the relations between the marriage forms of South Sumatra, it is perhaps useful at this point to indicate same of the major contrasts with the social anthropological approach. The example from Van der Meulen's memorandum (and this is not an isolated example) indicates that ambil anak marriage is an alternative only to be used when jujur cannot be used, thus suggesting that jujur is the dominant form and ambil anak is only a subsidiary alternative. However, at the conceptuallevel there is abundant evidence indicating that the two farms are of equal value and opposed. Hazairin expresses this eloquently and succinctly. "Oorspronkelijk kende het Redjangsche volk slechts als huwelijksvormen de semendo-ambil-anak huwelijken en de djoedjoer huwelijken. Beide huwelijksvormen staan in nauw verband met elkaar, de eene is de contravorm van de andere. De eene kan niet zonder den andere bestaan op straffe van vernietiging van het volksideaal" (Originally, the Rejang people only had semendo ambil anak marriage and jujur marriage as marriage farms. The one is the anti thesis of the other. The one cannat exist without the other except at the risk of destroying the ideal order of the people (volksideaal) (Hazairin, 1936, p. 37). This is not an isolated idiosyncratic opinion on the part of the author but, as we shall see in the following analyses, a prevalent idea in South Sumatra. Another difference between the social anthropological approach and

the structural approach relates to the analytical treatment of the non-unilineal forms of marriage, i.e., those other than jujur and ambil anak. Among these non-unilineal forms two basic types can be readily distinguished. First;., there are those forms in which both parents have equal rights to ~lr children. Secondly, there are those forms in which both parents have rights to the ch"ildren but each child is assigned to either the group of the mother or the group of the father but not to both. The first is usually labelled cognatic and the second ambilineal. However, as the passage from Hazairin suggests, and detailed analysis confirms, such a partitioning of the non-unilineal marriage forms does a fundamental injustice to the conceptual order. These forms are conceptually defined by their relation to the basic jujurlambil anak opposition and as such their key feature is their lack of a strict, exclusive unilineal principle. To insist upon a further dichotomy is to impose an unwarranted and external logical notion on the data. Thus the structural approach is more concerned with how the people of South Sumatra think about their marriage system than with how they use that system. Tbe basic problem, therefore, is to find data that elucidate the conceptual aspects of the marriage system. Prior to the publication of Wilken's synthesis, the majority of the available literature concerning South Sumatra had been written by Dutch civil servants or before 1825 by English officials. From these sources one can construct a reasonably accurate statement as to the nature of the individual marriage forms and how they were used. However, with respect to the conceptual order the only substantive material to emerge relates to the conceptual systems of the Europeans and not the Sumatrans. Indeed, the biases and personal views of the various writers are so pronounced th at they can be controlled and the sources used with considerable confidence. Paradoxically, this is in marked contrast to many of the later sources where anthropological thinking had begun to make an impact. Here the theoretical biases of writers (both civil servants and anthropologists) influenced their interpretation of phenomena to snch a degree that reinterpretation is usually difficult and hazardous, if not impossible. In an effort to better understand the ideas implicit in each marriage form, I began by looking for early sources th at gave descriptions of each marriage form in an indigenous language (usually Middle Malay). lnitially, the goal was an extremely modest one: how are the essential aspects of each marriage form expressed in the local language? In particular, I was interested in the choice of vocabulary and syntactic structures that Were employed to differentiate one form from another.

THE LOGIC OF TUE LAWS

The most important published source that provides such material is

L. W. C. van den Berg's Rechtsbronnen van Zuid Sumatra (Legal Sources of South Sumatra) (1894). Here Van den Berg puhlished a series of Malay language legal texts in Arabic script together with their translations. Though the quality and usefulness of the texts varies considerably, it is very de ar that the Malay texts contain much more anthropologically significant information than do the translations. Additionally, this material indicates that at least some legal codes can be used to provide insights into the nature of the marriage systems of South Sumatra. However, the texts are not uniformly useful. The most serious problem affecting the use of Malay language legal codes for anthropological purposes is the fact that in some cases colonial authorities used legal codes not so much as a means for the documentation of local legal usages but as one way in which to implement certain "reforms". Àmong the legal codes published by Van den Berg there are two important examples of the problems created by colonial interference with the content of a law. In the "Oendang Oendang Simboer Tjahaja" for the residency of Palembang one finds the following: "tidak boleh sekali2orang tua atau ahli gadis atau rangda minta wang jujur (the parents or family of the maiden or widow can never de mand the money of the jujur) (Van den Berg, 1894, p. 13). And similarly, in the "Oendang Oendang Simboer Tjahaja van Benkoelen" one finds the following: "jujur atau hantar tidak lagi dimintaknya perkara jujur atau hantar tidak bol eh mendjadi dawa" (jujur and hantar [both are marriage payments] are no longer demanded; matters relating to jujur or hantar cannot become legal suits) (Van den Berg,] 894, p. 263). These legal statements dating from the 1850's and 1860's respectively are contradicted by contemporary and later sources. For example, just preceding the description of marriage forms presented by Van der Meulen in his memorandum, there is the following statement: "TÈe modes of marriage, at present still usual -notwithstanding the fact that artlcle 3 of the "atoeran boedjang gadis" (marriage regulations) and artide 20 of the "atoeran marga" (district government regulations ) make them punishable -are: " (Algemeen Rijksarchief, Ministry of Colonies Archives (non-secret), 27 Sept. 1894, No. 41, Memorandum Van der Meulen, 12 Nov. 1889). In other areas there appears to have been at least overt acceptance of rules forbidding jujur and at the same time a covert continuation of the old practice. For example, Forbes, an Englishman travelling in the Lampung Districts, was able to observe

Unless the man agreed to surreptitiously pay the fuH jujur payment the father of the girl could "always raise insurmountable difficulties" (Forbes, 1885, p. 151). Whether such colonial regulations were obeyed or not is largely an irrelevant question when one is examining law texts for possible evidence relating to the conceptual order. The mere fact of their inclusion in a legal code creates such major distortions that the text is usuaHy rendered unusable. The main cause of this is the fact that any government regulation relating directly to a marriage fonn affects the legal relationships among the various fonns. Thus instead of having an indigenous relational statement, one may easily find a European statement which has chosen to emphasise some marriage fonns and to de-emphasise others. Furthennore, and this is especially relevant to the above mentioned code from Bengkulu, the prohibition on any further cases relating to an abolished marriage fonn makes the law set even more artificial. In indigenous reform documents it was of ten necessary to provide guidelines for the settlement of cases related to previously contracted marriages, even if the marriage fonn had recently been forbidden. These two law texts published by Van den Berg are not merely an example of the problems and potential hazards associated with the use of legal texts. These particular texts also represent a major turning point in the philology of the legal manuscripts of South Sumatra. These two, and, as we shall see, related, legal codes came to have a dominant influence in the preparation of administrative legal codes. And because, at least from the viewpoint of structural analysis, this influence bas been less than benign, these two legal documents fonn a barrier beyond which analytical exploration is difficult, hazardous and usuaHy speculative. Therefore, the historical background and relationships between these two legal codes provide essential insight into the philology of South Sumatran legal codes. In 1852 J. F. R. S. van den Bossche was given the task of assembling and codifying the legal and customary usages in the interior of the Residencyof Palembang. He completed the task in 1854 and the results of his work became known as "Oendang Oendang Simboer Tjahaja" (Undang-Undang Simbur Cahaya). He divided the fuH range of legal phenomena into six topics: 1) "adat boedjang gadis dan kawin" (customs relevant to relations between youths and maidens as weH as marriage);6 2) "atoeran marga" (regulations for district govemment);

3) "atoeran doessoen dan berladang" (regulations for village govemment and agriculture); 4) "atoeran qawm" (regulations governing the

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

"clergy"); 5) "adat perhoekoeman" (the administration of justice); and

6) "atoeran pad jaq" (the regulations concerning land revenues) ( Van den Berg, 1894, p. 7).7 Although these divisions were not all used all of the time they were to become a dominant influence in most of the subsequent legal codes pertaining to Palembang.8 One of the individuals who assisted Van den Bossche in his work was J. A. Walland. In 1861 Walland succeeded J. A. W. van Ophuijsen, who had served since 1857 as the Assistent Resident in Bengkulu. In 1862 Walland attempted to prepare a codification of the legal practices of Bengkulu similar to that for Palembang. The result was the "Oendang Oendang Simboer Tjahaya van Benkoelen". Unlike tbc Palembang version this codification contained only three sections: 1) "Atoeran marga"; 2) "Atoeran doessoen dan berladang"; and 3) "Adat perhoekoeman". Like the Palembang version the Bengkulu code served as a model for other similar codes. In particular, a special version of the code was drawn up for Muko Muko in the extreme North of the Residency.9 However, the most remarkable feature of the Bengkulu version of the "Oendang Oendang Simboer Tjahaya" is the fact that there is no special section dealing with marriage. Indeed, the prohibition on jujur marriage payments is included in the section th at can be roughly labelled as "criminai" law. I have been able, however, to locate a Malay language manuscript which was apparently an attempt to prepare a section on marriage practices for inclusion in the Bengkulu version of the "Oendang Oendang Simboer Tjahaya". The text is at present in the Western Manuscript Collection of the Royal Institute for Linguistics and Anthropology and bears the name: "Adat Boedjang Gadis, Soengei Lemau Oeloe Benkoelen" (TL VK H813d-iii). The text was signed by the Regent for "Soengai Lemau dan Oeloe Benkoelen", Mohammad Sah. As will become apparent in the subsequent chapters, Mohammad Sah was perhaps the most influential of the native authorities in Bengkulu at the time and a considerable scholar in his own right. A careful comparison of this text with the section entitled "Adat boedjang gadis dan kawin" of Walland's personal copy of the "Oendang Oendang Simboer Tjahaja" (TL VK H580) reveals that the Bengkulu text is an attempt to prepare a statement about local usage using the Palembang text as a direct guide. Thus it seems reasonabie that the "Adat Boedjang Gadis" was written later than 1854. On the other hand, Wink (1926, p. 68) indicates that in 1861 Mohammad Sah requested to be removed from office. Thus this manuscript must precede the Bengkulu "Oendang

Oendang Simboer Tjahaja", which did not appear until 1862. Though it can be demonstrated that this manuscript in same sense links the two "Oendang Oendang Simbaer Tjahaja's" this is not its most remarkable feature. The most striking aspect of this manuscript is the fact that there is na mention of jujur marriage. This is all the more remarkable hecause the same author had written a brilliant legal synthesis of jujur and semendo marriage farms in the summer of 1855 (this synthesis is analysed in Chapter 3). Thus the manuscript entitled "Adat Boedjang Gadis" provides an excellent example of the kinds of distorting eHects that colonial influences had bath upon the form and the content of legal codes. In contrast to the era of direct interference with the writing and composition of legal codes, tbe beginning of which is marked by the appearance of the "Oendang Oendang Simboer Tjahaja", there is a collection of manuscripts for Bengkulu th at reveals another pattern. It is perhaps appropriate that the man J. Walland replaced, J. A. W. van Ophuijsen, was responsible for the assembling and preservation of the majority of the legal codes from South Sumatra that I have found to he suitable for structural analysis. These manuscripts are part of the

J. A. W. van Ophuijsen collection which is housed in the Leiden University Library. Though it may only be the result of an accident of preservation that the anthropologically most useful legal codes came from only one part of Sou th Sumatra (i.e., the Bengkulu Residency), their special value is also undoubtedly related to certain local administrative traditions that developed during the British administration of the region and were continued largely unchanged by the Dutch until the appearance of Walland. In the legal codes in manuscript form for this region one is of ten struck, on the one hand, by the obvious lack of colonial interference in bath the form and content of the legal codes and, on the other hand, by the fact that the documents are, for the most part, comprehensible. Indeed, one has the impression that many of tbe legal codes were written by the local elite for tbe Dutch (or English). They are digests of local cu stoms and legal ideas but are explicit enough to be readily understood by the outsider. This is in marked contrast to the truly indigenous legal statements that are of ten difficult to read and understand. Thus, somewhat aphoristically, one might say there are three types of legal codes in South Sumatra: 1) those written by the local people for themselves; 2) those written by the local people for outsiders; and 3) those written by the colonial authorities for the local pcople.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

Thus, the anthropologically most useful legal codes are those in which the material is presented by local individuals in their own language. Perhaps even more important than the freedom to specify and descrihe their own customary and legal practices is the fact that in most cases they were allowed to organize and arrange the contents of the laws as they thought appropriate. It is this absence of interference with form and content that gives these legal codes their essential qualities. For it is not only the content of the legal codes but also the arrangement of this content that reveals the conceptual organization of the marriage forms. In the process of establishing the fact that the contents of certain legal codes and the manner in which this material was arranged is an invaluabIe aid in understanding the logic of the relations between marriage forms, a new and unexpected dimension emerged. The formal properties of the structures that re late the marriage forms are not confined to the theme of marriage, but are also to be found in the structures that relate other types of social or legal categories. Although the process of discovery involved an extension from the marriage structures to the structures of other legal phenomena, this does not mean that some of the structures of a legal code are extensions of the structural relations found in the marriage section of that code. On the contrary, the essential feature of the logic of the relationships between marriage forms is that they are only a part, though a very important part, of a conceptual system embracing a wide range of social concepts and categories. Thus while legal codes provided a solution to the problems associated with the description and analysis of the relations between the marriage forms of South Sumatra, they in their turn posed another undoubtedly more complex problem. Can the logic of the relations hetween marriage forms he descrihed without reference to other systems of formally organized conceptual categories? Anthropology, with its traditional involvement with the fuU range of human society and behaviour, teUs us that this question must he answered in the negative and that one must seek the totality of contexts that are relevant to the understanding of the marriage forms. However, the legal codes seem to play a devious trick on the analyst. He does not have the freedom to explore the totality of possible associations between marriage categories and other conceptual systems because the laws themselves speeify whieh eategorieal systerns are in some way equivalent to the logie of the relations between marriage forms. Some of these other systerns ean he readily seen as

having conceptual links with marriage. For example, the logic of financial relations has important connections with marriage as a re sult of the brideprice payments. Similarly, the logic of sexual offences can be seen as being related to the logic of the marriage systems. However, the laws of ten seem to suggest that the logic of the relationships between the offences of killing, wounding, and theft is similar 10 that existing between the marriage forms. Thus the laws require that the anthropologist suspend his normal views as to what is relevant and what is irrelevant to the understanding of the marriage forms. However, while the laws bring apparently unrelated systems and categories into juxtaposition and association, the structure of the legal codes is such that it is possible to isolate the various distinct subsystems within a given legal code. It is possible, therefore, to say that some portions of a legal code deal with marriage, some with economic matters, and others with "criminal" matters. Thus, on the one hand, the laws indicate that there are several distinct systems of legal categories that share certain formal properties. But on the other hand, the struc.ture of the laws is such that it is possible to isolate these subsystems and analyse them independently without doing any fundament a! injustices to the data. The laws, therefore, present an analytical dilemma without providing the solution or an indication of which of two possible solutions is preferable. On the one hand, one could analyse only the marriage structures of a substantial number of laws in order to demonstrate that certain basic structural patterns recur throughout South Sumatra. On the other hand, one could analyse the total structure of a more limited number of laws. Though at a purely theoretica! level there is no necessary conflict between these two approaches, the practical problems of exposition require that a choice be made. By electing to search for recurring structures in a large body of data, one makes an important theoretical decision. Tbe demonstration becomes not of the full range of structural phenomena in a given corpus of data but of those structures that are most widespread and thus by inference the most basic. This is the choice that Lévi-Strauss has made in his Mythologiques. In the analysis of his data he seeks to find and identify those structures which have a broad distribution. However, this approach tends to make the most of the similarities that occur while at the same time understating and perhaps even underestimating the range of total diversity?O On the other hand, by attempting to totally analyse the full range

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

of structural phenomena in a limited corpus of data, one is able to establish the nature and range of diversity displayed in the structures of the data. In comparing the various differing structures one aften tries to find the abstract formal properties of the various structural systems in an effort to demonstrate that while the range of structural phenomena is highly diverse, there are nonetheless certain basic principles that are reused in manifestly different structures. In this study 1 have chosen the second approach. I have not sought to demonstrate that certain structural principles are used and reused to order the relations between the various marriage forms occurring in South Sumatra. On the other hand, I have sought to demonstrate that the logic of the marriage system as expressed in legal codes is part of a conceptual system embracing the fuH range of legal thinking. This choice has been made on the grounds that it is necessary to understand the total structuring of the various legal codes in order to better assess the nature of the domain of discourse in which the diverse marriage forms have been placed. The rules of marriage are discussed as part of the legal system. I t is possible, and indeed probable, that there are important differences between the conceptual aspects of the marriage system when presented in alegal domain as opposed to another, for example mythic, domain. Thus I have elected to examine not only the logic of the marriage farms but also the nature of the particular domain of discourse in which they are expressed. By examining the total structures of the legal codes two important tasks are accomplished. First, in the process of analysis, the structure of relations between marriage forms is presented. And secondly, the fuU range of the conceptual aspects of the legal system are explored. The second task helps to further clarify the logic of the relations between marriage forms by elucidating the general nature of the system in which this logic is expressed. However, by examining the total structure of the laws one has undertaken the analysis of the legal system itself, as if it were a closed system of formaHy organized categories. Thus necessarily this study is concerned with the logic of the laws. The view that I have taken of law in this study is entirely consistent with the structural approach in anthropology. However, th is view is undoubtedly somewhat unorthodox in the anthropological study of law. As the approach to law that I have adopted here is de pende nt upon the nature of the legal codes I will postpone the discussion of the relationship between the structural and functional approaches to the study of law until the conclusion. By then I hope that it will be apparent that the functional

CHAPTER 1 -NOTES

The following is a list of the dates, the authors, and the regions to which the memoranda applied: 30 January 1889 Schuiler tot Peursum Ranau Districts 9 July 1889

17 October 1889 31 October 1889 12 November 1889 16 December 1889 10 January 1890 Roskott 10 January 1890 Vonck 23 January 1890 2 On 27 September 1894 the Ministry of Colonies received the memoranda which had been returned from the Royal Institute. They were the forty first item to be filed on that day and have remained so until the present. At the time of this writing the relevant file can be found in the Hulpdepot van het Algemeen Rijksarchief te Schaarsbergen. 3 In order to avoid creating a plethora of terms to describe this multiplicity of forms, I have used and will continue to use the term cognatic to describe any marriage form that is not strictly unilineal in its implications. 4 A detailed analysis of the reform logic implicit in this transition is presented on pages 38-40 below. 5 Census material to be found in the Proceedings ot the Agricultural Society established in Sumatra provides detailed material on the situation in two districts not far from the British headquarters at Fort Marlborough. For example, in the District Lumbah Selapan 38 % of the marriageable mal es and 40 % of the marriageable females were unmarried and in the District Duabelas 32 % of the marriageable males and 22 % of the marriageable were unmarried (c.f. Proceedings B, and Proceedings C). 6 The English words af ter the Malay are not properly translations but indicate what the Dutch Colonial authorities thought was included in the category. 7 This is the published account according to Van den Berg. However, in the Western manuscript collection of the Royal Institute there is a bundie of

J. A. Walland's correspondence (TLVK H580) which includes a sizable collection of letters from Van den Bossche. There is also an interesting manuscript version of the "Oendang Oendang Simboer Tjahaya" for Palembang. The manuscript bears the title "Oendang Oendang iang di toeroet di dalam Oeloean negrie Palembang" (the laws which are followed in the interior (uplands) of the Residency Palembang). Of particular significance is the fact that at the top of the first page is the following inscription: "Batoeradja/Ogan \Oeloe/October 1852". This seems to suggest that this manuscript may be a ;very early copy of the "Oendang Oendang Simboer Tjahaja" for Palembang. This law is divided into seven sections, the six given by Van den Berg and one entitled "atoeran membagie oeang denda" (the regulations governing the division of money derived from fines).

LOGIC OF THE LA WS

8 Among the published versions c.f. [De Sturler] (1876) and Gersen (1873). Van Ronkei has catalogued a number of manuscript versions: Van Ronkei (BKI 1908) No.'s XLII, XLIII; Van Ronkel, 1909, No.'s CD, COl, CDII; and Van Ronkel, 1921, No.'s 725, 725*). 9 A Dutch language version of this Muko Muko text was published in Koloniaal Verslag for 1865 and a Malay language version with a Dutch translation is to he found in Adatrechtbundel VI, pp. 322-352. 10 This point is explored more completely in Chapter 6.

Of Referenee Points If structural analysis presupposes that the relationships between elements are more important than the elements themselves, then it follows automatically that every problem of comparison involves a comparison of structures. When one is comparing a small numher of structures, the analytical problem yields an easy solution. One simply compares each structure with every other structure. However, as the numher of structures to he compared increases the complexity of the problem also increases. For two structures one comparison is needed, for three structures, three comparisons, for four structures, six comparisons, for ten structures forty-five comparisons and for the eight hundred thirteen myths of Lévi-Strauss' Mythologiques 330,078 comparisons would he required. While not logically necessary it would he useful to re duce the complexity of the analytical problem if only to make the task more manageable. By the use of a reference point, the problem can be simplified. If every structure is either directly or implicitly compared to a reference structure then the comparison between any two structures can be derived, if necessary, for a particular analytical purpose. However, such a reference structure by virtue of its analytical position acquires an analytical priority. Instead of a comparison based on the assumption of analytical equality, we have introduced an element of hierarchy into the analysis. Other than assigning an a priori analytical priority two reactions are possible. The analytical priority can be asserted by appeal to an extra-structural reality. Or the analytical priority can he denied by a totally arbitrary selection of a reference point. The various aspects of references and standards can he demonstrated most clearly by the natural sciences. The datum of the surveyor is a totally arbitrary reference. A single stake driven into the ground serves as a datum. All subsequent measurements are made in terms of this datum. If necessary the position of the datum can he established in

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

relation to a broader context. However, the exact posltlOn is arbitrary. (For small scale works the datum is aften placed where it will not be accidently removed from the ground). This is also the procedure used by archeologists. The exact spatial relationship between two artifacts is based on measurements relative to an arbitrary datum. The simp Ie comparison of the maximum temperature in two cities on the same day is based on a reference that is less arbitrary and can be said to be extra-structural. The Celsius or Centigrade system is based on two natural phenomena: the boiling point and freezing point of water (icepoint-steampoint). The difference in temperature between these two points is divided into one hundred equal units. Thus, in this case, the reference point has a reality entirely extern al to the comparison at hand. Further, the choice of water as the reference medium lends the aura of a fundamental reality to the system of measurement. A third example relates to the metre. Originally the metre was to have been one ten millionth part of the meridional quadrant of the earth. From the assumed measurement of the size of the earth an archival standard was created. Thus, the metre until recently has been defined in terms of a specific metal bar, but with reference to a more fundamental reality. Thus, bath the Celsius temperature system and the metric system appeal not only to fundamental realities but to realities based on our western cultural heritage. Water was one of Aristotle's four elements, and the earth has always been a basic constant in the growth of western scientific thinking. (Parenthetically, the metre has been redefined in terms of a multiple of the orange-red spectral line of Krypton-86. While this reference may be more useful hom a "scientific" point of view, it still relates to the original definition based on the size of the earth.) Of all the principles of measurement, the oldest and still most generally used is that of the archival standard. While being of fixed external reality to the specific problem of measurement, it was of ten arbitrary. But it was to be available for comparison. Sometimes, the arbitrary nature of the standard was concealed in an appeal to fundamental realities which nonetheless had astrong cultural bias. However, more modern developments have changed the reference standards in an effort to create standards more useful to the rational needs of the scientific community. Scientific standards have two main features. First, all references have an absolute reality by definition: the reality of a particular object or a physical phenomenon. Secondly, there is the problem of measurement. While a unit of length may he defined as the distance between two lines

On the other

hand, if one accepts the necessity of assigning an analytical priority to a reference point, then there is the obligation to explain this assignment. There are two main types of considerations that effect the selection of a reference point: structural considerations and extra-structural considerations. This division parallels the distinction made by De Saussure hetween langue and parole. That is, there exists a class of features empirically describable and external to the structural analysis. In linguistics this separation is most carefully applied in the distinction between phonology and phonetics. The stylistic variants of a phoneme can he described empirically but these variants are external to the phonological analysis. However, these extra-structural features cannot always he ignored. In comparisons based on structural analysis there is a preference for selecting the reference point in terms of the analysis. Thus, the reference structure may he either elegantly simp Ie or deviously complex, depending on the analytical procedures to he used. The analysis can he based on an expansion of the simplest structure or the decomposition of the most complex. Or, the selection can be based on the problems of exposition, i.e., in one example the structure is more easily perceived. Lévi-Strauss' reference myth posed "problems of interpretation that are especially likely to stimulate reflection". (Lévi-Strauss, 1964, p. 10; 1969, p. 2). However, there may he features present that are not part of the structural analyses of the individual structures but cannot be overlooked. Foremost among these extra-structural considerations are historical, geographical and sometimes philological features. When the data are

OF THE LAWS

based on manuscripts, as is the present case, such features are so prominent in the data that they cannot be ignored. For example, when two structures are derived from two texts which are weIl dated these dates cannot be ignored. The formal property of a transformation between two structures is that there is no direction implied. Thus, the transformation from A to B is formally equivalent to that from B to A.

lf we know from the manuscripts that structure A is earlier than

structure B then we must consider the transformation as unidirectional from A to B. To argue the equality of direction when accurate historical information is available is to be anti-historical. Philological analysis also has a decisive influence in choosing between alternative reference points. If it can be demonstrated that part of one text was copied from another earlier one, then the analysis must take cognizance of this feature. In bath cases, historical and philological, the use of the extra-structural information lends credence to the analysis. Thus a transformation between an earlier and a later structure involving a direct knowledge of the former by the makers of the later structure (as demonstrated by philological analysis) is more than an analytical device. It has astrong empirical reality. Thus a reference point can only be based on structural considerations when there is a demonstrabie lack of extra-structural features that could seriously effect the significance of a series of comparisons. While scientific standards have a distinction between the absolute reality of the standard and the problem of measurement, anthropological reference points have a parallel distinction between empirical reality and analysis. In most anthropological studies based on participant observation this distinction is difficult to discern if it can be made at all. However, in the present analysis based on textual material the distÏnction can and, indeed, must be made. On the one hand, the reference point is the text itself, i.e., a particular physical entity. On the other hand, there is the structural analysis of the text. Two separate analysts can at different times examine the same text and prepare analyses. In both cases the thing examined is identical, a condition which is impossible when analyses are based on field work. A specific manuscript may be different from another only because of errors made by the scribe while copying the text. A structural analysis based on such scribal errors is worthless. The analogous problem with oral tradition is more problematical. The difference between two versions of the same myth may derive from simple lapses of memory or from bricoleurean embellishment on the part of the narrator. The latter is an appropriate

REFERENCE LAW 23

object for structural analysis; the former is not. Each text to be analysed presents this problem in a greater or lesser degree. Even when only one copy is available scribal errors become apparent by ungrammatical structures or non sequiturs. Thus every law that is analysed may have a reference text. When possible this will be the earliest complete edition. Unlike traditional philological analysts I will not try to construct a hypothetical original text. While every law may have a reference text, the total analysis may have only one reference point: the reference law. The structure based on tbis reference law is the reference structure. Like every law the reference law also has a reference text. While the question of reference text is important for every law, it is most crucial with respect to the reference law. Thus, a reference text should be selected so as to minimize the problems concerning the origin of the text. Indeed, the quality of the reference text is the final criterion for selccting a reference law. Thus a particular law may be ideal from both structural and extra-structural points of view but the text itself may be of such doubtful provenance that it cannot be used. While the structural and extra-structural features of the reference law will emerge in thc course of tbe subsequent analysis, the nature and origin of its reference text must be examined explicitly.

The Referenee Law

The English name of the reference law for this study is "A Code of Laws as established by the Pangerans' Court at Fort Marlborough, collected by Henry Robert Lewis, Esq., of the Bencoolen Civil Service, and late magistrate". The law also has a Malay title "Undang2 adat lembaga melayu yangdipakai oleh raja dengan pcnghulu dalam negri bengkehulu kot a malbera yang dimuafakatkan oleh Henry Robert Lewis Esquire Magistrate". The text is datcd 12 Nobember 1817 and was printed by Cox and Baylis, 75 Gt. Quecn St., Lincoln's-Inn-Fields in

1821. These were the same people who printed Marsden's Dictionary of the Malayan Language in 1812, and Marsden's Malayan Grammar, also in 1812. Thus they were not inexperienced in printing Malay written in Arabic characters. In fact the type faces used for Marsden's dictionary and the Code of Laws are remarkably similar. The text was signed by Henry Robert Lewis who apparently arranged for the printing. Thus with only a four year gap between the signing of the original document and the printing of the hook we can be reasonably certain that the copy of tbe original text that was used to prepare the printed edition was

OF THE LAWS

a faithful copy in the possession of one of the signatories to the original document. Further, the fact that it was printed by an experienced firm increases the likelihood of accuracy. Unfortunately, the hook is very rare. When L. W. C. van den Berg prepared his translation, which was published in 1894, he was unable to find a copy of the baak in Holland. Thus, his translation was based on two manuscripts. It was only af ter the publication of this translation that the Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde received an offer of a copy of the baak from J. Walland in a letter dated 11 January 1895. Indeed, manuscript copies of the text seem to be more plentiful than the book. For example, Van Ronkel's supplement catalogue of the Malay manuscripts in the Leiden University Library lists three copies (Van Ronkel, 1921, Nos. 128, 129, 725**). However, the most interesting manuscript copy of the text is in the Malay manuscript collection of the Koninklijk Instituut (M-XLV, Cod. 210, Or. 94). The manuscript was sent from Bengkulu on 14 March 1883 and receipt was acknowledged at the 24st board meeting of the Institute on 19 May 1883. However, the manuscript is not a copy of another manuscript but a copy of the printed book. There can he na doubt of this because very assiduously included in cursive writing is the phrase "Printed by Cox and Baylis, 75 Ct. Queen Street, Lincoln's-Inn-Fields". With an amazing attention to detail the pagination of the original is preserved. The text itself is a fine example of caligraphy in a classic style. Unfortunately, this attention to the visible aspects of farm do not extend to the content. In short, it is not a very accurate copy of the text itself. This manuscript demonstrates several things about the Code of Laws in particular and Malay manuscripts in general. At least one manuscript and possibly others were prepared from the book, thus destroying the normal assumption that manuscripts ante-date the hook. This fact, together with the above information on the book itself, underscore the acceptability of using the hook as a reference text. Secondly, the manuscript and book provide us with one of the rare occasions of checking on scribal accuracy. From Aeckerlin's letter we know that the manuscript was based on the hook itself and not a copy of a copy. Thus we have the original that the scribe used and his copy, and need not be concerned with errors creeping in after successive recopying. That is, all the errors are the errors of a single scribe. Further, because of the existence of so many errors in such an otherwise so carefully copied manuscript We know that the Secretary of the Residency, who might normally he expected to check the copy against the original, did not do so even for a copy he intended to he used for scientific

P. B. de
Perez who had sent it to the government in 1839. The government in turn had forwarded it to a commission in charge of the revision of legal institutions. According to tbe governmental almanacks for]835-1838 De Perez served in Bengkulu as Assistent Resident and by virtue of tbis position was also president of the Pangeran's Council. Thus tbe translation was prepared in Bengkulu by someone familiar with locallegal practices. Since th is translation contains material not in the original text it is not suitable for analytical purposes. However, because it is based in part on De Perez' experience in Bengkulu between 1835 and 1839, this translation can more appropriately he used to gain insight into legal interpretation at a period twenty years after the preparation of the original document. This translation received a fairly wide circulation. The journal Recht en Wet published Fasals 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and the concluding paragraph with only very minor changes (1882, Afl. 2, pp. 68-71). Tbe editors admit that it is a secondary source but report that they came across the material in the Soerabaijasch-H andelsblad and make no mention of De Perez' name. Further, Van Vollenhoven only cites the De Perez article as a translation of the Code of Laws, electing to omit mention of tbe translation by L. W. C. van den Berg (Van Vollenhoven, 1918, p. 272). In 1894 Van den Berg published "Rechtsbronnen van Zuid-Sumatra" as Vol. 43 of tbe Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde. He translated four legal documents from Bengkulu, one from Palembang and one from Jarnbi. One of tbose from Bengkulu is A Code of Laws. In addition to the translations, the Malay texts, in Arabic script, were also published. Because of the rarity of tbe hook A Code of Laws Van den Berg was forced to work from two manuscript copies of the text. One of these manuscripts was that sent to the Koninklijk Instituut by J. A. Aeckerlin. In the process of preparing the texts for publication Van den Berg substantially revised the spelling and made it conform to standard usage. I t was through this revision of spelling that he made

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

his one serious translation error in the second half of Fasal 25. However, the correct form is duly indicated in a footnote (Van den Berg, 1894, p. 215). With th is one exception the translation is suitable for most anthropological purposes, insofar as any translation is suitable. Further, his extensive notes provide a most useful guide to reading the original. And, the spelling revisions are likewise useful as a time-saving aid for puzzling through some of the more difficult passages of the original Code of Laws. Apparently basing his opinion on C. A. van Ophuijsen's criticism (Van Ophuijsen, C. A., 1896) of the Jambi portion of "Rechtsbronnen van Zuid-Sumatra", Van Vollenhoven's labeling of the translation of all six documents as "unreliable" (min betrouw- baar) (Van Vollenhoven, 1918, p. 106) is perhaps unfair. But when he lists the De Perez translation as the soie translation, an error repeated in the Adatrechtbundels (VI, 1913, p. 281), he is dangerously misleading. Further, Van Vollenhoven's preference for the Jambi law, which is substantially different from the others, sheds light on his conception of adat law.

Contemporary Sourees as Textual Aids While translations are always an important aid in understanding texts, contemporary mate rial is of ten more useful. With sources dating from the same time as a specific text, one need not be concerned about material of more recent origin finding its way into the analysis, as for example, the De Perez translation. This is a frequent problem in anthropological analysis. A statement by an informant about the past is more of ten a justification of the current state of affairs than an accurate historical statement. The first, and only, volume of the "Proceedings of the Agricultural Society established in Sumatra" was published in 1821 in Bengkulu. While this source contains a wealth of information useful in constructing statistical models, there is much less material that is relevant to a structural analysis of the Code of Laws. While there is no substantial discussion of legal material that would he useful in reading and analysing the Code ot Laws there are some passing references te the Code which was probably not yet available locally in published form. For example, in the "Substance of the Report": "it will appear rather singular that the most complicated part of their code shouid be what relates to marriage-contracts and debts" (Proceedings II, p. 19 f.). It is this "most complicated part" that forms the basis of the structural analysis of the code. The Proceedings reveal a somewhat ambivalent attitude on the part

"abandon all former opinions on the incorrigible laziness of the people" (Proceedings I, p. xi). He may have been commenting on opinions like those of Messrs. Jennings, Lumsdaine, and Presgrave who describe the native populations as "proud, mean, corrupt, treacherous, deceitful and prone to lying, filthy in their persons, devoid of honesty ... tenacious of their old institutions, suspicious of
strangers ... indolent and lazy, greatly adverse to manuallabor (sic) ...
and skiHul in the preparation of poisons which give to the victims of tbeir malice a sudden or lingering death" (Proceedings A, p. 17).~ These weaknesses notwitbstanding, a discussion of tbe state of tbe population as a demographic entity offers insights into the cummulative effects of tbe use of their marriage system. In contrast to the limited usefulness of The Proceedings as a textual aid, there is the extremely important manuscript entitled "A Commentative Digest of tbe Laws Of the Natives of that part of the Coast of Sumatra, immediately dependent on the Settlement of Fort Marlborough and practised in the Court of that Presidency". The manuscript is in tbe possession of the Adatrecht Stichting and was published in Adatrechtbundel VI, 1913, pp. 281-321.3The manuscript is clearly a copy of another document in that it stops suddenly in mid-sentence. The editors of Het Regt in Nederlandsch-lndië either had this manuscript or another version in their possession and had decided to publish a translation of it. However, they acquired tbe De Perez translation of tbe Code of Laws and found the contents so similar that they elected to publish the De Perez material instead (De Perez, 1849,

p. 284). The manuscript bears no date. However, tbe editors of tbe Adatrechtbundel place the date at about 1807. This dating is based on the phrase "the orders of the Government in 1806", thus confirming that it was not written before 1806. Part of the watermark be ars tbe inscription "J. Whatman 1823" but tbis only serves to date this particular copy as being prepared later than 1823. On the one hand, the manuscript contains material very similar to the Code of Laws. However, it is neitber a direct translation nor does the sequence of topics discussed follow that of tbe Code of Laws. Since the text displays such intimacy with legal procedures and legal concepts the author would have most certainly mentioned the Code of Laws if it was in existence. Thus, it was most likely written before 1817. The editors of the Adatrechtbundel offer na assistance as to tbe manuscript's authorship. Bastin (1965,
p. 193) assigns it to H. R. Lewis. I am prepared to accept Bastin's

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

assignment of the authorship. Thus this manuscript was probably ""Titten by one of the signatories to the Code of Laws and because it antedates the Code it is in same sense a rough draft of the later and more important text. Even if the text was not written by Lewis himself, it was most certainly written by someone at least as familiar with native legal thought as he was. In addition to these sources, William Marsden's work, while not exactly contemporary, provides much useful textual assistance. Bis classic work The History of Sumatra had three editions as weil as translations into German and French. The first edition was printed in 1783, the second in 1784, and the revised and enlarged third edition in 1811. Though the first edition contains some information that was removed in the third, the third edition is the most useful. Of patricular importance is the addition of a set of laws for Manna dated July 1807 provided by John Crisp. Further, the excellent reprinting of the third edition (Marsden's Bis tory, 1966) makes this the most accessible for scholarly research. Marsden spent eight years in West Sumatra, departing before his twenty-fifth birthday. Referring to his appointment as Secretary he writes "my official situation, whilst it required a competent knowledge of the generallanguage of communication [Malay], afforded me much practical acquaintance with the criminal law" (Marsden's Memoir,

p. 15). Even before he began to seriously collect material for his book he "ornitted no opportunities of making remarks on, and enquiries concerning, whatever was striking in the production of the country, or peculiar in the manners of the natives" (Marsden's Memoir, p. 15). These official opportunities, coupled with a natural curiosity and thoroughness, led to a hook rich in detail. Moreover, his youthful enthusiasm was balanced by an unwillingness to embroider upon his data with fanciful speculation (cf. Bastin, 1966, p. vii). The most important specific contribution that the hook makes for an understanding of the Code of Laws is the inclusion of a set of "Rejang Laws" collected by his brother John in April 1779 at Lais. William Marsden not only included the text but wrote a detailed account of the material that not only elaborated on the text but added new material, thus elucidating the already useful text. In addition to his own observations and those of his brother, Marsden was obviously influenced by native informants. Marsden selected the Rejang as his "standard of description" for the entire native population of Sumatra. Among other reasons for the choice he writes "my situation and connexions

class" (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 43). One source of th is familiarity was undoubtedly his brother John's position in Lais from 1775 to 1779 (cf. Wink, 1926,

p. 127). He was also most certainly influenced by his personal contact with the Pangeran of Sungai Lemau. In 1833 the Pangeran died when he was one hundred years old (Raffles says he was 78 in 1818) (Bastin, 1965, p. 170) having held this position as Pangeran for seventy to eighty years (Wink, 1924, p. 2). Thus the Pangeran's reign extended through Marsden's stay and weIl beyond the writing of the Code ot Laws. The Pangeran's name was Linggang Alam, one of the authors of the Code. Of special interest is the fact that though he was a Rejang he spoke both Malay and Rejang "with equal facility" (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 42). While the enduring value of Marsden's History ot Sumatra is generally recognized, his Dictionary ot the Malayan Language is of ten considered of only historical importance. However, since the material that Marsden did not draw from earlier sources, was for the most part collected in Sumatra (Voorhoeve, 1955, p. 4), it acquires special significance in the present context. First, its publication in 1812 meant that Lewis was undoubtedly familiar with the book, if he did not actually use it in preparing his text for publication. Indeed, it may have been the dictionary that led Lewis to select Cox and Baylis as printers for the Code ot Laws. Further, since Marsden learned Malay from his brother and improved his own skills in the Bengkulu area (Marsden's Grammar,
p. xlix), many entries should reflect this local usage. Indeed, in the course of pre paring the manuscripts of this study for analysis, I have of ten found that I was either referred to Marsden by other dictionaries or I could only find the solution to a particular textual problem in Marsden's work. Thus, in the course of time, I came to regard Marsden's dictionary as a specialist work referring specifically to Sumatra 4 like Helfrich (1904, 1915, 1921, 1927, 1933) or Van den Toorn (1891, 1899) and not a more general work like Klinkert (1947), Wilkinson (1932,
1959) or Van de Wall (1877-84). Thus, it is not inappropriate to consider the dictionary as making an important contribution to our knowledge of Middle Malay, especially in its high style. This discussion of contemporary works and other material available at the time that the Code ot Laws was written has ostensibly served as a discussion of textual aids. However, it has also served to focus attention on the high standard of scholarship at the time. As aresult, one need

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

not he confined to an examination of personal memoirs or travellers' shallow accounts but can study Marsden's excellent systematic collection of data. While Marsden's writings provide a valuable source for modern scholars, his influence on his contemporaries must not be overlooked. Due to the sheer bulk of detail his work was bound to be influential. However, because Marsden so carefully refrained from speculation and system building, one does not find subsequent writers using his material in trying to make their data conform to a dated analytical framework. On the contrary, :Marsden's influenee was a positive one, underscoring the idea that Sumatran customary law was a legitimate object of study. Though Marsden cites the "splendid example" of the Governor-General of Bengal (Mr. Hastings) as the originator of the idea to compile laws for adrninistrative purposes (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 218) it was Marsden himself who focused attention on Sumatran laws not only as an administrative tooI but as a scholarly end in their own right. Thus the standard he set undoubtedly influenced local people not only to collect laws for administrative purposes, but to strive for completeness and accuracy and to publish the results. Thus Marsden is not only a directly usabIe source, but his influence helped to assure the collection and preservation of other contemporary data.5

The Signataries ta the Reference Text

On the twelfth of November 1817 four individuals signed the Cade of Laws: Pangeran Linggang Alam, Pangeran Raja Khalipa, Daeng Mabéla and Henry Robert Lewis. While a complete historical account of these personages is not necessary for present purposes, brief character sketches of their personal situations provide an interesting background to the writing of the text. The official order of precedence in the court was Pangeran Linggang Alam, Pangeran Raja Khalipa, and Daeng Mabéla (Cammentative Digest, p. 286). Lewis as Magistrate officiated as Company Representative when the Resident at Fort Marlborough elected not to be present. However, neither the Resident nor the Magistrate had a "voice in any decision whatever" (Cammentative Digest, p. 286). This official situation notwithstanding, the re al authority was shared by Lewis and Daeng Mabéla. This was so much the case that in 1817 a Pangeran of Krui had the impression that the two were the tuan-tuan at Bengkulu (Kathirithamby-Wells, 1973,

p. 252). Lewis was a Eurasian. His father was a Lieutenant of Artillery in the Company's service; his mother an Indonesian. He was the eldest of three sons, William Thomas and Charles Richard being his younger

Otho Travers provides the details:

"July 1818 ... On the 17th we began to suspect there would he a very considerable deficiency, and on the 22nd of the month, having finished counting, we found that in place of 451,000 there were only 291,000, thereby leaving a minus of 160,000 [dollars] being upwards of

1874). Daeng Marupa, the younger brother of the prince of the village Benteng in the district Tuajo in the Celebes, having had a dispute with his elder brother over the conduct of a local war departed for Java. Once at sea, however, he changed his mind and decided to go to Bengkulu. But arriving in the vicinity of his destination, he met a severe storm and was driven to Indrapura where he settled. There a son was bom: Daeng Mabéla. In the meantime, there was great instability at Bengkulu. The Pangerans of Silebar and Balei Buntar (Sungai Lemau), having heard that the English Company had a factory at Bantam, requested that the English setde in Bengkulu. No sooner had the English moved than they ran into many difficulties in controlling the local population. Therefore, the Company sent an invitation to Indrapura requesting that Daeng Mabéla come to Bengkulu and become the Company's ally. The Company then sent him to the "land of the Buginese" to recruit soldiers. When they arrived back in Bengkulu a Bugis Corps was formed with Daeng Mabéla as Captain. A contract

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

Was drawn up containing several interesting provisions. First, he swore never to take up arms against the Company. If an enemy approached from the interior, the Buginese werc obliged to attack first whilc the Company remained behind. If, howcvcr, an enemy appearcd from the sca, then the Company would attack while the Buginese formed the rearguard. Daeng Mabéla had a son Daeng Makulch who succeeded hirn in officc. Daeng Makuleh married thc daughtcr of Pangcran Mangku Raja of thc villagc Balei Buntar (Sungai Lcmau). Shortly aftcr thc marriage thc Pangcran announccd to all the villagc heads and foreigners that Dacng Makulch was his son-in-Iaw. He also proclaimed that his daughter had thc rights of a son and by doing sa had rccognized Daeng Makuleh as his son (this is obviously a refercnce to ambil anak marriage, i.c., it is an institutionalized form of marriage and not a "fictive" rclationship). Afterwards, the same Pangeran made an agreement with the Pangeran of Jengalu (Andelas Silebar) by which Daeng Makuleh was made Penghulu of all the foreigncrs and their descendants. Further, he reccived the authority from the English Company to appoint the four Datos of Bengkulu as weIl as a salary of five reals per month. Daeng Makuleh had a son by the daughter of Pangeran Mangku Raja: Calo Bangkahulu Dacng Marupa who succeecled his father. Daeng Marupa had a son Daeng Mabéla, the last captain of the Buginese Corps and the signatory of the Code of Laws.6Though they suffcred temporary rcvcrses the power of thc Buginese rose stcadily until Raffles conceived a system of local government in which their position would C'orrcspond to that of thc Rcgents of Java (29 June 1818) (Bastin, 1965, p. 169). This ascendancy is all the more remarkable when one realizes that Daeng Mabéla himseIf was scvercly implicated in the murder of the British Resident Thomas Parr on the 27th of Deccmbcr 1807. Thc mattcr had not bcen conveniently forgotten by 1818 for an en try in Travers' Journal for August 1818 rcads "it is said ... that th is man [Daeng Mabéla] who has the most influence in thc place, was the chief mover in the plot. Of thc fact, I have not the least doubt myself. However, it will not bc possible to bring it against him now, and he must, through policy, [be] set the judge to pass sentence over criminals with every chance of never having a culprit befare him half sa deserving the gallows as himself" (Travers, p. 102). Though hc had to be dismissed by Parr, the Acting Resident W. B. Martin took the extraordinary step of recalling Daeng Mabéla (cf. Bastin, 1965, p. 102 f. for a comment on the Bugis by Martin himself). "An order was given to burn and destroy

REFERENCE LAW 33

every vil!age within a certain distance, and the work of devastation was carried on as if it were intended to place the future security of the settIement in surrounding it with a desert" (Lady RaffIes, 1830,

p. 320 f.). And this was done by the one who was for a long time af ter- wards considered the "prime mover" in the plot (cf. Kathirithamby-WeIls, 1973, p. 257).7 Thus, although the Buginese were an alien element to South Sumatra, they successfuIly manipulatecl their position as middlemen between thc English and the indigenous population and managed in the proccss to accumulate consiclerablc political power. The Dutch commissioncrs for the taking over of British Posscssions (De Commissarissen ter Overname der Britsche Bezittingen) found that the Buginese were as alien to the native population as Europcans and that "these officers, both themselves and their followers, were always difficult and dangerous subjects for the police" (Van der Kemp, 1894,
p. 530). Daeng Mabéla diecl in Bengkulu in August 1832. We also have a brief account undoubtedly from Pangeran Linggang Alam concerning the origin of his ti tIe (Marsden's History, 1811,
p. 212). The father of Pangeran Mangku Raja had originally borne the name Baginda Sabayam. Befare the arrival of the English the the southern coast of Sumatra had been dependent on the King of Bantam. Yearly the king's lieutenant (jennang) had visited Silebar or Bengkulu to coIlect pepper and fil! vacancies by confirming the proatins in their appointments. "Soon af ter that time, the English having established a settIement at BeneooIen, the jennang informed the chiefs that he should visit them no more, and raising the two head men of Suiigey-lamo and Suiigey-itam ... to the dignity of paiigeran, gave into their hands the government of thc country, and withdrew his master's claim" (Marsden' s History, 1811, p. 212).8According to J. A. W. van Ophuijsen (1862, p. 195) the line of succession was Tuanku Pangeran Raja Muda (formerly Baginda Sabayan c.f. Wink, 1926, p. 66 n), Pangeran Mangku Raja, Pangeran Mohamad Sah I, Pangeran Linggang Alam and Pangeran Mohamad Sah 1I. All of the succcssions were from father to son with the exception of Pangcran Linggang Alam who acquired his titIe from his mothcr's brothcr. This is presumably based on an ambil anak marriage of his father to Mohamad Sah I's sister. This genealogy is especiaIly significant because the Daeng family, among its other political aspirations, claimed th is titIc as their own (Proceedings, A, p. 16). The claim is based on the marriage of Daeng Makuleh to thc daughter of Mangku Raja. From the information available it is relatively easy to reconstruct the various arguments. Apparently the son

TIIE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

of Mangku Raja had no offspring who eould inherit his title. The family history of the Daengs, as told by Daeng Mabéla, says explicitly that the marriage of Daeng Makuleh to the daughter of the Pangeran was an ambil anak marriage which entitled him to have a claim on the title. However, from the Van Ophuijsen genealogy it is equally clear that tbe mother of Pangeran Linggang Alam married by arubil anak, thus forming the basis of his claim. Both claims are thus founded on a principle of matrilineal succession. An opposition of claim and counterclaim must have a basis of agreement. In this case both versions agree that at least one daughter of Pangeran Mangku Raja married by ambil anak. From the Pangeran's version it is clear that the Pangeran had a son who inherited his title,

i.e., Mohamad Sah 1. The genealogy indicates neither marriage nor descendants of Mohamad Sah 1. This could he due to a variety of reasons. He either never married or married by jujur but had no children or had children but they were not acceptable titular heirs. Therefore the title passed through one of his sisters to one of his sister's sons. The point of dispute is which sister was entitled to pass the position of Pangeran to one of her sons. There are several means by which Daeng Mabéla's claim eould have been presented. He could have asserted that Pangeran Mangku had only one daughter and that this daughter married Daeng Makuleh. This involves the assertion that Pangeran Linggang Alam, the actual holder of the title, had no genealogical basis to his title at all. A more plausible claim would be that Pangeran Linggang Alam's mother had married by jujur and not ambil anak, thereby isolating herself and her descendants from her father and his deseendants. This may have happenee! but if it die! the amount of money involvee! as brie!eprice woule! have been consie!erable and would have al most eertainly resulted in a debt, thereby giving the marriage a second institutional basis. A third option would be to admit that the other daughter was married by ambil anak but to dispute the relative age of tbe two daughters, the eldest heing able to transmit the title. Unfortunately, we only possess the positive assertion of Daeng Mabéla that it was the eldest daughter (Proceedings, A, p. 16) and that she was married by ambil anak (W(intcr), 1874, p. 118). He could either he implicitly denying the ambil anak marriage of Pangeran Linggang Alam's mother or her age relative to her sister. Of special importance is that while there werc undoubtedly other marriages between the two families the speeifie claim to thc titlc attacks thc Pangeran's lineage at its weakest point. Tbe weakness is not only the matrilineal link but

Sah 1. If Pangeran Mangku Raja only

had daughters the lineage would have been stronger. Daeng Mabéla's claim notwithstanding, the Pangeran retained his title until his death in July 1833 with his eldest son "Radja Poetoe Nagara" taking over his duties (Francis, 1842, p. 428). By a governmental decision dated 3 August 1836 "Radja Poetoe Nagara" acquired the title Pangeran Mohamad Syah (Sah?) (Van Ophuijsen, 1862, p. 195). Pangeran Raja Khalipa is the least well known of the signers of the Code of Laws. Bis ti tie as Pangeran of Sungai Hitam is said to date from the same time as that of the Pangeran of Sungai Lemau (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 212). In 1833, according to Francis (1842, p. 424), Sungai Hitam contained forty-two villages with a population of 4,122 compared to the 143 villages and 12,817 people of Sungai Lemau. Appendix B and Appendix C of The Proceedings of the Agricultural Society established in Sumatra present reports on Duabelas and Lumba Selapan, both of which were subservient to the Pangeran of Sungai Hitam. Appendix B gives the population of Duabelas as 2,096 people in twenty-two villages; while Appendix C gives the population of Lumba Selapan as 1,972 people in sixteen villages. The tota! of 4,068 people in thirty-eight villages when compared to the figures of Francis suggests that there was litde more to the territory of the Pangeran of Sungai Hitam than Duabelas and Lumba Selapan, even though Francis lists four districts.9Fortunately, the reports in The Proceedings give accounts of the nature of the relationship between the Pangeran of Sungai Hitam and the Districts Duabelas and Lumba Selapan. The people of Duabelas, according to their own account, originally came from "Trawass and Lakitan" in the Musi country which was under the con trol of the Sultan of Palembang. Fleeing from their own lands they sought the protection of the Pangeran of Silebar who gave them new lands, which they held until the time the report was written. "They continued nominally under the rajah of Sillebar until the chief had no longer the semblance of authority or even respectability. They then voluntarily gave themselves over to the authority of the Pangeran of Soongy ltam" (Proceedings, B, p. 10). In addition to th is mythical charter accounting for their origin and their political position in the Bengkulu region, the same people also provide an account of the origin of the Pangeran's title. According to loca! tradition the Pangeran is descended from the adopted son of "Bagindo See Bejam", who controlled the territories bounded by the Bukit Barisan. the Bengkulu River in the South and "Songy Jerangye" in the North. As a reward for good

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

conduct the king gave his adopted son the title of "Dupaty Khalippa Raja". When the English arrived the Proatins of Duabelas requested that "Dupaty Khalippa Raja" he given the title of Pangeran which he received (Proceedings, B, p. 11 f.). This story contradicts that of the Pangeran of Sungai Lemau who asserted that the titles were given by the Lieutenant of the Sultan of Bantam on his last visit to the region (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 212). The relationship between the Pangeran and Lumba Sela pan is worked into the origin myth of the region. While contributing little to our knowledge of the Pangeran, the account uses a numerical system which occurs very frequently as a logical basis of many structures within the various law sets. The people of Lumba Selapan are the descendants of the followers of "Tuan Shaick Abdool Sookur". They migrated there from the villages of "Tannah Preoh ( ?)" and "Tabat Pinging" bath on the Kalingi River (Palembang). They finally settled in four villages, aftel' which Tuan Shaick died "being wom out with age and fatigue". Af ter this death "his followers divided themselves into eight portions, each headed by a chief and fixed on different spots for erecting villages; [the four original villages, plus four ncw ones J ... Sometime af ter this division of the tribe, thc supreme authority was by the Sultan of Palembang vested in the family of the present Pangeran of Soongie Etam" (Proceedings, C, p. 4). Unfortunately, the authors of the report Were unable to ascertain the reason for this investiture. The four-eight system of the story was apparently of considerable social importance. The "General Census of the Population" accompanying the Report lists sixteen villages, implying another division by two. Especially worthy of note is the fact that the sixteen, while obviously an extension of the four-eight system of the myth, was an empirical reality and not merely a conceptual notion. Thus while both of these stories testify to the Palembang origin of the people of Duabelas and Lumba Sela pan, the details of the relationship to the Pangeran of Sungai Hitam are less dear. Further, they contradiet the version given by the Pangeran of Sungai Lemau on the origin of this title. The Pangeran died in September 1829. In 1833 his position was still unfilled. The district was to be ruled by his three sons until they could decide among themselves who was to be their father's successor (Francis, 1842, p. 430). However, the Governmental Almanacks for 1830-1834, with their desire for order, list Pangeran Raja Khalipa as the "Regent van Soengei I tam". The obvious squabble between the brothers even effected our knowledge of the origin of the title. The title was ultimately

REFERE""CE LAW 37

acquired by "Bangsa Negara". But one of his older brothers, Raja Khalipa, appropriated the family papers, claiming that he had more right to the title. And because it was said that the papers were "lost", accurate information is not available (Van Ophuijsen, 1862, p. 196). Despite the lack of the definitive family papers Van Ophuijsen was able to collect a genealogy which asserts that the Pangerans of Sungai Hitam are the descendants of one "Toean Kasoeanda" from Madjapahit. However, a second version current was that the same "Toean Kasoeanda" came from Palembang and established the village of Sungai Hitam (Van Ophuijsen, 1862, p. 196). While one is hampered by the in- consistency of information, the general impression is that the Pangeran of Sungai Hitam was the least important of the four signers of the Code of Laws. This somewhat lengthy discourse on the background of the Code of Laws provides much useful information but raises the question as to the appropriate use of such data in the analysis of the text. The background of the individuals involved helps to set the historical scene in which the Code was written. It also helps to identify the ethnic origin of the individuals and thereby helps to classify the various ideas presented in the text. However, th is type of information is only a supplement to the text and must in no way dominate the analysis. In literary criticism in general such a relationship of ten exists. What can the knowledge of the personal history of an author contribute to our understanding of the author's work? The risk always implicit in the use of such knowledge is to reduce the work of art to a curiosity. How much can the knowledge of the personal eccentricities of Dean Swift contribute to the appreciation and analysis of Gulliver's Travels? A similar problem occurs with the use of contemporary sources. They can be a valuable asset in interpreting incomprehensible passages in a text. When the contemporary sources contradict the text, the contradiction should be noted and the text checked for possible errors. However, these sourees must not dominate the interpretation and analysis of the text. Again there is an analogy with literary criticism. While our knowledge of contemporary figures and events may help to identify the figures being satirized in Gulliver's Travels and to increase our appreciation of the work, there is a danger of sinking into a morass of trivial detail, thereby losing sight of the structural and artistic features th at serve to differentiate the work from a newspaper. Thus the text is the essential and fundamental item of data. By limiting the use of extern al material to the explanation of particular problems of interpretation, greater

LOGIC OF TIIE LAWS

dependency is placed on the text itself. Thus the reliability and accuracy of a text must, in so far as is possible, be established. And further, sufficient caution must be employed to avoid basing an analysis on simple scribal errors. While inaccurate dating, faulty geographical location or incorrect ethnic identification may seriously affect the placing of a text in a comparative framework, these errors need not affect the structural analysis of a particular text. Thus, in conclusion, the data are contained in the text; and other sources, while they may supplement and elucidate this data, can never become a substitute for what is in the text itself.

The Code of Laws

The Code of Laws consists of forty-two consecutive numbered paragraphs (fasals), an introduction, and a conclusion. The introduction consists of a brief invocation to Allah and the identification of the laws (undang2 adat lembago melayu) as those which are used in the district (negri) Bengkulu. The body of the Code may be divided into three main sections: Fasals 1-20, dealing with marriage and the regulation of sexual activity; Fasals 21-29, dealing with criminal matters (i.e. murder, theft, etc.); Fasals 30-39, dealing with financial relationships between individuals, including slavery. The last three fasals appear to be a residual category dealing with the suitability of witnesses, guarantors, and the pawning of goods, respectively. The conclusion consists of a short statement that the book was written in order to make the various provisions better known and ends with the date and signatures.10 The first structural unit of the Code consists of Fasals 1, 2, 3, and 14. Fasal 1 deals with engagement, Fasal 2 with marriage and Fasal 3 with divorce. Though Fasal 1 mentions semendo in its title, it is not until Fasal 3 that the full name is revealed as adat semendo merdahika sama merdahika. The association of this name with the more frequently occurring semendo merdika is suggested by a useful scribal error in the manuscript copy (TLVK, M-XLV Cod. 210, OR 94) of the book. Where the book has adat semendo merdahika sama merdahika, the manuscript omits the last sama merdahika.ll The conceptual unity of these fasals forces an opposition between this form and the jujurjambil anak opposition. This opposition to the more basic dichotomy underscores the essential reform quality of this portion of the law. The notion of a reform being opposed to both jujur and ambil anak is most clearly seen in the introduction to the marriage section of the laws collected by John Marsden in 1779 in Lais.

REFERENCE LAW 39

"The modes of marriage prevailing hithcrto, have been principally by jUjUT, or by ambel-anak; thc Malay semando heing litde used. Thc obvious ill consequences of the two former, from the debt or slavery they entailed upon the man that married, and the endless lawsuits they gave rise to, have at length induced the chiefs to concur in their being, as faT as possible [my (DSM) emphasis], laid aside; adopting in lieu of them, the semando malayo, or mardïko; which they now strongly recommend to their dependents, as free from the incumbrances of the other modes, and tending, by facilitating marriage, and the consequent increase of population, to promo te the welfare of their country. Unwilling, however, to abolish arbitrarily a favourite custom of their anccstors, marriage by jUjUT is still permitted to take place, but under such restrictions as will, it is hoped, effectively counteract its hitherto pernicious consequences. Marriage by ambel-anak, which rendered a man and his descendants the propcrty of the family he married into, is now prohibited, and none permitted for the future, but by semando or jUjUT, subject to the following regulations ... " (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 225).12 The initial logic here is th at semendo merdika is a substitute for bath jujur and ambil anak, replacing the former opposition with a single element. However, the "as far as possible" provision suggests a second parallellogic. While jujur is permitted to exist, ambil anak is abolished. Thus, there is a new opposi tion in which semcndo merdika is opposed to jujur. This remoulding of the opposition is based on the replacement of ambil anak by semendo merdika. In this particlliar situation the original opposition hetween jujur and ambil anak involved amang other things the simultaneous opposition of patrilinealjmatrilineal and patri- localjmatrilocal. However, the farm replacing ambil anak and forming a new opposition is matrilocal but not matrilineal. ThllS, the new opposition retains at least one feature of the original dichotomy but, at the same time, another feature of the original is lost. This is the logical basis of the reform situation and must not be confused with social reality. That is, the logic of the reform is independent of whether the reform was implemented or not. Indeed, there is evidence suggesting that if the reform, by which ambil anak was abolished, was ever put into effect it was short lived. This evidence is to be found in a manuscript referred to by Van Ronkei as "Oendang-Oendang Lais" (Cod. Or. 12.207) (Van Ronkel, 1921, p. 59). The introduction says that the provisions of the law date "from 1818 up till the present". Some material, which may he additions to the original text, apply

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

specifically to the Dutch period. Fasal 6 and Fasal 7 of this text are clearly based on Fasal 5 and Fasal 6 of the Code of Laws. (The date 1818 establishes the direction of the copying, i.e., Cod. Or. 12.207 is in part a copy of the Code of Laws and not vice versa). Fasal 5 of the Code of Laws deals with ambil anak marriage. Thus a second code for the Lais region,13 in use during the Dutch period, and thus at least forty-five years aft er the Marsden Laws, still refers to ambil anak marriage. While the attempt to abolish ambil anak marriage, and at least partially substitute semendo merdika failed, the logic of the reform is nevertheless valid. Likewise, the opposition of a single form to the earlier opposition is valid. And further, the logic of the laws is independent of the use to which the text was put.

FASAL 1 The title of Fasal 1 is "adat mula2mau semendo" (the adat of the first preparations for marrying by semendo). The following is a summary of the main points of this fasap4 Prior to a marriage there are two transactions. The first involves the man giving a token (tanda), for example, a bracelet or armband of gold or silver, to the bride or her parents. This occurs af ter the woman and her parents have accepted the man's offer. A month or so later a second transaction takes place. The man sends a sum of money referred to as the "bclanja" or "hantaran", the amount being determined by agreement. In cases of disavowal (mungkir, berubah), the same rule a pplies in both cases. If the disavowal is from the man his token or money is lost, if from the woman it is returned twofold.

The text itself is not very clear on the meaning and use of "belanja" and "hantaran". The Commentative Digest, however, provides the necessary additional information. There are three temlS mentioned: "Antar Belanjoe"; "Belanjoe"; and "Antaran", all meaning the same thing: a sum of money.15 "The object of it being to defray the Lady's Expences" (Commentative Digest, p. 290). The difference in usage among the terms is that "Antar Belanjoe" is the most "vulgar" and "Antaran" is the way th at the concept is "more politely expressed by the better kind of people" (Commentative Digest, p. 290) .16 The text makes no reference to the amount of money involved, however, and the amounts apparently range from one hundred Spanish dollars (reais) to nothing, depending on the rank and personal circumstances of the individuals involved (Commentative Digest, p. 291). By the Lais reform dating thirty years earlier the amount was fixed at twenty dollars and

LAW 41

a buffalo, or ten dollars and a goat, depending upon the ability of the person to pay the amount (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 226).

FASAL 2 Fasal 2 is entitled "adat orang nikah hukum dalam kitab Allah" (the adat for persons marrying according to the law in the hook of Allah). The person performing the marriage ceremony must be religiously qualified. He may be a prayer-leader (imam), his assistant (khathib),17 or any religious teacher (malim). He is assisted by two witnesses who must also be malims. The man to be married takes his place before the priest,18 the woman must not be present. The priest sends the two witnesses to the woman to ask her if she wishes to marry the man. If she replies in the affirmative the witnesses report this to the priest. The man to be married then kneels on his right knee with his Ie ft foot forward. The priest then grasps the man's thumb and says "I marry you to so-and-so". The priest shakes the man's thumb, af ter which the man replies "I marry so-and-so with an isi kawin of so much money". This marriage payment has three names: isi kawin, emas kawin, and cara, all equally valid. Unless agreed otherwise the isi kawin is equal in value to the antaran. The money is paid to the woman at the time of the marriage or upon divorce.19The fasal concludes with a statement that no matter how large the pengantaran is, it cannot be considered a debt because the money is irretrievable (uwang pengantar itu uwang hangsa; the money of the antaran is money bumt).

This fasal contains two main features; a description of the correct marriage ceremony and a discussion of a second marriage payment, the isi kawin (literally, the contents of the marriage). While the specific details of the marriage are not very relevant for the structural analysis of this law, the mere presence of so much detailed information is important. While the language of South Sumatran law texts of ten appears vague, being written in an aide-mémoire style, this passage is unusually precise and contains an inordinate number of relative clauses identifying and re-identifying the various individuals involved. The exact significance of this second marriage payment is unclear. The Commentative Digest offers two different interpretations. "The expences of the Bimbang [feast] on such marriages, are borne jointly by Man and Woman however, and in case of separation by desire of the Man, the Woman's portion of this, called Charroh, must be repaid by him to her. This is in all cases regulated, as equal to the Antaran" (Commentative Digest, p. 291). But later in the same section: "When the Antaran is paid before or at the time of Neekah, [the marriage] it is called Boontal Kadoot [?], if not paid, it is called Charroh"

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

(Commentative Digest, p. 293). Neither of these explanations ean be seen as uniquely Islamie. However, the expression mas kawin is of ten associated with the Islamie mahr (eJ. Klinkert, 1947, p. 58; Van den Berg, 1894, p. 278 n; Juynboll, 1930, p. 183). In pre-Islamic times in Arabia the mahr was purehase money (c.f. Smith, pp. 96, 106) but in the Koran the eonception of purehase is lost and it aequires the meaning of "legitimate eompensation which the woman has claim to in all cases ... the bridal gift is property of the wife; it therefore remains her own if the marriage is dissolved" (Gibb and Kramers, 1965, p. 314). Clearly this assoeiation of the mas kawin with the mahr was the intention of the writers who made speeific reference to the Koran in the title. The logic of the relationship hetween Fasals 1 and 2 involves the superimposition of two oppositions. First, there is the distinction between the preliminaries leading up to the marriage and the solemnization of the marriage. Given the c1ear time sequenees implied in this ordering, one can generalize the distinction to an opposition between earlier and later. The seeond opposition between the fasals involves a contrasting of adat and Islam. A superimposition of the two oppositions results in the earlier adat being opposed to the later Islam. Starting with these two basic oppositions a third is developed between the antaran and isi kawin. The antaran is assigned to Fasal 1. This paragraph contains a provision by which the woman must return the antaran twofold if she changes her mind. But Fasal 2 says that the money of the antaran is irretrievably lost. The implication is th at the money may only he returned before the marriage itself. However, external sources and possibly the text itself assert that the payment may be made at the time of marriage. Be th is as it may, the antaran is completely assigned to Fasal 1, sa much so th at the word antaran occurs only in Fasal 1, while a synonym, uwang pengantar, is used in Fasal 2. Further, Fasal 1 mentions semendo while this word is totally absent from Fasal 2. The element of Fasal 2 opposed to the antaran of Fasal 1 is the isi kawin. The association of isi kawin with Islam is underscored by the requirement that the payment be made to the woman as the mahr. The opposition of antaran and isi kawin involves placing them in the earl ier adat/later Islam opposition. However, the equilibration of the caro to isi kawin suggests a manipulation. In the Commentative Digest the cara is related to the expenses of the wedding, and thus belongs to Fasal 2. However, the cara does not appear to be uniquely Islamic in any of its implications. Further, the cara is not even uniquely

REFERENCE LA W 43

associated with semendo or other matrilocal forms of marriage (cJ. Marsden's History, 1811, p. 228 and Fasal 11 below). In general, where it occurs, the cara is the minimum amount that a man must forfeit when he is the cause of a divorce. This either takes the farm of au additional payment or a deduction from a refunded brideprice. Indeed in the Oendang-Oendang Tallo (Cod. Or. 12.228) it is equivalent to the difference in brideprice between a widow and a virgin. But Marsden rcfers to "the adat chara, for the damage he has done her" (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 262). The cara, thus, in its various meanings usually contains an element of compensation. And further, its frequent association with divorce situations establishes it as occuring af ter the payment of the antaran. While the cara involved compensation, the specific implication is not direct compensation to the woman herself as implied by the isi kawin or mahr. Thus the antaran and cara were two payments related to marriage with a clear time difference between them that could be manipulated in order to fit the earl ier adat/later Islam opposition. In this case there is astrong association of the reform aspects of scmenda with Islam. However, two distinct notions are present. Semendo forms occur in other texts as mediators between jujur and ambil anak but without any concomitant association with Islam. The identification of the cara with the more Islamic isi kawin represents a reclassification of older notions to conform with the newer Islamic ones and thus becomes associated with a reform. Fasal 2 ends with a reference to the uwang pengantar. Upon the solemnization of the marriage this money is lost forever. Because this rule of forfeit only applies af ter marriage it is appropriately included at the end of Fasal 2. On the other hand, the reference back to Fasal 1 where the antaran is discussed in detail performs an important structural function. The act of referring back to Fasal 1 breaks the line of continuity established by a description of temporally ordered events and thereby serves to identify Fasals 1 and 2 as constituents of a single structural unit. This feature also indicates that there is some sart of structural discontinuity between Fasals 2 and 3. As we shall see Fasal 3 belongs to two structural entities and the back reference indicates the discontinuity between the two structures. Further, this structural feature divides the structural unit made up of Fasals 1, 2, 3, and 14 into two equal portions. Thus Fasals 1 and 2 form a structural entity based on the unity of their opposition and the structural isolation created by a back reference.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

FASAL 3 The title of Fasal 3 is "adat semendo merdahika sama merdahika" (the adat of semendo between two free people). The rules of this fasal apply on the dissolution of the marriage by death or divorce (sarak hidup atau sarak mati). Debts and credits (lltang piu tang) and jointly acquired property are to be divided equaIly. Property brought to the marriage (harta pembujangan) and individally acquired wealth returns to the point of origin. Debts that were not acknowledged by both parties remain the responsibility of the individllal originally contracting the debt. The woman, however, retains ownership of the house and yard. The cluldren bom of this sort of marriage are called anak semendo (semendo children). Though the mother's right to a child is considered stronger, the child who has become old enough, may elect to reside with his father. If either of the parents wishes to take the child overseas (menyberang lautan) both sets of in-Iaws must consent and the rajas and penghulus must also agree. All goods brought to the marriage must be acknowledged by the respective in-Iaws in the presence of witnesses and the declaration received by a judge. The last phrase of the fasal contains instructions to the reader to consult Fasal 14-(hendaklah lihat dalam fasal 14).

The fasal discusses two matters: the allocation of wealth and the residence of children. The equality of the man and woman is stressed in tbe allocation of property and wealth relating directly to the marriage. Thus, property, debts and assets acquired jointly are to be divided equally. On the other hand, the individu al marriage partners remain separate legal entities. They can own property, acquire new property and contract debts separately. With respect to children, while there is a favouring of the woman, the principle of equal rights also applies. Since the marriage is matrilocal, the child's choice is that of remaining with his mother or going to live with his father. Thus, by maintaining the status quo the child remains with the woman. The two notions, the allocation of wealth and the problem of the child's residence are linked by a discussion of the disposition of the house and garden. Since the marriage is matrilocal the house may have been hers or her parent's house. However, even if the house was built by joint effort, the woman retains possession. Thus, the house as the woman's residence may over- ride the rules concerning the house as property. These rules serve to contrast this form of marriage with both jujur and ambil anak. First, certain categories of goods and wealth may be jointly owned. Second, and more important, is that both individuals retain the right to own property separately. This is impossible for the man in ambil anak marriage and the woman in jujur marriage. In

FASAL 14 Following the explicit instructions at the end of Fasal 3, the next fasal in this sequence is Fasal 14.

The title of the fasal is "sebab harta pusaka" (concerning inherited property). The fasal describes in detail the disposition of a man's wealth and simply says that the same principle applies to a woman. When a man dies, the costs associated with his death are met out of his property. What remains is divided into two equal portions. One of these is given to his wife. The second portion goes to his children, who share it equally. If there are no children then this share is given to his heirs (waris). The children are obliged to give the "anggun anggun" to the heirs of their father. The amount of this gift is regulated in accordance with the size of the man's estate. If necessary a judge can decide what

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

is appropriate. It is possible for a testament to he left but to be valid it must he signed by the rajas and penghulus. The fasal concludes with instructions to consult Fasal 3 (hendakla lihat dalam fasal 3 yangketiga).

The Commentative Digest describes the "Angoong-Angoong" as

follows: "a legacy, gene rally consisting of a suit or more of complete clothes, proportioned to the substance or Wealth of the deceased" (Commentative Digest, p. 293). A note to the De Perez translation offers a slightly different interpretation. The anggun-anggun is usually an object from the estate, for example an item of jewelry or a piece of clothing, but may also be a sum of money (De Perez, 184·9, p. 267). Thus in spite of the reference to "sarak hidup atau sarak mati" Fasal 3 is primarily concerned with divorce while Fasal 14 deals with death. The element of equality, as expressed in Fasal 3, is continued and elaborated upon. However, it is significant that the word semendo is not used. The links between the two fasals are created by specific references in the text. Furthermore, the direct back reference at the end of Fasal 14 clearly establishes that this fasal is the end of a structural unit. The four fasals taken together form a logical progression. First, there is the engagement, second the marriage, third the possibility of divorce, and lastly, death. The back reference at the end of Fasal 2 and the cross-referencing of Fasals 3 and 14 divide the sequence into two equal portions. These two blocks are opposed to each other, the opposition heing hetween the formation and dissolution of the marriage bond. At the same time within the blocks each fasal is opposed to its partner. In the first block the fasals are opposed in terms of earlier adat versus later Islam, in the second in terms of earlier versus later and divorce versus death. Thus the structure of these four fasals is based on a hierarchy of oppositions. The abstract structure of this hierarchy can he summarized as follows. A, B, C and D form a structural sequence with a logically determined order. By structural features not directly related to the contents of the four elements (i.e. back and cross-referencing) the sequence can be divided into two blocks of two elements (AB and CD). A and B form one opposition, C and D another. But in addition to being opposed to each other, the elements share a basis of unity that makes the oppositions unique. These bases of unity are in their own turn opposed to each other. Thus A and B is opposed to C and D. Vet this opposition also has a basis of unity which generates the structural unity of the entire sequence.

"belas", i.e., sabelas, duabelas, tigabelas, empatbelas, etc. Three (tiga) is normally followed by four (empat) but the instructions in the text are to follow tiga not with empat but empatbelas. There is a symmetrical inversion at the end of Fasal 14. Fourteen (empatbelas) is normally preceded by thirteen (tigabelas) but the instructions in the text are to go back not to tigabelas but to tiga. Thus the inclusion of Fasal 14 in the structural sequence is achieved by a manipulation of the number system based on the addition and subtraction of the affix "-belas" in normally inappropriate places. The reference at the end of Fasal 14 back to Fasal 3 also indicates a return to the normal numerical sequence. Thus in addition to being followed by Fasal 14, Fasal 3 is also followed by Fasal 4.

FASAL 4 The title of Fasal 4 is "Adat semendo bayar utang" (adat of semendo marriage by paying a debt). At the time of the engagement (mau nikah) it is agreed how much of the woman's debt shall be reduced. And then the marriage follows the adat of semendo merdahika sama merdahika. However, deviations from the rules of this marriage form may occur if the woman is guilty of severe wrongdoing (amat kesalahan). But if the woman has borne children then she need not pay her debt to her husband.

In this marriage form it is de ar that the man marries a woman who is financially indebted to him. The intention is that the man reduce the woman's debt in lieu of a marriage payment. While not explicit the text suggests that the reduction is in the amount of the antaran. However, De Perez (1849, p. 260) reports that the reduction is a substitute for the isi kawin. The text is sufficiently vague so that it could be a substitute for either or both of the marriage payments. This fasal, like Fasal 14, contains an explicit back reference to Fasal 3. In this case the reference is not based on a manipulation of the number system but on an explicit reference to semendo merdahika

OF THE LA WS

sama merdahika. Thus there is a parallel between the back reference of Fasal 14 to Fasal 3 and the similar reference of Fasal 4 to Fasal 3. The back reference of Fasal 4 to 3 also isolates Fasal 4 from Fasal 5. This structural feature underscores the fact that this is the last fasal directly relating to semendo merdahika sama merdahika marriage.

1 2

DIAGRAM 2.1

This symmetry notwithstanding, the structure of the block containing Fasals 1, 2, 3 and 14 is the stronger. However, the symmetry of the back referencing establishes Fasals 3 and 4 as a structural entity. But Fasals 3 and 4 are not opposed to Fasals 1 and 2 in a manner analogous to the way in which Fasals 3 and 14 are opposed to the first two. Thus, proceeding from the beginning of the law, one finds a structural unit (F asals 3 and 4) weIl established withou t being certain of the structure to which it belongs. This structure only emerges af ter reading Fasals 5, 6, and 7.

FASAL 5 Fasal 5 presents an extremely lucid statement on the nature of ambil anak marriage. Since this is one of the most important farms of marriage in South Sumatra, it is worth presenting the entire text of the fasaI.

5 fasal yangkelima adat semendo diambil anak apabila sarak hidup sarak mati melainkan barang bearapa ada harta benda dan utang piu tang tinggal semuanya kepada bapaknya orangyang mengambil anak itu tadi dan oranglaki2yangdi ambil anak itu keluar dengan sahelai kain dipinggang demikianlagi kalau ada beranak melainkan anak itu tinggal kesabelah perempuan jua adanya The fifth fasal, the semendo custom of being married by ambil anak

"to adopt a child". This meaning is easily derived from the constituent parts, i.e., ambil = take and anak = child. The above passage uses both the active and passive forms of the phrase. Thus, mengambil anak literally hecomes to adopt a child and diambil anak literally to be adopted. A noun following a verb in the passive voice is normally the agent. Applying this rule diambil anak might be translated as to be taken by a child and mengambil anak as to take the child. While these translations are possible, the important symmetrical opposition between active and passive meanings tends to he lost. Indeed, the normal translation as adopting is also doubtful, for when referring specifically to adoption the verb a7lgkat is used (cL Fasal 13 below). Thus, I prefer to use the expression to marry by ambil anak and to be married by ambil anak for the active and passive voices respectively, allowing the true sense of the phrase to emerge from its various contexts. The difference hetween the active and passive voice of ambil anak is extremely important. The man is always the subject of the verb form in the passive voice and the woman or her father is the subject of the verb form in the active voice. Grammatically expressed, the action of marriage by ambil anak is something done to the man by someone else. Thus the central notion of the passage could he expressed by the following neologisms: "a man is ambil anak-ed" and "someone ambil anak-s a man". While this ambil anak marriage is also a type of semen do marriage, it is radically different from semendo merdahika sama merdahika. The principle of equality in property or children has vanished. Furthermore, the man has no rights as an individual, for example, he is not responsible for his own debts. While the name of the marriage suggests adoption, the man does not acquire the same rights as a son. And further, if the metaphor of adoption were taken seriously, he would be marrying his own sister. This form of marriage is matrilineal in the extreme and invites the use of the now discarded term matriarchy. If certain forms of patrilineal marriage can be referred to as patria potestas, then this

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

form of matrilineal marriage is most certainly patria im potestas. Though the use of the term semendo suggests a link to the previous fasals, the conceptual difference is so great that this connex ion is tenuous at best. Further, there is na de ar conceptual link to the following fasal.

FASAL 6 The title of Fasal 6 is "perempuan dibeli dibuat bini" (the woman who is purchased and taken as a wife). This fasal is concerned with marriages between master and slave. The woman could have been recently purchased, a slave of long standing in the household, or the child of a slave. Her status as a wife need not be dependent on a forma I marriage (nikah). If the woman bears a child by her master, she becomes unconditionally (mutlak) free. A master who sells such a woman is liable to be fined by a judge. On thc other hand, if there are na children, and she is guilty of wrongdoing, the master may demand money from her and she becomes his debtor. Thc amount of her debt must be less than her value when she was purchased and had not yet become his wife. Disputes concerning her sale value or the amount of her debt may be settled by a judge.

This fasal is very similar to Fasal 4. Thc wife is not free when she is married but upon bearing children she becomes free of all financial obligations. The main difference between the two fasals is in the initial status of the woman. Thus there is an opposition or contrast between Fasals 4 and 6, between the debtor and slave status of the woman, as weil as the similarity of her position vis-à-vis her husband. While the complete understanding of Fasal 4 is dependent on a back reference to Fasal 3, the full understanding of Fasal 6 is dependent upon a symmetrical forward reference to Fasal 7.

FASAL 7 Fasal 7 is entitled "adat berjujur" (the adat of jujur marriage). In this marriage farm money is paid from the side of the man to the si de of the woman. The amount is fixed by agreement and may be paid at once or in installments. If unreconcileable differences or arguments arise, and as aresult the man na longer wants his wife, he may send her back to her parents. The woman must return the jujur money; but, thc man must pay a certain sum (unnamed) to the woman's parents. The exact amount of this sum is based on the nature of the disagreements. The above mIes apparently apply only if the marriage is childless. If there are children, they all remain with the father and the woman is returned to her parents. If the woman was not guilty of wrongdoing, she need not pay the man anything. If, however, she was guilty of serious wrongdoing (salah gedang), then she must pay a sum (unnamed) to her

REFERENCE LAW 51

husband. The amount that she must pay ean be detennined by a judge who bases his decision on the nature of her misbehaviour. If the woman's parents do not want to take her back or to return the jujur money, the man may sell her or place her as a bondage debtor 20 wherever he wishes.

The two main features of this fasal are its opposition to ambil anak marriage and a detailed de script ion of the financial relations associated with the marriage. The departure of the woman upon divorce, and the residence of the children with the father, establish this marriage form as heing patrilineal and patrilocal. This is in direct contrast to the matrilineal and matrilocal rules of ambil anak marriage. The logic of the financial relations is set against the background of the practices in the region. Jujur marriage often involved the transfer of a large amount of money from the man to the woman's family. As aresult the man and his family were of ten in debt. These debts frequently gave rise to numerous troublesome law suits. Here the amount is unspecified and subject only to mutual agreement. There is no requirement that the full amount must he paid at the marriage. This is different than the Lais laws which specify "that this sum shaIl, when the marriage takes place, he paid upon the spot; th at if credit is given for the whoie, or any part, it shall not be recoverable by course 0 [f] law" (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 226). The logic in this rule is that there should be na debt relationship between the parties that could lead to a lawsuit. In Fasal 7 no such logic is present, instead there is a series of specifications th at serve to protect the man's investment. His investment is most secure hefore children are bom; up to th is point the man can re claim the money from the woman. If the woman does not return the money, he is entitled to seIl her as a slave or place her in bondage as a mengiring debtor (c.f. Fasal 37). The responsibility for the return of the jujur money is placed directly on the woman and not on her family. His right to sell the woman in default of payment means that he does not have to institute legal proceedings in order to obtain his money. This relationship also underscores the woman's position as a chattel and the marriage payment's direct association with a purchase. The man, however, must make a return payment to the woman's parents as compensation; but, this payment is to he made only af ter they or the woman have returned the jujur money. Thus the man is weIl protected against the loss of his investment. However, af ter children are bom a different set of rules apply. If the woman is not guilty of wrongdoing, she is not required to make any payment. This suggests that the original

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

JUJur payment was based on the woman's producing children for the man's family. Onee she has produeed ehildren she is absolved of all financial obligations vis-à-vis her husband, assuming good behaviour. If she is guilty of serious wrongdoing then she must pay a sum of money to the man. The sum is unnamed and apparently is eompensation unrelated to the original jujur payment. The logic of Fasal 7 parallels that of Fasal 6 to such a degree that they are mutually elucidating. The purchased slave, Iike the jujur wife, hecomes free of financial encumberance upon the production of children. Without children the man can regain his money by selling her or by instituting a debt relation. This rule, with only minor variations, applies in bath cases. The similarity of the two fasals underseores the logic of jujur marriage. The woman is a commodity purchased for the production of children; having produced children she ceases to be a chattel and acquires specific rights. By placing all of the responsibility on the woman, either to produce children or to he accountable personally for her purchase price, the man's money is protected. However, the pattern of rules is such that any alliance generating potential that this marriage might have, is effectively undermined. Thus, the extreme inferiority of the woman's position is analogous to that of the man in ambil anak marriage. However, this logical opposition, based on the inversion of male and female, is not the opposition developed by this law. The contents of Fasal 2 provide the first hint of the opposition that is to he developed by this law. At the end of this fasal there is a reference saying that the antaran does not hecome a debt of the wife (tidak jadi utang oleh bininya). From the fasal itself there is no reason to suspect that the money of the antaran might become the wife's personal responsibility, taking the form of a debt. This passage gives the distinct impression of eXplaining a situation th at does not need explaining. It is only in Fasal 7 that the reason for this passage in Fasal 2 hecomes apparent, i.e., the financial assumptions of jujur marriage do not apply to semendo merdahika sama merdahika marriage. However, it is the structuring of the fasals that reveals the logic of the oppositions in detail. The structured block consists of Fasals 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The structural unity of Fasals 3 and 4 was established by the explicit back reference from Fasal 4 to Fasal 3. Furthermore, the 3-4 relationship is symmetrical to the 3-14 manipulation of the first block of fasals. Thus, the first structural unit of this block of fasals is established by an intemal feature (back reference) and an external feature (the reference to the 3-14 manipulation). Fasal 4 deals with

REFERENCE LAW 53

a debt relation that becomes converted to a form of marriage, i.e., that discussed in Fasal 3. Or more abstractly, Fasal 4 becomes converted to Fasal 3. Fasal 6 deals with slavery becoming converted to a type of marriage. The conversion principle is analogous and symmetrie to that in Fasal 4. Further, the marriage form by the structural analogy and the implicit association of the contents becomes identified with jujur marriage. Thus the structure in Diagram 2.2.

DIAGRAM 2.2

The ambil anak marriage form of Fasal 5 does not enter into any direct relation with any of the other fasals in this block. On the contrary, it isolates the two clearly demarcated structural units from each other. This fasal is a structural insulator whose function is to separate the 7 elements of Fasals 3 and 4 from the opposing elements of Fasals 6 and 7. Logically, Fasal 5 is opposed to all the others. 1t is a semendo form of marriage but contradiets the rules of all the other semendo forms. 1t is opposed to jujur marriage both on grounds of locality and lineality. These logical oppositions make it impossible for Fasal 5 to he associated with either Fasal 4 or 6. But its structural position between Fasals 4 and 6 prevents the possibility of an association arising between these two fasals. Thus, the insulator creates a discontinuity between the structural units containing Fasals 3 and 4 on the one hand and Fasals 6 and 7 on the other. The discontinuity, in its turn, underscores the difference and ultimately the opposition between these structural units. Thus, the opposition of marriage forms becomes not one between jujur and ambil anak but between jujur and semendo merdahika sama merdahika. This is identical with the second reform logic of the Lais laws collected by John Marsden. (The first reform logic is the opposition of the semendo merdika form to the opposition of jujur and ambil anak, while the second reform logic is the direct opposition of jujur and

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

semendo merdika forms; c.f. page 39 above). The native logic, therefore, is demonstrated by the structure of the fasals and corresponds to a logic explicitly stated in another law set. Further, the fasal structure leads to an important conclusion. While jujur may he indeed opposed to ambil anak (as in other law sets; c.f. the Sungai Lemau or Sungai Hitam laws), the logic of the writers was to make another opposition which does not conform to the normal anthropological expectation of an opposition between patrilineal and matrilineal. The logic of reform is not confined to the fasal structure alone. The impression given, though not explicit, is that semendo merdahika sama merdahika is the marriage form to be followed as much as possible. The most detail concerning the process of getting married follows th is form. Jujur marriage, by way of contrast, makes only passing reference to the contractual basis of the marriage. And ambil anak marriages are only dissolved. On the one hand, the greater detail concerning semendo merdahika sama merdahika may he necessary hecause the rules applying to the new form are not generally known, while jujur and ambil anak marriages need not he explained because of the general public familiarity with the form. On the other hand, the absence of detail on the formation of an ambil anak marriage may tacitly reflect the pressure to discontinue this form. However, some mention of ambil anak is necessary because lawsuits may arise based on marriages contracted at an earlier date. Thus the greater attention given to semendo merdahika sama merdahika marriage makes the form better known and positively reinforces its use, while the absence of detail concerning getting married by ambil anak underscores an intention to reduce its importance. The second structure is articulated to the first by the sharing of Fasal 3 between the two structures. The relationship between Fasals 3 and 14 is mirrored in the relationship between Fasals 3 and 4. This establishes the structural basis of the opposition between Fasals 3 and 4 and Fasals 6 and 7. Thus a feature of one structure is projected on to another, providing the key to the understanding of the second structure. There are other relationships between the two structures that are of a symmetrie nature and serve to elucidate the notions of both structures. There are two fasals (13 and 15) which, though external to the five element marriage structure, serve to elucidate the nature of Fasal 5.

FASAL 13 Before turning to the contents of FasaI 13, it is necessary to consider its numerical properties. Fasal 13 is part of the 3-14 numerical mani-

"belas" to the higher element of the sequence:

tiga-empat becomes tiga-empa tbelas (3-4 becomes 3-14) empat-tiga becomes empatbelas-tiga (4-3 becomes 14-3)

A second rule reverses these manipulations. Subtract "belas" from the higher element:

tiga-empatbelas becomes tiga-empat (3-14 becomes 3-4) empatbelas-tiga becomes empat-tiga (14-3 becomes 4-3)

These mies can be expressed in the following notation:

I + belas (high)

Il = -belas (high)

The reversal is accomplished by negating the belas aspect of the ruIe but applying it to the same element of the sequence (the higher one). Two additional mIes can be generated by negating the application aspect of the rules, i.e., apply the addition or subtraction of belas to the lower element instead of the higher one. The third mie is to add belas to the lower element (lIl = + belas (low) ):

tiga-empatbelas becomes tigabelas-empatbelas (3-14 becomes 13-14) empatbelas-tiga becomes empatbelas-tigabelas (14-3 becomes 14-13)

The fourth rule is to subtract belas from the lower element (IV = -belas (low)):

tigabelas-empatbelas becomes tiga-empatbelas (13-14 becomes 3-14) empatbelas-tigabelas becomes empatbelas-tiga (14-13 becomes 14-3)

The four rules are:

I + belas (high)

Il-belas (high)

III + belas (Iow)

IV-belas (low)

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

The obvious symmetry of these rules can be best expressed by describing the transformations between the rules. The first transformation relates rules land II and rules III and IV,

i.e., negate the belas aspect:

+ belas (high)--+-belas (high)

-belas (low) --+ + belas (low)

The second transformation relates rules I and III and rules II and IV, i.e., ne gate the application aspect:

+ belas (high)--+ + belas (low)

-belas (high) --+ -belas (low)

The third transformation is a combination of the first two and relates rules I and IV and rules II and III, i.e., negate the belas and application aspect of the rules simultaneously.

+ belas (high)--+-belas (low)

-belas (high)--+ + belas (low)

If an identity transformation is added to the set of three transformations the result is known as a Klein Four group (c.f. Zassenhaus,

p. 56). The above demonstration indicates that at the level of the manipulation rules the 13-14 sequence is a complement to the 3-4, 3-14 pattern which yields a second pattern 13-14, 3-14. The analysis of the transformations between the manipulation rules indicates that the complementary patterns are part of a single structure. In simplest terrns it appears th at the 3 to 14 sequence is a manipulation of the 3 to 4 numerical sequence, and the 14 to 3 sequence is a manipulation of the 14 to 13 numerical sequence. The title of Fasal 13 is "hukum orang sebab mengangkat anak" (law of men concerning adopting children). A formal declaration is made before the raja and penghulus who draw up and sign a document. At the occasion a buffalo or goat is slaughtered and a gift of a tahil of gold is presented to them. When these requirements have been met, the adopted child (anak angkat) becomes equivalent to one's own child (anak kandung). The adopted child is entitled to inherit his father's property. However, if there are both adopted and natural children, the adopted child receives only as much as the natural children are willing to give. The rule here is very simpie: adoption is allowed. The adopted child

tbis sequence and the entire seetion on marriage, death, and divorce.

FASAL 15 The title of Fasal 15 is "mengatakan er ti tungguan" (mentioning the meaning of tungguan). The fasal provides the rules of succession for rajas, penghulus, depatis and mantris. On his death the title holder is

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

sueeeeded by his eldest son. If for some reason the eldest son is unsuitable then one of the other children may acquire tbe position. If there are no sons then the title goes to one of his brothers' sons (?) (dusanak- nya anak kemanakannya) or to the descendant of a son who has previously died.

The word "tungguan" has a variety of meanings. The general Malay meaning of "tunggu" is to w'atch, guard or wait. Marsden's Dictionary (1812, p. 76) adds the meaning "to dweIl, inhabit, occupy".21 For the substantive form "tungguan" Marsden's Dictionary (1812, p. 76) gives the meaning "attendance, dwelling, abode, settled residence". Elsewhere, when writing of the Passumah people he gives an extended meaning. "To have a wife, a family, collateral relations, and a settled place of residence is to have a tungguan." (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 264). The Commentative Digest gives the meaning "Family Respect" (p. 299). The Code of Laws gives another not unassociated meaning "Adapun erti tungguan kedudokkan menentukan apa2pegangannya" (the meaning of tungguan is: the situation of making somebody's office certain). While the text is very explicit about the patrilineal principle, tbe specific reference is to high ranking titles. Neither normal succession within households nor the possibility of succession through a woman by means of an ambil anak marriage is mentioned. The Commentative Digest, under the rubric "Titles and Dignities", repeats the contents of this fasal and adds an important second principle. "These, by deseent, are generally the Inheritance of the Eldest Son, but not always, because if the capacity of the elder be insufficient to manage the Concerns of the family or support the dignity of the Toongooan, it is not un- customary to pass over his pretensions in favor [sic] of one of more abilities, and, in failure of Male heirs, to seek for it in the next of kin or his descendants, but in the Country the title may pass to one of the Daughters, who afterw'ards marries by "ambil annak" [sic], in order to restore the Toongooan to her Family, under which last circumstances the Inheritance does not hereafter descend to the Husband's family, but it is perpetuated in that of the Woman's, even though she may fail of having Male issue by her body, because, as by the nature of their marriage the man reversed the order of Joojoor and becarne her very humbie Slave, he cannot deprive her Family, of any right, Title or Property" (Commentative Digest, p. 300 f.). Thus the fasal, by only mentioning higher titles and not mentioning normal succession underscores the use of tbe patrilineal principle of succession at the highest social levels. This emphasis is a matter of principle which does not

(Cod. Or. 12.205) one finds a discussion of the legal consequences of wounds resulting from fights between children. However, elsewhere in this section of the law there is na mention of wounding by adults. This example concerning wounding places the entire problem of selectivity into perspective. While the case from the Code of Laws might be eXplained in terms of an ideal or a preferenee the example from Cod. Or. 12.205 does not admit to such a facile solution. Indeed it can be demonstrated that the basis of selectivity in the special case of wounding rests entirely on structural considerations. Thus while preferences or ideal forms may play a role in selectivity stmctural considerations are of ten the decisive factor. Indeed, in the example from the Code of Laws an explanation of the selectivity based solely on notions of preference tends to obscure the stnlCtural features that relate both to the positioning of the fasal and to the stmctural significance of ambil anak marriage. While the ambil anak principle is not mentioned in this fasal the fasal structure brings the matrilineal principle of ambil anak marriage into juxtaposition with the patrilineal principle of Fasal 15. On the one hand, the relationship between Fasals 5 and 15 is an opposItIOn between patrilineal and matrilineal. On the other, the association suggests that ambil anak marriage may be used in some cases. The three fasals (13, 14, and 15) form a structural unit with a logical

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

progressive sequence. All the fasals deal with various aspects of descent not previously discussed. While Fasal 14 is part of the sequence based on semendo merdahika sama merdahika, Fasals 13 and 15 are patrilineal. The patrilineal bias of Fasal 13 is not as explicit as that of Fasal 15. However, in Fasal 13, while the adopted child may inherit

I~ ~I~< --~)I ~ I DIAGRAM 2.4

from his father, no direct reference is made to whether he may inherit from his mother. This analysis of the contents of these fasals suggest that Fasals 13 and 15 are collectively opposed to Fasal 14. This sup- position finds further support in the analysis of the fasal structure. Fasal14 is the only member of this sequence which is directly articulated to one of the earlier sequences. This articulation is based on an explicit manipulation of the number system. The contrast in articulation opposes the center of the sequence to the extremities, thereby reinforcing the patrilineal/semendo opposition of the content. Furthermore, the unity of Fasals 13 and 15 vis-à-vis the structure is emphasized by their links to the ambil anak marriage of Fasal 5. The opposition created by these features is between semendo merdahika sama merdahika and a patrilineal form. This is the same as the basic opposition of the structure based on Fasals 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Further, the basic form of the structure is the same for both sequences. In each case the structure opposes the extremities against the middle. Fasal 5, by its non-participation in relations within the structure, is opposed to both extremities. It is this opposition that allows the fasal to function as an insulator. The extremities are more closely related to each other by their opposition than either one is to the middle. Fasals 13 and 15 share a common principle but are not directly opposed to each other. However, they are opposed to the middle element, Fasal 14. The direct and indirect articulation of the two sequences involves a bricoleurean manipulation of the common features of the two structures. Fasal 14 is articulated

Fasal 3. That is, the middle of one structure is directly articulated to one extremity of the other. And likewise, Fasals 13 and 15 are linked to Fasal 5, that is, bath extremities of one structure are linked to the middle of the other. This link, however, is based on opposition while that between Fasals 3 and 14 is based on similarity. Curiously, there is na direct link between the patrilineal principles of Fasals 13 and 15 with the jujur principles of Fasals 6 and 7.22Thus the two structures present the same opposition between semenda merdahika sama merdahika and a patrilineal farm in different ways but using the same basic structural form. Since the location of this opposition in each structure is different, the impression is given of a careful disassembly and subsequent reassembly of the structure.

DIAGRAM 2.5

Introduction ta Fasals 8, 9, JO, 11, and 12

Having established the structure of the initial and final blocks of fasals, the task of placing Fasals 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 into these structures remains. The procedure to be used will be an extension of that employed above, i.e., a successive filling of blocks of fasals into the structure proceeding from the clear to the less clear material. Fasals 11 and 12

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

form a structural unit that is related both to the first fasal structure and to that of Fasals 13, 14, and 15. Fasals 11 and 12 both deal with divorce, in contrast to the inheritance material of Fasals 13, 14, and 15. This sequential relationship in which divorce precedes death is the same as that which divides the structure of Fasals 1, 2, 3, and 14 in two.

FASAL 11 The title of Fasal 11 is "adat orang sarak" (the adat of people divorcing). If the pressure for a divorce comes from the man he must pay the cara to the woman. If the pressure for a divorce comes from the woman, then the cara is lost (hilang) (i.e., the man need not pay it). If the man has not acknowledged his wife's debts then he is not responsible for them and vice-versa. The fasal concludes with a second principle concerning the cara. If the man has paid the cara at the time of marriage and later there is a divorce then the cara cannot be returned even if the pressure for the divorce comes from the woman.

In this fasal "the pressure for a divorce" is expressed by "keras dari laki~m, i.e., keras from the man. The word keras normally means hard, stiff, rigid or inelastic with additional meanings of harsh and obstinate. However, in South Sumatran law texts the word has a specific legal connotation. When keras is assigned or attributed to a man or a woman then he or she is held to be legally responsible for the divorce. The sort of behaviour th at may be considered to be keras is not delineated here or indeed in other texts. To the south of Bengkulu lists of larangan (forbidden behaviour) are presented (e.g. Oendang-Oendang Seloema, "old portion", Fasal 8, Cod. Or. 12.200) but it is not certain if these larangan are related to keras behaviour. The position of keras in the analysis demonstrates an important aspect of structural analysis. In a structural analysis that which actually con- stitutes keras behaviour is not essential. What is important, however, are the legal consequences of keras. That is to say, the procedures for deciding what is or is not keras behaviour is not as essential as what occurs af ter the decision has been made. In the British social anthropological tradition the procedure by which responsibility is assigned is as important as the legal consequences of this assignment of responsibility. The mention of individual responsibility for debts serves to associate these rules with semenda merdahika sama merdahika marriage. In ambil anak marriage such individual responsibility is specifically exluded. While in jujur marriage such responsibility is not excluded, the position of the woman as a chattel makes individual responsibility for debts

is an association between caro and the isi kawin, there is no connexion here nor is the amount of the caro mentioned. In John Marsden's Lais Laws there are two passages involving the caro. First, referring to semendo mardiko, "If the man insists upon the divorce, he pays a charo of twenty dollars to the wife's family, if he obtained her a virgin; if a widow, ten dollars. If the woman insists on the divorce, no charo is to he paid. If both agree in it, the man pays half the charo" (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 226). Secondly, concerning jujur, "The charo of a jujur marriage is twenty-five dollars. If the jujur be not yet paid in full, and the man insists on a divorce, he receives back what he has paid, Ie ss twenty-five dollars. If the woman insists, no charo can be claimed by her relations" (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 228). A direct reference to the caro in jujur marriage does not occur in the Code of Laws. There is, however, the unnamed payment that the man must make to the woman's parents that is very similar to that mentioned by Marsden. The omission of the word caro from Fasal 7 reinforces the implication that Fasal 11 is confined to semendo merdahika sama merdahika. The last passage of the fasal, however, provides the key. If the caro was paid at the time of the wedding like the isi kawin then the rules, as stated at the beginning of the fasal, are suspended. The fasal has three main passages. As in many other structures, the middle is contrasted with the extremities. In this case the middle portion, dealing with debt, is an unnecessary repetition of material covered elsewhere. However, the function of this middle element is to insulate the extremities from each other. The two extremities, while both explicitly concerned with the caro, are opposed to each other. The initial rule is the traditional application of caro. The final rule takes cognizance of the association of caro and isi kawin and overrides the initial one. The association with isi kawin connects the last passage to Islamic notions. Thus this fasal deals with the adat aspects of divorce but it must also cope with the caro-isi kawin association. I t does so by tacitly asserting that the Islamic rule is superior. The association of this final passage with Islam is also a forward reference to the Islamic notions of the next fasal. This forward reference serves to bind Fasals 11 and 12 to each other.

FASAL 12 The title of Fasal 12 is "adat 'iddah perempuan sarak" (the 'iddah custom for a divorced woman). A divorced woman is not allowed to

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

take a husband (belaki) until three months and ten days af ter the divorce. If she does marry within this period but it is clearly a case of inaccurate calculation, then the person who performed the marriage ceremony is at fault. Because he is at fault he must give a meal to the loca! residents in the mosque. If, however, the woman is guilty of wrongdoing (dapat salah) and sufficient evidence exists, she is condemned to death. She ean, however, be free from the death sentence if she pays the tebus nyawa (redemption of life) of 100 reais. The man who is her partner must also pay a tebus nyawa of 100 reais. The fasal ends with a passage stating that the man is responsible for his wife's maintenance during the 'iddah period.

The 'iddah is an Islamic notion. The 'iddah for widows is specified in the Koran as four months and ten days (Sura II, 234). Af ter divorce the waiting period for a woman is three menstrual periods (Sura II,

228) and for non-menstruating women the waiting period is three months (Sura LXV, 4). While tbis fasal is clearly based on Islamic principles, the actua! specification appears to be a hybrid based on the three distinct Koranic principles. While tbe Koranic rules apply to both widows and divorcees, the association in this fasa! is only with divorce.23 Thus the opposition between Fasals 11 and 12 is one between Islam and adat. This is similar to the opposition between Fasals 1 and 2. Furtbermore, tbe order of the opposition is preserved, i.e., Fasal 1 corresponds to F asal 11 and F asal 2 corresponds to F asal 12. The associations here follow the genera! pattern of the belas manipulations, 2-12 (dua-duabelas) and 1-11 (satu-sabelas).24 These four elements form a structural unit. Fasal 1 contains the customary aspects of getting married, Fasal 2 the Islamic aspects of getting married, Fasal 11 the customary aspects of getting divorced and Fasal 12 the Islamic aspects of divorce. The structure is based on all possible combinations of two oppositional features; Islam vs. adat and formation vs. dissolution of marriage. The second opposition is confined to the domain of culture. Thus the dissolution of the marriage is by human not natural cause (i.e., divorce and not death). The four elements of the structure are: I :=: (Islam, formation) II (Islam, dissolution) III :=: (adat, formation) IV :=: (adat, dissolution ) A simple series of transformations between these elements can be generated. The structure of this series is identical to the logical structure

mies become:

adat = sa, satu

Islam = dua fonnation = belas absent dissolution = belas present

Applying these rules to the basic structure yields:

1=2 11 = 12 111 = 1 IV 11

Thus all of the fasals of the initial stmcture, i.e., Fasals 1, 2, 3, and 14, belong to at least two distinct stmctures. This interlocking and articulation of several distinct stmctures makes a schematic representation difficult. On the other hand, it reflects the basic Indonesian trend of heaping structure upon structure until the result is either a nightmare or a dream for the structural analyst. The remaining three fasals of the initial section of the law are the most difficult to place into a structural framework. Nevertheless, they are surrounded by highly elaborate interlocking structures. Therefore, their analytical position becomes important.

FASAL 8 The title of Fasal 8 is "hukum orang lari nikah dengan tidak suka induk bapaknya sebelah menyebelah" (the law of persons eloping without the consent of the parents on both sides). Both parties are fincd. If the girl was a virgin the fine is twenty reais, if a widow ten reais. The man must also pay the pengantar to the woman's parents. The appropriate amount is detennined by comparison with the amount paid for the woman's relatives.25The person who performs the marriage ceremony is also fined.

This is an anomalous fonn of marriage. On the one hand, the mention of pengantar suggests semendo merdahika sama merdahika marriage. On the other hand, the flight (lari) means that the marriage cannot be matrilocal like all semendo forms. The elopement is similar to jujur in that the man removes the woman from her house. However,

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

the lack of consent on bath sides implies that they fled to somewhere other than the man's home. Thus the marriage is neither matrilocal as semendo nor patrilocal as jujur, but a neolocal form. This marriage, therefore, is outside the opposition of semenda merdahika sama merdahika and jujur. However, it is recognizable as a mode of marriage and as such must follow the structure of Fasals 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and precede the structures of Fasals 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.

FASAL 9 Fasal 9 is entitled "adat perempuan bemadu" (the adat of co-wives). If an already married man wishes to take a second wife, he must pay the pemaduan to his first wife. The amount of the pemaduan is equivalent to the hantaran of his first wife. The woman divides the money into two equal portions. She retains one and the other is shared among the old women in the kampung.26

In terms of the rigid IÜ'gical structure of the fasals tbis form of marriage is also anomalous. The reference to the antaran suggests that the man is married by semendÜ' and therefore matrilocaIly. But his second wife, unless a relative of his first wife, cannot very weIl he matrilÜ'cally married. Thus in one sense the man is married matrilocally tÜ' his first wife but patrilocally to his second wife. The anomaly of residence is similar to that raised in Fasal 8. The two fasals form a structural unit by their shared content with semendo implications and the residential anomalies. Fasal 9, however, suggests a reference back to the beginning of the law, that is, the marriage process begins again.

FASAL 10 Fasal 10 is entitled "perkataan sumbang" (what is meant by the word incest). The normal meaning of the word is a man has had sexual relations (dapat salah) with a woman with whom it is not proper to he married. If a man and woman are guilty of incest, following this definition, th en they are condemned to death; but, they can obtain release from the death sentence by payment of the tebus nyawa. Sometimes, however, the incest is such that they may he married. In this latter case, they incur a large fine equal to one half the bangun (i.e., fifty reals).

While the fasal does not provide a definition of the prohibited degrees of relationship, a very interesting statement on incest occurs in John Marsden's Lais Laws. "A marriage must not take place between relations, within the third degree, or tuiigal nënë.27But there are exceptions for

Of two brothers, the children may not intermarry. A sister's son may marry a brother's daughter; but a brother's son may not marry a sister's daughter." (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 228). This rule, as stated, operates on the assumption that all marriages are jujur marriages. Father's brother's daughter and father's sister's daughter marriages are prohibited. But mother's brother's daughter marriages are allowed. The rule is not explicit on mother's sister's daughter marriage. However, with the patrilineal assumption of the rule taken into consideration, if mother's brother's daughter marriages are allowed, then mother's sister's daughter marriages must also he permitted. The logic of this rule works on the basis of a continuous patriline. A man is not allowed to marry any of the grandchildren of his father's father, provided that all marriages in the genealogy are by jujur. A parallel set of rules can be derived if the assumption is changed so that all marriages are by ambil anak. The logic is inverted with a malejfemale substitution. The rule hecomes a woman is not allowed to marry any of the grandchildren of her mother's mother. The new cousÏn marriages rule associated with this logic is: mother's brother's daughter and father's brother's daughter marriages are allowed but father's sister's daughter and mother's sister's daughter marriages are prohibited. It is only by anthropological convention that cousin marriage rules are written as the person whom a man may marry.28 Thus the ambil anak rules should be that mother's brother's son and mother's sister's son marriages are prohibited while father's sister's son and father's brother's son marriages are allowed. By phrasing the rules in this manner the complementary logic of the two sets of marriage ruies becomes apparent.

Jujur: FBD no Ambil anak: FBS yes

FZD no FZS yes

MBD yes MBS = no MZD yes MZS = no

No information is given on semendo mardika marriage but, given the biIaterai implications of this type of marriage, areasonabie assumption wouid be that all first cousin marriages would be prohibited. The problems occur when there is a mixture of all three marriage forms. Using the jujur assumption one could argue that on a genealogical chart every woman who marries by ambil anak becomes a man for the purpose of caiculating the permissibility of a certain marriage.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

Anthropologically this pattern is significant in that a choice of affinal rules effe cts the interpretation of a genealogical relationship. Returning to the Code of Laws, Fasal 10 only states th at there are two kinds of incestuous relationships: those that can lead to a marriage and those that cannot. The incestuous relationship that cannot lead to a marriage is an iIIicit sexual relationship and thus this aspect of the fasal does not really belong in the section on marriage. This relation wiII be explored la ter (c.f. page 74 below). However, the f asal raises the more general question of the permissibility of marriages. One rnight have expected this fasal to precede the material on engagement. The fasal structure manages to place Fasal 10 before Fasal 1. Fasal 10 IS followed in the text by Fasal 11. However, Fasal 11 is linked to Fasal 1. Therefore, structurally speaking, Fasal 10 does indeed precede Fasal 1. By proceeding Fasal 1, Fasal 10 becomes structurally equivalent to Fasal Zero (which does not exist). This zero-ten relationship is the basis of the numerical manipulation rules. The addition of belas to a word is equivalent to adding ten to a number. Thus the 3-4-14 manipulation can be expressed as follows:

3 + + 0 = 4

3 + 1 + 10= 14

Thus the placement of Fasal 10 at the head of the structure is supported by both the contents of the fasal and the logic of the manipulation rules. Fasals 8 and 9 are conceptually linked and are placed af ter Fasal 7. As anomalous farms of marriage, they are included at the end of the discussion of the regular forms. They have, however, a filIer quality; they fiJl in the space between Fasals 7 and 10. A filIer is an element whose main function is to take up space, without performing a specific insulation function. In tbis case the fiIIer is needed to make the numerical manipulations work out. Be this as it may, Fasal 9 has an important function. By its contents this fasal starts the whole marriage process over again, thereby referring back to the beginning of the law. However, 9 is followed by 10 and the combination of the two principles underscores the position of Fasal 10 at the head of the structure.

Diagram 2.6 summarizes the complex of structural relations of the

first fifteen fasals. Fasal 15 ends the c1early defined section on the regulation and consequences of marriage and divorce. The other section of this law to be analysed in detail begins with Fasal 30 and deals with the

fj] ~E-(--~

DIAGRAM 2.6

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

regulation of economic relationships between individuals. The logic of financial relations is especially relevant to the understanding of marriage rules because the structure of the marriage rules is of ten dependent on the nature of the financial relationship between husband and wife or the marriage relation itself is phrased in financial terms.

Crimes and Misdemeanours Between Fasal 15 and Fasal 30 there are 14 fasals. (The number 14 may be a co-incidence). These fasals deal with criminal and semi-criminal matters. These fasals will not be analysed in detail. A short enumeration will be presented to give a better picture of the categories of crime and misdemeanour. Some fasals will be discussed in detail. These will be those fasals that present information or concepts th at occur frequently in other law sets. Also, there are some fasals that do not participate directly in the fasal structure of the marriage rules but contribute significantly to the understanding of that structure. Fasals 16 through 20 are concerned with the regulation of illicit sexual activity. Fasals 16, 17, and 18 deal with abortion, sodomy, and rape respectively. In each case the fine (denda) is one half the bangun or fifty reais. Fasal 19 is of special interest in that it deals with illegitimate pregnancy and thereby sheds important light on the question of descent.

FASAL 19 The title of Fasal 19 is "hukum orang yang andam kepada raja masuk menjadi budak raja" (the law of persons who are andam to the raja entering-becoming the slaves of the raja). If a free woman, a debtor, or a slave, is found to be pregnant, and it is not certain who is the man responsible then the woman becomes the slave of the raja. If a married woman becomes pregnant in her husband's absence and it is absolutely certain that the child she carries could not be her husband's then she becomes a slave of the raja. In all cases the woman may avoid becoming a slave if the raja consents, but she must pay him a sum which represents her value as his slave.

The Commentative Digest provides some useful information on this topic. "Pregnancy before Marriage renders a free Woman Slave to her Pangeran ... but her Freedom is obtainable by payment of a Fine of $ 100, being equal to the Bangoon. This may nevertheless be accommo- dated at the pleasure of the Chiefs and seldom exceeds 40 or 50 Dollars" (Commentative Digest, p. 311). Further, the Commentative Digest indicates that andam is not uniquely associated with illegitimate

"Andam Andam Implies by the ancient Law of the country a protection to all offenders, whatever their crime may have been, who take sanctuary within the compound or enclosure of the Pangeran's dwelling, the rescue of whom is completed, provided that they can only approach sa near as to throw a part of their apparel within the fence, before their pursuers overtake them. The condition of this protection is their becoming Slaves to the Pangeran" (Commentative Digest,

p. 320). Thus the C ommentative Digest establishes two points. First, that pregnancy before marriage makes a woman a slave. Secondly, the andam is not conceptually a punishment in itself but a means of escaping from a more severe punishment. While revealing a general abhorrence of unregulated sexual activity, Fasal 19 indicates something of the attitudes towards descent. A child's father must be known. A woman whose husband could not have been the biological father of her child is guilty of the same crime as an unmarried woman. This means that a fiction of paternity cannot be maintained if it were impossible for the man to have been the child's father. The woman's crime could have been classified as either adultery or illegitimate pregnancy. By classifying it as illegitimate pregnancy the possibility of using a "fiction" is removed. Further, the crime as defined in the text is not fornication leading to pregnancy outside marriage but giving birth to a child who has no father, not only a social father but also a specific biologica I father. This rule implies an essential recognition of cognatic descent. This means that in jujur and ambil anak marriage, the transfer of the woman or the man into the family of marriage, represents, among other things, a surrendering of the rights to the children. The full transfer is necessary because there are rights that must be given up in order to make the descent relation unilineal. Seen this way jujur and ambil anak marriage are a negation of this basic principle of cognatic descent. Therefore semendo merdahika sama merdahika is a negation of this negation. This negation of the negation conforms to the Hegelian principle. "This law [the negation of the negation] states one of the most characteristic features of evolutionary process in all fields -that development takes place in a kind of spiral, one change negating a given state of affairs and a succeeding change, which negated the first, re-establishing (in a more deveIoped form, or "on a higher plane" as it is aften expressed) some essential feature of the original state of affairs" (Cuest, p. 44). The reform leading to the introduction of semendo merdahika sama merdahika marriage is a re-establishment in institutionalized form of the more

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

basic notion that had been previously negated by two institutionalized fonns. The implications of this fasal bring an important distinction into perspective. Fasal 19 is not part of the marriage fasals and yet it reveals an important aspect of the logic of the marriage rules. Fasals 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 present a structural statement as to the relationship between jujur, ambil anak and semendo merdahika sama merdahika. The model presented there makes a basic opposition between jujur and semendo merdahika sama merdahika. This is the native model and is derived from the relationships among the fasals. The assertion that this model is the native model and that the basic opposition is between these two marriage fonns is explicitly supported by the refonn statements in the Lais laws. Fasal 19 is not part of the structure of marriage types, indeed it is not even in the marriage section of the law. Thus, it was not viewed as an essential part of the logic of marriage by the writers of the law. On the other hand, the logic of this fasal is essential to the understanding of the principles on which this set of laws is based. One aspect of this fasal leads to the native model, the other to the anthropologist's. The first is a social fact, the second an analytical device, and as such they are subject to different criteria of evaluation. The native model is derived from the explicit arrangement of conceptual categories (i.e., fasals). The anthropological model is derived from the principles implicit in a particular rule. The native model is based on the goals and ideas that the writers were concerned with. In this particular case they were working to refonn their marriage system. In an analogous fashion, the anthropological model is based on the goals and objectives of the analysis. In this case, the goal is explanatory, seeking to place the logic of refonn in a general developmental sequence. In both cases, when the goals or objectives upon which the model is based change, so must the model change. The native and anthropological mode Is mayor may not coincide. Indeed the opposition between jujur and ambil anak which in turn are opposed to semendo merdahika sama merdahika is an anthropological model which COITe- sponds to part of the reform logic presented in the Lais laws but does not correspond to that indicated in Fasals 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Code of Laws. Thus blanket statements on the relationships between anthropological and native models may of ten be misleading because they do not take into consideration the variety of goals and purposes that both anthropological and native models may have.

combinations. That is, two phonetically separabie sounds may be analysed as if they were a single unit (a phoneme). In English the consonant sounds before the vowel in the words "chest" and "jest" (choke and joke) may be phonetically described as a combination of two sounds (t + sh) and (d + z) but in most phonological analyses they are single phonemes. Most native English speakers consider these phonemes as single sounds and have difficulty hearing the two separate components. In this case the native view corresponds to that of the phonologist but not to that of the phonetician. A complementary example is offered by the initial sounds of the words "trip" and "drip" (try and dry). To most native speakers there are two sounds before the vowel: a "t" or a "d" and an "r". Most phonological analyses follow the native speakers' perception. Gimson, with a specific purpose in mind, argues that these sound combinations are best considered as single phonemes. This treatment is based on one of the goals of his analysis. By considering "tr" and "dr" as single articulations, it is easier for foreign learners whose r-sound is a lingualor uvular roll to acquire the correct place of articulation for the troublesome English "r" (Gimson, pp. 173-177). Therefore, the relationship between the native perception and the analytical model is based on the level of the analysis and/or the goals of the analysis. And thus it is impossible to make any a priori assertions about the relations between the two models.

FASAL 20 Fasal 20 is entitled "hukum orang dapat salah dalam belaki" (the law concerning adultery). If the participants were not killed having been caught in flagrente, they are condemned to death provided there is sufficient evidence. The judge is empowered to release the guilty parties from the death sentence, but they must pay the tebus nyawa of one hundred reais. If they do not pay this sum the judge can hand down whatever punishment he thinks appropriate.

Fasals 19 and 20 form a conceptual unity regulating illicit sexual relations between men and women. One possible opposition is between crimes involving married as opposed to unmarried women. The one exception is the crime of the illegitimate pregnancy of the married woman in which case she is classed with the unmarried woman.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

A second and stronger opposition is between the woman alone versus a man and woman together. The andam is the penalty for a sexual relation where the man is not known. Adultery, on the other hand, is defined as a bilateral relationship with both the man and the woman sharing the guilt. Adultery of a married woman leading to pregnancy is classified as heing subject to the andam.

FASALS 16-20, REVIEW Fasals 16 through 20 can he roughly classified on the basis of the man-woman component. Fasal 16, abortion, is a crime of the woman alone. Fasal 17, sodomy, is a crime between two men. Fasal 18, rape, is a crime of a man against a woman. Fasal 19, illegitimate pregnancy, is a crime of a woman alone and Fasal 20, adultery, is a crime of a man and woman together. Significantly, all of these crimes are crimes against society and do not involve any compensation to an injured party. In the earlier marriage section only two fasals unambiguously involve the notion of a crime against society without any associated compensation. Fasal 10, dealing with incest, is such a crime. Here the guilt is a joint one and the release from the death penalty is the payment of the tebus nyawa. Fasal 12, the 'iddah, also requires the payment of the tebus nyawa in order to gain release from the death sentence. The occurrence of the tebus nyawa here suggests that co-habitation within the 'iddah period is adultery in one sense. However, in another sense, it is a measure by which confusion over a child's parentage is prevented. The common element of the tebus nyawa suggests the possibility of numerical manipulations existing. 10 is sa-puluh, 12 is duahelas, and twenty is dua puluh. Thus the possibility of bricoleurean manipulation is rather strong. Of the two fasals in the marriage section Fasal 10 appears to be the more strongly articulated to Fasal 20. On the one hand, Fasal 12 is strongly articulated to another structure. On the other, the ten to twenty manipulation more closely approximates the "addition of ten" features of the belas rules. Indeed, by its features dealing explicitly with illicit sexual relations, Fasal 10 appears to belong more with Fasals 16-20 than with the fasals of the marriage section. There is another curious articulation between the two groups of fasals. Fasal 18, the middle element of the block of five, deals with rape, a man abducting a woman by force (cJ. the De Perez interpretation in De Perez, 1849, p. 269). Fasal 8, elopement, implies willing abduction. This association is based on the addition of ten principle of the -belas transformation. All of these associations are vaguer and weaker than

FASALS 21-29, INTRODUCTION Fasals 21 through 29 are concerned with what is usually labelled criminal law in the European legal tradition. Here, however, one finds an unstable equilibrium between the notions of punishment and compensation. In the language of the text a denda (fine) is always associated with punishment while a variety of other terms (e.g. bangun, pampas, lipat) are used to express principles of compensation. While the term denda may be used in association with any criminal act, the principles of compensation appear to be linked to specific types of crime (i.e., bangun for homicide, pampas for wounding, and the lipat for theft). The bangun for homicide also represents a fundamental principle and the amount of the bangun is of ten the reference point for fines or other forms of compensation. Thus for example a fine may be described as being half the bangun or fifty reaIs. This does not imply th at the fine has an aspect of compensation, it is simply a mnemonic reference.

FASAL 21 Fasal 21 is entitled "hukum orang mumbunoh orang" (the law concerning persons killing persons ). If the evidence is complete in all respects the death sentence is imposed. If the evidence is not complete sometimes the accused must pay the bangun, sometimes swear an oath asserting his innocenee, or he may be simply released. In any case, the decision is based on the nature of the evidence. The fasal ends with a statement that the amount of the bangun is one hundred reals and that of the fine fifty reals (even though the fine had not been previously mentioned).

The bangun is, conceptually, the compensation for the taking of a life. Fasal 22 makes this clear.

FASAL 22 If a person kills another person accidentally (involuntary man- slaughter) then a bangun of one hundred reals must be paid.

Thus Fasal 22 clarifies Fasal 21, indicating that legal proceedings involve two questions. Did the accused kill someone? And if he did, was it intentional? Homicide with intent involves the death penalty;

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

homicide without intent involves the bangun. Almost but not quite conclusive evidence requires the payment of the bangun plus a fine of fifty reals. The fine is apparently only associated with homicide with intent. The mention of the fine for the first time, at the end of Fasal 21, appears to be an afterthought meant to differentiate between the contents of this fasal and those of the following one. The principles expressed here do not reveal an unequivocal native logic and suggest tampering, either by the British or local reform pressure. Fasal 21 implies that the death penalty, and not the payment of the bangun, is the rule in some cases. This suggests that the principle of compensation is suspended not for failing to pay the bangun but due to the nature of the evidence for the crime. The influence of the British is c1early revealed in the Commentative Digest. "Bangoon Has before been remarked to be a sum of money given to the Relations of a murdered person in compensation for the loss of their deceased relative, and though the Laws respecting it are still in force at many places on the Coast, it has been superceded at Marlboro' through the influence of the British Government, and is now bccome obsolete" (Commentative Digest, p. 320). EIsewhere it is pointed out that the British of ten insisted upon an exemplary punishment. Indeed, in at least one case the)' overruled a local decision in which a man had been freed upon the payment of the bangun (Commentative Digest, p. 314 f.). In contrast to the Code of Laws, John Marsden's Lais Laws give a detailed account of the various rules associated with the bangun (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 222 f.). Here the bangun is based on the social status of the murdered person. Thc payment required for a pambarab is 500 dollars, for his wife and legitimate children 250 dollars, for an inferior proatin 250 dollars, for a common person (male) 80 dollars and for a common person (female) 150 dollars. In addition "a fine of fifty dollars and a buffalo, as tippong bumi (expiation), is to be paid on the murder of a pambarab; of twenty dollars and a buffalo on the murder of any other; which goes to thc pambarab and proattïns" (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 222). The notion that the bangun itself is compensation is underscored in another paragraph, "thc bangun of private persons is to be paid to their families; deducting the adat ulasan of ten per cent to the pambahabs and proatins" (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 222). Under the rubric bangun no death penalty is mentioned. However, William Marsden mentions the following legal maxim. ·'He who is able to pay the bangun for murder, must satisfy the relations of the deceased; he who is unable, must suffer death"

In the Commentative Digest and Marsden's History of Sumatra.

Some M ethodological Considerations In general, one might be accused of being ethnocentric for applying European notions concerning the distinction between civil and criminal law to these texts. However, the European principles of criminal law are significant because colonial authorities were wiIIing to give more freedom in matters of civil law than in criminallaw.29Not unnaturally, the Europeans used their own definitions of the difference. Thus those sections of law texts that deal with criminal matters, according to European principles, must he analysed with extreme caution. While a certain caution is always necessary with regard to foreign influences, those portions of a law text that deal with civil law are less likely to he influenced directly. Furthermore, the relative severity of a crime in European law is important. A crime considered severe in European terms, but less so in native law, is most likely to be influenced. A severe crime in native terms but less so in European terms is somewhat less susceptible to foreign influence. Until the colonial authorities assumed the burden of rearranging native society completeIy, they were more willing to err on the side of severity than of leniency. Murder in particular is the crime where one is most likely to find European in- fIuence. Thus the general bias of th is analysis in favour of an examination of marriage form reflects, on the one hand, a common anthropological preference but, on the other a choice of domain in which one is most likely to find a minimum of external influence distorting the logic of the laws.

FASAL 23 Fasal 23 is entitied "hukum orang mencuri harta orang" (the law concerning a person who steals another man's property). The basic rule is that, provided there is sufficient evidence, the convicted man must return the goods twofold. In addition he must pay a fine. If the person does not pay the fine or the compensation then he may he banished from tbe region (negri) for a specified length of time. If he returns hefore the time is elapsed then he is condemned to death, though a judge may rnitigate th is sentence. This fasal concludes with an enumeration

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

of the cases in which stolen goods are found in someone's possession. If he cannot account for the origin of the goods, they are simply seized and he loses whatever he might have paid for them. If the goods were "found" he must swear an oath indicating the place where the goods were found. In some cases he need only pay the value of the goods. Or perhaps the matter is simply theft. The judge is empowered to make his decision on the basis of the evidence.

The basic principle of customary law concerning theft is the lipat, returning twofold. In other texts one of ten finds that certain items are assigned a specific value (e.g. Cod. Or. 12.228, Fasal 11). Thus, the amount of the compensation may he fixed and not open to assessment. Likewise, the fines in such texts are of ten based on the things stolen (e.g. the Sungai Lemau Laws). While compensation payments tend to reflect the true economic value of the things stolen, fines also reflect the symbolic or ritual value of an object and do not always correspond to the real economic value. There is some question as to whether the deporta:tion rule is of indigenous origin. The Commenfative Digest says that if the amounts due are not paid then the person may become a slave of the Company or in some cases deported (CommentatilJe Digest,

p. 317). In the Lais laws, however, one finds a very dear statement of principle. "A person convicted of theft, pays double the value of the goods stolen, with a fine of twenty dollars and a buffalo, if they exceed the value of five dollars: if under five dollars, the fine is five dollars and a goat; the value of the goods still doubled" (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 221). However, the consequences of the failure to meet the obligations of payment are not mentioned.
FASAL 24 Fasal 24 deals with perjury (salah bersumpah). The rule applies to witnesses, persons bringing suits and persons sued. The fine is fifty reais, regardless of the relative importance of the case.

The formal oath in South Sumatra is a very serious matter involving the extended kin in the ritual consequences of the oath. As the Commentative Digest points out "indeed people generally re gard an oath so sacredly, that many would rather lose their suit, than be ohliged to take one on a trifling occasion" (Commentative Digest, p. 289). Though this fasal may apply to persons outside indigenous South Sumatran life, its indusion is somewhat peculiar in that perjury is a most unlikely crime. lts indusion could reflect a concern on the part

FASAL 25 Fasal 25 deals with the criminal use of medicinal compounds. In the case of simple poisoning, if the evidence is complete and witnesses exist, the guilty party is sentenced to death. If the drug pukau 30 is used then a fine is imposed, the amount of which is determined by the judge.

Pukau is a narcotic used to drug victims into sleep in order to commit theft. Thus these two crimes are special cases of murder and theft, linked together by the common element of drugs. While in a distinct category, this fasal suggests a back reference to the fasals on murder and theft. Thus one might argue that this fasal is a secondary category in contrast to the more basic principles of murder and theft.

FASAL 26 Fasal 26 is entitled "sebab pampas" (concerning the pampas). When-ever a person wounds another the nature of the wound is examined. On the basis of this examination the judge decides the amount of compensation to he awarded (the pampas) and sets the fine ( the denda). The maximum pampas is one half the bangun or fifty reals; the minimum is six reals one suku (six and a quarter reais). Below this amount the compensation is no langer the pampas but is called tepung sitawar. This lower form of compensation may be five reals or less and sometimes may involve an offering of betel.

The relation of the pampas to an act of wounding is the same as the relationship between the bangun and the crime of murder. Like the bangun, the pampas is purely a matter of compensation. Indeed in this fasal, the notion of compensation is more clearly expressed than those on murder. In the discussion of murder the motive or intent was discussed and appeared to be associated with the fine. Here, on the other hand, the fine is mentioned only in passing and there is na discussion of motive. Thus the damage done is the basis of the amount of the pampas awarded and not the circumstances leading up to the wounding, i.e., there is no difference hetween accidental and intentional wounding. The concepts of compensation for murder and wounding are frequently associated in various legal contexts in South Sumatra. This association has a wider distribution and is found in the Adat

THE LOGIC OF THE LA WS

Parapatih In Menangkebau "tjèntjang berpampas, bunuh berbalas" "whoso wounds shall atone, whoso slays shall replace" (De Josselin de Jong, 1951, p. 74). Furthermore, the logic of the range of the pampas is dependent upon the amount of the bangun. The maximum is explicitly stated as being one half the bangun or fifty reals. The minimum is specified as being six reals and one suku but this works out as one sixteenth of the bangun or one eighth of the maximum pampas. The setting of a lower limit indicates that the pampas is a conceptual category determined not only by the crime itself, but also by its numerical relationship to another type of compensation. According to Wilken tepung tawar literally means me al used as an antidote against something harmful or against the harmful consequences of something (Wilken, 1912, II, p. 475; c.f. also Klinkert, 1947, p. 248).31 The Gommentative Digest presents a slightly different set of rules. "The Damages [pampas] however cannot in any case exceed the half of the Bangoon or $ 50, the next gradation is 25, or 14 of the Bangoon, and if the damage is very trifling 01, but if less be given than the last, it is called Sa Tappong, Sa Towar, or a mere compensation for medical expence" (Gommentative Digest, p. 316). Here the principle of the pampas' dependency upon the bangun is more explicitly expressed than in the Gade of Laws. The sequence of fractions is clearly established with each step being one half the previous. The Gade of Laws, however, extends the sequence one step further. In both cases the sequence emphasises a relation based on the sequence 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. In one case the sequence implied contains four elements: 0z, ~, YB, and 1/16, Thus the number of elements is related to the numerical basis of the sequence. In the Gommentative Digest the sequence contains only three elements but there are two intervals between the elements of the sequence. Thus while the relationship between the elements of the sequence involves a multiple by two (or its inverse one half), the number of elements or intervals between elements is also related to the number two. The interpretation of tepung tawar as medical expenses is quite literal and does not favour a broader meaning (c.f. Wilken, 1912, I, pp. 607-608; II, p. 475). However the Gade of Laws mentions that betel may be offered. This suggests that there is at least some element of reconciliation associated with the tepung tawar, even if it does not mean a cleansing of the evil consequences of an attack of violence. However, the most important aspect of the fasal is the pampas, which is clearly tied to the bangun, bath numerically and as a category of

the basic categories of compensation. Furthermore, the emphasis on compensation indicates that the illegal act is committed primarily against a person and not against society.

FASAL 27 Fasal 27 deals with falsification of gold, silvcr or judicial decisions. If the falsification is considerable thc dcath penalty is imposed; if minor a fine is set by the judge.

FASAL 28 Fasal 28 is entitled "hukum kerbau menanduk orang" (the law concerning buffaloes who gore people). If a buffalo is loose in a field and someone approaches the buffalo and is gored, the matter ends there.32 But if a buffalo is tethered ne ar a road or ne ar the general public, and the buffalo gores someone, then the owner is held to be responsible. If the man dies, the owner must pay half of the bangun. If the man survives his wounds, the owner must pay the pampas.

The principle expressed here is th at of liability for the actions of one's property. Murder and wounding are acts of a man against a man; theft is an act of a man against property. However, this case is the act of a person's property against a man. The owner is liable to pay damages only when the injured party could not have been aware of the danger. A person approaching an untethered buffalo is presumably fully aware of the risk of injury and assumes it voluntarily. This fasal represents another secondary category. The settlement is based on two previously introduced principles: the bangun and the pampas. And further, there is an inversion of the theft relationship, i.e., man against property becomes property against man.

FASAL 29 Fasal 29 deals with the consequences of failure to pay a fine. A person who has been fined is given one month in which to pay his fine. If the fine is not paid the person becomes a company slave, which means he must work on the roads as a member of a chain gang. His length of time as a slave is based on the amount of the unpaid fine. One year is equivalent to twenty-five reals.

This fasal strongly reflects European influence. Nevertheless, the principle of enslavement to authority is established in the traditional andam principle. Thus, this rule may not represent that radical a departure from traditional practices. However, the fasal is very

OF THE LAWS

specifically confined to fines and there is no mention of the consequences of the failure to pay compensation. This fasal comes at the end of the section dealing with criminal matters. However, the back reference to all fines extends as far as Fasal 16 (abortion). One function of dus back reference is to demarcate the end of one section and the beginning of a new one. In contrast to the back reference, there is also an antlclpation of the next section which deals with debt relations. The failure to pay a fine may be seen as one type of financial obligation.

The Structure ot Fasals 20-28

By virtue of its back reference to all of the fasals following the marriage section, Fasal 29 is not uniquely associated with the crime fasals. Fasals 16 through 20, which deal with sexual matters, form a distinct cluster within the umbrella created by the back reference of Fasal 29. Fasal 20 anticipates the rules for murder by suggesting that if adulterers are killed in the act, the killing is justifiable homicide. These patterns effectively isolate Fasals 21 through 28 as a single unit. These eight fasals are intertwined by a complex system of cross-referencing. There are three types of fasals in this section: basic category fasals, secondary category fasals, and independent category fasals. The basic category fasals are those in which a fundamental principle of compensation is presented. The categories of compensation are the bangun, lipat, and pampas. Though there are three categories, there are four fasals because the principles of the bangun are spread over two fasals. Therefore, Fasals 21, 22, 23, and 26 are the basic category fasals. The secondary category fasals are those in which the crime is a special case of a basic category crime or requires the information in one or more basic category fasals to be understood. Fasals 25 and 28 are the secondary category fasals. Fasal 25 deals with murder or theft committed by means of or with the assistance of medicinal compounds. Fasal 28 deals with wounding or killing by an animal and thus is a special case for the bangun and pampas. The independent category fasals are those which neither introduce a basic category of compensation nor refer to such a basic category. Fasals 24 and 27 are the independent category fasals; Fasal 24 deals with perjury and Fasal 27 with various other forms of falsification. In addition to their structural independence, they are bound together by their common attention to falsification. This common feature of their contents serves to underscore their similar structural position.

24 25 I--

26 27

28 += insulatorDIAGRAM 2.7

The Financial Fasals

Fasals 30 through 39 are concerned with financial relations. The degree of elaboration given to this type of relation is unusual in South Sumatran legal codes. The types of economic relationships discussed

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

here was an area of great interest to the British. While an interest in criminal matters may have been related to notions of "good govemment", a familiarity with local economic practices could be exploited if not for the advantage of the Company then most certainly for the personal advantage of the Company's servants. While these rules are of general interest for an investigation of South Sumatran social life, they are of special interest by their relationships to the structure of marriage forms. In the Code of Laws the marriage forms are of ten defined in terms of the economic relationship between the marriage partners. There is, however, a second feature which gives these rules a broader significance. Because of the size of marriage payments a debt relationship of ten developed parallel to the marriage relationship. It is obligatory that the structural analysis of these fasals keep these two distinct phenomena separate. The logic of the laws phrases the marriage relationship in economic terms. This logic forms the basis of a mechanical model which is de pende nt upon neither the size of the marriage payment nor on the particular financial circumstances of the two families involved. However, the size of the marriage payment may easily result in part of it being Ie ft unpaid, thus creating a debt relationship. While the debt may have served to define the social reality of the marriage relationship, it was not an automatic consequence of a particular form of marriage. On the contrary, the existence of a debt was dependent on the financial circumstances of the families directly concerned with a particular marriage. A model which describes the nature of debts between affines would necessarily be a probabilistic one. Thus there is a second model that develops parallel to the logic of the laws. This model is by its nature statistical. While some of the possible consequences of debt relations between affines will be discussed, the central theme of this portion of the analysis will be an examination of the logic of these financial relations as they relate to the structure of marriage forms.

FASAL 30 The title of Fasal 30 is "sebab orang berutang" (concerning debtors). When money or goods are loaned they are considered as a dcbt. As a result of default on an ordinary debt a person cannot become a slave or a bondage (i.e., mengiring) debtor. Furthermore, no interest can be charged unless it was specified in the original agreement.

The principle expressed here is th at the debtor status is immutable. A debtor cannot be placed in one of the more severe bondage categories.

REFERENCE LA W 85

This is a reformation of the principle expressed in the Commentative Digest. "Debtors incapable of paying their Debts af ter judgement, may be confined, unless they can find security to the satisfaction of the Plaintiff, and by the Native Laws, should he be incapable of so doing, he is bound to become Mengheering to the Plaintiff" (Commentative Digest, p. 308). The reference to interest in Fasal 30 serves as an introduction to the foIIowing fasal.

FASAL 31 Fasal 31 is entitled "hukum sebab anak uwang" (the laws concerning interest, lito the children of money). If disputes arise concerning interest rates one of two rules may apply. If the principal is fifty reals or less, then the maximum interest permitted is one-half wang (uwang) per real per month. The maximum duration of such interest charges is one year. If the principal is more than fifty reais, then the interest is ten reals per one hundred reals per year. The maximum duration of such interest charges is also one year. Higher interest rates are unacceptable.

Since three wang are equal to one tali and eight tali are equal to one real, the interest charge on smaII sums is one forty-eighth of a real per month or twenty-five per cent per annum. In comparison the interest rate on large sums is only ten percent per annum. The reason for the discrepancy between the two systems is not presentcel. The inequality between the two rates is striking. For example, the interest on thirty reals for one year would be seven and a half reals; however, the interest on seventy-five reals for the same time period is also seven and a half reals. In the vicinity of fifty reals the discrepancy becomes virtually ridiculous. The interest on fifty reals at the higher rate would be twelve and a half reais, while the interest charge using the lower rate would by only five reais. The difference in the logic of the two systems is based on the actual monetary calculations. The interest on one real over one year would be six wang, which is equal to two tali or one suku. Thus the total value of one real af ter one year becomes one real, one suku. Thus the lower calculation can be easily used for smaII amounts, where odd figures are most Iikely to occur. For exan1ple, the value of thirty-three reals after one year becomes thirty-three reals and thirty-three sukus, which is equal to forty-one reals and one suku. On the larger amounts a simple decimal calculation is used. The non-decimal system appears to be the more traditional one. In John Marsden's Lais Laws there is a single system. Previously the int~rest had been three fanams (wang) per month or 150 % per annum

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

but this was reduced by the law to one fanam per month or fifty percent per annum. To th is basic principle the provision that interest could only be collected for two years was added (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 224). The Commentative Digest, however, presents a two tier system. "It has latterly been only customary to allowan interest of one Fanam 33 per month per dollar, or Fifty perCent per Annum on small sums, lent as temporary convenience or accommodation, but on Sums exceeding one or two hundred Dollars, Ten perCent per Annum" (Commentative Digest, p. 310). The Code of Laws takes this logic a step further. The interest on small sums is reduced by a half and the cutting point between the two systems is established. The demarcation between the higher and lower interest rates is set at fifty reals which is one half the bangun. While there is no conceptual connection between murder and interest rates the bangun is a frequently used reference point for numerical calculations. The Commentative Digest suggests that the reason for lowering interest rates was not to keep indigenous leaders from exploiting their sub je cts but to curtail the activities of Bengali Hindus (Commentative Digest, p. 309). Thus the single system of the Lais Laws appears to be the more traditional principle. The manner of calculation used in the Lais system finds expression in that used for small sums in the Code of Laws. Interestingly, because the fanam or wang is equal to one twenty-fourth of areal, it is easy to calculate both monthly and yearly interest charges in exact monetary units (i.e., one half wang per month equals one suku per year; one wang per month equals two sukus per year, etc.).

COMPARATIVE INTEREST RATES

per real

in text)

50% 50%

FASAL 32 Fasal 32 is entitled "hukum orang men jual orang" (the law regarding people who seIl people). If a person selIs a free person or a slave he is liable, upon conviction, to the death penalty. If the evidence is not complete then the judge may set an appropriate alternative punishment.

This fasal simply prohibits the slave trade. As we shaIl see below, this fasal appears to function as a structural fiBer.

FASAL 33 The title of Fasal 33 is "hukum merdika dalam upahan" (the law conceming freemen in the wage employment situation). If a person who has been hired dies in the process of carrying out dangerous work the employer must pay the wages in full irregardless of whcther the work was completed or not because this money wilI help to pay for the funeral expenses (belanja mati) of the employee. If one man gives assistance to another, but not for financial gain, and in the process of helping dies, then the one assisted is responsible for the de ad man's funeral expenses. FASAL 34 Fasal 34 is entitled "sebab budak" (concerning slaves). A sI ave is a man or a woman who has been purchased and who may not leave his master without the master's consent. If the master is guilty of im- propriety (terlampau daripada patut) with respect to his slave, th en the judge can fix an amount of money upon payment of which the slave is free. If the master is guilty of serious wrong doing (salah) with respect to his sI ave, then the slave is released from bondage. Included in this more severe category of misconduct are placing the slave in chains, hanging the slave by his hands and beating him, and excessively severe beating that leads to deep wounds, broken bon es, or blindness.

This fasal corresponds quite weU to what is reported in the Commentative Digest: "If the Slave is not properly supported or trea ted by his Master, the Court wiU redress him, by removing him from th at Service and allowing him to seek an other on the footing of slavery. .. If a Slave shall be have iB or disobedient, he or she are liable to a corporal punishment by their Master or Mistress, provided that such chastisement be entirely within the bounds of moderate correction, without losing sight of humanity ... " (Commentative Digest, p. 303). The fasal itself only places limitations on the authority of the master, without elabor- ating upon or further defining the slave status.

FASAL 35 Fasal 35 is entitled "sebab anak budak" (conceming the children of

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

slaves). All children whose parents were slaves are also slaves. Such children are caIled anak emas (literaIly, the children of gold or golden children). Their status is the same as that of slaves who were purchased. They can he sold or otherwise treated so long as the hehaviour of their master does not trespass on what is spccificaIly forbidden by the raja and penghulus.

The right to sell the child of a slave, as mentioned in this fasal, contradicts Fasal 32 which says th at the sale of slaves is punishable by death. There is a striking similarity between the notions of interest on money and the children of slaves. The child of a slave can be seen to represent the interest accruing to thc master on his original purchase. This relationship is supported by the linguistic features of the terms used for interest and slave children. Interest is "the children of money" (anak uwang) while slave children are "the children of gold" (anak emas). FASAL 36 Fasal 36 is entitled "orangdapat salah dengan budak orang" (a person guilty of wrongdoing with another man's slave). If a man has sexual relations with a man's slave, then he too becomes a slave. However, the man may buy rus freedom by paying the woman's owner one half of her value.34If, however, she dies hefore this amount has been paid, then he must pay her fuIl value. A slave can never enter into a debt relationship, if he does so the person giving him money forfeits his claim. And lastly, if the woman was an "anak emas" the court can determine her value as necessary for the above payments.35

Though this fasal deals with the behaviour of both free men and slaves, the logic of the relationship is more clearly expressed with regard to free men. The process by which the man becomes a slave is described as "budak orang satu jadi dua" (one slave becomes two). The language is similar to that used for the lipat compensation for theft. Here, however, the principle is that the value of the original slave becomes distributed over two persons. From this it foIlows that for the man to buy his freedom he must pay only one half of the woman's value, because he represents only one half of the owner's original investment. But if the woman dies before he has met this obligation then he alone represents the value of the owner's original investment and must pay her fuIl value. The text is not very clear as to what happens if the guilty man was a slave. The credit principle is the same as that expressed in the Commentative Digest. "No person ca.n attach the person of a Slave for

" (Commentative Digest, p. 304). The fasal's reiteration of this principle indicates that the slave cannot buy his own freedom from the new slavery relationship by acquiring credit. The fasal does not elaborate on the possible relationships th at might develop (for example, what happens when the man and woman were slaves in different households?). The lack of clarity of the rules concerning the male slave indicates that the situation involving a free man is the more important for the structure of the law. Thus the most important rule in the fasal is that if a freeman cohabits with another man's slave he also becomes a slave. In Fasal 6 a complementary rule is presented: if a freeman cohabits with his own slave then the woman ultimately becomes free. The complementarity of the rules serves to uni te them. But more important, it also establishes a direct articulation between the marriage and financial sections of the law. Fasal 6 presents one situation, Fasal 36 the other. This relationship suggests a new numerical manipulation: 6 + 30 = 36. Two important principles underly this manipulation. First, all of the numbers beginning with a three (30-39) deal with financial matters and further only those fasals beginning with a three deal with such matters. And, secondly, the number used in the manipulation (three) is the key number in thc 3-4-14 manipulation. While the manipulations in thc marriage section involve the addition of ten (i.e., belas), here the manipulation operates by the addition of three tens. Enam (6) becomes tiga puloh enam (3, 10, 6, or 36). Thus the complementarity of the rules of these two fasals indicate that a fundamental relationship exists. One aspect of their numerical relationship is a variation on the numerical manipulation rules found elsewhere in the law.36If any other articulations exist betwcen the financial and marriage sections which use this particular manipulation rule then one would expect it to exist between Fasals 7 and 37. Since Fasals 6 and 7 form an important structural unit in the marriage section and Fasals 6 and 36 are numerically and conceptually articulated then it is reasonabie to expect that Fasals 7 and 37 should he similarly articulatcd.

FASAL 37 Fasal 37 is entitled "sebab orang mengiring" (concerning mengiring debtors). A mengiring debtor is a free person who contracts a debt and agrees to work for his creditor without financial reward until the loan is repaid. If a mengiring debtor Hees he must pay one tal i for each day he is absent. This payment represents the value of the debtor's labour

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

for his master; but, it is the same for a man or a woman. If a mengiring debtor is hung by his bound hands and heaten, then he is freed from bondage by a judge and need not repay the loan. The debt cannot he paid in installments. All the children of a mengiring debtor born in the house of their parents' creditor are freemen. However, the debtor must pay his creditor the pembasoh rumah (the cleansing of the house) of ten reals for each child born in his house. The creditor is obliged to provide his debtor with food and clothing. If the debtor wishes to free himself from bondage he must pay the full amount of his debt, neither more nor less without just reason. If the debtor commits a crime either inside or outside his creditor's house he is subject to punishment by a judge. If a female mengiring debtor cohabits with a free man, a debtor, or a slave, the man hecomes a mengiring debtor with the woman. The man, however, can purchase his freedom by paying one half the woman's debt. If a female mengiring debtor is "used" (dipakai) by her male creditor against her wishes, she may complain to a judge. Upon verification she may he released and the debt forfeited.

The status of mengiring debtor is between that of an ordinary debtor and a slave. The basic contrast, however, is hetween a mengiring debtor and a slave. The mengiring debtor is in a self-contracted bondage and can always obtain his release. A slave's bondage is based on a contract between two other persons (i.e., he was purchased) and he may only purchase his frcedom in certain special circumstances. The most significant contrast with slavery, however, is not the actual nature of the differences hetween the two forms of bondage but differences in their presentation in the law. The major mIes regarding slaves are spread over three fasals (34, 35, and 36) while the equivalent rules governing mengiring debtors are contained in a single fasal. The mengiring debtor may not be severely beaten. The same provision concerning slaves is to be found in Fasal 34. The children of a mengiring debtor are free 37 while those of a slave, according to Fasal 35, are also slaves. The rules regarding the female mengiring debtor who cohabits with someone other than her creditor are very similar to the mIes for a female slave presented in Fasal 36. Further, there are implied references and contrasts with the ordinary debt relationship. The amount to be paid back must he exactly equivalent to the original debt. This implicitly states that the charging of interest is prohibited in contrast to the rules provided in Fasal 31. This rule, concerning repay- ment, together with those regarding flight, present the specific logic of the mengiring dcbtor's position. The debtor who flees must pay for substitutc labour at the rate of one eighth of a real per day. On the one hand, thc rule suggests that the labour of the debtor has a wage

On the other hand, it suggests

that the labour of the debtor is received in lieu of interest charges. In the Lais laws (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 224) the amount to be paid in case of flight is three fanams (one tali) per day 38 which is the same as the interest on one real for one month at the original rate or on three reals per month at the reform rate (c.f. Table 2.1). Thus, in that system the payment by the runaway is equivalent to the interest on thirty reals (or ninety reals using the reform ratel. In the Code of Laws the interest rates were reformed but not the payment by the mengiring debtor. Thus the daily charge of one tali is equivalent to forty-five reais, five tali per year or the interest on about four hundred fifty reals. Thus the association between the debtor's labour and interest payments is revealed by a relationship described in the Lais laws. There the logical relation is the strongest because the amounts of the principle implied by the calculations is most reasonable. The pattern in this law set indicates an important aspect of reforms. The amount the fugitive debtor must pay is the same in the Lais laws and the Code of Laws. The interest rate pattern, however, was radical1y altered. The reform pressure was selectively applied to interest rates, while the fugitive's obligations remained the same. This substantially altered an important logical relationship. In general, reforms which focus on individual elements tend to obscure or distort structural features of a law. On the other hand, reforms which involve a remoulding of old structural relations provide a new structure equally worthy of study. However, these observations on the relationship between mengiring debtors and other types of financial bondage are based on the comparison of the contents of the fasals and not the structural features of the fasals. In particular, the rules concerning slaves are spread over three fasals. But similar rules regarding mengiring debtors are compressed into a single fasal. This difference can be attributcd to the structural relations betwecn marriage forms and financial relationships. While Fasals 6 and 36 may be linked, a similar relationship exists between Fasals 7 and 37. The logic of the woman's relationship to her husband in jujur marriage is the same as that of the mengiring debtor. The jujur marriage involves the transfer of money from the man to the woman's family. The direction of the transfer means that it is possible for the woman to be seen as a debtor. This possibility is made into a logical reality becausc the responsibility for the money is placed upon the person of the woman and not upon her family. If there is a divorce (before children are bom) then she must return the money.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

The logic is that of refunding a debt, not of buying a woman back. The possibility th at the original transfer represented a purchase is specifically ruled out by Fasal 32, which spccifically prohibits the sale of persons. The patrilocal nature of the marriage is underscored by the notion of a debtor "following" (mengiring) the creditor. The fact that there is only one fasal dealing with mengiring debtors indicates that the jujur marriage form is to be associated with only one form of financial relationship and th at the mengiring debtor status is associated with only one marriage form.39 Slavery, however, may be associated with more than one form of marriage. This is the basic reason for the distribution of the rules regarding slaves over three fasals. The 6-36, 7-37 relationship has been established above. The only other marriage relation relating to, or implying slavery, is that in Fasal 5, i.e., ambil anak marriage. The numerical link indicated by the previously established relationships is that between Fasals 5 and 35, i.e., ambil anak to anak emas. Besides the deceptively obvious link based on the word allak, a more subtle relationship exists. If ambil anak marriage implies a slavery upon the man, why then is there reference to the children of slaves and not to slaves in genera!? The rationale behind this phenomenon lies in the definition of a slave. A slave, as defined in Fasal 34, is someone who was purchased, but in ambil anak marriage there is no exchange of money that could possibly imply a purchase. However, in the slave child fasal the desired logical relationship is presented: a slave child is a slave acquired without an exchange of money. While the link with slavery is suggcstive there are some important differences. While the man's position in the household becomes similar to that of a slave, unlike a slave he may leave when he wishes. This association between ambil anak marriage and slavery is not confined to this link. In the Lais laws, the implication of slavery associated with ambil anak marriage is one of the reasons given for the efforts to abolish this form of marriage. Fasals 34 and 4 do not articulate using the same manipulation rule as the 35-5, 36-6, 37-7 associations. Semendo bayar utang marriage cannot articulate with slavery. First, this marriage form is associated with semendo merdahika sama merdahika marriage, which most certainly has no slavery implications. And secondly, there would be aconfusion of financial catcgories, i.e., debts and slavery. The discontinuity in forms of manipulation follows a structural demarcation line in the marriagc section: i.e., th at between the semendo merdahika sama merdahika

fonns and the ambil anak fonn. Further, the difference in forms of articulation creates an opposition between semendo merdahika sama merdahika and jujur plus am bil anak marriage. This is a different opposition than that presented in the marriage section itself but it recalls the explicit refonn logic of the Lais laws. The manner of articulation between the semendo merdahika sama merdahika fonns and the financial section require the rest of the economic fasals in order to he fully comprehended.

FASAL 38 Fasal 38 is entitled "hukum menyuroh budak orang atau orang mengiring kepada orang dengan tidak idzin tuannya" (the law regarding the giving of orders to another man's slave or mengiring debtor without the master's pennisssion). If such a person is ordered to carry out work without his master's consent, and dies in the process of doing such work or is lost (?) (hilang), the person giving the orders must pay the master either the value of the slave or thc amount of the debtor's loan. If the work was done with the master's permission, only one half the value must he paid. Similarly, if another man's property is used without permission and is damaged, lost, or dies (animals ), then the borrower must replace the full value. If the property was used with pennission the borrower must also replace the full value unless there exists a formal agreement to the contrary.

Fasal 38, like Fasal 37, gives the impression of containing too much infonnation. Four distinct rules are presented, involving two categories of property and two kinds of relationships between user and owner. The categories of property are human and non-human. The relationships between owner and user involve an opposition between with permission and without pennission. The four rules are brought together into a single fasal. Without deviating from the pattern of other fasals these four rules could each be presented in separate fasals or in two fasals by grouping either opposition together in a single fasal. Here, however, they fonn a single fasal. And even more exceptional is that the first line of the fasal gives the impression that the only topic dealt with is using a person without his master's permission. This impression is emphasised by the fact that the word hukum (law) is only used in association with this first principle. There is, however, an association between this initial rule and one contained in the marriage section, i.e., Fasal 8. Fasal 8 deals with elopement without the consent of the parents. The structural implication is that a man takes a woman without her parents' consent. Fasal 38's

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

structural implication is th at a man uses another man's slave or debtor without the master's permission. This connexion, while without profound significance for the understanding of either the marriage or financÏal sections of the law, serves to emphasise the validity of the numerical manipulation. Thus there are structural relations which are established for their own sake, or for the general validity of the structure, but their contents are minimally significant. The rules concerning the use of another man's property with permission, which form the last section of Fasal 38, serve to foreshadow Fasal 39.

FASAL 39 Fasal 39 is entitled "hukum bebelah pencarian" (the law conceming the division of earnings). Money is given to a person for the purpose of engaging in trade or otherwise pursuing gain. Unless there is a specific agreement to the contrary, all of what is earned in a month is divided equally between debtor and creditor. The same principles may be applied to wet rice farming or gardening. Sometimes a buffalo and cart are loaned for the purpose of hauling wood or plying for hire. Once again the earnings are divided equally. But in this case losses are also to be divided equally. For instance, if the buffalo dies the loss is shared equally by debtor and creditor. If seed capital is offered to a trader and the money is lost (abis) without extenuating circumstances, the trader is held responsible for the return of the capita!. If fifty reals or less had been loaned for six months then the capital is returned twofold. If more than fifty reals had been loaned then one and a half times the original capital must be returned. For the purpose of calculation the value of certain animals is listed: a buffalo is worth twentv-five reais, a cow (sapi) fifteen reais, a "Batak" horse thirty-five r~als, and a "Padang" horse fifteen reals. The value of a horse may deviate from these values if the animal's condition warrants it.

This fasal introduces a new principle of financial relationship. It is independent of the bondage implicit in both slavery and mengiring debt. The relationship involves a special kind of debt in which the earnings from capital are shared between owner and user. This division of earnings takes the place of direct interest charges. But most significant is the that user of the capital, while being accountable for the money he is given, does not enter into an explicit bondage relationship. Thus the bebelah relationship is a special category of a simple debt. The association between bebelah and debt implies a special type of back reference from Fasal 39 to Fasal 30. The reference is not only to a previously mentioned fasal but is also a reference from the last fasal of a section back to the first fasal, thus forming a structural circle

REFERENCE LA W 95

containing all those fasals which deal with financial matters. This reference back to the beginning of the section is analogous to the behaviour of Fasal 9 in the marriage section. Indeed there is no conceptual link between Fasals 9 and 39 based upon a 9-39 numerical manipulation. Howevcr, their structural fllnction is the same. Further, the back reference of Fasal 39 to the beginning is such th at Fasals 39 and 30 form a distinct structural unit. This structural unit articulates with the semendo merdahika sama merdahika fasals of the marriage section. This articulation not only serves to complete the association between marriage and financial sections but also reinforces thc transposition of Fasal 39 to the beginning of the section. The marriage structure based on Fasals 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 contains two explicit refercnces to relationships mentioned in the section on financial matters. Fasal 6 deals with the woman who was bought (i.e., a slave) and becomes a wife. Fasal 6, however, is by itself not an independent category but is dependent upon Fasal 7, which deals with jujur marriage, to be fully developed. The other fasal in the marriage sequence which behaves in this manner is Fasal 4. Fasal 4 refers back to Fasal 3 in the same way that Fasal 6 refers ahead to Fasal 7. Likewise, Fasal 4 is not fully independent of Fasal 3 but requires the material in Fasal 3 to be fully understood. And, furthermore, Fasal 4, like Fasal 6, deals explicitly with a financial relationship. The marriage form presented in Fasal 4 is semendo bayar utang (semendo by paying a debt). The only appropriate point of articlllation to thc financial section is Fasal 30 (sebab orang berutang) conceming debtors. The main provision of Fasal 30 is that a debtor cannot become a mengiring debtor or a slave. This rule emphasises the principle of marriage presented in Fasal 4. The woman whose debt is paid becomes neither a slave nor a mengiring debtor but a free wife. Thus the logic of the articulation is not only plausible but the fasal in the financial section clarifies and emphasises the relationship in the marriage fasal. Furthermore, the 4-30 numerical relation is an extension of the logic of the 3-4-14 manipulations. The basic principle of the 3-4-14 manipulation required the addition of the affix -belas to onc element of the 3-4 sequencc. Thus, tiga-empat became tiga-empatbelas. The linguistic affixation of belas to empat meant an arithmetic addition of ten to four. The structure of the five marriage fasals implies areverse sequence from empat to tiga (4 to 30). The articulation to the debt section suggests that empat to tiga becomes empat to tiga puluh (4 to 30). In both cases something is added to

OF THE LAWS

one member of the sequence. The ad dit ion is both linguistic and arith- mctical. In the 4 to 30 manipulation the word for ten (puluh) is added and not thc affix that implies the arithmetic addition of ten (belas). However, adding the word for ten to tiga yields tiga puluh which is thc Malay word for 30. Thus, the manipulation involves hricoleurean gamc playing with the relations between thc linguistic representation of numbers and the arithmetic values of linguistic features. By adding belas or puluh to a word, one is adding ten in two different ways: one linguistically, thc other arithmetically.

(

(

( ) 35 ( ) 36

( ) 37

DIAGRAM 2.8

In the financial section Fasal 39 is the fasal that structurally precedes Fasal 30. Further, Fasal 4 is preceded hy Fasal 3 in the marriage section. Thus to complete the connexions between the two sections, Fasal 3 should be articulated to Fasal 39. The basic principle of semendo merda-

oW summarises the major relationships between the marriage and financial sections.

The Internal Structure ot Fasals 30-39

The fasals of the financial section not only articulate with those of the marriage section; they also possess a structure in their own right. While dus structure is more or less independent of the articulation structure, it is less elegant and is secondary to the relations hased on the articulation with the marriage section. The structure of the ten fasals (30-39) is based on one major opposition, a system of back referencing, and the use of structural symmetry. Fasals 30 and 31 are conceptually bound together. Fasal 31, dealing with interest, refers back to Fasal 30, the first fasal on debts. In an identical manner Fasal 35, dealing with slave children, refers back to Fasal 34, the first fasal dealing with slavery. The symmetry of these two patterns is underscored by the fact that Fasal 31 deals with anak wang (literally, the children of money) and Fasal 35 deals with anak emas (literally, the children of gold). Fasals 30 and 31 are concerned with the relations between free men. Fasals 34 and 35 are concerned with slavel)'. This opposition between free and non-free is the basic opposition of this block of fasals. Fasals 32 and 33 both deal with categories involving free men. Fasal 32 prohibits the sale of persons and Fasal 33 deals with the wage-work relationship. Fasals 36 and 37 present bondage relationships. Fasal 36 deals with sexual relations with another man's slave and Fasal 37 with mengiring debtors. Since the first four fasals all belong to the same element of the basic opposition, it is reasonable to assume that the second four fasals form a discrete unit dealing with bondage or non-free relationships. Thus two blocks of four fasals are indicated: one consists of Fasals 30, 31, 32, and 33; the other of Fasals 34, 35, 36, and 37. In each block the first and last

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

fasals introduce a new category of legitimate financial relations between individuals. In the first block simple debt and wage relations form the extrernities and in the second block slaves and mengiring debtors form the extrernities. This structural opposition between center and extremity is the same as that used in the five fasal marriage structurc. While a frequently occuring phenomenon in South Sumatran fasal structures, its use in the Code of Laws is of more basic significance than is usual. Within the second block there is a complex system of back referencing th at does not exist within the first block. Fasal 35 refers back to Fasal 34. Fasal 36 refers back to the unit establishcd by Fasals 34 and 35. Thus, in one sense, Fasals 34, 35, and 36 form a single unit by virtue of their back reference pattern. Fasal 38 refers back to Fasals 34 and 37 in that it refers to the use of slaves (Fasal 34) and mengiring debtors (Fasal 37) without the master's permission. Fasal 38, however, is not part of the unit formed by Fasals 34, 35, 36, and 37. Two structural features argue against its inclusion in the block. First, the initial structural unit has only four fasals, th us the sccond block is more likely to contain four than five fasals. Secondly, the principle of introducing new categories of financial relationships at the extremities of a structural unit indicates that Fasal 37 is at a structural boundary. Fasal 38's somewhat anomalous position is clarified by Fasal 39. It has been previously argued that Fasal 39 is transposed to the beginning of the section. Since the bebelah relationship implies a simple debt relation as weil as working for someone else but retaining same profit, it refers to Fasals 30 and 33. Thus Fasals 38 and 39 both refer to the extrernity categories of the blocks with which they are most closely associated. Thus, this system of referencing lends additional structural weight to the extremity versus center opposition and underscores the basic division of the section into two blocks opposed to each other by the freejnonfree opposition.

The Conclusion: Fasals 40-42

The Code of Laws concludes with three fasals that do not form a single conceptual unit.

FASAL 40 Fasal 40 is entitled "orangyang tidak diterima hakirn jadi syaksi dengan tidak diterima dia bersurnpah" (persons who are not to be accepted by a judge as witnesses and who may not swear an oath). The blind, the deaf, and the insane are unacceptable as witnesses.

he a witness even if he wishes to testify on his master's hehalf. Furthermore, close family (kaum yang dekat) may not be witnesses. These rules also apply to the swearing of oaths. If an accusation is denied then the accuser is obligcd to provide witnesses. And when the witnesses testify under oath, the accused loses the case. If there are no witnesses then the accused may clear himself by swearing an oath. These rules are equally valid in major or minor proceedings.

This fasal provides information on legal procedure as opposed to conceptual categories. In th is respect it is similar to Fasals 1 and 2, which deal with the procedures for marriage and engagement. The only fasal which is conceptually related to Fasal 40 is Fasal 24, which deals with perjury. However, the most important structural feature of this fasal is that it separates 32 Fasal 41 from the financial section. Thus, the fasaI's function is that of a structural insulator. 33 FASAL 41

34Fasal 41 is entitled "hukum orang mengaku (

utang orang" (the law concerning people who

35 accept responsibility for another person's debts).

There are three types of such acceptance. In the

36first the guarantor assumes responsibility for the

payment of the debt only if the debtor absconds. In the second the guarantor assumes re spon- sibility for the payment of the debt if the debtor absconds or dies. In the third, the guarantor assumes responsibility for the payment of the debt but is not responsible for payment if thc debtor absconds or dies. A formal contract of DIAGRAM 2.941 the exact responsibility should he drawn up and signed by the guarantor.42

This fasal is a good example of the phenomenon which I shall refer to as a displaced structural element. While concerned with debt relations it is not part of the financial section. This displacement or separation from that section is substantiated by two features. First, the structure of the financial section is closed and complete. Especially rele\'ant is

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

the transposition of Fasal 39 to the beginning of that section, thus effectively closing the sequence. Secondly, Fasal 40 is between Fasal 41 and the entire financial section. By its lack of conceptual links with the material on either side of it, Fasal 40 effectively isolates Fasal 41 from the financial section. This isolation sllggests that Fasal 41 is not only part of the financial section but also it must relate primarily to another section. The most important specific reference to acknowledgement (mengaku) of another person's debts occllrs in Fasal 3. In semendo merdaltika sama merdahika only those debts which are acknowledged by bath par ties are to be paid jointly. Thus, the principles of Fasal 41 are needed for the interpretation of Fasal 3. Furthermore, Fasal 3 is the nucleus of all numerical maniplliations. Fasal 3 contains specific instructions to proceed to Fasal 14. But the connection sllggested here indicates that the digits of the number fourteen should be reversed. Thus another numerical manipulation is present. The basic numerical sequence 3 to 4 was changed to 3 to 14. In turn the product of the first manipulation is changed again to yield 3 to 41. The 3 to 14 and 4 to 30 manipulations were based on a juggling of the arithmetic and linguistic features of the numerical system. This final manipulation involves a reversal of the digits of the number fourteen, or more precisely, the number is to be read backwards. This manipulation is based on a curious feature of Arabic writing. Texts written in Arabic script must he read from right to left. Numhers, however, must be read from left to right. Thus the actual writing in the text requires a reversal of the normal reading sequence when reading numbers. Thus the manipulation rule is not a reversal of the digits but a failure to reverse the normal reading sequence. Indeed, in reading texts written in Arabic script, this is an error that is very easy to make. Thus the 3-41 manipulation adds the characteristics of the writing system to the arithmetical and linguistic features of the numher system as subjects for bricoleurean game playing.

FASAL 42 Fasal 42 is entitled "sebab gedaian" (concerning the pawning of objects). Anyone who pawns objects whose value is five reals or more must appear befare the magistrate. Failure to do sa results in the loss of the money and the impounding of the object.

This fasal has no particular significance and relates neither implicitly nor explicitly to another fasal. The only noteworthy feature of this fasal is the use of the English word magistrate. lts only possible structural

On the other hand, the

complexity of the structural relations between the categories offers a wide range of structural features that are essential to the understanding of South Sumatran legal codes. lndeed, the structure is more important than the contents of the fasals, which by themselves are in no way remarkable. The structure gives meaning to the content by tuming a mere catalogue of customs into a coherent legal statement. The relative importance of the structure versus the elemental values of the fasals underscores the basic rule of all structural analyses: the relationships between the elements are more important than the elements themselves. This structure also establishes the fundamental premise of this analysis which may be taken as a corollary of the basic rule of all structural analyses: The patteming of the fasals reveals the oppositional logic of the laws.

CHAPTER 2 -NOTES

A homeoteleuton is an error based on similar endings in two neighbouring words, clauses or lines of writing. Thus one of ten finds that a scribe has omitted a passage because he has Ie ft oH copying at one word grouping and has begun again at another similar one, omitting the portion between the two similar phrases or word endings. The reverse error also occurs, i.e., the scribe may repeat a passage basing the doubling back on the similarity of phrases. 2 According to the Commission taking over British possessions this Report is dated October 1815 (Van der Kemp, 1894, p.529). 3 Henceforth this manuscript will be referred to as the Commentative Digest. The page references are to the published text which in most cases is an accurate reproduction of the original. 4 The objective basis of this practical experience is difficuIt to assess. First, certain pragmatic factors made the dictionary relatively easy to use. The exhaustive cross-checking that is necessary while using Helfrich's dictionary,

OF THE LAWS

due to a perverse lack of consistency and an exasperating number of corrections and additions (including corrections to the corrections and additions to the additions), is not necessary when using Marsden. Further, it was one of the few complete English language dictionaries using Arabic script. While the language factor may have influenced me to use the dictionary more frequently, the use of a certain amount of now archaic English may have dissuaded other scholars from its use. In addition to these pragmatic considerations, the dictionary contains entries not to he found in other dictionaries. 5 These contemporary sources are by no means the only ones. The voluminous Sumatra Factory Records are another good source. However, those mentioned above are of special significance for their richness of anthropological detail and relative lack of Ie ss interesting material from an anthropological point of view. A historian would undoubtedly make a different selection. 6 Another account of the same story is to be found in Appendix A of The Proceedings of the Agricultural Society (Proceedings A, pp.14-16). The main points of both accounts agree, having only minor variations in detail. However, the above, based on a copy of a manuscript, seems to he more complete, especially with regard to genealogical detail. 7 Accounts and further information on the murder can he found in the following sources: Kathirithamby-Wells, 1973; Bastin, 1965; Proceedings 111, pp. 28-33; Travers, p. 102 f.; Lady Raffles, 1830, pp. 301-303; Heyne, 1814; Spencer, 1948. 8 For a discussion of the interpretation of this passage c.f. Bastin, 1965, p. 2 n.; Wink, 1926, p. 66 n. 9 On the actual make-up of Sungai Hitam Francis displays an appalling lack of consistency. Francis, 1839, p.97 "1. Lamba Selapan; 2. Perwatien anablas- die Tape, Aijer and Dari"; Francis, 1842, p.414 "Lamba Slapan, Porwatien-Doewablas, Tapie Aijer and Diedarat"; Francis, 1856a, 11, p.85 "Lamba-Slapan, Porwatien-Doewablas, Tapie-Aijer and Diedarat"; Francis, 1860,

p. 54 "1. Lamba Selapan; 2. Perwatien anamblas die Tape, Aijer and Dari".
10 In the text printed in 1821 part of the conclusion appears as a direct continuation of Fasal 42. De Perez (1849, p. 284) alters this pattern in rus translation. Van den Berg (1894, p. 224) alters the pattern of the original in his text and uses this new form in his translation (Van den Berg, 1894,

p. 300). However, the manuscript TLVK, M-XLV Cod. 210, OR 94 preserves the form of the printed text. While visually part of Fasal 42, this portion of the conclusion refers conceptually to all the fasals as a single entity and not specifically to Fasal 42. Thus, there may be an error in the Lewis text at this point.
11 The error may be based on a homeoteleuton. However, the form with the error still can be read though its meaning is different from the original. 12 The only major difference between this version and the first edition of Marsden's History of Sumatra is the spelling of Malay words, e.g. jujur joojoor; ambel-anak = ambelano; semando = semundo; and mardiko = mardeeko (Marsden's History, 1783, p. 193). 13 This manuscript (Cod. Or. 12.207) while providing material relevant to the present study also contains a large numher of fasals relating only to European administrative practices. The mode of analysis being employed here is not appropriate to this sort of text. Thus, while it will be used as a source, it does not properly be long to the corpus of data of this analysis. 14 Unless the original Malay is quoted all the resumés of fasal material will be summaries of the main points that relate to the analysis or are of general comparative interest.

"hantaran" and "belanja", the De Perez translation (1849, p. 257) uses the single term "blandja antaran". 17 For Islamic conceptions of these terms c.f. Gibb and Kramers, 1965 -IMÄM,

p. 165 f. and KHATIB, p. 251 f.
18 The word "priest" is used here only to indicate the one who officiates at the marriage ceremony and should not be taken to infer the existence of a priest- hood. The use of the word "priest" is intended to circumvent the problems of ambiguity associated with the English verb to marry. In the text the forms menikahkan, dinikahkan, and nikahkan are used to denote the actions of the one who officiates at the marriage ceremony (e.g. orang yang menikahkan itu = the person who marries, i.e., the priest, orang yang dinikahkan itu = the person who is married, i.e., by the priest, and aku nikahkan angkau dengan sianu = I (the priest) marry you (the groom) to so and so (the bride). On the other hand, the form nikah is used to denote the actions of the married coup Ie (e.g. aku nikah dengan sianu = I (the groom) marry with so and so (the bride). 19 The text says that the payment may be made at the time of the marriage together with the wang pengantar. But from the entire context of Fasal 1 the antaran is paid before the marriage, otherwise the provision for changing one's mind (berupah) makes no sense. De Perez bends his translation of the text, writing that the isi ka win may he paid at the offering of the antaran, at marriage, or upon divorce (De Perez, 1849, p.258). 20 The reference here is to mengiring debtor, a special type of bondage relationship that is discussed in detail in Fasal 37. 21 C.f. also Van der Tuuk, 1899, Vol. 11, p. 839, tungga bapa = bij zijn vader verblijf houden, i.e., to reside with one's father. 22 Since 6 + 7 = 13 this may form one link. While not probable, given the degree of numerical manipulation encountered in this and other laws, such a relation is within the range of possibility. 23 Though the specification of three months and ten days (or one hundred days) is technically a deviation from Koranic principles it is nevertheless frequently found in the Islamic areas of Southeast Asia (JuynboIl, p. 189; c.f. also Djamour, 1965, pp. 110, 113; Djamour, 1966, p. 138; Wilkinson, 1959, p. 296). 24 The fasals use ordinal numbers. Thus the 1-11 relation does not correspond exactly to the others; "first" being "yang pertarna", while "eleventh" is "yang kesabelas". 25 The text is not completely clear on the kin group referred t~. The text says "anak cucunya". De Perez (1849, p. 264) does not mention how the amount was determined. Van den Berg (1894, p. 283) says the reference group is "the daughters and granddaughters of the parents-in-Iaw". 26 Kampung here probably means "yard" and not "hamiet" as is more usual. The same usage also occurs in Fasal 3. 27 "Tuiigal nënëk" means a single grandparent (usually the grandfather on the father's side). 28 An interesting comparative aspect of these rules can be developed when the two sets of rules are presented in standard notation.

Jujur Assumption Ambil Anak Assumption

FBD NO FBD=YES FZD NO FZD NO MBD=YES MBD=YES MZD=YES MZD NO

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

The only marriage that is always allowed is MBD marriage and the only marriage that is never allowed is FZD marriage. Thus the two sets of marriage rules based on two principles of descent have a latent feature resulting from their combination that at least suggests a principle of matrilateral cross-cousin marriage. This latent feature would he of only passing interest if it were not for the fact that De Josselin de Jong argues that the matrilateral cross-cousin marriage system of the Minangkabau implies a system of double unilineal descent (De Josselin de Jong, 1951, pp. 82-91). 29 The Québec Act of 1774 provides an interesting example by which a colonial power made a distinction between criminal and civillaw. According to Wade, 1968, Vol. I, p.64 "All future disputes as to property and civil I'ights were to be determined according to the 'Laws and Customs of Canada', the old French civil law, ... on the other hand, the criminal law of England was to be retained as a whoie, to the exclusion of French crimina! law". This principle of jurisdictional difference was incorporated into sections 91, 92, and 94 of the British North America Act of 1867, a statute of the British parliament that still functions as the constitution of Canada; c.f. Laskin, 1951, pp.I-12. 30 Van den Berg, 1894, pp. 215, 290 misreads memukau as memukul and thus asserts that the second portion of this fasal deals with striking a person. 31 Klinkert, 1947, p. 248 describes setawar as a shrub with medicinal leaves and roots, the latter being used to prepare the tepoeng ta war. 32 The fact that "the matter ends there" is denoted in the text by the phrase "kerbau menanduk kerbau lalu" (= lit. the buffalo gores, the buffalo passes) without further elaboration. Fasals 18 and 19 of the "old portion" of Oendang Oendang Seloema in Cod. Or. 12.200 present a detailed discussion of the concept under the name "kerbau menanduk kerbau pergi" (= lito the buffalo gores, the buffalo goes). These fasals c1early establish that the concept imp lies that the person injured or killed assumed the risk of being gored by the buffalo and thus the owner is not held liable. 33 The text of the Adatrechtbundel incorrectly has "Janam" in place of "Fanam" which is in the manuscript version. 34 This is the interpretation given by De Perez (1849, p. 277). Van den Berg (1894, p. 295) however, interprets this passage as meaning that the man must pay half the value of his wife in addition to his own value as a slave, i.e., he must pay one and a half times the value of the woman. 35 Both the Van den Berg (1899, p. 294 f.) and De Perez (1849, p. 277} trans-Iations of this fasal involve considerable interpretative judgment on the meaning of the rules of credit with respect to slaves. The fasal itself is not explicit on who might lend a slave money nor for what purpose. From the context it may be assumed the slave borrows to purchase his release from the second slavery. Of the two translations Van den Berg's is suspect on a numher of points and De Perez' is very interpretative but in this case De Perez' is the more accurate assessment of the contents. 36 Another numerical relationship is that six times six equals thirty-six. The importance of the number six in certain other laws will be developed below;

c.f. Sungai Lemau laws, p. 154.
37 The Commentative Digest indicates that this rule governing the children of mengiring debtors was a recent innovation; such children were formerly also baund by their parents' debt relationship (Commentative Digest, p. 305). 38 Interestingly, the Lais laws mention a reform concerning the amounts to be paid by mengiring debtors who flee. Previously, the amount that a woman had to pay was double that for a man. By the reform bath amounts were

105

fixed at the same amount, i.e., three fanams per day (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 224). 39 William Marsden mentions another type of debt relation which is not mentioned in the Code of Laws but appears to be a variant form of the mengiring principle. "Meranggau is the condition of a married woman who remains as a pledge for a debt in the house of the creditor of her husband. IC any attempt should be made upon her person, the proof of it annuls the debt ... " (Marsden's History, 1811, p.253). Elsewhere (Marsden's Dictionary, 1812,

p.322) Marsden defines meranggau as "to remain (a married woman) as a pledge for a debt in the house of acreditor" and gives the following example: "Perampüan örang ïang düduk meranggau ütang, the man's wife who remained as a pledge for the debt." The significant feature of this form is that it is a debt relation between two individuals entailing a form of bondage upon a third. Viewed in this way it shares certain formal properties with slavery which is a financial transaction between two individuals entailing bondage on a third. However, the meranggau relationship is explicitly concerned with debts. Of special interest is the fact that this debt relation bears certain deceptive similarities with jujur marriage when this marriage form is viewed as involving debt-like obligations between the husband and the wife's parents. Thus it is of more than passing interest to note th at this form of debt relation existed but was not even mentioned in the Code of Laws.
40 Diagram 2.8 suggests another numeri cal relationship, i.e., 13 times 3 = 39. That is, the two tiga numbers multiplied together yield the first and last number of the financial scction. The validity of this relationship is unverifi- able, however. On the other hand, the existence of other manipulations indicates that this relationship may not be accidental. In general, when dealing with numerical rnanipulations it is difficult to be certain which relations are antecedent and which are consequent. A certain manipulation will usually create other secondary ones automatically. Due to the nature of the number sys.tem, it is difficult to be certain where the intentional manipulation occurred. 41 The back reference by Fasal 36 to the unit formed by Fasals 34 and 35 is omitted from Diagram 2.9 so that the symmetry of the other structural relations can be more clearly seen. 42 The text of the Code of Laws apparently contains an error at the beginning of the second type. Van den Berg's correction of the text (1894, p.223 n.) seerns reasonable.

THE SUNGAI LEMAU LAWS

The mansucript In this analysis bears the name "Kitab Ondang-Oendang" [sic] (The Book of Laws). lts catalogue name is "Oendang Oendang Benkaoeloe" (The Laws of Bengkulu, Cod. Or. 12.206). The manuscript itself contains three distinct legal codes bound together with a single title page which lists the various sections. Section 1 is entitled "Soengij Lemoûw"; Section 2, "Soengij Itam"; and Sections 3 and 4 "Tandjoeng Aûûr, Selebar". ''''hile the title page indicates that there are four sections, there are actually only three. What was intended to he sections 3 and 4 was written as a single unit. '!be manuscript is a copy of three different sources with different dates. It is written in Romanized Malay and the handwriting, when compared with other manuscripts from the region, is unusually clear.

The Signatories to the Laws

The introduction to the Sungai Lemau portion indicates that the laws were prepared at the request of the Dutch authorities. This section mentions a specific letter of request dated 8 June 1855. The text itself Was written in Bengkulu on 7 July 1855. The Sungai Lemau portion concludes with three names meant to be signatures: "Regent Soengij Lemau en Oeloe Benkoeloe Pangerang Mohamad Sah, Radja Aijnsa divisie soengij Lemau, id (i.e. Radja) Mankoeta Alam divisie oeloe Benkoeloe". The introduction of the text gives different spellings for two of these names: "Radja Aijansa" and "Radja Mangoeta Alam". The govemment Almanak for 1855 confirms these names and positions: Pangeran Moehamad Sah -regent of "Soengij Lemau" and "Oeloe Benkoelen"; Radja Aijensah -division head (divisiehoofd) of "Soengie Lemouw"; and "Radja Menkotto Alam -titular division head of Oeloe Benkoeloe". Pangerang Linggang Alam, who formerly ruled Sungai Lemau, died in July 1833. The position remained unfilled for a time with "Radjah Poetoe Nagara" carrying out his father' duties (Francis, 1856a, pp. 88 f.). By a govemmental decree dated 3 August 1836, this son acquired

-l ::I: t'l Ul Sah I §2 ~
....
t'" tt1 is: > c Pangeran Li nggang Alam ~ ::;: Ul

Pangeran Mohamad Sah]I Raja Mangku Alam

Haja Ayensah o "'"

DIAGRAM 3.1

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

his father's position and took the title Pangeran Mohamad Sah (Van Ophuijsen, 1862, p.] 95). Thus the highest ranking signatory to this law was the son and successar of one of the authors of the Code of Laws. In the genealogy provided by Van Ophuijsen one "Radja Aijenza" (= Raja Ayensah) was the grandson of Pangeran Linggang Alam and was to have been Mohamad Sah lI's successar. Raja Ayensah was not Mohamad Sah lI's son but his sister's son. Mohamad Sah lI's sister apparently married a certain Sutan Bagindo by ambil anak. Bath of Sutan Bagindo's parents were patrilineal descendants in separate lines of two sons of Pangeran Raja Muda. Neither of these sans inherited their father's title. Raja Muda was Mohamad Sah lI's father's mother's father's father and the first holder of the title of Pangeran of Sungai Lemau. Thus while Raja Ayensah's claim on his uncle's title is necessarily based on his mother's ambil anak marriage, his father was a direct patrilineal descendant of the first person in the family to hear the title of Pangeran. Thus, the second signatory to this portion of the law was the grandson of Pangerang Linggang Alam, a signer of the Code of Laws. Unfortunately the background of the third individual is less clear. First there is the problem of the actual name of this person. Two sources give three spellings: "Radja Mankoeta Alam" (text), "Radja Mangoeta Alam" (text), and "Radja Menkotto Alam" (Governmental Almanak,

1855). Given the identity of the other persons associated with this section it is probable that he was some relative of Mohamad Sah. However, the only name in the Van Ophuijsen genealogy that even approximates the names above is "Radja Mangkoe Alam", Mohamad Sah's brother. Thus the Sungai Lemau portion of this law set was signed by three persons, two of whom were certainly direct descendants of Pangeran Linggang Alam, who signed the Code of Laws. Of the three Mohamad Sah was the most influential, having an uncontested claim on his title and officially acknowledged by the Dutch. As a local scholar he was of impressive stature, having written an extensive history of Bengkulu which is neatly divided into fasals (c.f. Van Ronkel, 1909, p. 280). According to official sources, in 1861 he requested that the position of Regent of Sungai Lemau no longer be filled. However, the position Was not officially withdrawn until 1878 (Wink, 1926, p. 68). The Sungai Hitam portion of this law set is dated 30 June 1855. However, there are no signatures or names at the conclusion of the text. The Governmental Almanak for 1855 mentions two names associated with Sungai Hitam. "Pangeran Bangsa Negara" is listed as Regent of

SUNGAI LEMAU LA WS 109

"Soengie Itam" and "Radja Chalipa" is listed as titular head of division for the Regency of "Soengie I tam". When the previous Pangeran of Sungai Hitam died in September 1829 the choice of successar was uncertain. The matter was still unresolved when this text was written. Two of the farmer Pangeran's sons were the chief claimants. Pangeran Bangsa Negara held the title but one of his older brothers held the family papers (Van Ophuijsen, 1862, p. 196). Thus in all likelihood this portion of the law set was also drawn up by one of the sons of Raja Khalipa, who himself had been a signatory to the Code of Laws. The third section of the law is dated 31 July 1855 and signed by "Daing Makoleh". His position is given in the text as "Divisiehoofd Andelas Soengij Keroe en Lima boea Bada". This is the same as that given in thc 1855 Governmental Almanak. It is probable that this Buginese was the son of Daeng Mabéla who signed the Code of Laws. While Daeng Mabéla's family history does not mention a son, it does reveal a patterning of names. The original Buginese who left the Celebes was Daeng Marupa. The sequence of his successors is Daeng Mabéla, Daeng Makuleh, Daeng Marupa, and Daeng Mabéla. This sequence suggests that a man takes the name of his greatgrandfather. Daeng Makuleh, as in this text, would be the appropriate name for Daeng Mabéla's son if the sequence were to be extended.1Thus Daeng Makuleh was certainly a descendant of Daeng Mabéla and was most likely his son. Though Daeng Makuleh held a post of some responsibility he had none of the power and influence of Daeng Mabéla because the Dutch had greatly curtailed the authority of the Buginese in genera!. Thus all three sections of this law were signed by descendants and probably the sons of all the native signatories to the Code of Laws. If one accepts this connexion as being a dominant influence in the composition of this later law, certain peculiarities can be explained. The three dated sections of the manuscript are not in temporal sequence. The first is dated 7 July 1855, the second 30 June 1855, and the third 31 July 1855. The ordering, however, is that of the formal ranking of the men who signed the Code of Laws. The Pangeran of Sungai Lemau takes precedence over the Pangeran of Sungai Hitam. Both of these were followed by Daeng Mabéla. Thus the inversion of the first two sections appears to be based on the relative seniority of the title holders. A second point concerns the last section. Included in this section is the district of Silebar. The 1855 Governmental Almanak gives the name "Pangeran Natta dhi Radja" as "pangeran van Selebar". The question is: Why does Daeng Makuleh's name occur at the end of the text, and

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

not that of the Pangeran, or minimaIly, the two names together? On the one hand, there may have been the de sire to create something equivalent to the Code of Laws. On the other hand, these men were members of the families who had framed another major code and had been largely responsible for its application and interpretation.

Contemporary Sourees The most important textual aid for these manuscripts is a report by

J. E. van den Bor dated 14 September 1855. The contents and date of this report indicate that this set of three laws was used to compile his study. The full title of the report is "Kort overzigt van de inrigting des binnenlandschen bestuurs en van de wetten, gewoonten en instellingen in de afdeeling Ommelanden van Benkoelen" (A brief overview of the structure of the internal government, and of laws, cu stoms and institutions in the district Environs of Benkulen). This report is bound together with six others forming a single manuscript (TL VK. H813c). As the authorship and dating of these reports is important the full list derived from the reports themselves and the 1856 Governmental Almanak 2 is presented below.
1. Benkoelen 14 September 1855 J. E. van den Bor (Bengkulu)
2. Lais 31 August 1855 C. B. J. Sausin
3. Mocco-Mocco 31 July 1855 N. Hewetson & Regent (Mukomuko) of Mocco-Mocco
4. Seloema 17 July 1855 A. Pruijs van der Hoeven (Seluma)
5. Manna 24 June 1855 J. van DuIken
6. Kauer 16 August 1855 A. J. Kluijver (Kawur)
7. Kroe no date M. J. A. Arnold (Krui) All of these reports except the one dealing with Mukomuko were published in BKI 8, 1862, pp. 255-316. However, the names and dates were not published or were not made available to the editors of the Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde. As aresult, the author-

SUNGAI LEMAU LA WS 111

ship of these reports is of ten mistakenly assigned to J. Abegg, from whom the piece was ultimately received (e.g. Hazairin, 1936, p. 223; Wellan and Helfrich,3 1923, p. 204). The Mukomuko text, which was not published, is a very inaccurate copy. Other more accurate versions of this Malay language text are found at the Leiden University Library, Cod. Or. 12.217 and at the Royal Institute of Linguistics and Anthropology (TLVK M-XLIV). The close dating of these reports and the texts indicate that a systematic investigation was being carried out by the Dutch authorities. However, the legal codes from the Environs of Benkulen indicate that the Dutch had not yet begun to impose either their own legal notions or, more importantly, the manner in which the text was written. Van den Bor's report, in addition to providing a resumé of the material in the three legal codes, offers useful background information which elucidates the relations between the authors. In particular there is a detailed account of the composition of the Council of Headmen in the Environs of Benkulen (De raad der hoofden in de Ommelanden van Benkoelen) (Van den Bor, 1862, p. 258 L). In the Govemmental Almanaks the Council is referred to as the "Pangerangs-Raad" (the Pangeran's Council).4 There were three main categories of membership: Members, Substitute Members, and Advisory Members. The titles and positions given in the report may be easily correlated to other data. The Members in 1855 were Pangeran Mohamad Sah, Pangeran Bangsa Negara, Raja Ayensah, and the Dato of the Pasar of Bengkulu.5The Substitute Members were Raja "Menkotto" Alam and Raja Khalipa. The Advisory Members were Daeng Makuleh and the Pangeran of Silebar. The identity of substitute members helps to clarify the status of Raja Menkoto Alam. He must have been of sufficient rank and rather closely related to Pangeran Mohamad Sah if he was to act as his replacement. The other Substitute Member, Raja Khalipa, was the brother of Pangeran Bangsa Negara, a full Member. This lends further support to the possibility that Raja Menkoto Alam was Mohamad Sah's brother. The Advisory Members had the right to participate in council decisions only when persons from their own territory were directly involved. The procedure for the division of fines imposed by tbe Council provides a numerical statement on the relative status of the various members. If a subject of one of the Advisory Members was fined less than twenty-five guilders, the full amount went directly to the concerned headman. If the amount was more than twenty-five guilders half was

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

added to the Council's treasury. This treasury was divided into fifteen equal shares. The two Pangerans who were full members each received four shares. Raja Ayensah received three shares and thc Dato of the Pasar of Bengkulu and the chicf priest each received two shares. A substitute memher's share was based on the number of times he sat on the Council, and was deducted from the share of the member whom he was representing (Van den Bor, 1862, p. 259 f.). The logic of this division follows a pattern which recurs in South Sumatra. This pattern is based on two fundamental principles. First, an even number can he divided into two equal portions. Second, an odd numher cannot he divided into equal portions without resorting to fractions; however, an odd number can he divided into two unequal portions sa that the difference hetween the greater and lesser portion is one. For example, 4 = 2 + 2 and 5 = 2 + 3. From these two principles two rules of division are generated: an even number is to he divided equally and an odd numher is to be divided sa that the difference between the portions is one. These rules, successively applied, generate the final division of an amount of money into shares. From these successive divisions a series of equalities and inequalities can be formulated. While the equality relation spe aks for itself the inequality relation is such that the rel at ion is minimally unequal. That is, the logie of social relations required an inequality but a countervailing principle required that the inequality be as small as possible.6These rules, when applied to the fifteen shares to be divided, lead to the pattern of successive division presented in Diagram 3.2.

The inequality relations suggested by this division are as follows. The share of the two Pangerans together is greater than the combined shares of the other participants. However, the Pangerans' shares are equal to each other. The share of the Dato plus that of the high priest is greater than that of Raja Ayensah. But the Dato and the high priest

LEMAU LA WS 113

are to share equally. The pattern is such that Raja Ayensah receives a smaller share than either of the Pangerans.7 While the direct influence of the Dutch on the structure of the laws was minimal, there was an important indirect effect. The Dutch administrative divisions did not always follow linguistic, ethnic, or legal boundaries. By requesting a legal code for one of these administrative units, the Dutch were posing a problem of ten alien to local legal thought. However, as long as the colonial authorities remained aloof from the process of codification, the solution to this artificial problem was a native one. Indeed, the solutions to these alien problems of ten reveal a dimension of legal logic that would remain hidden if the setting of tbe problem had always confonned to local social reality. According to Van den Bor thc district (afdeeling) Environs of Bengkulu were divided into six subdistricts (distrikten) : "Soengei Lemauw, Oeloe Benkoeloe, Soengei Itam, Andelas Soengei Kroe, Lima Boea Bada and the territory of Selébar". Sungai Itam was further divided into four smaller units (onderdistrikten): "Soengei Itam, Lembah Selapan, Proatin doea bIas di darat, and Proatin doea bIas te pi aijer" (Van den Bor, 1862, p. 255). In the region Van den Bor demarcates three linguistic groups. Rejang was spoken in Sungai Lemau and Ulu Bengkulu, Lembah in Sungai Hitam, except in the territory of Proatin XII di darat, whose inhabitants were named "Boe lang" and spoke a distinct dialect. Serawai was spoken in Andelas Sungai Krui and Lima Bua Bada. These last two districts fonnerly belonged to the territory of the Pangeran of Silebar but were at the time administered separately. The Pangeran controlled only the four Pasars of Silebar where Malay was spoken (Van de"n Bor, 1862,

p. 256). This partition into three linguistic groups S involves two oppositions of different order. Lembah and Serawai are different dialects of the language usually referred to as Middle Malay. Rejang, however, is a language different from Malay. Though dosely related to Malay Rejang possesses both phonological and morphological structures that are distinct from those of Malay. lts vocabulary, however, is strongly infuenced by Malay (Voorhoeve, 1955, p. 20). However, in the gross division of the law text into sections this distinction between languages and dia Ie cts is not employed. Nevertheless, these three linguistic divisions provide an important distinction between the sections and fonn one of the main criteria by which the three sections can be differentiated. Furthermore, the identity and rank of the people who signed the sections provide a

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

fonnal statement not only of the relations between the men themselves but also of the relations between linguistic, ethnic, territorial and legal groupings.

The Sungai Lemau Law

The Sungai Lemau portion of this law set contains twenty-five numbered fasals preceded by an introductory paragraph. This intro .. duction lists the persons involved and the reasons for writing the text. In addition to the three individuals discussed above the Proatins, Passiras and Pambarabs of Ulu Sungai Lemau and Ulu Bengkulu were also present. The object of the gathering was to draw up the "Oendang Oendang dalam redjang ampat patoelaij" 9 (The laws of the four rejang clans) which had been used in Ulu Sungai Lemau and Ulu Bengkulu. This was done at the request of "Toean Ambtenaar Ommelanden" (i.e., J. E. van den Bor). The first five fasals form a single structural unit. Their main function in the law's structure is to fill the space between the beginning and Fasal 6, the key to both the marriage section and the entire law. This unit does, however, have its own internal structure which is similar to, but independent of, the structure of the other twenty fasals. The basic unifying theme of these fasals is the proper relationships between headmen and other individuals. The block may be divided into two similar units containing two and three fasals respectively. The first two fasals deal with the relative ranking of titled individu als and the last three fasals of the block deal with the relationships between headmen (kepala kepala) and lower ranking individuals.

FASAL 1 Fasal 1 states th at proatins are responsible for settling the affairs of state (perkara negri) in their respective villages (dusun). The fasal concludes with a ranked list of titles: first, depatis; second, pemangku; third, anak dalam; fourth, Raja Depati with the elders (orang tua tua). FASAL 2 Fasal 2 simply lists the titles of the headmen in each "merga". First there is the "Passira"; second, Pambarab; third, "Proatin Patikkan" (elected proatins); fourth, Pemangkus; fifth, anak dalam; sixth, Raja Depati. All those who are not in this list are the subjects (anak buah) of the Proatins who obey the government (prenta = perentah).

The opposition between Fasals 1 and 2 is one between village (dusun) and marga (margo, mergo, merga). The precise significance of the word

SUNGAI LEMAU LA WS 115

marga is difficult to evaluate. On the one hand, the tenn may be used to denote a territorially based clan and on the other, it may be applied to any administrative unit without re gard to descent relations among the inhabitants. An extreme example of this latter usage is the use of the expression "margo kauer" to refer to the afdeeling Kauer (the region of Kauer), which was only a Dutch administrative unit of the Residency Bengkulu (TLVK-H813d-i). Though the Dutch clearly favoured the notion of a purely territorial unit this implication cannot be completely attributed to European influence. When describing marriage forms there is a tendency on the part of native writers to vacillate between, or entirely confound, the descent and residence implications of a particular marriage form. For the sake of convenience it is best to view the marga as an aggregation of closely related villages. The basis of this close relation may be territorialor genealogical, depending on the context and/or the particular emphasis which a writer wishes to give. The list of titles in Fasal 2 simply extends th at of Fasal 1 by placing the ti ties of Passira and Pambarab at the head of the shorter list. This implies that the first ti tie of Fasal 1 (depati) is equivalent to the third title of Fasal 2 (proatin). While Van den Bor's report tends to inter-change the terms freely there is a specific difference between the two terms. "The dupatis belonging to each river ... meet in a judicial capacity at the kwalo, where the European factory is established, and are then distinguished by the name of proattïn" (Marsden's History, 1811,

p. 210). The usage in Fasals 1 and 2 is parallel to this principle. A village headman is a depati when acting in a village context, but a proatin when acting in a marga context. Of further significance is that the list in Fasal 2 contains seven elements (the seventh is anak buah) but only six are numbered. The numerical opposition between Fasals 1 and 2 is the same as that between the numbers 4 and 6. As we shall see this numerical relation is a simple variation on a fundamental pattern in this law set.
FASAL 3 Fasal 3 deals with the assistance (ketolongan) given by subjects (anak buah) to their headmen (kepala). If a headman is travelling, or if his house needs repairing or if his fields are overgrown, he may request the assistance of his subjects.

FASAL 4- Fasal 4 deals with gifts (pembarian) given by subjects to their headman. A headman's subjects are not obliged to give him rice af ter the

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

harvest or some other such thing. If a headman needs rice or some other thing he must purchase it from bis subjects.

These two fasals are contrasted by two mutually reinforcing oppositions. The basis of unity of these oppositions is the same in both cases. ApossibIe transaction between a headman and bis subjects is presented. In both fasals the transaction is asymmetrical: the subject gives, the leader receives. One opposition opposes the acceptability versus the inacceptability of the proposed transaction. In the second opposition two types of transactions are contrasted. Ketolongan (assistance) refers to services provided to the headman without reward. Pemberian (gifts) refers to goods provided to the headman without payment. Ketolongan is allowed; pemberian is forbidden.

FASAL 5 Fasal 5 deals with taxes levied on tbe products of the land and forests. There is no tax on commerce but if an outsider plants ladang or wet rice he must pay the "adat bunga padi" (the custom of the tax on the paddy, literally, flowers of the paddy). A similar rule applies for the removal of wood, rattan, or planks. Af ter each harvest for one plot of ladang four rupia (guilders) must be paid as "bunga padi". For every hundred bundles of rattan ten bun dies are deducted as "bunga rotan" (tax on rattan). For every hundred planks ten are deducted as "bunga kayu" (the tax on wood). For every ten beams two are deducted. There is no tax levied on ivory, wax, or gum. All of these taxes are divided two ways. The Regent receives one share and the Proatin receives the other. The Proatin divides his share with the Pemangku and elders in his village.

This transaction is not between subject and headman. This is made clear from the nature of the payment called "bunga padi". Such a payment involving subject and headman is explicitly forbidden by Fasal 4. Thus the person who must pay these ta.xes is not a subject (anak buah) but an outsider. The "outsider" is described in this fasal as an "orang di luar negri". The exact reference of the word negri (state) is not clear. But "orang di luar negri" apparently refers to someone outside the jurisdiction of the Pangeran of Sungai Lemau.10This fasal is opposed to Fasals 3 and 4, which deal with transactions between headman and subject. Fasa! 5, on the contrary, deals with transactions between headmen and non-subjects present in their territory. Furthermore, the term applied to tbe asymmetrical transaction (hasil) is different from that used in either Fasal 3 or Fasal 4.

SUNGAI LEMAU LA WS 117

The pattern of the first five fasals suggests two possible structures: one of three blocks of fasals (2-2-1) or one of two blocks of fasals (2-3), with the second element being further divided in two units (2-1). Thus the choice is between a (2-2-1) structure or a (2- (2-1)) structure. The latter is the more acceptable in that Fasal 5 is conceptually related to Fasals 3 and 4 but not to Fasals 1 and 2. The first two fasals of the three element group are opposed to each other but the third is opposed to the initial opposition. This reflects the fundamental structural feature of the fasal logic in this law set. A block contains three elements: A, B, and C. A and Bare opposed. But the basis of unity of this opposition serves to bind these two elements together. C does not share the basis of unity with either element of the opposition. In fact, C is opposed to the basis of unity of the opposition and not to either element of the opposition. That is to say, C is opposed to the opposition of A and Band not to either A or B individually. Thus, while in the Code of Laws there was a tendency for the extremities to he opposed to the center, here the opposition is between the first two elements as a unit and the third element. Fasals 1 and 2 are opposed to each other but with a strong basis of unity. Thus the structural relationship bctween Fasals 1 and 2 is similar to that between Fasals 3 and 4. However, Fasals 1 and 2 do not have a third element opposed to them in the way Fasal 5 is opposed to Fasals 3 and 4. The reason for this is that six fasals would have been required but because of the structural and numerical importance of Fasal 6 there was room for only five fasals. Fasal 6 is the first fasal of the rnarriage section and establishes the structural pattern of the section.

FASAL 6 Adat kaloe orang berdjoedjoer prampoean itu kawin die roema lakie lakie iang akan djadie lak ie nja itoe djiekaloe lak ie lakie itoe semando dianja kawin die roema prampoean nja iang akan djadie binie nja begitoe djoega kaloe semando atouw berdjoedjoer kapada doessoen lain atouw sanla sadoessoen. The adat when persons marry by jujur. A woman is married 11 in the house of the man who will become her husband. If a man is married by semendo he is married in the house of the woman who is to be his wife. The sanle rules apply if the semendo or jujur marriage is between different villages or within the same village.

This fasal introduces the marriage section and establishes the basic opposition among marriage forms. The introduction of marriage is based

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

on the implication that the marriage fonns are initially distinguished by the place where the marriage takes place. The basic opposition of marriage fonns is between semen do and jujur marriage types. The opposition is phrased strictly in tenns of the place of the marriage, and by implication, residence. That is, the opposition is th at between a patrilocal and a matrilocal marriage. Furthermore, there is not even an implicit reference to descent. Thus there is not only an emphasis on the residential implications of marriage but also a total exclusion of all references to descent. Each of the next fasals presents a different marriage form. They are divided into two groups, using the opposition of Fasal 6. Fasals 7, 8, and 9 are jujur fonns. Fasals 10, 11, and 12 are semendo fonns.

FASAL 7 Fasal 7 is entitled "Adat d joed joer agoeng" (the custom of large jujur). The basic amount of the jujur is 160 rupia (i.e. 80 reaIs). Several additional gifts or payments must be made. First, the "kris langkap" which is a kris with a gold head and a silver sheath valued at 50 rupia. Secondly, there is the "koedjoer tapang perak" (a lance or fish spear wrapped in silver) valued at 24 rupia. The "tombak? (spear) tapang lepoes" is not a distinct payment but is deducted from the basic jujur amount of 160 rupia. If the woman brings ornaments (literally pakakas = perkakas = appliances) valued at 100 rupia then the husband must pay 200 rupia. This payment is distinct from the jujur money and is called "adat tiban kakas" (the deposit on the ornaments). If the woman does not bring ornaments then the value of her clothing is subsumed under the other payments. When the man wishes to take the woman to his own village, he must pay the "wang penurun" (the money of descent, i.e., descending the ladder of the woman's house). When the married couple are both children of Passiras the wang penurun is 48 rupia plus a silver box and a silk handkerchief. When the married couple are both the children of Pambarabs the wang penurun is 24 rupia plus a silver box and a silk handkerchief. When the married couple are both the children of Proatins the wang penurun is 12 rupia plus a silver box and a silk handkerchief. When the married couple are the children of lower ranking title holders or commoners the wang penurun is 4 rupia plus a silver box and a silk handkerchief.

This fasal provides virtually all of the details for jujur marriages. The sum of 80 reals or 160 rupia is a very common but not universally occuring value for the main jujur amount. Still more frequently this amount functions as the minimum price. In John Marsden's Lais Laws (1779) the jujur of a widow is eighty dollars (Marsden's History, 1811,

p. 226). Hazairin (1936, p. 43) also gives the customary amount as

SUNGAI LEMAU LAWS 119

eighty reals. And as late as the 1960's]aspan reported a myth in which the amount was fixed at 80 reals (Jaspan, 1964, p. 121). The exact significance of the three weapons (the kris, the koedjoer, and the tombak) 12 is not clear. However, weaponry with a stated monetary value is of ten associated with the payment of the jujur (c.f.]aspan, 1964, p. 121). The significance of the value of the perkakas mentioned in the text is not clear. The 100 rupia may be either an exact amount or only given by way of example. In other texts (e.g. Cod. Or. 12.205) both the value and the items that make up the perkakas are specified in detail. While the monetary value of the wang penurun varies according to the status of the marriage partners, a silver box (selepa perak) and a silk handkerchief (saputangan sutera) are not dependent on the rank of the individuals. These items are apparently used to present the pay- mentY The amounts of the wang penurun present some interesting features. In this text all amounts are presented as rupia. Sometimes one finds only a florin sign (e.g. f. 24) or a florin sign plus the word "rupia" (e.g. f. 24 rupia). At this time the real was valued at two guilders. Later it was to be equivalent in value to a rijksdaalder (2~ guilders) (c.f. Helfrich, 1904, p. 80 but also p. 137). Though the text reflects CUITent monetary trends, the real equivalent of these values reveal relations th at would not be apparent if the analysis was based on the amounts as given. Thus for the purposes of analysis the amounts of the wang penurun wil! he treated as if they were 24; 12, 6, and 2 reals and not 48, 24, 12, and 4 rupia. This set of amounts may be divided into two groups. The first three amounts are associated with specific titles, while the last amount is a residual category for all ranks not included in the first three amounts. The three titles involved in the first group are Passira, Pembarab, and Proatin. The complete list of titles is given in Fasal 2. Thc three titles mentioned in Fasal 7 are the first three of the six titles listed in Fasal 2. Thus the distinct categories versus the residual category of the amounts of wang penurun is paralleled by an equal division of the six categories listed in Fasal 2. This conceptual division of the four amounts into two groups is also indicated by the relationships hetween the numhers themselves. The second amount is one half the first amount (i.e., ~ (24) = 12). The third amount is one half the second amount (i.e., ~ (12) = 6). However, the fourth amount is not one half of the third amount (i.e., ~ (6) ,= 2). Thus the first three amounts form a numerical sequence. The structure of a sequence may be expressed by a mathematical

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

fonnula. The following notation will he used: t1= the first tenn; t2 = the second tenn; and tn = the n tb tenno Thus, the above halving pattern can be expressed by the following rule:

tn + 1 = Y2 tn n 1 and t1 = 24 t2 = Y2 (24) = 12 n = 2 and from the preceeding t2 = 12, t3 = Y2 (12) = 6

Thus, numerically and conceptually the sequence of amounts 24, 12, and 6 fonn a structural entity. Even superficially these numbers are important, for as we shall see, Fasals 6, 12, and 24 fonn the basic structural sequence of the marriage fasals. The ratio of the terms to each other is 4-2-1. This ratio recurs frequently in South Sumatran legal codes and is one of the basic numerical structural relationships. Interestingly, the sequence usually has only three terms and is not extended to 8-4-2-1 or longer sequences. Viewed in these tenns, the sequence means that the Pembarab receives one half as much for his daughter as a Passira and the Proatin receives one half as much for his daughter as a Pembarab. However, there is another structure latent in the sequence.

Letting t1 = 24; t2 = 12; and t3 = 6 Then t1 t2 12 t2 -t3 = 6

Firstly, it appears that the differences hetween amounts are also multiples of six. But more important the difference betwcen the second and third tenns is one half the difference hetween the first and second terms. That is, the difference hetween Pembarab and Proatin is one half the difference between Passira and Pembarab, with reference to thc wang penurun. This relationship can he expressed by the following rule:

+ + 1 -Y2 ( +

= Y2 (ti Y2 = Y2

SUNGAI LEMAU LAWS 121

Both of these formulas are equally valid descriptions of the sequence but are based on different relationships within the sequence. These formulas are an abstract representation of the logic of the sequence. While closely reflecting relationships th at the native authors may easily have perceived, they are a bit awkward from a mathematical point of view. To discover the terms when the sequence is expanded a step by step procedure must be used. That is, given the first two terms the third can be derived. Having the third term it can be used in turn to derive the fourth term and the fourth term used to derive the fifth term, etc. As they stand, these formulas cannot he used to derive, for instance, the sixth term from the first two terms, without first deriving the intervening terms (i.e., the third, fourth and fifth terms). Thus, it is desirabIe to derive a fully abstract rule that allows the calculation of any term directly. Using the property that the difference between the second and third terms is one half of the difference between the first and second terms the following rather imposing formula can be developed:

tn == 2t2 (1 -22- n + 21-n) -t1 (1 -22-n) Letting n == 3; t1 == 24; and t2 == 12 Then t3 == 2 (12) (1-22- 3 + 21- 3)-24 (1-22- 3) t3 24 (1 -2-1 + 2-2) -24 (1 -2-1) t3 == 24 (1 -~ + ~)-24 (1 -~) t3 24 04) -24 (~) t3 == 18 -12 t3 == 6

One of the virtues of such a formula is that it allows the direct calculation of the limits of the sequence. Thus:

lim tn == 2t2 -t1 n -+ 00

That is, if the sequence is extended indefinitely the n tb term will never be Ie ss than twice the second term Ie ss the first term if t2 is smaller than t1.In this particular sequence where t 1 == 24 and t2 == 12 the limit as n approaches infinity is zero. This abstract formula and its limit is the logic behind a variety of numerical sequences occuring in South Sumatran legal codes. The wang penurun sequence of 24 -12 -6 conforms to this general rule. However, the wang penurun sequence is a special case in which the second term is one half the first term (i.e., t2 == ~td.

LOGIC OFTHE LAWS

Thus, substituting Y2t 1 for t2 in the above fonnula a simpler but less general rule may be derived:

tn = 2t2 (1 -22- D + 21-n) -tI (1 -22-n) Let t2 = Y2tl Then tn = 2 (Y2t1) (1 -22-n+ 21-n) -tI (1 -22-n) tn tI (1 -22- D + 21-n) -tI (1 -22-n) tn= tI (1 -22- D + 21- n -1 + 22- D) tn = tI (21- D) Let n = 3 and tI = 24 Then t3 = 24 (2 1- 3) t3 24 (2-2) t3 24 (Y4,) t3 6

While this second rule is simpier the complex general rule based on the numerical differences between elements is necessary to allow com- parisans with sequences occuring in other laws. Two important aspects of structural analysis are indicated here. First, there are at least four distinct fonnulas, quite different in appearance, that can be used to describe the relationships between the eIements of the sequence. While they are not independent of each other, they give the impression of being alternative structural modeis. None of them can claim to he the structure; however, for analytical purposes the most complex and most general rule is the most useful. Two of the formuias demons tra te a second problem occuring in structural analysis. The fonnula tn = tI (21- n) is a special case of the formula tn = 2t2 (1--22- D + 21-D)_ tI (1 -22-0). Frequently, an easily perceivable structure is only a special case of a more general rule. And further, it is only thraugh the discovery of su eh general rules that braad camparisons become possible. Thus, the first three amounts of the wang penurun fonn a distinct sequence and are isolated from the last element which is not part of the sequence. This partition of the four amounts into two unequal graups is also indicated by the factors of the numbers.

The three elements of the sequence discussed above all contain a

SUNGAI LEMAU LA WS 123

factor of three (i.e., are divisible by three) while the last term does not. Most of these properties of the wang penurun payments are maintained whcn the amounts are regarded either as reals or rupia. In particular, the relational features of the sequence do not change. However, when the sequence is expressed in reals the three numbers become 6, 12, and 24, which are of fundamental significance to this set of laws.

FASAL 8 Fasal 8 is entitled "Adat djoedjoer betoengoe" (the jujur of "watch- ing"). The tali kulo is an amount of money left intentionally unpaid and is subtracted from the basic jujur amount of 160 rupia. If the man and woman are the children of Passiras then the tali kulo is 20 rupia. If the woman is the child of a Passira and the man the child of a Proatin or a commoner then the tali kulo is 15 rupia. When the man is the child of a Passira and the woman is the child of a Proatin or a commoner then the tali kulo is also 15 rupia.14When the man is the child of a Proatin and the woman a commoner and vice-versa the tali kulo is 10 rupia. When both man and woman are commoners the tali kulo is also 10 rupia.

The tali kulo "is usually, from motives of delicacy or friendship, left unpaid, and sa long as that is the case, a relationship is undcrstood to subsist between the two families, and the parents of the woman have a right to interfere on occasions of ill treatment ... When that sum is finally paid, which seldom happens but in cases of violent quarrel, the tali kulo (tie of relationship) is said to be putus (broken), and the woman becomcs to all intcnts the slave of her lord" (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 257 L). Thus the tali kulo is an institutionalized form of non-payment and not a form of debt. Thc effect of this non-payment is to rcducc thc absolute authority of thc man implicit in jujur marriage. The alliance relationship is usually phrased in terms of residual jural rights in the person of the woman but not her children. For example, in John Marsden's Lais Laws, "If a man kiUs his wife by jujur, he pays her baiigun to her family, or to the proattïns, according as the tali kulo subsists or not" (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 222). There are amount categories based on three ranks: Passira, Proatin and commoner. The basic opposition is between Passira and commoner. The position of the Proatin vis-à-vis the tali kulo is not fuUy developed. No amount is given for a marriage when both the man and the woman are the children of Proatins. Further, in any of thc marriage possibilities a commaner may be substituted for a Proatin's child without effecting a change in the amount of the tali kulo. Thus thc Proatin's position

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

is not significant in the analysis of these amounts. When both marriage partners are the children of Passiras the amount of the tali kulo is 20 rupia. When both marriage partners are the children of commoners the amount of the tali kulo is 10 rupia. These are the extreme cases. When one partner is the child of a Passira and the other the child of a commoner the amount of the tali kulo is exactly halfway hetween the two extreme amounts, i.e., 15 rupia. Thus the logic of the categories is high/high versus low /Iow with the middle category being high/low or low /high. The pattern of the opposition used here recalis that in the Code of Laws, i.e., the extremities are opposed to each other and collectively opposed to the center. A useful comparison can he made between the amounts for the wang penurun and for the tali kulo. The essential structure in both cases is based on three elements. The status of the individuals in the wang penurun enumeration is always the same. That is, the text only presents marriages between equals. In the enumeration of the tali kuIo amounts the unequal status of the marriage partners is the basis of the structure of the sequence. Indeed, the proatin's child with proatin's child marriage possibility is omitted from the tali kulo enumeration. Thus, not only is the principle of the numerical sequence different but the division into conceptual categories is based on different relations between ranks. The omission of the category in which both partners are the children of Proatins may be accidental or due to a scribal error. However, this omission may he analysed structurally. The children of Proatin category does not easily fit into the schema presented in the text. Placing it in the middle category would destroy the dear inequality implications of this category. And placing it in the last category would confuse the high versus low opposition of the extremities. Thus, the omission may be due to the demands of the structural relations between the elements.15

FASAL 9 Fasal 9 is entitled "Adat djoedjoer orang ketjil atouw orang kabanjakan" (the jujur of commoners). This fasal simply states that the amount of the jujur is 160 rupia and that the custom is the same as that of Fasal 7 (sepertie terseboet dal am Passal 7e itoe djoega).

The first two jujur fasals contrast with each other by means of a stronger/weaker opposition. Fasal 7 presents the stronger form of jujur, Fasal 8 the weaker. Fasal 9 is a structural non-entity and provides no new or additional information. lts function is that of a structural filler. The back reference of Fasal 9 to Fasal 7 effectively terminates the jujur

SUNGAI LEMAU LAWS 125

sequenee. Furthennore, the back reference, combined with the lack of substantive content, effectively removes Fasal 9 from the structure.

FASAL 10 Fasal 10 is entitled "Adat semando terambil16anak ijaitoe tida beradat" (semendo ambil anak not in accordance with the adat). The man's earnings (pencarian) belong to his wife, his partner in the semendo relationship (pantjarian nja tingal la kapada tampat dia semando itoe). The man has no authority (kuasa). If there is a divorce he does not receive a share of these earnings. If the man dies his relatives have no claim to a share of his earnings.

This fasal presents a standard form of ambil anak marriage. However, there is a reference to his jural rights over his earnings (he has none). No reference is made to the descent status of the children.

FASAL 11 Fasal 11 is entitled "Adat semando beradat" (semendo marriage in accordance with the adat). If both marriage partners are the children of Proatins or one is the child of a Proatin and the other the child of a commoner the antaran is 12 rupia plus a goat with glutinous riee, spices (assam-garam), 17 and bedding (tikar bantal ). If both marriage partners are the children of commoners the antaran is 10 rupia plus a goat with glutinous riee and spices.18In death and divorce the man's earnings go to the children who remain with their mother. If the marriage was childless then the man or his relatives have a claim on the earnings.

This fasal has two portions. The first deals with the marriage payments. The amount of the antaran is presented as being based on rank. However, the rank distinction is only between proatin and commoner. This may indicate that this fonn of marriage was not nonnally used by higher ranking title holders, i.e., Passiras and Pembarabs.19Unfortunately, the second and more important portion of the fasal is unclear. The text itself is marred by scribal errors and the Van den Bor report, while useful, is nonetheless questionable in its accuracy. However, certain principles can be discerned if not elaborated upon. There is a principle by which the pencarian is to be divided or shared. In particular, in some circumstances the man's relatives have a claim to his pencarian. This is specifically excluded in Fasal 10. Thus this type of marriage is a milder fonn of semendo than that presented in Fasal 10. In Fasal 10 a man's relatives retain no jural rights over the man. In Fasal 11, however, they do have jural rights over him. In both cases

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

these rights are phrased in tenns of a claim to the pencarian. The relationship between these two fasals is the same as that between Fasals 7 and 8. In each case the second fonn is a weaker version of the first fonn. Further, the weakening of the more severe form is expressed by the retention of jural rights over the relative who has married out of the family. Thus the following relational statement is valid. Fasal 7 is to Fasal 8 as Fasal 10 is to Fasal 11. The second important principle discernable in this fasal is that the children remain with the mother. This principle serves to differentiate this fasal from the following fasal.

FASAL 12 Fasal 12 is entitled "Adat samando baliek djoeraij" (semendo marriage in which a descendant returns). In this case the antaran is 24 rupia plus a goat with glutinous rice, spices and bedding. This rule applies when both marriage partners are the children of Proatins or commoners. The totality of the earnings (pencarian) is divided equally between man and woman. ane child returns to maintain the "djoerai" (descent line) of his father. If the man dies his children inherit his property. If he has no children his relatives have a claim on his property.

The tenn jurai has a variety of interpretations. Hazairin (1936,

p. 18 L) enumerates four different meanings. First, the jurai is the totality of one's biological descendants. Second, a jurai is a series of persons in which the one is the descendant of the other without reference being made to the fonn of marriage. Third, a jurai is a descent line, either by genealogical or juridical reckoning. Fourth, a jurai is simply a descendant or relative. In this fasal two of these meanings are used. "Semendo baliek djoerai" implies the fourth meaning, i.e., a descendant returns. In "anak balie panagak djoerai bapak nja" the meaning of descent line is indicated (i.e., a child returns to maintain the descent line of his father). Thus this marriage form is neither strictly matrilineal nor strictly patrilineal. ane child behaves patrilineally, the others matri- lineally. While the terms cognatic descent or double unilineal descent may not be appropriate in th is case, the form is structurally equivalent to the cognatic semendo merdahika sama merdahika marriage of the Code of Laws. That is, it is a combination of the two more fundamental lineal principles. This notion of a dual principle is also expressed in tenns of residence. ane child returns to reside with his father and the rest, by implication, stay with the mother. While the first two fasals in the jujur and the semendo sections share a common structural pattern, the last fasals in each of these sections behave differently. The

LAWS 127

last jujur fasal (Fasal 9) refers back to the first jujur fasal (Fasal 7). But, the last semendo fasal (Fasal 12) does not refer back to the first semendo fasal (FasallO). Fasal 12 instead refers back to the beginning of the marriage section (i.e., Fasal 6). Fasal 6 presents two separate concepts of marriage residence in two distinct categories of marriage. Fasal 12 presents two principles of descent united in a single marriage form. Furthermore, the residential aspects of Fasal 6 are not lost entirely for Fasal 12 has a principle of two kinds of residence for the children bom of the marriage that complements the two residence principles of Fasal 6. The structure of these seven marriage fasals is based both on the contents of Fasal 6 and the number six itself. There are six marriage forms presented and they are divided into two categories along the lines indicated in Fasal 6, i.e., three jujur fomls and three semendo forms. In genera I terms, each of these groups of three fasals conforms to the basic principle of the fasal structuring of this law .The first two in each group form a tightly bound conceptual unit. The third element in both of these cases is independent of this two element structural unit but not opposed to the first two in the manner that occurs elsewhere. These features suggest the representation of the basic structure presented in

Diagram 3.3.

But Fasal 9 drops out of the structure by virtue of its back reference to Fasal 7 and its lack of substantive content. Fasal 12, on the other hand, is simultaneously linked with and opposed to Fasal 6. These features suggest the representation of the basic structure presented in

Diagram 3.4.

[i] [i]

ç[E)

Ç~)

Ç~) Ç~)

12[11l

DIAGRAM 3.3 DIAGRAM 3.4

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

This structure possesses a number of interesting numerical features. The numerical difference between the stronger form of jujur and the stronger form of semendo is three (i.e., 10 -7 = 3). Likewise, the numerical difference between the weaker form of jujur and the weaker form of semendo is three (i.e., 11 -8 = 3). Thus, the sum of the numerical differences between the paired jujur forms (Fasals 7 and 8) and the paired semendo forms (Fasals 10 and 11) is six. The opposition between these paired forms is presented in Fasal 6. Thus, the sum of all the oppositions is 6 + 3 + 3 or twelve. Twelve is the number of the fasal where the other oppositions are united together. This relationship may be calculated in another way. The sum of the paired jujur fasals is fifteen, the sum of the paired semendo fasals is twenty-one, and the difference between these two sums is six. Other additive relationships exist. The sum of the paired fasals is equal to 7 + 8 + 10 + 11 or 36. Thirty-six is equal to six times six or twice the sum of the other two elements, i.e., 2 (6 + 12) = 36. And further, thirty-six is equal to four times the omitted element, i.e., 9 X 4 = 36. This elaboration of features based on the number six is related to another feature of th is structure. As Fasals 6 and 12 are conceptually paired similar pairings ean be made between Fasals 7 and 11 and Fasals 8 and 10. The oppositional content of these two new pairings is complementary. The stronger jujur form (Fasal 7) is paired with the weaker semen do form (Fasal 11) and the stronger semendo form (Fasal 10) is paired with the weaker jujur form. These two additional pairings complete the possible oppositional relations among the four central fasals. The other pairings involved the following relations: Fasal 7 is to Fasal 8 as Fasal la is to Fasal 11 (i.e., 7:8 :: 10: 11 and 7: la :: 8: ll). The three pairings 6-12, 7-11, and 8-10 are all symmetrically opposite the center of the diagram. The numerical sum of these symmetrical pairs is the same in each case, i.e., 18. This is twice the value of the omitted number (9 X 2 = 18). Thus the omission of Fasal 9 from the structure, which reduces the number of fasals from seven to six, also figurcs in the numerical structure. Furthcrmore, the number 9 is the exact midpoint of the scquence 6,7,8,9, 10, 11, 12. This additive symmetry is not unique to this structure. In Skeat's Malay Magie (pp. 555-558) three types of Malay magic squares are presented. A magic square is a square grid in which each cell of the grid contains a number starting with one and proceeding consecutively until all the cclls of thc grid are filled. The defining property of a magie

SUNGAI LEMAU LA WS 129

square is that the sums of each row and each column are equal to a

n3+ n constant. This constant is always equal to where n is the order 2 of the square (the order of a magie square is the number of cells along one side). Skeat presents a third, fifth, (c.f. Diagrams 3.5. and 3.6) and seventh order square. While there is only one third order magie square possible, the number of fifth order magie squares possible is not known but has been estimated as being more than thirteen million (Gardner, 1961, p. 108). Vet all of the squares presented by Skeat are symmetrie, that is, the sum of pairs symmetrically opposite the center are equal to a constant.20In each case this constant is twice the value of the middle

6 1 8 15 8 1 24 1 7 7 5 3 16 14 7 5 23

2 9 4 22 20 13 6 4 Magie Square of 3 3 21 1 9 1 2 1 0

(after Skeat) DIAGRAM 3.5

9 2 25 1 8 1 1 Magie Square of 5

DIAGRAM 3.6 (a f ter Skea t)

cello And furthermore, like the structure above, the constant is twice the value of the number occuring in the exact middle of the sequence. For the third order magie square this number is 5, for a second order square 13, and for a seventh order square 25. In both of these cases the symmetrie feature may be accidental. That is to say, the property may have been the consequence of another manipulation having an entirely different purpose. This problem of analysis is not unique to this particular feature. vVhen numbers are manipulated in a bricoleurian manner it is of ten impossible to differentiate between antecedent and consequent structural features. While Fasals 6 through 12 form a single structural block, there is one displaced fasal which is concemed with jujur marriage.

FASAL 24 This fasal has no distinct title. If a youth removes a maiden from her

THE LOGIC OF THE LA WS

village with the intention of marrying her and they have left the woman's village and then the woman dies suddenly it is called "tanpatoea". In this case the man must pay 24 rupia and any money related to the engagement is forfeited. If they have gone as far as the center of a main road (die tenga d jalan Gedang) and the woman is seized by a tiger or simply dies the same rules apply. If, however, the woman has arrived at the village of the man but is not yet married and has not yet been followed by her relatives and she then dies it is called "tanpetoedja ... ?" In this case the man pays 40 rupia. If the woman has been foIlowed by her relatives and she has been handed over to the inhabitants of the man's village and the assembied villagers have received ripe "sarho(?)", cut up chicken, as weIl as food and drink and she then dies it is called "tanpetoengoe". In this case the man pays a jujur of 80 rupia. If the woman has been married for one or two months and then dies suddenly it is called "maijang maijang". In this case the man pays a jujur of 120 rupia. If the woman dies while pregnant or as a result of childbirth it is called "matie ketingang maiang". In this case the man pays a jujur of 160 rupia. If the woman has brought any goods (barang) then the man must pay a fair price for them. If, however, it has been one or two months since the birth of the child and the woman then dies, the man must pay the jujur of 160 rupia with the "kries langkap" and the "tombak lepang lepoes" (c.f. Fasal 7).

This fasal presents the conceptual basis of jujur marriage. Indeed, the contents of this fasal relate more to the conceptual order than to the settlement of actual cases. I t must be conceded that the probability of a woman being attacked by a tiger on the way to her wedding is relatively low.21The text presents five named categories, each of which is associated with a different amount of money to be paid when the woman dies in the specified circumstances. The sixth category is unnamed and repeats the amount of money given in the fifth category but adds two additional items. The first situation is death outside the woman's village but not in the man's village. The second situation is death in the man's village but before full incorporation into his village by the fomlal act of marriage. The third catcgory is death just aftel' incorporation into the man's villagc by marriage. The fourth category is death aftel' marriage but before pregnancy. The fifth category is death during pregnancy or childbirth. The final category begins one or two months aftel' childbirth. The five distinct amounts of money have an interesting structure: 80, 60, 40, 20, and 12 reais. The first four terms of the sequence confonn to a single rule: each tenn is twenty reals Ie ss than the previous one. However, the last term (twelve reais) does not confonn to this rule. This recalls the wang penurun structure in which all of the amounts

SUNGAI LEMAU LAWS 131

listed except the last one confonned to a single rule. If the sixth category (80 reals + kris langkap + tombak lepang lepus) is considered as belonging to the pattem then neither of the extremities is govemed by the rule that applies to the four central elements. The most significant comparison between categories occurs when the third category is compared with the sixth. The third category is the tu ming point of the structure. In describing the money to be paid the word jujur is not used with the first two categorics but is only applied to the last four. Thus the amount of 40 reals associated with the third category represents the first mention of jujur in this fasal. The value of 40 reals is exactly one half of the total jujur. This category occurs in the middle of the named situations. Thus one half of the fuU jujur is to be paid when the woman has been incorporated into her husband's village. That is to say, one half of the jujur must be paid af ter the woman has formaUy changed her residential affiliation. If the woman dies in childbirth the fuU amount of 80 reals must be paid. But only if she survives the birth of her first child must the fuU jujur plus the supplementary items be paid. The defining criteria of these two categories in which two aspects of fuU payment are indicated, are based on pregnancy and childbirth. This can be seen as providing progeny for her new home. Thus while one half of the jujur money is related to the change in residence the other half is related to descent considerations. Wh en the woman has been surrendered to her husband's viUage only one half of the jujur must be paid if she dies. The other half is to be paid only if she dies af ter she has begun to produce descendants for her husband's family. Thus this fasal asserts that one half of jujur marriage is a matter of residence while the other half is a matter of descent. The other categories serve to partition this basic division into finer units. Those in the first half are concerned with thc position of the woman both spatially and ritually in the process of transition from her own village to th at of her husband. These categorics in the second half are concerned with the status of the woman vis-à-vis the product ion of children. Curiously, the death or survival of the child is not considered to be relevant. While the meanings of the five labelled categories are given in the text an examination of their linguistic properties provides additional insight to the structure. The basic linguistic distinction among the terms foUows the structural division of the categories into two groups. Those categories concemed with residential placement aU begin with the same initial letter grouping (i.e., "tanpa (e) toe ... "). On the other hand, the

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

named categories concerned with the descent aspect of marriage contain the word "mayang". While only two of the three categories in this second group are named the pattern suggests that there may have been a sixth named term. This pattern recalls the structure of the marriage fasals. The simplest structure there involved the division of the six fasals (Fasals 7-12) into two groups of threc. The basis of the division was a linguistic contrast between semendo and jujur. The strongest opposition between these two groups of three elements was located in the first element of each group. In the categories of Fasal 24 the basic division into two groups of three is indicated. However, the strongest conceptual opposition between these two groups is located between the last element of each group (i.e., between the third and sixth categories) instead of the first elements of each group. In the marriage fasals one was very weakly defined (i.e. Fasal 9). In Fasal 24 there is a parallel phenomenon. Instead of the last element of the first group being weakly defined, the first element of the second group is weakly defined. Indeed, the defining characateristics of the mayang-mayang category is only the lapse of time from the formal marriage ceremon y and not any substantive event. However, the last element of the sequence of six elements in both cases involves a unification of the oppositions. Fasal 12, with its double descent implications, unites the matrilinealjpatrilineal opposition aspects of the previous five fasals. In Fasal 24 the last category indicates that jujur is complete. Thus while same relational features are transformed others are invariant under transformation. In particular, the unifying aspects of the opposition are to be found in the last element. The transformed aspects can be described as a rotation. In Diagram

3.7 the key features of the marriage structure can be represented. The opposition between Fasals 7 and 10 (A-D) and the weakness of Fasal 9
(C) are both present. By rotating the figure through 1800one gets the structure in Diagram 3.8.

F F E o ~<--~

DIAGRAM 3.7 DIAGRAM 3.8

SUNGAI LEMAU LAWS 133

C hecomes the weak mayang-mayang category and D-A hecomes the opposition hetween residence and descent of the third and sixth categories of Fasal 24. The fact that the terminal position as unifying element is invariant under this transformation means that the last element of the Fasal 24 structure is simultaneously involved with oppositional features and unifying features of the structure. While the linguistic features of the naming of categories underlies this structure, the etymology of the terms was not necessary. This is the same situation as in the marriage section proper. The derivation of the terms jujur and semendo was external to, and indeed irrelevant to, the structural analysis. However, in Fasal 24, the etymology of the various terms provides some, although very limited, additional information. The first term in the second group "mayang-mayang" is a reduplica- tion of mayang = palm flower. Helfrich (TLVK-H799, Hoofdstuk VI, Section IX, p. 68) reports that the word "mayang" is used to refer to a young married woman. The derivation of the fifth term is less clear (matie ketingang maiang). While matie = death and maiang = palm flower, the significance of "ketingang" is less clear. Helfrich (1927,

p. 97) gives the meaning of "tinggang" as getroffen or geraakt (i.e., hit, touched, struck). Elsewhere, however, he classifies the word "tenggang" as having an unknown meaning (Helfrich, 1927, p. 125). Wilkinson (1932, Vol. Il, pp. 591 and 566; 1959, pp. 1225 and 1200) gives the meaning of "tinggang" = "tenggang" as co-operate, assist, advise. Von de Wall (Vol. I, p. 371) gives a similar meaning for "tinggang" with special reference to West Sumatra. Van den Toorn (1891, p. 86) gives the root meaning of "tenggang = tinggang" as middel, list, raad (means, subterfuge, advice). Interestingly, Helfrich gives three Passumah terms involving the word mayang for the death of a married woman. "Koele memajang" is given for a married woman who dies before coitus. "Di timpe majang" is given for a woman who dies in her first pregnancy. "Mayang laloe" or "mayang begris" applies to a woman who dies in her first childbirth (Helfrich, 1921, p. 25 L; Helfrich, 1926, p. 201 L; Helfrich, TLVK-H799, Hoofdstuk VI, Section IX, p. 68). While these categories are more clearly defined than those occuring in Fasal 24 of the Sungai Lemau laws, their insertion in the text would destroy the fundamental features of the fasal. First, the weak element would vanish from the structure. Secondly, the completeness aspect of the terminal element would he diminished. The derivation of the first three terms is more speculative. The

THE LOGIC OF THE LA WS

second portion of two of these tenns can he readily identified: toea = old and toengoe = watch, guard, wait, reside. This sugests that the first portion of these three tenns is either tanpa or tanpat. While the Javanese word tanpa (= without) is used in both modem Malay and Indonesian, it is not listed in Helfrich's dictionary of Middle Malay and does not yield a particularly meaningful translation in this context. However, by equating tanpat with tampat (c.f. Marsden's Dictionary, 1812, p. 83) = tempat, two of the terms can he derived: tanpatoea = the old place and tanpetoengoe = the place of residence. The meaning of the remaining tenn is more difficult to derive hecause the text itself is unclear, thus making further speculation difficult and hazardous. While these etymologies may be seen as supporting the structural analysis, their validity or lack thereof does not effect the structural analysis. The structural analysis of the fasal was used to derive the etymologies of these tenns and not the reverse. Fasal 24 completes the sequence hegun by Fasal 6. Fasal 6 presents two fonns of marriage by discussing two fonns of residence. Fasal 12 indicates that there may he two fonns of descent occurring simultaneously. Fasal 24 presents the relations between the concepts of descent and residence in one fonn of marriage. However, while Fasal 6 mentions both jujur and semendo marriage, Fasal 12 is only concemed with semendo marriage and Fasal 24 is concemed only with jujur marriage. These are the only marriage fasals in which two principles are simultaneously suggested or discussed. Fasal 24's separation from the other marriage fasals can be explained numerically. Six and twelve are the first two tenns of a sequence. The numher twenty-four is a continuation of th is sequence. Indeed six, twelve, and twenty-four are the numbers of the wang penurun sequence. While the contents of Fasals 6, 12, and 24 discuss double principles the numerical progression from one fasal to the next involves a doubling of the numerical value of each fasal in the sequence. This structure not only uses the numher six but continually exploits the properties of six and its multiples. As a number, six has a variety of interesting properties. Six is the equal to the sum of the first three integers (i.e., 1 + 2 + 3 = 6). According to the ancient Greeks a number with this property was a triangular numher, as opposed to a square number like four. (The next triangular number is ten (i.e., 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10)). Six is also the product of the first three integers (i.e., 1 X 2 X 3 = 6). Thus, it is a factorial number. Significantly, the next factorial number is twenty-four (i.e., 1 X 2 X 3

SUNGAI LEMAU LA WS 135

X 4 = 24). Six is also what the Greeks referred to as a perfect number. A perfect number is one whose factors other than the number itself add up to the number. That is, six is divisible by one, two and three, which add up to sÎx. Six is the smallest perfect number. Twenty-eight is the next perfect number, i.e., 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14 = 28. ·The third and fourth perfect numbers are 496 and 8128. While it is unlikely that all of these properties of six were known to or used by the people of South Sumatra, it is equally unlikely that all of these features would remain unnoticed.

Fasals 13-15 Returning to the main fasal sequence, Fasals 13, 14 and 15 form a distinct structural unit. These three fasals deal with the crimes of murder, wounding, and theft. The structure of the law is such that these fasals are only concerned with compensation and not punishment.

FASAL 13 Fasal 13 begins with the phrase "Hoekoem orang bersala djikaloe mamboenoe Passira" (the law concerning a person who is guilty when he kills a Passira ). If a Passira is murdered while in office his bangun is 500 rupia. Additionally, one buffalo and 100 measures of rice with spices must be given as "tepoeng bomie tepoeng mata harie" (meal of the earth, me al of the sun). The bangun of a Pembarab is 300 rupia and that of a Proatin 22 200 rupia. In both of these cases the "tepoeng boemie tepoeng mata harie" is also given. If the Passira is not in office then his bangun is the same as that of a Pembarab. If a Pembarab is not in office then his ban gun is the same as that of a Proatin. If a Proatin is out of office then his bangun is the same as that of a commoner.lt3The ban gun of a commoner is 160 rupia plus a buffalo, and 100 measures of rice with the appropriate spices. The "adat kapala bangun" (the custom of the he ad of the bangun ) is 40 rupia. This amount is divided between the Regent and the Passira. If there is no Passira in the marga concerned then the amount goes entirely to the Regent.

The bangun is based on four ranked categories: Passira, Pembarab, Proatin and commoner. If the title holders are out of office then one drops one rank to find the correct bangun. The statuses represented by the four categories are the same as that for the wang penurun given in Fasal 7. Further, the structure of the numerical sequence is exactly the same as that for the wang penurun. The bangun of the three title holders conform to a single rule while the fourth amount is not part of the sequence.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

The first three amounts are 250, 150, and 100 reals. The sequential relationship between these numbers is the same as that for the wang penurun, i.e.:

tn = 2t2 (1 -22-0+ 21-n) -tI (1 -22-n) Let n = 3; tI = 250; t2 = 150 t3 2 (150) (1 -22- 3 + 21-3) -250 (1 -22- 3) t3 = 300 (1 -2-1 + 2-2) -250 (1 -2-1) t3 = 300 (%) -250 (~) t3 = 225 -125 t3 100 Q. E. D.

The use of this relation here indicates the importance of the general farm of the rule. The bangun and wang penurun are not directly comparabie using the obvious halving rule that is explicit in the wang penurun sequence of 24, 12, and 6. Further, the fact that the lowest element of the enumeration does not belang to the sequence established by the other elements is indicated as being a general principle in this law set. (1t occurs in Fasals 7, 13, and 24). This suggests an alternative interpretation of the structural pattem of the three fasal structure that divides the law into sections. The third fasal is not related to the first two as these two are related to each other. This can be generalized by saying that the last element of a sequence is not related to the previous elements in the same way that these elements are related to each other. Phrased in this manner the fasal pattem is the same as that of the numerical structure contained in Fasals 7 and 13. Furthermore, phrased in these general terms, the structural behaviour of Fasal 12 may be better explained. Fasal 12 is the last of a three element sequence (the semendo fasals) and thus its structural behaviour differs from that of Fasals 10 and 11. However, it is also the last element of a second sequence, i.e., the entire marriage section initiated by Fasal 6. Thus the structural behaviour of Fasal 12 is related to the fact that it is the last element of not one but of two sequences. The amount of 80 reals as the lowest bangun does not participate in the intemal structure of this fasal but is extemally related to other elements in the law. The lowest possible bangun is equivalent to the amount of the jujur as specified in Fasal 7. This association between the value of a murdered person and the value of a woman's brideprice occurs frequently in South Sumatran legal codes. A second extemal connexion of this amount relates to Fasal 14.

SUNGAI LEMAU LAWS 137

FASAL 14 Fasal 14 begins with the phrase "Djikaloe maloekakan orang" (If wounding a man). If the wounded person is severely disabled (e.g., if he is blinded or his legs are broken) so that he is unable to eam a livelihood it is called "buta kakap". In this case the pampas is one half of the bangun or 80 rupia plus a goat. If the wounded person is blinded in only one eye and/or his body is wounded it is called "tjango bartjie- laka". In this case the pampas is 40 rupia plus a goat. If the person's fingers are broken, his teeth loosened, or his head wounded, it is called "koekoe kekek roenggang bilang". In this case the pampas is 24 rupia plus a goat. If an ear is perforated or the wound is to the hand, body or calf, and the wound does not belong to one of the more severe categories, i.e., not severely disabled, it is called "loembang gemawang". In this case the pampas is 16 rupia, a measure of white cloth, and an offering of betel. If the person who is struck is not wounded (luka) but there is a visible bruise it is called "hiram tida bardosa". In this case the pampas is 16 rupia plus a measure of white cloth and an offering of betel. When there is only a little blood or a small bruise it is called "kasiegar koelit koealit koelit". In this case the pampas is 12.50 rupia. And if the money paid is below 12.50 rupia it is called "setapoeng setawar".

One of the most interesting aspects of this fasal is the structure of the relationships among the categories. There are sixnamed categories, requiring the payment of the pampas, each associated with an amount of money. However, there are only five distinct amounts of money, the fourth and fifth being equal. This recalls the pattern of Fasal 24 where there were six categories but only five named and only five distinct amounts of money. In Fasal 24, however, it is the fifth and sixth amounts which are the same. Like the categories of Fasal 24, the pampas categories form two groups of three. The marker of the categories in this case is neither numerical nor linguistic but related to the supplementary items associated with the money of the pampas. In the first three categories a goat must accompany the money. In the first two of the last three categories the supplement is a measure of white cloth and an offering of betel. For the last category there is no supplementary item listed. The behaviour of these markers is exactly the same as in Fasal 24. In both cases the first three categories share a common marker, but only the first two of the second three categories share a common marker. In both cases the marker is not present for the final category. In addition to linking the two structures this also illustrates the basic principle that the final element of a sequence behaves differently than the rest.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

In the oppositional structures of both Fasal 24 and the marriage section, one pair of elements formed the basic opposition between the two categories. In Fasal 14 such a structural relation also exists but the numerical structure of the sequence of amounts must be examined before this structure can be presented. Tbe enumeration of amounts is 40, 20, 12, 8 and 6~ reais. The middle three elements of this enumeration form a sequence that conforms to the formula for the wang penurun and bangun amounts.

tn = 2t2 (1 -22-0+ 21-°) -ti (1 -22-0) n = 3; ti = 20; t2 = 12 t3 2 (12) (1 -22- 3 + 21-3)--20 (1 -22- 3) t3 24 (%) -20 (~) t3 = 18 -10 t3 8 Q. E. D.

While in other enumerations it was the last element that did not conform to the rule for the sequence, here both the first and last terms do not conform to the rule. While in the bangun amounts the last term was externally determined, here the first and last terms follow the pattern prescribed by Fasal 26 of the Code of Laws, There it is stated that the maximum pampas is one half tbe bangun. In FasaI 14 of the Sungai Lemau Laws the same expression is used but the amount here is 4024instead of the 50 reals of the Code of Laws. Furthermore, the Code of Laws specifies that the minimum amount of the pampas is 6~ reais. Tbe Code of Laws also indicates that if the amount is below 6~ reals it is called "tepung sitawar", thus explaining the last phrase of Fasal 14 of the Sungai Lemau text. This use of the rules of the Code of Laws does not preserve the structural relationship between highest and lowest pampas payments. Tbe ratio of 50 to 6~ reals is eight to one or three successive divisions by two. While both upper and lower limits of the pampas are externally determined the lowest amount comes surprisingly close to following the the rule governing the middle three elements.

tn = 2t2 (1 -22-0+ 21-°) -ti (1 -22-0 ) n = 4; ti = 20; t2 = 12 t4 2 (12) (1-22- 4 + 21-4) -20 (1 -22- 4) t4 24 (1 -2-2 + 2-3) -20 (1 -2-2) t4 = 24 (1 -~ + YB)-20 (1 -~)

SUNGAI LEMAU LA WS 139

20 04)

Thus the difference between the value obtained by extending the sequence by one tenn and the value actually used in the text is one quarter of a realor one suku. The analysis of the numerical structure indicates that the basic opposition between the two groups of three categories resides in the opposition of the initial and final element. In both the marriage structure and in Fasal 24 one of the categories appeared to he weakly defined. In Fasal 14 the first category of the second group of three elements is the least well-defined. It acquires its definition by involving a wound which is not as severe as certain wounds previously mentioned even though the place of the wound may be the same. In practical tenns, it would be difficult to isolate th is element from some of the elements in the first group of three categories. This structure can be directly compared to the structures of the marriage section and Fasal 24 as presented above.

,/ 0 C

E B

DIAGRAM 3.9F A

Using the rotation metaphor previously employed, this is a transfonnation on the structure of Fasal 24. The block D-E-F is rotated through 1800about the center of the block. While these structures may be described as transformation by rotation, another parallel description would involve evoking a bricoleurean manipulation of the relationships between the two groups of three elements while keeping certain features invariant. The basic rule of the structure is that the elements that unite to fonn the basic opposition as weIl as the weakest category must occur at the beginning or at the end of a group of three elements. The most important negative feature is that the middle element in each group

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

of three elements is not allowed to define the relationship between the two groups. FASAL 15 Fasal 15 is entitled "Djikaloe orang mantjoerie karbaûw atouw barang2" (If a person steals buffaloes or property). If a person is found in illegal possession of stolen property he is subject to the "pulang undang",211 that is, the value of the stolen goods is returned twofold (lipat).

The Structure of Fasals 13-15

Fasal 15 presents a simple statement of the rule governing theft. It is distinct from Fasals 13 and 14 in that no specific values for compensation are listed and consequently no sequential relations exist. Furthermore, while Fasals 13 and 14 share the common use of a sequential rule, a third sequence can be developed that cuts across the fasal boundary that divides Fasals 13 and 14, thus rcinforcing their structural cohesion. The last amount mentioned in Fasal 13 is eighty reals. The first amount mentioned in Fasal 14 is explicitly one half th is amount or forty reais. This explicit and obvious link is reinforced by the creation of another three element sequence. The second element of the enumeration in Fasal 14 is twenty reais, thus forming the sequence of 80, 40, 20 which is governed by a special case of the rule used for the other sequences in these two fasals.26

= 1 1-D )

= 1 =

1- = (2-

2)

=(~)

features and a similarity of patterning that neither of them share with Fasal 15. Fasals 13, 14 and 15 are exclusively concerned with compensation. The principles discussed are the three basic rules for compensation in criminal matters in Sou th Sumatra, i.e., bangun, pampas, and lipat. Furthermore, all references to fines being associated with these principles of compensation are omitted. This exclusive concern with matters of compensation is further underscorcd by the fact that Fasal 22 presents the fines associated with theft. Following the pattern of displacement

SUNGAI LEMAU LA WS 141

in the marriage fasals, the last fasal of a sequence forms the link to the displaced fasal. In the marriage fasals it is Fasal 12, the last fasal of the semendo and marriage section as a whoie, which forms the link to Fasal 24. In the fasal sequence dealing with legal compensation for criminal acts the last fasal (Fasal 15) refers ahead to Fasal 22. If the partition of the fasals into groups of three is extended one finds that Fasals 22, 23, and 24 form a single unit. Thus both of the fasals that are displaced from other portions of the law are to he found in the same block of fasals. I t is worth noting th at these two fasals are at the extremities of the grouping.

FASAL 22 Fasal 22 has no distinct title. A person who is found guilty of stealing paddy is fined 40 rupia. A person who steals a buffalo or other goods is fined 24 rupia. A person who steals chickens is fined 10 rupia. If the theft is only a very minor one, the fine cannat he less than 4 rupia. If a person is found guilty of robbery he is fined 40 rupia.27

The amounts of the fines presented here do not conform to the sequence rules used elsewhere in this law. However, as numbers in isolation they are not unique to this fasal. The first two numhers (20 and 12 reais) are part of the pampas sequence, and occur as a pair in Fasals 18 and 24. Five reals is the minimum tali kulo and two reals is the minimum wang penurun. While no major significance should he attached to these observations, it is worth noting that certain numhers are continually re-used even if the structural relations of ten associated with these numhers are not universally employed. The dissociation of Fasal 22 from Fasal 15 serves to establish the fact that Fasals 13, 14, and 15 are exclusively concerned with compensation as opposed to punishment.28

FASAL 16 Fasal 16 is entitled "sebab orang manjamoen atouw die doessoen atouw die Talang atouw die roema Ladang" (concerning robhery either in a village or in a hamIet or in a house which is located in the dry farmed fields). If the robber is caught with the goods (barang) in his hands, the goods are subject to the "pulang undang" (i.e., the goods must he returned twofold). The person is brought before the court which decides his punishment. If the accused is wounded or killed while resisting arrest and he is found to he guilty of robbery the matter rests there (i.e., no pampas or bangun can be claimed).

Samun as a legal concept means robbery as opposed to theft. It IS

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

the stealing of property from a person involving the use of violence. In Minangkebau law one finds "samun-saka" as one of the undang-undang nan selapan (the eight laws). In this context a distinction is made between samun (= robbery accompanied by premeditated murder) and saka (= robbery accompanied by premeditated wounding) (Van Hasselt, 1882, p. 232). In this text, however, no distinction is made between these two concepts. The implication is that samun means robbery with violence in general. In the block determined by Fasals 13, 14, and 15 there is a structural opposition between Fasal 15 and Fasals 13 and 14 taken as a single unit. Fasals 13 and 14 involve crimes committed against pcrsons, i.e., someone is killed or wounded. Fasal 15, on the other hand, involves a crime committed against property, i.e., an object is stolen. This important conceptual opposition is parallel to the structural opposition determined by other principles. In Fasal 16, however, this distinction is less clear. A person is assaulted and his property stolen simultaneously. For the act of stealing the rule of Fasal 15 is applied, i.e., pulang undang. But for the act of assault the decision on the appropriate punishment is left for the court to decide. Thus Fasal 16 suggests a merging of the categories of Fasals 13, 14, and 15. However, the subsequent analysis indicates a slight bias in favour of the crime against persons aspect of samun.

FASAL 17 Fasal 17 begins with the phrase "kaloe manjamoen orang die djalan" (if a person robs someone on a road). If one or two persons commit an act of robbery on a road the rules of Fasal 16 apply (sepertie terseboet dalam passal 16e djoega).

The sole difference between Fasals 16 and 17 is the location of the crime in space. The opposition is between inhabited and uninhabited areas. In other words, the space between or connecting villages is opposed to the villages themselves. This concern with the location of an activity in a well-defined spatial context is a common theme in this law. The opposition between semendo and jujur was phrased in terms of the location of the marriage in space. Similarly, the first half of Fasal 24 reflects a similar preoccupation with spatial location. However, Fasal 17 has no substantive content and functions as a structural filler. That is, it preserves the integrity of the numerical pattern and participates in a number of important structures but virtually has no content. Fasals 16 and 17 conform to the general structural pattern of

SUNGAI LEMAU LA WS 143

the blocks of three fasals. The first two fasals of a block must he closely related. Here the common element of samun unites them. On the other hand, the first two fasals of a block must be opposed or at least contrasting. In this case the opposition is based on the location of the crime. However, there are no legal consequences deriving from th is opposition. Thus the opposition is an opposition created for its own sake. It is the opposition that allows two fasals, and consequently two structural spaces, to he filled. Further, the opposition creates a two element structural unit at the heginning of a three element sequence. This follows the general pattern and allows the comparison and linking of samun to Fasals 13 and 14 (kiIIing and wounding) which suggest th at samun is more a crime against a person than against property. However, all of the functional attributes of the opposition hetween Fasals 16 and 17 are based on the form of the opposition and not the content. This indicates th at at least in some cases the demands of the form of a structure take precedence over the substantive content of the structure, as is the case with Fasal 24.

FASAL 18 Fasal 18 is entitled "Die atas perkara mamangang Roema" (concerning the burning of houses). If a person accidentally sets fire to his own house and the fire spreads to other houses within the village (dusun), with the result that several or even all of the houses in the viIIage are burnt, the person is said to he the "pokok apie" (the beginning of the fire) and he must pay 40 rupia, a buffalo, and 100 measures of rice. If the fire occurs in a hamIet (talang) with at least five houses and an established agricultural base he is obliged to pay 24 rupia, a goat and spices.

The subject of this fasal can he descrihed as accidental arson.29The first two fasals of this group of three elements cover crimes against an individual with an associated crime against property. Fasal 18, however, concerns a crime against property with an implication of an associated crime against individuals or families. A house is a special category of property with a very strong association to persons. In particular there is astrong association between houses and descent lines. The main internal opposition associated with this fasal is based on the location of the accident (dusun versus talang). This opposition within Fasal 18 parallels the opposition between Fasals 16 and 17.

The Structure of Fasals 13-18

Fasal 18 concludes a sequence of six fasals which began with Fasal 13.

LOGIC OF THE LA WS

lts isolation from the unit formed by Fasals 16 and 17 follows the normal three fasal structural pattern. While certain features of the fasal, in particular the aspects of spatial location of the activity, suggest a relation with Fasals 16 and 17, this relationship is at best a vague one. With regard to certain other features Fasal 18 is more closely associated with the first two fasals of the six element sequence. Fasal 18 is explicitly concerned with an accidental act. Fasal 13 deals with the killing of a person. While the Code of Laws makes a distinction between wilful killing and accidental killing, no such distinction is made here. Thus Fasal13 could be concerned with an accidental act. A similar observation can be made about Fasal 14, i.e., the wounding of a person could be either accidental or intentional. However, it is difficult to conceptualize an accidental theft and virtually impossible to conceive of an accidental robbery. Thus Fasal 18 could he easily placed in the position occupied by Fasal 15. Similarly, Fasal 15 could be substituted for Fasal 18 with the result being that Fasals 16, 17, and 18 would deal with the closely related crimes of robbery and theft. And further, the crime of theft would occur at the end of the sequence of six fasals and the reference to the displaced fasal (Fasal 22) would conform more to the pattern of the marriage section. The fact that the authors created the pattern that they did and did not use this alternative serves to elucidate the structure as presented in the text. Fasal 18 associates itself with the beginning of the six element sequence as weIl as with the beginning of its own three element sequence. This helps to isolate these six fasals as a single structural unit. Fasal 15, dealing with simple theft, needs to be introduced before the more complex crime of robbery with violence. However, the crime most closely related to theft, i.e., samun (robbery) is placed immediately af ter Fasal 15. Indeed, Fasals 15, 16, and 17 can be seen as a three element sequence in the middle of a six element structure. This sequence, however, is the reverse of a norm al three element structure. The single element (theft) comes at the beginning of the sequence while the paired elements occur at the end of the sequence instead of at the beginning where they would occur in a normal three element sequence. This structural phenomenon, which overlays and cuts across another structural pattern, is similar if not identical to the sequential structure that links Fasals 13 and 14. In Fasal 13 the last element of a numerical enumeration becomes the first element of a three element sequence which is continued across the fasal boundary into Fasal 14. By abstract- ing this relationship one finds that one element of a three element

SUNGAI LEMAU LAWS 145

structure occurs on one side of a structural boundary while the other two elements of this structure occur on the other side of the boundary. This description also applies to the relationship between Fasals 15, 16, and 17. The existence of a structure generated by Fasals 15, 16, and 17 indicates that Fasals 13, 14, and 18 farm a complementary structural unit. The conceptual opposition between these two structures is between acts that might be accidental and acts that are dearly intentional. Thus the six element structure determined by Fasals 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 follows the division into two three element structures of the two plus one pattern suggested by the marriage section. However, two secondary and complementary structures cut across this simple three plus three pattern, thus consolidating the six fasals into a tightly bound structural unit.

DIAGRAM 3.10 DIAGRAM 3.11 Fasal 18 occurs at the end of a six element structure. From the structure of the marriage section it is reasonabie to expect that an element in such a position would possess some special features vis-à-vis the other fasals in the structure. The phrasing of the fasal indicates that accidental arson is a crime against the community. In particular, the hamiet or talang is defined as possessing at least five houses. That is, for these rules to apply a minimal community is necessary. This is the only fasal of the structure that deals explicitly with an act against the community. A second important feature relates to the number eighteen itself. The marriage structure was based on the 6, 12, 24 sequence which, if viewed in reverse order, conforms to the special case represented by the rule tn = t1 (2 1-°). However, the numbers 6, 12, and 24 are all multiples of six. Eighteen is the only other multiple of six which occurs as a fasal number in the laws. At a primary structural level Fasal 18 dearly has nothing to do with this sequence. However, at a more secondary level there is the vaguest hint of relationship. Houses are one of the concrete manifestations of descent lines. Thus,

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

perhaps the strong sanction against even accidental house burning relates to the possibility that destroying a house is associated with the destruction or interruption of a deseent line. The other fasal that is displaced from the marriage section (i.e., Fasal 24) places eonsiderable emphasis in its first portion on the location of the woman when she dies. As was noted above, the location of the crime plays an important role both in Fasal 18 and in the primary three element structure of which it is a part. Thus, Fasal 18 carries at least a hint of a possible relation to the 6, 12, 24 marriage sequence that can neither be discarded as totally irrelevant nor accepted as being of fundamental structural importance.

Fasa/s 19-21 Fasals 19, 20, and 21 form a distinct structural unit. However, the basic pattern of the three element structure has altercd. In this and the following thrce element group the basic structure involves an opposition between the center and extremities. In both groups this structure is externally determined.

FASAL 19 Fasal 19 is entitled "Diatas orang pandjingan" (concerning persons who fornicate). If a married man fornicates (panjingan) with the wife of another man, she becomes pregnant, and it is clear th at the child is not her husband's, it is called "patie tiada baroerib". In this case the man is killed. If a married man fornicates with a maiden and the maiden becomes pregnant and the man acknowiedges (mengaku) his role in the affair, they are married and both persons fined. The same ruies apply for relations between a youth and a maiden, between a married man and a widow, and finally, between a youth and a widow.

Wilkinson (1932, Vol. Il, p. 210; 1959, p. 844) gives the definition of panjing for the Palembang region as "to become a domestic slave of the ruler, of an unmarried woman wh en found pregnant and unwilling to give the name of her seducer". This recalls the notion of andam found in Fasal 19 of the Code of Laws. In ninetecnth century legal texts originating in the Bengkulu region, the term panjingan is used to refer either to fornication leading to pregnancy or to the fines imposed on people found guilty of such fornication. The principle found in the Wilkinson definition of the woman refusing to name her seducer is not a distinctive marker in these texts. Here the term panjingan applies whether the man is known or not. However, the question of whether the man is known or not does effect the amount of the fine. While this fasal mentions the existence of fines, the only punishment specified in

SUNGAI LEMAU LA WS 147

detail concerns a married man who fornicates with another man's wife.

FASAL 20 Fasal 20 is entitled "Hoekoem orang dapat sala dalam belakie" (the law conceming adultery). If the participants were not kilIed having been caught in flagrante, they are condemned to death provided there is sufficient evidence. The judge is empowered to release the guilty parties from the death sentence, but they must pay the "tebos njawa" of 200 rupia for the man and 200 rupia for the woman. If they do not pay this sum, the judge can hand down whatever punishment he thinks appropriate.30The same rules apply for a youth who fornieates with a virgin, i.e., they are married and fined. The fasal condudes with the enigma tic phrase "atouw dengan anak lak ie orang".

The meaning of the first portion of this fasa! is dear. It is an elaboration upon the first situation described in Fasal 19, i.e., what happens when a married man fornicates with another man's wife. The final portion of the fasa! is less dear. It is no more explicit than Fasal 19 on the ilIicit sexual activities of youths and maidens; and further, the fuIl explanation of this material is finally presented in Fasal 21. The fina! phrase of the fasal is enigma tic and totally out of context, suggesting that this phrase and possibly the preccding passage is confused by a scriba! error. While the contents of the fasa! are not entirely explicit, the structural position of the fasa! is dear. lts position as Fasal 20 of the Sungai Lemau laws is based on the fact that the same materiaI is to be found in Fasal 20 of the Code of Laws. This interpretation of the structural significance of Fasal 20 is reinforced by Fasal 21.

FASAL 21 Fasal 21 is entitled "Sebab denda satoe perkara diatas orang pandjingan" (concerning the fines of a case of persons fornicating). If a youth and a maiden are paired and the maiden is pregnant, the man and woman are fined 20 rupia each. Together they must also give a buffalo as "Tepoeng Boemie". They are then married. The fines are divided in two: 20 rupia go to the Regent and 20 rupia plus the buffalo go to the Proatin (s). The Proatin's 20 rupia is shared with the Passira and the people of the marga. The buffaIo is butchered and eaten collectively. If the fornication involves a widow and a youth, a widow and someone's husband, or a widow and a widower, and the man aecepts the act as his own, the man and woman are each fined 10 rupia and must also give a buffalo and one hundred measures of rice. This is divided between the Regent and Proatins as indicated above. If a maiden is guilty of fomication and the man does not acknowledge his responsibility, the woman is fined 80 rupia and a buffalo and the man must swear an oath

THE LOGIe OF THE LAWS

professing his innocence. For a widow,31 rather than a virgin, the fine is 40 rupia and a buffalo. If a youth rapes a maiden (marampas anak gadies dan anak gadies itoe tida mahoe), he is fined 24 rupia. If a youth elopes (malarikan) with a maiden and she is taken to his house and immediately becomes pregnant it is called "mantjoerie ikan dalam kamboe" (stealing the fish in a fish basket). In this case the youth is fined 24 rupia and a goat. At this point the fasal contains a most curious phrase: "dan demikian djoega kaloe lakie2itoe pigie karoema betina" (literally, and thus also if the man goes to the house of a female animal (pejoratively woman =? prostitute)) .32 The fasal concludes with the provision that all the fines are divided according to the pattern presented earlier in the fasal.

The amounts of the fines are based on two fundamental oppositions. The first opposition is between meranda and gadis, i.e., between a woman who has been married and a woman who has never been married. In a given category of the second opposition the amount for a maiden (gadis) is twicc th at for a widow (meranda). The second opposition is between "berlawan" and "tidak berlawan" (literally, opposed versus unopposed). With reference to panjingan, "tidak berlawan" means that there is no man legally recognized as being responsible for the woman's pregnancy. In a given category of the first opposition the amount for "tidak berlawan" is eithcr twice or four times that for "berlawan", depending on the mode of analysis. From these two oppositions four categories are generated.33 There are two possible approaches to the analysis of the amounts of the fines. One approach involves the analysis of thc total amount of the fines subject to division. Thus the amounts of thc fincs on the man and woman in berlawan categories are summed and treated as a single amount.

berlawan

tid ak berlawan

Following this approach, in a given category of the meranda/gadis opposition, the tidak berlawan amount is twice that of the berlawan amount. The sequence of amounts 10, 20, and 40 reals conforms to the special case of the general rule for sequences sa frequently used in this law.

SUNGAI LEMAU LAWS 149

2 = 3 1-3)

(~)
While there are four categories, there are only three amounts. Thus two categories are assigned the same amount. The amount that is assigned to two categories is the middle element of the sequence, thus suggesting a structural opposition between center and extremities. The equation of two categories to a single amount suggests that the category in which an unmarried maiden is pregnant and the man responsible is legally recognized is at least formally equivalent to the category in which the unmarried widow is pregnant but there is no man recognized as legally responsible. A second approach involves the analysis of the fines that the woman alone must pay. In this mode of analysis no summing is necessary and the numbers are used as prcsentcd in the law.

berlawan

tid ak berlawan

Following th is approach, in a given category of the meranda/gadis opposition thc "tidak berlawan" amount is four times that of thc "berlawan" amount. The sequence' of amounts adds one term to the sequence derived from the first approach. This additional term conforms to thc same sequence rule as used abovc.

= 40

t4=5

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

Here there are four distinct amounts and four categories. From a strict formal viewpoint, it is this feature that makes this the more satisfactory of the two approaches. However, in all probability the first approach comes closer to the native model. First, the numerical sequence contains only three terms. In the other numerical sequences in th is law that conform to the general sequence rule there is astrong preference for three element sequences. Secondly, the three element sequence leads to a structural opposition between center and extremity. The structure of the three fasal block in which this fasal is located also takes this form, thus recommending the first approach.

The Structure of Fasals 19-21

The degree of continuity between Fasals 19 and 21 is sa strong that it is virtually impossible to create a structural opposition between these fasals. While Fasal 19 discusses fornication between a married man and another man's wife, a case which is not mentioned in Fasal 21, and Fasal 21 presents certain additional material not discussed in Fasal 19, the degree of overlap between the two fasals is considerable. This lack of opposition is all the more striking when one recalls the artificially contrived opposition between Fasals 16 and 17. If it were not for the presence of Fasal 20 in the rniddle, one would be tempted to say that Fasals 19 and 21 were two parts of a single fasal. Thus the continuity of content between Fasals 19 and 21 is interrupted by the intrusion of Fasal 20. The position of Fasal 20 is based on the fact that th is fasal was Fasal 20 of the Code of Laws. This creates the impression that Fasal 20 was inserted in the middle of a single conceptual unit, thus creating a structural opposition between center and extremity. When this type of structure was used in the Code of Laws, the center functioned as an insulator between two opposed extremities. Here, however, the extremities are not opposed; on the contrary, they are closely bound together. This indicates a reversal of the phenomenon found in the Code of Laws. Fasals 19 and 21, the extremities, function as insulators, thereby isolating Fasal 20 (the center) from the other fasals.

Fasals 22, 23 and 24 Fasals 22, 23, and 24 form the last three element group in this law set. The pattern of this group is determined by purely structural considerations and is totally independent of the content of the various fasals. This structure, like that of the previous three element group,

WS 151

involves an opposition between the center and the extremities. Fasal 22 presents the fines associated with theft and was discussed previously in association with Fasal 16. Fasal 24 presents the details of the amount of the jujur to he paid if the woman dies before the marriage transaction is considered to be completed. Fasal 24 is closely associated with the marriage section in general and Fasal 12 in particular. Thus both of these fasals are associated with fasals outside the three element group. With reference to their content they have so little in common that they can be neither opposed nor considered as a single unit. However, the fact that they both are structurally related to fasals outside the group of three elements serves to create a basis of unity that structurally opposes these fasals to the middle element of the group: Fasal 23.

FASAL 23 Fasal 23 is entitled "Dan diatas beijo bitjara oetang pioetang" (and on the legal costs of court cases involving debts and credits). In major cases the costs are 5 rupia. In minor cases the costs are 1.25 rupia. These fees are shared among the persons who sit as judges.

The Structure of Fasals 19-24

This fasal is neither conceptually related to nor opposed to the other fasals of the group in which it is located. Furthermore, it is not specifically associated with any other fasal in this law set. Thus Fasal 23 is structurally opposed to the other two fasals of the group. This structural relation can he abstracted in the following manner: fasals associated with other fasals outside the three element group are opposed to those fasals without such associations. While Fasals 22, 23, and 24 conform to this statement, they are not unique in this respect. The same rule may be applied to Fasals 19, 20, and 21. However, in the group made up of Fasals 19,20, and 21, the center fasal is the one with external associations, while in the group made up of Fasals 22, 23, and 24, the fasals in the extreme positions are those with external

1 9 22 20 23

21 24

DIAGRAM 3.12

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

associations. Thus the two blocks of three elements in this six element group have complementary structures. This complementarity involves two structural processes: expansion and contraction. The single locus occupied by the fasal with external associations in the first group of three elements (Fasal 20) is expanded to two loci in the second group. Similarly, the two loci occupied by the fasals without external associations (Fasals] 9 and 21) in the first group of three elements, are contracted to one locus in the second group. These processes are intimately connected to the opposition between the center and extremities. In this example the center is represented by a single fasal while two fasals form the extremities. The structural process of transforming one value of this opposition to the other (the center becoming the extremities or the extremities becoming the center) involves an expansion or contraction of the number of fasals associated with the structural position (i.e., one becomes two or tWo becomes one). This complex structural complementarity between these two th ree element structures indicates that Fasals]9, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 form the third and final six element group in th is law set. The variation in the structure of the three element groups follows the structural boundaries determined by the six element groups. The three element structure of the first two six element groups (the marriage and crime sections) conform to a single pattern, i.e., the first two are united in their opposition andfor contrast to the third. The last six element group, however, employs a different pattern, i.e., the center is opposed to the extremities. In the first two six element groups there is astrong conceptual association between the two three element structures that combine to form the larger group. In the first group the unifying theme is marriage and in the second group the common subject is criminal matters. However, there is no single conceptual theme uniting the last group of six elements. On the other hand, the fin al group of six elements serves to bind the three six element groups together. Two fasals in the last three element structure are linked to fasals in the other six element structures, i.e., Fasal 22 to Fasal 15, and Fasal 25 to Fasal 12. In addition to the structural links of the last three element structure to other parts of the law, the first three element structure of the last six element group conceptually unifies the entire block composed of six element structures. Panjingan, like marriage, is concerned with the regulation of sexual activity. But panjingan is also a semi-criminal matter. Fasal 20 suggests that catching adulterers in flagrante is reason for justifiable homicide. On the other hand, ilIegitimate pregnancy is

SUNGAI LEMAU LAWS 153

viewed as a crime against the community in much the same way as accidental arson.34

FASAL 25 Fasal 25 is entitled "Sepertie perkataän soembang" (what is meant by the word sumbang, i.e., incest). The normal meaning of the word is that a man has had sexual relations (dapat salah) with a woman with whom it is not proper to he married. If a man and woman are guilty of incest, following this definition, then they are condemned to death; but, they can obtain release from the death sentence by payment of the "teboes njawa". Sometimes, however, the incest is such that they can he married. In th is latter case, they incur a large fine equal to one half the bangun.

The text of this fasal is taken directly from Fasal 10 of the Code of Laws. With the exception of one phrase which was not clear in the original and is omitted in the later version, the Sungai Lemau text follows the Code of Laws with word for word accuracy. The position of th is fasal in the Sungai Lemau law is revealed by the examination of the total fasal structure of this Iaw set.

The Tatal Fasal Structure

While the law contains twenty-five fasals, only twenty-four of these participate directly in the total structure. The central feature of the structure is the presence of the three six element groups. The form of the second and third of these six element groups indicates which representation of the marriage section participates in the total structure. Thus the six element group determined by Fasals 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 participates in the total structure. Fasal 6, which initiates and sets forth the conceptual, structural, and numerical pattem of the marriage

o 3 6 9 2

~ 1 1~14~17~20~23 1 2 15 18 21 24

DIAGRAM 3.13

section, remains outside the total structure, thus leaving twenty-four fasals to form the complete fasal structure. While in one sense Fasal 6 is outside the structure, the number six forms the numerical key to the entire pattem. The central structural

THE LOGIC OF THE LA WS

feature is based on three six element groups, i.e., 3 X 6 = 18. But this central block contains six three element structures, i.e., 6 X 3 = 18. The first two six element groups contain three element structures which follow a single pattem. On the other hand, the last six element group contains two three element structures based on a different pattem (i.e., 18 = 12 + 6). Preceding these eighteen central fasals are five fasals which are divided into two groups: one containing three fasals, the other two fasals. This composition of five as two plus three is closely related to the number six. Two times three equals six but two plus three equals five (2 X 3 = 6 but 2 + 3 = 5). The first five fasals are related to the last fasals by another numerical relation based on the number five: 25 = 5 X 5, that is, the first five squared equals the last "five" or twenty-five. The ave rage of these two "five" numbers, i.e., (5 + 25) -7- 2 = 15, plays an important role in the structure of this law. Fasal 15 refers ahead to another fasal (Fasal 22) .35 Interestingly, fifteen is also the ave rage of the first and last multiple of six (i.e., (6 + 24) -7- 2 = 15). Thus, while the number six is the structurally most important number, the number five also plays an important role. While the five-based relation links the first five fasals with the twenty-fifth and last fasal, the total number of fasals before and af ter the central group of eighteen adds up to six. These six fasals at the extremities are divided into three groups: one with three elements (Fasals 3, 4, and 5); one with two elements (Fasals 1 and 2); and one with a single element (Fasal 25). This yields a decomposition of six into one, two, and three. These three elements can be combined in two ways to produce the number six,

i.e., 1 + 2 + 3 = 1 X 2 X 3 = 6. To exhaust the totality of recurring numerical features based on the number six would require a reductio ad nauseam. However, the above analysis clearly indicates that the entire structure of this law is based on the number six, its factors, and multiples.
CHAPTER 3 -NOTES

1 There is no single rule governing name taking among the Buginese. 2 The time difference between administrative changes and publication of the yearly Almanaks is such that one must consult an Almanak one or two years later than the desired date to get the appropriate infonnation. Contrary to this general rule was the use above of the 1855 Almanak for native titles. This was done because the 1856 Almanak contains a typographical error which disagrees with the manuscripts themselves. Both the 1855 and 1857 editions contain the same infonnation and do not contradiet the manuscripts.

Pangeran's Court mentioned in the title of the Code of Laws. While the Dutch word "raad" usually means council (e.g. gemeenteraad = municipal council) occasionally it must be rendered into English as court (e.g. De Hoge Raad = The High Court). 5 The manuscript lists the Dato as a Member but the published version fails to include him in this category, due to a typographical error. The Govem- menta! Almanaks list "Radja Moehamad Tabris" as a member but fail to include Raja Ayensah. Raja Muhammad Tabris was apparently the Dato of the Pasar of Bengkulu. 6 This system of division is not directly verifiabie. However, a system based on similar principles can be developed for many of the division rules in the Manna section of Cod. Or. 12.200. In particular five of the first seven sets of division rules, though they apply to different areas, have the same structure with respect to division of income from panjingan (fines for fornicating), denda (fines), padi (rice), and usul (taxes). Especially significant is the fact that though each of these categories involves a different number of shares (bagian) the same inequality relations among shares apply to all four categories. 7 The Cammentative Digest presents a division pattem based on successive partitions but not on the odd-even principle (Cammentative Digest, p. 285). 8 Westenenk, 1921, opp. p. 60 provides a map of linguistic division in the Residency of Bengkulu. 9 The word "patulei" is translated by Marsden as "clan" or "tribe" (Marsden's Dictionary, 1812, pp. 209, 407). Other lexicographers have accepted this as a Malay word (e.g. Wilkinson, 1932, Vol. 11, p. 221; Wilkinson, 1959, p. 855; Von de Wall, Vol. 11, p. 41). This is the most frequently occurring meaning (c.f. Van Hasselt, 1882, p. 212; Westenenk, 1921, p. 42; Hazairin, 1936, p. 4). Jaspan, however, gives another meaning to this word in the phrase "Djang Pat Petulai" (= The Redjang Four Pillars) to refer to the clans. The link between the two notions is that the four brothers were the founders of the four clans. Swaab (1916, pp. 463, 468) gives the meaning of "petoelai" as clanheadmen (stamhoofden). This meaning is followed and elaborated upon by Wink (1926, p. 12) who translates "petoelai" as clan headmen and "tiang" as clans (stammen). However, the most ingenious suggestion comes from Hazairin (1936, p. 4) who translates "petoelai" as "clan" and "tiang" as pillar. But such a pillar, he argues, was made from a tree, thus "Redjang Tiang Empat" is the same as "the Redjang people with the four family trees (stambomen) ", i.e., clans. 10 The Van den Bor report makes no mention of the fact that this rule applies specifically to outsiders (c.l. Van den Bor, 1862, p.263). 11 The word kawin has two possible interpretations: to get married and to be married (state). The phrases "iang akan djadi Jakje nja" and "iang akan dj adie binie nya" suggest the act of getting married. However, the active and passive markers are not used in this passage. The grammatical opposition between active and passive forms is normally a very important means of contrasting marriage forms. The absence of this contrast serves to underscore the importance of location in opposing the two forms. 12 Hazairin (1936, p. 43) mentions a possible significanee for the tombak but a lack of clarity in punctuation confuses the text.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

13 Hazairin (1936, p. 89) mentions these items together as a means of presenting another type of payment. 14 Beginning with this sentence there is a change in the choice of constmction used to express the relationship between the man and the woman. The new fonn is based on "ambil" (= to take) and is continued to the end of the fasal. kaloe anak passira itoe iang lakie lakie mangambil anak Proatin Petik kan atouw anak orang ketjil tingal djoega djoedjoer betoengoe itoe f 15.- kiranja anak Proatien Petikkan mangambil anak orang kabanjakan, atouw orang kabanjakkan mangambil ank [sic] Proatien Petikkan djoedjoer betoengoe nja f 10.-. Even though one might expect to find the form "mengambil" used to describe the action of the man in jujur marriage as a contrast to its use in ambil anak marriage (c.f. Fasal 5 of the Code of Laws) its use in this manner is extremely rare. The example given here is the only case of such usage in the legal texts of this study. 15 Van den Bor either misinterprets this fasal or is relying on another source of infonnation when he lists the tal i kulo as f. 20 for anak passira, f. 15 for anak pembarab or proatin and f. 10 for orang ketjil (Van den Bor, 1862,

p. 266).
16 The affix ter- in Malay nonnally indicates an incidental passive. However, in South Sumatran texts one occassionally finds ter-being used with an agent
(i.e., ter-... oleh ... ). (e.g. Seluma portion of Cod. Or. 12.200, Fasal 13).
17 C.f. Klinkert, 1947, p.26, "asam-garam" is tamarind and salt, the most necessary ingredients for the preparation of the norm al side dish (toespijs) for rice. 18 The following portion of this fasal is badly marred by at least one and possibly several scribal errors. However, in Van den Bor's report (Van den Bor, 1862, p.266) there is a passage that is clearly based on this fasal and pennits the unravelling of the text. 19 The lack of tikar bantal (bedding) in a commoners' marriage mayor may not be significant, i.e., the omission may be a scribal error. 20 In Skeat's "Magie Square of 3" the symmetric pairs are 6 + 4 = 1 + 9 = 8 + 2 = 3 + 7 = 10. In Skeat's "Magic Square of 5" the symmetric pairs are 15 + 11 = 8 + 18 = 1 + 25 = 24 + 2 = 17 + 9 = 23 + 3 = 4 + 22 = 10 + 16 = 14 + 12 = 7 + 19 = 5 + 21 = 20 + 6 = 26. 21 This reference to a tiger (rimau) may be an error and the intended word was outlaw (risau). 22 In this fasal the terms "Proatin" and "Proatin Petikkan" are used inter- changeably. 23 The opposition between in and out of office is expressed by the opposition "didalam versus di luar perkaradjan". It is not certain whether this refers only to the carrying out of official duties or not. 24 The implication that the bangun is 80 reals indicates that the amount of the bangun given for commoners in Fasal 13 is the basic amount. 25 The literal meaning of pulang undang is difficult to establish with any degree of certainty. The most obvious choice would he to translate the term as "the return of the law". However, this interpretation is suspect. First, it is nonnal for undang to he redoubled (i.e., undang undang or undang2). Secondly, in South Sumatran texts undang2is almost never used te refer to mIes within a text, its use being reserved for the entire text. For the component mIes of a text one is more likely to find the words hukum or adat. Helfrich's dictionary of Middle Malay and its supplements clarifies some points but does not resolve

SUNGAI LEMAU LA WS 157

the problem. In Helfrich (1904, p. 127) one finds the meaning of "poe lang oendang" as to double. This entry establishes two important points. First, its presence in Helfrich's dictionary indicates that the term is not a distinctly Rejang usage. And, secondly, the en try establishes that the unredoubled form of undang in the text is not due to a scribal error. Helfrich's second supplement to his dictionary (Helfrich, 1921, p.36) adds a third meaning to the list given under "oendang" in the original dictionary (Helfrich, 1904, p. 108). This third meaning equates aendang to lipat, thus suggesting that pulang undang means to return twofold, the exact meaning given in the text. However, the third supplement (Helfrich, 1927, p.64) amends the definition given in the second supplement. This ammendation refers the reader to "poelang" (i.e., to Helfrich, 1904, p. 127). This reintroduces uncertainty into the matter, i.e., one cannot be certain if the meaning of undang = lipat given in Helfrich (1921, p.36) occurs outside the phrase pulang undang. 26 This is the special case of the formula tn = 2t2(1 -22 '0+ 21.n)- t 1 (1 -22.n ) and applies when t2= %t]. As was demonstrated above for the wang penurun, if a sequence confarms to the rule for the special case it will also conform to the rule expressed in its more general form. 27 The last phrase is not certain and has been written over. The text reads "man- tjanoen" which 1 interpret as an error for "manjamoen", i.e., me + samUll. 28 It should be pointed out that while the numerical difference between 22 and 15 is seven, there are only six fasals that occur between Fasals 15 and 22, i.e., Fasals 16, 17, 18, 19,20, and 21. 29 Technically "accidental arson" is a misnomer in that arson cannot be acci- den tal. Nonetheless, the fasal makes the intended meaning clear. This example concerning the English word arson illustrates an important problem associated with the analysis of legal mate rial in bath English and Malay as weil as the translation betwecn the two languages. In bath of these languages words in a specifically legal context may have meanings different from those of the same words in norm al usage. According to English common law arson was defined as "the malicious and wilful burning of the house or out house of another man" (Turner, 1958, p. 225). Thus, originally in English criminal law arson was concerned with the burning of houses. An interesting aspect of this definition is that arson was considered to be an "interference with the rights, not of the owner, but of the immediate occupier" (Turner, 1958, idem). Thus a tenant who burned the house which he legally occupied would not commit arson. However, the owner of the house "would commit arson if he burned it whilst it was still in the occupation of the tenant" (Turner, 1958, idem). Though this definition has been significantly altered by statute, the basic point is still valid, i.e., words in a specifically legal context are frequently defined in a manner different from conventional usage. Thus when dealing with legal notions the normal problems of translation are compounded by the fact that legal concepts are defined with reference to a particular legal system that gives the meanings of such words a peculiarly legal shape. 30 Up to this point the text of the fasal is taken from Fasal 20 of the Cade af Laws with only minor variations that serve to make the text more explicit. 31 1 have consistently translated randa or meranda as widow for the sake of convenience. However, the term is also used to denote a divorcee and occasionally a widower. 32 This could refer to the previously mentioned elopement and the contrast is between karaemanja and karoema betina. If this is indeed the case then karaema betina must have an alternative interpretation.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

33 The three transfonnations based on these two oppositions plus the identity transfonnation fonn a Klein 4 group. 34 The fasal on accidental arson irnmediately precedes the panjingan section. 35 The multiples of five in the centra! block of eighteen fasals display an interesting feature. Fasal 10 is the first in a three element group, Fasa! 15 is in the final position and Fasal 20 in the middle position. Besides the fact that the three multiples of five all occupy different positions in three element groups, the sequence in which the positions are occupied is also interesting. The first two (i.e., 10 and 15) occupy the extremities, while the last (20) is in the center, thus indicating a curious recurrence of the center versus extremities opposi tion.

(Cod. Or. 12.206) is entitled "Kitah Oendang Ondang [sic] darie Soengij ltam" (The hook of laws from Sungai Hitam). This law is dated 30 June 1855, exactly one week prior to the Sungai Lemau laws. However, the structural analysis indicates that the Sungai Hitam law is a transformation of the Sungai Lemau law and not the other way around. Indeed, the impression is that the authors of the Sungai Hitam text either were working from a copy of the Sungai Lemau text or had prior knowledge of its contents. While historical speculation could account for this reversal of the nonnal temporal sequence hy evoking explanations such as scribal error or the existence of an early rough draft of the Sungai Lemau text, such speculation is analytically unnecessary. First, the time difference is so minute as to he al most insignificant. Second, the assignment of temporal direction to transformational patterns is only a convenient way to develop a structural analysis. This is especially true when one is working with manuscripts. However, th is convenience need not and indeed, must not come to dominate the structural analysis. In th is example, the pattem of transfonnation is such that it is the historical material that must he questioned and not the analysis. There are two pattems of transfonnation between the Sungai Lemau and the Sungai Hitam laws. The marriage section of the Sungai Hitam law is directly based on that of the Sungai Lemau law. The gross structure of two groups of three fasals is maintained, as is the basic opposition hetween semendo and jujur. The numerical features, however, are lost. But, the content of the structure indicates that the structure Was inappropriate for the Sungai Hitam situation. In other words, the structure of the Sungai Lemau laws appears to be imposed on data that do not fit the structure. A second transfonnational pattem takes the basic three element structure of the Sungai Lemau law and changes it into a two element structure. The most frequent process

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

involves compressing the first two elements of a three element structure into a single element and leaving the third element unchanged.

The Written Form of the Sungai Hitam Laws

The format of this legal code differs from the usual pattern of South Sumatran legal texts. The text is divided into "Partanjaan" (questions) and "Mandjawab" (answers, literally answerings). These "questions" 1 and "answers" appear opposite each other, with the "Partanjaan" to the left of the center fold and the "Mandjawab" to the right. Each question is numbered while the answers are not. This question and answer pattern replaces the use of fasals. In other laws the fasal was the basic unit of analysis. Within a fasal a distinction can of ten be made between the title and the content that is roughly equivalent to the contrast between question and answer. In the analyses based on fasal patterns the title is of ten more important than the contents when one is working with the total structural pattern. However, where fasals are used one rarely finds marked discontinuities between the title and content of the fasal. In the Sungai Hitam text, however, the discontinuity between questions and answers is of ten so great that they appear to deal with different matters. From an analytical viewpoint the questions form a clear structural pattern. The answers, however, blur the sharp categories indicated by the questions and distort the structural pattem to such a degree that one must ask whether an effort was made to impose the highly structured questions on to an inappropriate set of data. This question and answer pattern and lack of continuity between questions and answers raises the question of colonial intervention in the structuring of legal texts. In particular, was a series of specifications circulated by the colonial authorities with the intention th at the desired information be provided by return post? First, the question and answer pattern need not be ascribed to foreign influence. In the "Undang Undang of Moco Moeo" published in Malayan Miscellanies (Vol. II, 1822, Nos. XIII and XIV) a large portion of the text is developed by the use of questions and answers. This text, if anything, is more traditional than those represented in this study. While its language displays a richness in its use of metaphor and metonymy, the suitability of this text as data for a structural analysis dealing primarily with soeial organization is limited. One of the most important factors affecting the usefulness of the law sets used in this study is the fact that they are not genuine traditional products. With the British and Dutch interest

SUNGAI HITAM LAWS 161

in the content of these laws, they are more explicit and detailed than if they had been written for a purely indigenous audience. At the point that this interest leads to interference the analytical usefulness of the laws diminishes rapidly. This interference takes two fonns: one being an interference with the legal content of the laws, and the other an interference with the fonn. The problem concerning the Sungai Hitam text, and more generally those texts making up manuscript Cod. Or. 12.206, involves a question of an interference with fonn. Even if the Dutch authorities did specify the material to be collected and documented, the structural variation within these three texts indicates a considerable amount of manipulation that cannot be ascribed to colonial authorities. Even if the Dutch did specify the fonn to he used, at this time it is unlikely to have been done without consultation with native authorities. Given the political and intellectual climate of Bengkulu in the 1850's, the most influential native authority on such matters was Pangeran Mohamad Sah, one of the authors of the Sungai Lemau text. Thus, though the possibility of Dutch influence admittedly exists, it had not yet come to dominate the structural pattern of legal texts. The degree of interference with the content of th is and other laws, however, is a much more contentious question. Such interference was focused on specific elemental features and thus is less likely to be revealed by structural analysis. And further, while extern al influence may have forced a change in content, the structure may have been hannonized to minimize its effect. For example, pressure may have been applied to alter the amount of the bangun while ignoring the amount of the pampas. However, native opinion may have altered both amounts, thus maintaining the structural relationship between bangun and pampas but destroying the absolute significance of their values. The "Undang Undang of Moeo Moeo" also serves to elucidate the structural nature of texts presented in the question and answer fonn. The more traditional texts, like this one, are of ten written in a rhythmic telegraphic style.2Coupled with this style is a mnemonic, aide-mémoire use of language. The text itself easily divides into questions and answers. The most striking aspect of this opposition is the contrast between the length of the question as opposed to that of the answer. The questions are extremely short, the answers long and involved. The shortness of the questions means that the mnemonic effects are strongest in this portion of the text. This also means that the questions are less susceptible

OF THE LAWS

to change than the longer and more involved answers. In addition to the purely linguistic features of the questions, the mnemonic effect is heightened by the presence of a tightly organized structure. Thus the questions, by their shortness, are more stabie as a result of mnemonic features. But the shortness also allows a structure to be developed that reinforces both the stability and mnemonic usefulness of the questions. Further, while the structure of the questions links the entire law together, the answers themselves also possess structures. The structures of the answers are linked through the structure of the questions. Thus the structures of the answers may change in either complementary or contradictory manners without altering the structure of the questions. However, the processes of structural change operating independently upon the patterns of the answers may weaken the articulation between question and answers until a complete dissassociation occurs. Thus, while the total structure of the questions and the individual structures of the answers might harmonize themselves in the process of change, the process of harmonization might generate discontinuities in structural boundaries (i.e., the boundary between questions and answers). Thus the fact that the question and answer format is used in the Sungai Hitam laws and that the structure largely resides in the patterning of the questions does not mean that the Sungai Hitam text is a radical departure from the patterns of more traditional legal texts. In conclusion, the basic structure of the Sungai lIitam laws displays two fundamental characteristics. First, the structure is dependent upon that of the Sungai Lemau laws. It is this dependency relationship that elucidates otherwise incomprehensible structural anomalies and places the text in a general comparative framework. A second fundamental characteristic of this law set is the use of a question and answer format, typified by but not directly related to the Undang Undang ot Moeo Moeo. The discontinuity between question and answer implicit in such a format is exploited in such a way as to allow the use of the fasal structure of the Sungai Lemau laws, while still presenting the essentially different legal material relevant to the Sungai Hitam region.

PARAGRAPH 1 Question 1 is "Paratoeran darie kapala kapala iang manjalassijkan parkara Negri" (the regulations concerning the headmen who settle the affairs of state). The answer is that the case is settled in accordance with the adat of the place to which the plaintiff and respondent belong with their respective headmen sitting in judgment.

SUNGAI HITAM LAWS 163

PARAGRAPH 2 Question 2 is "Pangkat kapala bagiemana kadoedoek kan satoe kapala kapala kapada iang serta kapada anak boea nja" (the ranks of headmen both with respect to each other and with respect to their subjects). The answer is: In the district of Proatin Duabelas there are seven Pambarabs. They are the Pambarabs of Doessoen Besser, Soeka die Ramie, Lagan, Boekiet [,] Talang Engris, Tandjoeng Agoeng and Talang Kring. These are different from the minor proatins. And in the district of Proatin Lambak Salapan there are four Pambarabs. They are the Pambarabs of Bantiring, Pagardin, Tardana and Sandawar. These are different from the minor Proatins.

These two paragraphs closely reflect the titles of Fasals 1 and 2 of the Sungai Lemau law. Fasal 1 begins "Proatin manjalasaij kan perkara Negrie ... " and Fasal 2 begins "Pangkat kapala kapala dalam satoe satoe merga ... " While the Sungai Lemau law presents two detailed lists of ranked titles, the Sungai Hitam text is less precise. In the first answer the basic principle of juridical procedure is set forth. In the second answer, instead of an enumeration of titles, the title holders are specifically identified by geographical location. The division of Sungai Hitam into two regions does not agree with the fourfold enumeration given by Van den Bor in his report (Van den Bor, 1862, p. 255). However, there is a high degree of correspondence with the material presented in the Proceedings ot the Agricultural Society established in Sumatra. The census of the population of Duabelas accompanying Appendix B (Proceedings B) indicates that most of the proper names associated with Pambarabs are the names of villages: Doessoen Besar = Dusuu [sic] Besar; Soeka die Ramie = Socco Rammie; Lagan = Luggan or Luggan Boongin; Boekiet = Bookit; Tandjoeng Agoeng = Tanjoon Agoong hilir or Tandjoong Agoong Moodik. The two names that do not occur in the census (i.e., Talang Engris and Talang Kring) both contain the word Talang (hamIet), suggesting that in the interval between 1820 and 1855 these two settlements acquired village status while previously they were, in all probability, hamlets dependent upon a larger village. Similarly, the census of the population of Lumba Selapan accompanying Appendix C (Proceedings C) indicates a similar pattem for the Pambarabs of Lumba Selapan: Bantiring = Dusun Benteering; Pagardin = Dusun Paggar Dien; Tardana? = Terra Dannah. The presence of only four names follows the pattem of the origin myth which states that initially there were four villages and then were eight while the census lists exactly sixteen. The initial four were

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

"Benteering, Pagar Din, Seben jole, and Pakooha jie" (Proceedings C,

p.4).3
PLACE NAMES IN SUNGAI HlTAM Kitab Oendang Ondang darie Proceedings of the Agricultural Society Soengij I tam established in Sumatra

The opposition between Proatin Duabelas and Proatin Lemba Selapan would have made an excellent vehicle for the structure of this law set. Indeed, such a territorial opposition forms part of the basic structure of the older portion of the Seluma laws in Cod. Or. 12.200. However, this opposition was not used and the Ie ss satisfactory Sungai Lemau pattem employed instead. PARAGRAPH 3 Question 3 is "Apa kabaikan atouw katongan [error for katolongan?] anak boea kapada kapala nja" (What kindness or aid from subjects to their headmen). The answer is that no aid (katolongan) whatsoever is to be given to their headmen. PARAGRAPH 4 Question 4 is "Apa Pambarab [an error for pamberian?] anak boea nja kapada kapala nja, atouw Padie atouw iang lain lain kaoentoengan assil kapala kapala dia tas barang parniagan atouw barang iang lain lain dapat oleh dia orang dalam oetan serta bago bagie assil itoe (What gifts from the subjects to their headmen either paddy or other profits, the taxes of the headmen on trade goods or things found in the forest, the division of taxes). The answer is th at there is no aid (katolongan) from subjects to their headmen.

SUNGAI HITAM LAWS 165

In these two paragraphs the parallels with the Sungai Lemau laws are based most strongly upon the questions and to a much lesser degree upon the answers. Like Question 3 of the Sungai Hitam laws, Fasal 3 deals with aid to headmen (katolongan anak boea nja kapada kapala nja). Fasal 4 of the Sungai Lemau laws deals with pamberian (gifts) from subjects to headman. The use of "pamberian" in the Sungai Lemau laws helps to clarify the obviously incorrect occurence of the word "Pambarab" in Question 4 of the Sungai Hitam text. Fasal 5 of the S ungai Lema u la ws deals with taxes (assil). The comparison of the titles of the fasals of the Sungai Lemau laws with the questions of the Sungai Hitam laws indicates that the three element structure of the former is transformed into a two element structure. While the first element is the same in each case the last two elements of the Sungai Lemau structure are compressed into a single element in the Sungai Hitam structure.

The Structure of Paragraphs 1-4

The comparison of the fasal contents of the Sungai Lemau laws with the answers of the Sungai Hitam text revcals a greatcr disparity than was suggested by the comparison of titles and questions. The basic structure of Fasals 3, 4, and 5 of thc Sungai Lemau laws is based upon the subject/nonsubject opposition. This leads to Fasals 3 and 4 being opposed to Fasal 5 (i.e., thc basic two plus one structure of the Sungai Lemau laws). However, thc basis of this opposition does not allow easy comparison with Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Sungai Hitam laws where no structurally significant distinction is made between subject and non-subject.4An alternative represcntation of the structure of these three fasals can be generated. The aid (katolongan) of Fasal 3 and the taxes (assil) of Fasal 5 are allowed while the gifts (pambcrian) of Fasal 4 are not allowed. This leads to an opposition between the center and the extremities which is an acceptable aItemative to the two plus one structure. The preference for the two plus one structure ovcr the center versus extremity model in the analysis of the Sungai Lemau laws was based on thc fact th at both of the other two center versus extremitics structurcs are determined by the presence of elements with extemal associations. Thus there are two oppositions in the Sungai Lemau text that create alternativc structures. However, in the transformation to the Sungai Lemau text bath of these oppositions lose their ability to create a change in meaning, i.e., they are neutralized. Only the subject element of the subject/non-subject opposition and only the not allowed element

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

of the allowed/not allowed opposition are employed. This pairing of the subject and not allowed elements of the two oppositions is the combination that occurs in the middle of the three element Sungai Lemau structure, indicating a center versus extremity opposition in the process of transformation. Thus in resumé the transformation from Fasals 3, 4, and 5 of the Sungai Lemau laws to Questions 3 and 4 of the Sungai Hitam laws involves a compression of the last two categories into a single element. However, the transformation from the contents of Fasals 3, 4, and 5 to the Answers 3 and 4 involves not only a neutralization of all oppositions but also a selection of the middle combination of two elements of the two basic oppositions.

Some Analytical Considerations Of the two transformational processes, the one involving the shift from a three to a two element structure is the more problematical. There is nothing in the three element structure to suggest an affinity hetween the last two elements which are compressed. Further, neither of the two alternative structures of the Sungai Lemau laws involves an opposition hetween the last two elements and the first. The observed pattern may he dismissed as a bricoleurean convenience. The imaginary bricoleur, having decided that a two element structure is more elegant than a three element structure, leaves the first element unchanged only to find that the last two elements must be condensed to form a single unit. While this explanation may approximate the native model to some extent, a purely structural solution to the problem would be more instructive. Let opposition A he hetween subject and non-subject and opposition B he hetween allowed and not allowed (denoted hy yes and no, respectively). Using th is convention the Sungai Lemau three element group can he presented as follows:

The relations hetween the three elements can be descrihed in transformational terms: thus to go from 3 to 4 it is necessary to change from one element of opposition B to the other, or in formal notation:

3 -+ 4 = Negate B

he reversed, i.e., 4 -3 = Negate B. The three elements can be combined in three different ways, yielding the following transformations.

I: 3--4 Negate B

lI: 3--5 Negate A

lIl: 4 ... -5 N egate A and B

Each of these transformations can he used to relate only one pair of elements: that is, I cannot he applied to 5; Il cannot be applied to 4; and III cannot he applied to 3. Interestingly, if I were applied to 5, Il to 4, and III to 3 the same non-existent element would be generated in each case, i.e., the combination (non-subject, no).5 However, these transformations, as they apply to a three element structure, display a numher of important features. Not only can each combination of elements he related by only one transformation but it is also true that a given transformation can only relate two elements. Thus each transformation is a unique description of the relationship betwcen a pair of elements. Further, thc transformations may be divided into two groups: land Il are partial negations, and III is a total negation. Referring back to the elements themselves this means that the opposition between Fasals 4 and 5 is greater than the opposition between Fasals 3 and 4 or between Fasals 3 and 5. Thus the transformation from the Sungai Lemau to the Sungai Hitam structure involves condensing the elements not with the least opposition and the greatest affinity but those with the greatest opposition and least affinity. Thus not only do the individual oppositions lose their ability to generate a change in meaning as aresult of the transformation but the transformational process also involves a condensation that overrides the structural boundary at which these oppositions converge to produce the greatest opposition between two categories. Both of these processes by which the oppositions individually and collectively lose their power to create differences may he described as neutralization. However, these neutralizations are operating on different structural levels (i.e., oppositions considered singly versus in combination) and therefore should he considered as complementary but not identical.

PARAGRAPH 5 Question 5 is "Adat Samando, dan adat djoedjoer ser ta banjak issie kawin nja" (The adats of semendo and jujur together with the amount of the isi kawin). In the district Proatin Lamba Selapan the "gan" is 12 rupia. The antaran of the Malay language is 80 rupia. Adat Samando

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

Radja Radja is used in the district of Proatin Duabelas. Jujur is not used in either Proatin Lamba Salapan or in Proatin Duabelas. The mas kawin (literally gold of marriage = isi kawin) follows the amount of the antaran.

Van den Bor's report (1862, p. 267) contains a passage based on this paragraph which also contains additional information which helps to clarify the meaning of the textual passage. Accordingly, the Semando Radja Radja is also called semando beradat; the antaran of 80 rupia is associated with this form and is used in the district "Proatin doea bIas di darat". In "Lemba Selapan" the brideprice is named "gan" and amounts to 12 rupia. Question 5 is the structural equivalent of Fasal 6 of the Sungai Lemau laws. Tbe basic opposition in both places is between jujur and semendo forms of marriage. In the answer, however, this opposition becomes one between used and not used (die pakaij and tida dipakaij). On the other hand, the answer develops an opposition between Proatin Lamba Salapan and Proatin Duabelas. This second opposition, while important in this answer, does not acquire any importance as an organizing principle. On the contrary, the subsequent marriage questions and their answers are organized on the basis of the opposition between jujur and semendo marriage forms, even though the answer to Question 5 specifically says that jujur is not used.

PARAGRAPH 6 Question 6 is "Djoedjoer Agoeng" (the large jujur). The answer is th at the complete jujur amounts to 160 recepis (= rupia = guilders).

PARAGRAPH 7 Question 7 is "Djoedjoer Tangah" (the middle jujur). The answer is th at the money of the jujur is 160 recepis but only 140 recepis is paid while 20 recepis remain unpaid.

PARAGRAPH 8 Question 8 is "Djoedjoer ketjil atouw kabaikan" (the small jujur or the jujur of kindness). The answer is that this form is not used in Proatin duabelas or Lemba Salapan.

Questions 6 and 8 are very similar to the titles of Fasals 7 and 9 of the Sungai Lemau laws. The title of Fasal 7 is "Adat Djoedjoer Agoeng" while the title of Fasal 9 is "Adat djoedjoer orang ketjil atouw orang kabanjakan". However, the title of Fasal 8, "Adat djoedjoer betoengoe" is considerably different from the "Djoedjoer Tengah" of Question 7.

freedom because the categories used need not conform to local social reality. Indeed, with respect to jujur marriage, there apparently is no local social reality to conform t~. Thus, even though this region does not use jujur marriage, the categories of jujur marriage are more elegantly structured than those in the Sungai Lemau laws where jujur marriage is actually used. The threefold division is simply large, medium, and small. The transformation from the titles uscd in the Sungai Lemau laws to this simple but nonetheless elegant structure of the Sungai Hitam laws, reveals the bricoleurean background to the development of these three categories. The first category in both systems is identical. But it is the transformation relations between the last categories that reveal the exact nature of the manipulation. The shift from one form ta the other can he described as a series of discrete transformations.

Fasal 9 = Djoedjoer orang ketjil atouw orang kabanjakan.

I. Drop the word orang wherever it occurs. This yields Djoedjoer ketjil atouw kabanjakan. Il. Substitute the word kabaikan for kabanjakan. Th is yields Djoedjoer ketjil atouw kabaikan = Question 8.

The first transformation establishes the clear opposition between

Questions 6 and 8 as an opposition between large and small (agung/ kecil). The second transformation establishes the fact that there is a direct link between the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws. The second word (kabaikan) is extraneous to the clear structural relations hetween Questions 6, 7, and 8. lts presence only makes sense in terms of a transformation on the title of Fasal 9 of the Sungai Lemau laws. The rationale behind the substitution relation of transformation Il cannot be specified with any degree of certainty. It could easily be a scriba! error. Viewed in this manner the type of error is similar to the error in Question 3 (katongan for katolongan) and that in

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

Question 4 (Pambarab for pamherian). The substitution could also he a genuine lapse of memory or lack of precise information on the part of the authors. Or, the transformation could be intentional. Of the three alternatives the possibility of scribal error is the most Iikely. First, other similar scribal errors exist in the text. Secondly, the explanation based on the lack of correct information is unlikely to be valid because the law set as a whole refiects an intimate familiarity with the Sungai Lemau text. Thirdly, there is no need or reason for an intentional substitution. If any change other than the omission of the word orang were to he applied the simple omission of the second word (i.e., kabaikan) would harmonise the structure, while the substitution actually performed effects the structure neither positively nor negatively. In spite of these transformations Question 8 still refiects its close relation to Fasal 9 of the Sungai Lemau laws. However, the substitution relation hetween Fasal 8 and Question 7 (Djoedjoer tengah for Djoedjoer betoengoe) is a complete substitution. The structural effect of this substitution is to harmonize the structure established by the opposition of large and smaII (agung and kecil). These transformational processes refiect an opposition between center and extremity. The maximal transformation occurs in the center while the extremities remain less affected. While the sequence of large, medium, and small may he viewed as entailing an opposition between the center and the extremities, it mayalso be seen as a continuum from large to smal!. Thus the center versus extremity opposition is clearly present in the transformational relationship, and to alesser extent in the internal structure of the Sungai Hitam questions. While the internal structure of these three questions is substantially different from the structure of the Sungai Lemau fasals, the structure of the answers in this group of three is identical to that of Fasals 7, 8, and 9. Like Fasals 7 and 8, Questions 6 and 7 form a structural entity of a stronger and a weaker form of jujur marriage. The amount of the fuH jujur is the same in both law sets. In the Sungai Hitam law the amount that may be left unpaid is unnamed but is equivalent to the highest amount of the tali kulo listed in Fasal 8 of the Sungai Lemau laws. While the contents of Fasal 9 and Question 8 are different, their structural functions are similar. Fasal 9 is removed from the internal system of the marriage fasals by the lack of substantive content (in comparison to Fasals 7 and 8) and an explicit back reference to Fasal 7. Question 8 is removed from the system by a simple denial of the existence of the form. In the context of the structure based on the

SUNGAI HITAM LAWS 171

answers to Questions 6, 7, and 8, this denial creates an opposition between Answer 8 and Answers 6 and 7. Thus within the context of these three answers there is an opposition between used and unused fonns of jujur. However, the possibility of the existence of such an opposition is ruled out by the answer to Question 5 which states that jujur marriage does not exist at all in the region. This self-contradiction may be eXplained by the dependency of the structure of the marriage section of this law on both the contents and the structure of thc Sungai Lemau laws. The opposition created by Question 5 between jujur and semendo and the fact that the Sungai Lemau laws use this opposition in the organization of the marriage fasals means that there must be questions dealing with jujur in the Sungai Hitam laws. While Questions 5, 6, 7, and 8 follow the pattem of the Sungai Lemau laws only the answers to Questions 6, 7, and 8 confonn to the pattern. This indicates the presence of a structural boundary between Question 5 and Questions 6, 7, and 8. As will be shoW'n below, the structural isolation of Question 5 of the Sungai Hitam laws is similar to the isolation of Fasal 6 of the Sungai Lemau laws from the total fasal structure. While all laws written in the question and answer style have a formal boundary between a question and its answer, this type of boundary is particularly significant in the Sungai Hitam laws due to the use of a question structure based on another law. Thus between the answer to Question 5 and the answer to either Question 6, Question 7, or Question 8 there are na less than three structural boundaries. For example, between the answers to Question 5 and Question 6 there is the boundary between Question 5 and its answer, the boundary between Question 5 and Questions 6, 7, and 8, and thc boundary between Question 6 and its answer. The cumulative effects of these three boundaries are not always thc same. While they produce discontinuities and contradictions between AnsW'ers 6 and 7 and Answer 5 there is no such contradiction between the answers to Questions 5 and 8. lndeed, between the answers to these two questions there is astrong associative link based on their common denial of the existence of jujur marriage. This indicates that the discontinuity between the answer to Question 5 and the answers to Questions 6 and 7 resides at the boundary between the question and answer of Questions 6 and 7. If the discontinuity was at either of two other boundaries a discontinuity would also exist between the answers to Questions 5 and 8. The structure of the relations between Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8 is largely based on a borrowing of both the structure and the content of

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

the equivalent fasals of the Sungai Lemau laws. However, two changes effect the Sungai Hitam structure and serve to make it unique. First, there is the change in the labeling of categories that simplifies the category title pattern. Second, there is the insistence that jujur marriage is not used in the area. This creates a major contradiction with the use of the Sungai Lemau text that is isolated but not resolved.

a A

I _I

DIAGRAM 4.1 PARAGRAPH 9 Question 9 is "Adat orang Ta ambil anak" (the adat of a person who has been married by ambil anak). The answer is that all of the earnings, debts, and credits of a man are left with his wife. The man gets nothing. PARAGRAPH 10 Question 10 is "Samando be rad at" (Semendo marriage in accordance with the adat). The answer is th at wh en a man separates from his wife their common property is divided. The man gets one share, thc woman the other. P ARAGRAPH 11 Question 11 is "Samando balik djoerij" (Semendo mariage in which a descendant returns). The answer is that th is is the same as Samando Radja Radja mariage. The children are free to choose where they will reside, either with the mother or with the father.

These questions correspond closely with the titles of Fasals 10, 11, and 12 of the Sungai Lemau laws: Adat semando terambil anak =

SUNGAI HIT AM LA WS 173

Adat orang Ta ambil anak; Adat semando beradat Samanda beradat; Adat Samando baliek djoerai = Samando balik djoerij. In these three paragraphs there is no marked discontinuity between qucstions and answers. Thus one can speak of Question 9, 10, or 11 in this case and also imply its answer. Questions 9 and 10 are opposed to each other in the same way as Fasals 10 and 11 of the Sungai Lemau laws, i.e., a weak versus strong form of semendo marriage phrased in terms of a man's right over property. Indeed, the content of the opposition between Questions 9 and 10 is clearer and more explicit than the opposition between Fasals 10 and 11. The answers to the tw'o qucstions contain no information beyond what is necessary to establish the opposition. The two fasals, on the other hand, contain considerably more ethnographic detail, which, while interesting in its own right, is extraneous to the opposition of the two marriage forms. Thus, the transformation from the Sungai Lemau laws to the Sungai Hitam laws not only involves a loss of ethnographic detail but also a sharpening of the opposition. This loss of ethnographic detail should not he construed as a loss of information. In terms of the structure the "information" is thc opposition. Thus the clarification of the opposition by the reduction of detail means th at this detail was not "information" but "noise" in the structure of the Sungai Lemau law.6This transitional process by which the oppositional difference between categories are clarified is similar to the transformation between the titles of Fasals 7, 8, and 9 and Qucstions 6, 7, and 8. However, while the opposition between Questions 9 and 10 is intensified, their structural unity is also itcnsified. The clarity of their opposition to each other allows them to function as a discrete structural unit because each form can only be opposcd to its opposite. There is no possibility of deriving another opposition for either of these two elements with an equivalent intensity. Question 11 is independent of Questions 9 and 10 and refers explicitly back to Paragraph 5. The link is established by thc common use of the catcgory Samanda Radja Radja. Like the relationship of the answer of Question 8 to the answer of Question 5, the links hetween Paragraphs 11 and 5 reside in the answers to questions. Samanda Radja Radja is the only semendo form specifically mentioncd in thc answer to Question 5. And in the answer to Question 11 Samanda Radja Radja is given as an alternate name for Samanda Baliek Djoerij.7 These are the only two references to Samanda Radja Radja marriage in thc marriage section of the Sungai Hitam laws. The fact that Samanda Radja Radja is only used as an aiternate name in the answer to Question 11

OF THE LAWS

instead of being substituted for Samando Balik Djoerij in the question itself has two structural functions. First, the structure of the question sequence of the Sungai Lemau law is maintained by using the same words in Question 11 as in Fasal 12. Further, the use of the expression Balik D joerij (the return of a descendant) underscores the cognatic nature of the last fasal in the marriage sections. However, unlike its counterpart in the Sungai Lemau la".rs Paragraph 5 of the Sungai Hitam laws does not introduce a matri and patri principle as alternatives. This double principle and its repetition in Fasal 12 in descent terms formed the content of the structural link between the beginning and the end of the marriage section of the Sungai Lemau laws. In the Sungai Hitam laws the structural link is formally identical to that in the Sungai Lemau laws but the content is different. Here the link is established by the repetition of the phrase Samanda Radja Radja. While the link in the Sungai Lemau laws has greater consequences for the total structure, the link in the Sungai Hitam laws is more visible and obvious. If the opposition between questions and answers is maintained a direct comparison with the structure of the relationships between Paragraphs 5, 6,7, and 8 can be made (c.f. Diagram 4.1 and Diagram 4.2).

QA

DIAGRAM 4.2

The main difference between the two structllres is that there is no center versus extremity opposition in Questions 9, 10, ancl 11 similar to that between Questions 6, 7, and 8.

SUNGAI HIT AM LA WS 175

The Structure ot Paragraphs 5-11

A direct comparison with the marriage structure of the Sungai Lemau laws, however, requires that the use of the question/answer opposition he abandoned. The difference between this structure (c.f. Diagram 4.3) and its equivalent in the Sungai Lemau laws is the fact that the last fasal of the jujur section refers back to the beginning of the marriage section and not to the beginning of the jujur section. It is worth noting that the structure of the Sungai Hitam laws, using this representation, is more synunetrical and more complex than that of the Sungai Lemau laws. A further comparison can he made by allowing Paragraph 8 to drop out of the structure. This procedure can be justified both in terms of the content of the question and in ternlS of the structural similarity with the Sungai Lemau laws.

~ ~

[lï] DIAGRAM 4.4 While some numerical features are retained (e.g. additive symmetry about the center), the clear dependency of the structure on the number sÏx is lost. This loss is based on the fact that the starting point of the marriage structure is the number 5 and not the numher 6. This in turn is a direct result of the reduction of the three element structure of Fasals 3, 4, and 5 to the two element structure of Questions 3 and 4. Considering the transformational relationships between these two marriage structures as a whoIe, there have been both gains and losses in structural features. The Sungai Lemau laws have an elaborate numerical structure based on the number 6. This was underscored by the displacement of one jujur fasal to locus 24. In the Sungai Hitam laws the numerical content of the marriage section is lost as the result of a manipulation outside the marriage section (the two-three structural compression at the beginning of the laws). Furthermore, there is no displaced marriage fasal. The lack of displacement is the critical loss and indicates the non-use of a sÏx based structure.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

On the other hand, the Sungai Hitam laws display a clearer oppositional structure. The structural relations between the three jujur paragraphs are clarified, though changed. The opposition between the first two semendo forms is cleansed of all features that might distort or cloud the oppositional relationships. And there is a new symmetry in the relationships of the last elements in the three element groups to the first marriage paragraph. Thus while the Sungai Hitam laws have lost the powerful influence of a numerical structure they have gained an oppositional structure that defines the relations between the paragraphs much more clearly than in the Sungai Lemau laws. These two complementary structures are mutually reinforcing. There is sufficient difference between the ways in which these two systems are used to build a common formal structure to support the general validity of the structure. Thus, while two elements with the same structural loci are opposed, the manner in which the opposition is achieved and the content of the opposition is not always the same. A case in point is the opposition and unity of the first and last structural loci. In the Sungai Lemau laws the relation is based on the unification versus opposition of a matri and patri principle. In the Sungai Hitam laws the connexion is established by the use and re-use of the expression Samando Radja Radja. This restructuring of an opposition is analogous to the linguistic process described by Jakobson (1931, 1949) as rephonolization. An opposition is maintained, but its relationship to the system is altered. What was a complex relation based on the interaction of descent and residence principles with an opposition between patri and matri forms becomes a simple back reference based on the sharing of a common term (Samanda Radja Radja). However, the restructuring of the opposition serves to underscore the essential importance of the opposition of the loci at the extremities of the marriage section. And further, there is the suggestion that the formal opposition is more important than the specific content of the opposition. The gain in oppositional clarity, the loss of a numerical structure, and the restructuring of the oppositions do not require that a direction be assigned to the transformational process. The analysis of these patterns has proceeded on the assumption that the transformation is from the Sungai Lemau laws to the Sungai Hitam laws. In terms of these three processes th is assumption is unnecessary and the direction of the transformation may be reversed. Thus it could he said that in the process of transformation trom the Sungai Hitam laws to the Sungai Lemau laws a numerical structure is gained and oppositional clarity is

SUNGAI HITAM LAWS 177

lost. Tbe principle of restructuring does not imply any direction. However, the presence of questions and answers concerning jujur marriage requires that the direction of the transformation be from the Sungai Lemau laws to the Sungai Hitam laws. Tbe answer to Question 5 specifically states that jujur marriage is not used in the two districts th at make up Sungai Hitam. Nevertheless, Questions 6, 7, and 8 are concerned with jujur marriage farms and only the answer to Question 8 denies the usage of a jujur farm. Thus, there is a structure for something which the law says does not exist. A yariety of explanations for this contradiction may be put forward. Perhaps only the higher classes use jujur marriage, perhaps it is occasionally used for interregional marriages, or perhaps it was previously used but discontinued. All of these possibilities, however, do not explain the contradiction in the text. That is, the text allows the contradiction to exist without offering an explicit explanation. However, an analyical transformation helps to clarify the use of socially non-existent categories if a direction is assigned to the transformational relationship. Thus the Sungai Hitam structure is derived by a transformation on the structure presented in the Sungai Lemau laws. This relationship need not imply that the people writing the Sungai Hitam laws were actually using the text of the Sungai Lemau laws. There may very weIl have been a generally accepted conceptual model for jujur marriage which was most clearly expressed in the Sungai Lemau laws. Further, the transformation from the Sungai Lemau to the Sungai Hitam laws is so strong that the historical validity of the dates on the documents must be questioned. This assignment of analytical priority to the Sungai Lemau laws means that this law set is functioning as a type of reference law within the framework of the total analysis. More specifically, it is the reference law for the three separate legal codes that make up the manuscript Cod. Or. 12.206. However, its status as an analytical reference point does not mean that it replaces the Code of Laws as the reference law for the entire analysis. The Code of Lows is the primary reference law, and the Sungai Lemau laws are a secondary reference law. This hierarchy of structural reference points means th at the Sungai Hitam text is analysed in reference to the Sungai Lemau text which in turn may he compared with the Code of Laws and that no direct comparison is made hetween the Sungai Hitam laws and the Code of Laws. The status of the Sungai Lemau laws as a secondary reference point is partly hased on the comparison of the structures of the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws. This comparison favours the use of the Sungai

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

Lemau text as the secondary reference point. Furthermore, this sequential relation also follows the ordering of the laws in the manuscript which is based on a previously established precedence system (c.f. p. 109 f. above). Thus while this system of analytical priorities overrides the historical relations between the documents, it is based on the comparison of the structure of the two laws and corresponds to a native ranking of the headmen for the areas dealt with in this manuscript.

Introduction ta Paragraphs 12-15 Following the marriage section of both the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws is a section dealing with criminal matters. In the Sungai Lemau laws this section contains six fasals with a primary division into two groups of three fasals. In each of these two primary groups of three elements the first two elements are united in their structural opposition to the third element. Thus in the six fasals there are four structural units. Two structural units contain two fasals and two structural units contain one fasal each. While the primary division gives one structural arrangement of these four structural units, a secondary division yields another structure. In this second partition the first and last structural units are combined and contrasted with the middle two units. While one of these secondary partitions (Fasals 13, 14, and 18) maintains the two plus one sequence of the primary division, the other partition (Fasals 15, 16, and 17) inverts the sequence, yielding a one plus two structure. In the Sungai Hitam laws there is a single transformation that affects all of these relations. The structural units of the Sungai Lemau laws which contain two fasals are compressed so that in the Sungai Hitam laws they consist of only one question and answer combination. Thus this section contains only four paragraphs with a primary division into two groups of two paragraphs with a simple opposition between the elements of each group. The secondary division also applies, with the first and last elements united in their opposition to the middle ones. However, the structural inversion of the middle units no longer exists because all of the structural units contain the same number of elements. In the Sungai Lemau laws there is a dear conceptual basis to the primary division based on an opposition between compensation and punishment. This opposition is highlighted by the fact that Fasal 22 contained the fines associated with the crimes discussed in Fasal 15. In the Sungai Hitam laws the opposition between compensation and punishment is not maintained and there is no structural displacement.

SUNGAI HITAM LAWS 179

PARAGRAPH 12 Question 12 is "Hoekoeman diatas orang mamboeat sala mamboenoe orang atouw maloekahie orang" (the punishment of a person who is guilty of killing or wounding another person). The Answer: If there is evidence pointing to the guilty party, the adat says "when there is killing, the punishment is to be killed also" (apabila mamboenoe, hoekoem die boenoe poela). But a person can be free from the death sentence if he pays a "teboes njawa" of 160 rupia and a fine of 40 rupia. In the case of wounding, there are several types of wounds and thus the wound must be examined. For a large wound the pampas is 50 rupia, for an average wound the pampas is 25 rupia, and for a small wound the pampas is 12 rupia.

The tebus njawa, rather than the bangun, is the basic payment for murder. While the bangun when it occurs is always associated with compensation for murder, the tebus nyawa is usually presented as an alternative to the death sentence. In particular, the tebus nyawa is frequently found in association with punishment for sexual offences. However, in this context the significance of the tebus nyawa is dearly in its being an alternative to the death sentence. The implication of punishment is also underscored by the fine of 40 rupia. The amount of the tebus nyawa (160 rupia) is both structurally and literally equivalent to the bangun of the Sungai Lemau laws. First, the amount of 160 rupia is identical to the amount of the jujur given in the ansW'er to Question 6. Both amounts are located in the answer to the first question of their respective sections. This structural relation is the same as that found in the Sungai Lemau laws. In the Sungai Lemau laws though there was a list of amounts based on rank, the amount specified for a commoner could be identified structurally as the basic amount. First, this amount was equal to the basic jujur price. Secondly, the Code of Laws indicated that the highest pampas was equal to one half of the bangun. These two relations indicate that the basic amount of the bangun was 160 rupia, a sum identical to the amount of the tebus nyawa of the Sungai Hitam laws. While the Sungai Lemau laW's contain no fine, the sum of the tebus nyawa and the fine in the Sungai Hitam laws equals 200 rupia or 100 reais, the amount of the bangun in the Code of Laws. The pampas categories are defined in terms of the wounds. The linguistic categories form a dear sequence: segedang gedang = large; partengah = average (middle); and ketjil = smal!. This three element division into large, medium, and small is similar to the system of jujur categories, the main difference being the word chosen to represent the

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

large category (i.e., agoeng versus segedang gedang). The relationships among the amounts of the pampas are more problematical. The lowest amount given in the text is 12 rupia. This amount must be considered suspect. In both the Code of Laws and the Sungai Lemau laws the minimum amount of the pampas is given as 12.50 rupia or 6~4 reais. If 12.50 rupia is substituted for the twelve rupia of the text then a halving pattern is indicated: i.e., 12.50 = 12 (25) and 25 = 12 (50). If 12.50 rupia is taken as the lowest amount then the second category (partengah) is the middle element of the halving sequcnce. If there is an error it is most likely based on a scribal fault. While in both the Sungai Lemau laws and the Code of Laws the highest pampas was equal to one half of thc bangun, a similar relation does not exist in the Sungai Hitam laws, where one half of the tebus nyawa equals 80 rupia. However, it is worth noting that the highest amount for the pampas is equal to one quarter of the sum of the tebus nyawa and the fine, i.e., 14 (160 + 40) = 50. Further, if 12.50 rupia is taken as the lowest pampas amount then this is one-sixteenth of this sum.8Thus the numerical structuring of the amounts to be paid in compensation for killing and wounding is much weaker than in the Sungai Lemau laws. This phenomenoll parallels the lack of numerical structuring in the marriage section of the Sungai Hitam laws. The small quantity of numerical patterning that does exist is largely based on the interpretation of a figure in the text as a scribal error. Given the general lack of concern with numerical relations in the Sungai Hitam laws it is entirely possible that this "error" was made in the original drafting of the text.

PARAGRAPH 13 Question 13 is "Mantjoerie atouw mantjoerie karbauw" (stealing or stealing buffaloes). Answer: If it is clear th at a theft has taken place the goods are returned twofold (lipat). The thief is also fined. The same rules apply for buffaloes.

The contents of this paragraph, for all practical purposes, are identical to the equivalent fasal in the Sungai Lcmau laws. The main structural differcnce is thc refcrence to a fine in the Sungai Hitam text. In the Sungai Lcmau laws all rcfercnces to fines are specifically omitted and occur clsewhere in Fasal 22.

PARAGRAPH 14 Question 14 is "Orang mantjoerie die djalan atouw saorang atouw

HITAM LAWS 181

ada dengan teman nja" (A person alone, or with an ac complice, commits robbery on a road). Answer: If there is evidence indicating that the person who was robbed was killed, the robber is banished from the state (Negrie) and is punished by the judge.

PARAGRAPH 15 Question 15 is "mambakar Roema" (Burning houses). If there is evidence pointing to the offending party th at person is banished from the state as wen as being punished. H, however, in a kampung or a village there is an accident al conflagration as, for example, from a kitchen fire, the guilty party must give a "tepoeng boemie" consisting of a buffalo and 100 measures of rice to the persons of the village.

Question 14 and its answer function as the structural equivalent of Fasals 16 and 17 of the Sungai Lemau laws. The opposition between these fasals was based on the contrast in the fasal titles between inhabited areas and roadways. However, the substantive content of the fasals lacks any opposition. While Paragraph 14 functions as a structural equivalent of Fasals 16 and 17, Question 14 is more closely related to the title of Fasal 17 (kaloe manjamoen orang die djalan, atouw sa orang berdoea ... ). This relationship between Fasals 16 and 17 and Paragraph 14 can be viewed either as a special type of compression or as a simple omission of Fasal 16. The importance of compression in the transformational processes found elsewhere in the analysis favours its use as an explanation here. In the Sungai Lemau laws the opposition between Fasals 16 and 17 was extremely weak. lts only function was to create a sequence of three elements with a given structure at a particular point in the law, even though there was no substantive content to the opposition. The weakness of the opposition suggests a neutralization process. The transforrnational process of compression therefore involves a neutralization of the opposition and a representation of the opposition in the neutralized position by only one member of the original opposition. Thus, the original opposition between "die doessoen atouw die Talang atouw die roema Ladang" and "die djalang" is neutralized and represented by only placing "die djalang" in the neutralized position.

N eutralization This type of neutralization follows certain kinds of neutralization in linguistic analysis. For example, in Dutch the words "de noden" = needs and "de noten" = nuts are distinguished by the opposition between ftf and fdj. However, in the singular form of these words

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

the opposition between Itl and Idl is neutralized and only the It/ occurs in the tenninal position. Thus the words "de noot" = nut and "de nood" = need are pronounced exactly the same way. In more general tenns, the opposition has been neutralized and the original opposition is represented by only one member of th at opposition in the position of neutralization. While linguistic analysis has its own rules for detennining which member of the neutralized opposition will occur in the position of neutralization, here the selection is based on the boundary between Fasals 17 and 18, on the one hand, and between Paragraphs 14 and 15 on the other. The nature of the boundary remains unchanged in the process of transfonnation. Thus the opposition is represented in the neutralized position by the member of the opposition closest to the boundary, i.e., Fasal 17. While neutralization appears to be a special type of compression, contraction, or condensation, these terms are actually special types of neutralization. Compression, as the term suggests, involves taking an opposed pair and reducing the pair to a single unit (or element), but at the same time taking features from both members of the original opposition to fonn the new single element. English provides a good linguistic example of this type of neutralization. The opposition between Ipl and Ibl nonnally creates a change in meaning, e.g., "piU" versus "bill". However, af ter an initial Isl the opposition loses its power to create such changes in meaning, that is, it is neutralized. Thus if one said "sbiU" instead of "spill" most native speakers would assume that "spill" had been said. However, the Ipl in "spill" is not thc exact equivalent of either member of the original opposition. The Ipl in "spill" is unvoiced like the Ipl in "pill" but unaspirated like the Ibl of "bill". Thus, in the position of neutralization, the original opposition is represented by features some of which are associated with one member of the original opposition and same with the other (c.f. Trubetzkoy, 1939, p. 71 f.; 1949, p. 82 f.; 1969, p. 79 f.). Thus while I shall continue to use the concept of compression as previously defined, the special type of compression used in the transfonnation between Fasals 16 and 17 of the Sungai Lemau laws and Paragraph 14 of the Sungai Hitam laws can easily be related to the linguistic notion of neutralization.

The Structure of Paragraphs 12-15

However, the transfonnation relationship between the title of Fasal17 and Question 14 is not an exact replication. While the title of Fasal 17 used the verb "manjamoen", Question 14 uses the verb

SUNGAI HITAM LAWS 183

"mantjoerie". Normally, samun is used for robbery while cun IS used Cfor theft. Moreover, there is a discontinuity between Question 14 and its answer. The question uses the word mantjoerie while the answer uses samoen, manjamoen. The occurence of manjamoen in the answer, the structural relation with the Sungai Lemau laws, and the syntactic construction of the question, all indicate that the paragraph is unequivocably concerned with robbery. There are two possible explanations of the substitution of mantjoerie for manjamoen in Question 14. First, it could be a scribal error needing no further explanation. Secondly, this substitution could have been intentional. This latter approach to the problem presents some interesting structural possibilities. The common occurence of mantjoerie in Questions 13 and 14 suggest that they form a single structural unit. Such a unit is generated by applying the compression transformation to the secondary partition of the Sungai Lemau laws. This relationship with the Sungai Lemau laws, plus the existence of the question and answer discontinuities in the marriage section of this law, suggest that the occurence of mantjoerie in Question 14 is not accidental. However, the difference between Fasal 18 and the answer to Question 15, as weIl as the similarity between the answers to Questions 14 and 15, establishes Parágraphs 14 and 15 as a primary structural unit. While Fasal 18 is only concerned with accidental arson, Question 15 deals with both accidental and intentional arson. 1t is the punishment for intentional arson that forms the explicit link with the answer to

QA

~) Ç~5

~ ([liJ) ~ \~ Pr ima ry Secondary

DIAGRAM 4.5 DIAGRAM 4.6

Question 14. Robbery and intentional arson are punishable by banishment that leads to the replication of the transformed primary partition of the Sungai Lemau laws. While the total structure of the Sungai Lemau laws indicated which of the alternative partitions of the crime

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

section was the primary one, the Sungai Hitam pattem is not as clear. However, the structure indicates th at the primary partition of the Sungai Lemau laws is to he found in the answers to the questions of the Sungai Hitam laws and the secondary partition in the questions themselves. The structural representation in Diagram 4.5 is based on two assumptions. First, the occurence of mantjoerie instead of manjamoen in Question 14 is not accidental. And second, the link between Paragraphs 12 and 13 resides in the answers and not the questions. If the first assumption is invalid, the center versus extremity opposition of the secondary opposition is not automatically invalidated, but only the assertion that the opposition is specifically located in the questions. Thus two alternative representations similar to those created for the Sungai Lemau laws would he necessary. The second assumption is based on the first. If the substitution of manjamoen for mantjoerie is not accidental then a discontinuity is created between Question 14 and its answer. This discontinuity allows Paragraph 14 to participate in two different structural arrangements simultaneously. The pattem suggests that a question or an answer may not participate in two structural arrangements at the same time. Thus the link between Paragraphs 12 and 13 must reside in the questions. Therefore, only if the assumption conceming the use of mantjoerie in Question 14 is valid, is this structural representation applicable. Allowing these assumptions to he valid, and taking cognizance of the symmetry patterns of the structure of the marriage section, two further structural relations should exist. First, symmetry considerations suggest the existence of a discontinuity between Question 13 and its answer. Secondly, structural harmony and a tendency towards completeness would require the existence of a link between Questions 12 and 15. If the assumption conceming Question 14 is invalid and the substitution of mantjoerie for manjamoen is accidental th en the representations of the structure in Diagram 4.6 would be more appropriate. Both the primary and secondary representations of the structure in

Diagram 4.6 can be generated by applying the compression transforma-

tion to the appropriate Sungai Lemau structures.

Introduction to Paragraphs 16-18 The last group of six fasals in the Sungai Lemau laws form a distinct block with a structure of its own. The basic feature of this six element

LAWS 185

structure was a division into two complementary three element structures, each of which was generated by a center versus extremity opposition. This change in the oppositional nature of three element structures means that the basic compression transformation linking the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws is inoperable in this case. Furthermore, each of these three element structures was determined by the external associations of the fasals making up one element of the center versus extremity opposition. In the group containing Fasals 19, 20, and 21, Fasal 20 is directly associated with Fasal 20 of the Code of Laws. In the group containing Fasals 22, 23, and 24, Fasal 22 is associated with Fasal 15 and Fasal 24 with Fasal 12. In this latter case the associations are external to the group of six fasals but within the Sungai Lemau laws. In the Sungai Hitam laws, the principles of displacement and external association are not used and the Sungai Lemau elements with this feature are dropped in the process of transformation. Thus, there are only three elements in pI ace of six. Two of these deal with sexual offences and one with legal costs and fines. This pattern is what would he obtained by omitting the fasals of the Sungai Lemau laws which have a distinct external association. While the Sungai Hitam laws have two paragraphs dealing with sexual offences, the division into categories does not reflect the pattern of the Sungai Lemau laws. This change is a logical consequence of the fact that the categories used in the Sungai Lemau laws were principally determined by the principle of external association. Notwithstanding all of these fundamental changes, Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Sungai Hitam laws form a clistinct two element unit. The structure of th is unit is not modelled on the equivalent fasals in the Sungai Lemau laws but on the pattern of two element structures used elsewhere in the Sungai Hitam laws. Paragraph 18, the last one, while heing related by its content to Fasal 23 of the Sungai Lemau laws, has a structural function equivalent to Fasal 25, that is, it is a single element not belonging to a structure made up of a larger number of elements, and stands at the end of the law set.

P ARAGRAPH 16 Question 16 is "Pandjingan orang iang ada binie nja dengan, binie orang lain atouw dengan anak Gadis, atouw dengan prampoean marando" (Panjingan of a married man with another man's wife, or with a maiden or a widow (divorcee). The Answer: This is punishable by death; but he (they?) can be freed up on payment of a teboes njawa of 160 rupia. If a virgin (anak Gadis) or a widow (prampoean marando) is involved both parties are fined 40 rupia.

LOGIC OF THE LA WS

PARAGRAPH 17 Question 17 is "Barkandak atoûw main muda anak Gadies" (Fornication or flirtation with a virgin). If it is only "flirtation" (main moeda) there is no punishment. If the man exceeds the limits of propriety 0 then both parties are fined 20 rupia. If, however, the maiden becomes pregnant then the fine is increased to 40 rupia each and the man marries the maiden.

The meaning of the answer to Question 16 is not entirely clear. In particular, does the fine of 40 rupia involve a separate category of punishment or is it in additon to the tebus nyawa of 160 rupia? A comparison with Fasal 20 of the Sungai Lemau laws ultimately leads to Fasal 20 of the Code of Laws. There the payment for adultery, also called tebus nyawa, is 100 reals and is equal to the bangun for murder as specified in Fasal 21. In the Sungai Hitam laws the tebus nyawa specified in Paragraph 16 is the same as that in Paragraph 12 for murder. The pattern of the Sungai Lemau laws indicates that the 160 rupia only apply to adultery and are probably to be paid by both parties. In Paragraph 12 a fine of 40 rupia is also associated with the tebus nyawa which is to he paid for murder. In Paragraph 16, however, the fine only applies to relations with a maiden or a widow (divorcee). Thus it is not associated with the tebus nyawa for adultery. The possibility that the te bus nyawa plus a fine is to he paid for illicit sexual relations hetween a man and a virgin or a widow must he dismissed on three grounds. First, the Sungai Lemau laws indicate that adultery is a more serious offence than fornication. Secondly, this assertion tends to he contradicted by Paragraph 17. Thirdly, the structural analysis of the categories of women involved in different types of illicit relationships indicates th at married versus unmarried women is an important opposition. While the categories of Paragraph 17 are not fully eXplained, they appear to be simple flirtation, sexual relations not leading to pregnancy, and sexual relations leading to pregnancy. The relations descrihed in Paragraph 17 specifically involve only a woman who has never been married (anak gadis). The marital status of the man is left unspecified. The exclusive reference to gadis (virgin) creates an implied opposition with meranda (widow, divorcee) which helps to elucidate the matter of the 40 rupia fine mentioned in Paragraph 16. The 40 rupia fine of Paragraph 16 is for fornication leading to pregnancy (panjingan) with an unmarried woman. The grouping together of gadis and meranda indicates that the category is unmarried rather than never married.

Thus the opposition within Paragraph 16 is between married and unmarried women. On the other hand, the contents of Paragraph 17 suggest a further subdivision of the unmarried category into an opposition between once married and never married women. The two basic oppositions create overlaping categories because a gadis (virgin) is both unmarried and never married and a meranda (widow) is both unmarried and once married. These oppositions also clarify the significance of the fine of 20 rupia in Paragraph 17. The fine of 40 rupia for a never married woman (gadis), as stated in Paragraph 17, agrees with the fine of 40 rupia for an unmarried woman (gadis or meranda) as stated in Paragraph 16. 1ne opposition between once married and never married specifically applies to the fine of 20 rupia. This opposition between once married and never married women implies a parallel opposition between a woman who has had sexual relations with a man and one who has not. Thus one can conclude th at the fine of 20 rupia is for having sexual relations with an unmarried and also a never married woman, even though pregnancy does not result. The fact that this applies to virgins but not widows or divorcees indicates that the fine is not for illicit sexual relations in general but for the deflowering of a virgin. This complex intertwining of two oppositions creates a distinct structural unit composed of these two paragraphs. The structure of the opposition and unity of Paragraphs 16 and 17 is not a transformation on the pattern of the Sungai Lemau laws. In addition to the organizational opposition between internal versus external associations, the Sungai Lemau laws also used the opposition between berlawan/tidak berlawan (with a partner/without a partner) as a fundamental structural device. While the center versus extremity opposition in Fasals 19,20, and 21 may be associated with an opposition between married and unmarried, this opposition has no role in the structural organization of the six element group. On the other hand, the Sungai Hitam laws develop their own oppositions to form a structural unit which, while vaguely related to the corresponding material in the Sungai Lemau laws, more closely parallels the two element structures so typical of the Sungai Hitam laws.

P ARAGRAPH 18 Question 18 is "Banjak denda sebab satoe parkara serta bago bagie denda itoe, dan banjak beijo dal am parkara oe tang pioetang, dan bago bagie beijo itoe, kapada kapala kapala (the amount of fines in each case and their division, the amount of legal casts in debt and credit cases and the division of these costs among the headmen). The Answer:

LOGIC OF THE LA WS

The fines from pan jingan are divided in two. One share goes to the headmen of the concerned village and the other share goes to the Regent. The amounts involved follow the specifications of Fasal 16 (IiteraIly: Passal 16). The legal costs derived from debts and credit cases are also divided in two. One share goes to the Regent, the other to the judges who he ar the case.

The reference to legal costs establishes the link with Fasal 23 of the Sungai Lemau laws which deals exclusively with this matter. The other portion of this paragraph, which deals with panjingan, is explicitly linked with Paragraph 16.10Each of these relationships leads to a different structural evaluation of the significance of th is fasal. However, the questionjanswer discontinuity isolates these two structures. Question 18 contains two portions. The second specifically mentions "beijo" (legal casts). However, the first part of the question is not specifically related to panjingan but is rather vague, referring only to the "amounts of the fines in some court cases". The order of the items and the vagueness concerning the first portion allow a comparison with Fasals 22 and 23 of the Sungai Lemau laws. If one had read Fasal 22 concerning fines associated with theft and Fasal 23 concerning legal costs, and then read only the question portion of Paragraph 18, one might expect that the answer to Question 18 would deal with the same material as Fasals 22 and 23. Thus when only Question 18 is compared with Fasals 22 and 23 the compression transformation seems to apply. This is only possible because the question is vague and omits the explicit reference to panjingan found in the answer to the question. This contrasts sharply with legal costs, which are mentioned in bath the question and the answer. This relationship with the Sungai Lemau laws indicates that Question 18 stands apart from panjingan paragraphs and as such may be functionally equivalent to Fasal 25 of the Sungai Lemau laws (i.e., in both cases the law set is concluded by a single element). However, the answer to Question 18 suggests a different pattern. The explicit reference to panjingan and to Fasal 16 binds this element to the two element structure concerning ilIicit sexual relations, thus creating a two plus one structure. While the marriage section of the Sungai Hitam laws uses the two plus one structure of the Sungai Lemau laws, the back-referencing system of the last fasal in each of the three element structures has been altered. In the Sungai Hitam laws the last jujur paragraph iIliplicitly refers back to the first paragraph concerning marriage (No. 5) and not to the first jujur paragraph (No. 6) as in the Sungai Lemau laws. The pattern suggested by the answers to Questions

SUNGAI HITAM LAWS 189

16, 17, and 18 not only reflects the two plus one structure of the Sungai Lemau laws but more strongly reflects the pattern of the jujur fasals of the Sungai Lemau laws than the jujur paragraphs of the Sungai Hitam laws do. First, the last element refers back to the first element of thc three element structure. And secondly, in both cases the back reference is achieved by specifically mentioning the number of the concerned element. This two plus one structure has an interesting transfonnational relationship with the center versus extremity structures of the last group of six fasals in the Sungai Lemau laws. The two panjingan fasals of the Sungai Lemau laws fonned the extremities of a center versus extremities opposition. The center was an externally associated element and is dropped in the transfonnation process. The two extreme elements become the first two elements of the two plus one structure of the Sungai Hitam laws. And similarly, Fasal 23, the center element of a center versus extremity opposition, becomes the single element of the two plus one structure of the Sungai Hitam laws. This transfonnational relationship establishes the logical relationship between center versus extremity structures and two plus one structures, especially those used in the Sungai Lemau laws. Thus a center versus extremity opposition involvés inserting the single element of a two plus one structure between the halves of the two element unit. Both of these alternative structural arrangements of Paragraphs 16, 17, and 18 of the Sungai Hitam laws are valid. However, the use of the structure based on Question 18 and not its answer allows a better comparison between the total structures of the Sungai Hitam and Sungai Lemau laws. This is a logical consequence of the fact that the structure of Question 18 is directly based on the structure of the Sungai Lemau laws. The gross structure of the Sungai Hitam laws can be summarized by

Diagram 4.7.

[1] .[1§] ~ ~ l1] l!11

DIAGRAM 4.7

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

The central structural feature of the Sungai Lemau laws was composed of eighteen fasals divided into three groups of six elements which were in turn divided into two groups of three elements. The central structural feature of the Sungai Hitam laws is composed of twelve paragraphs divided into two groups of six elements. One of these groups of six elements is composed of two groups of three elements. The other is composed of three groups of two elements. This double composition of six (i.e., 2 X 3 = 3 X 2 = 6) is the major six based feature of this law set. While each of the six element blocks of the Sungai Lemau structure ended with a multiple of six, each block of the Sungai Hitam structure begins with a multiple of six (i.e., 6 X 3 = 18). The lack of use of numerical features elsewhere in the Sungai Hitam laws suggests that th is feature was not intentional but a consequence of the partitioning of the law set into major segments.

CHAPTER 4 -NOTES

In the comparative analysis of the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws the following convention applies. The form "Fasai" denotes a specific fasal in the Sungai Lemau laws. The form "Question" denotes aspecific "Partanjaan" of the Sungai Hitam laws. The form "Answer" denotes aspecific "Mandjawab" of the Sungai Hitam laws. The form "Paragraph" denotes aspecific Question and Answer pair of the Sungai Hitam laws. The uncapitalized forms of Fasal, Question, Answer, and Paragraphs refer non-specifically to the fasals, questions, answers, and paragraphs of the respective laws. 2 This style is demonstrated by the selection from the Undang Undang of Moeo Moeo in Appendix 11. This style and use of language is occasionally found in otherwise easily comprehensible law texts. For example, in the Manna laws of Cod. Or. 12.205 the lists of accessories associated with jujur marriage display this characteristic (c.f. Cod. Or. 12.205, Fasals 1 and 2). 3 Terra Dannah = ? Terdana occurs in the enumeration of eight villages. 4 In the Sungai Lemau laws the opposition between subject and non-subject is expressed by anak buah/orang di luar negri. In the Sungai Hitam laws one only finds the term anak buah (subjects). While th is specific reference to subjects may imply non-subjects, the Sungai Hitam laws lack the explicit opposition of the Sungai Lemau laws. 5 IC this fourth element was present a Klein 4 group could easily be generated from the transformations. 6 For a discussion of the technical relationship between information and noise

c.c. Wiener, 1961, p. 64. "The information carried by a precise message in the absence of noise is infinite. In the presence of a noise, however, this amount of information is finite, and it approaches 0 very rapidly as the noise increases in intensity".
7 This equilibration of Samando Radja Radja with Samando Baliek Djoerij contradicts Van den Bor's report (Van den Bor, 1962, p. 267) which equates Semando Radja Radja with Semando beradat.

SUNGAI HITAM LAWS 191

8 CJ. page 80 above where a similar relation is to be found in the Code of Laws. 9 The rendering of this phrase into English is very free and is based as much on the total context of the answer as the precise interpretation of the textual passage. The text reads "tetapie kaloe lakie lakie itoe soeda malaloekan kardjan diatas dirie". It is possible that malaloekan is an error for mala- koekan. However, the phrase malaloekan kardjan can he interpreted as "passing over the marriage ceremony", i.e., engaging in a sexual relation without being married. This interpretation is based on the assignment of the meaning marriage ceremony to karadjan := kerjaan. Kerja normally means "work" but Helfrich gives the following associations. Helfrich, 1904, p. 74, sub kedje: kerdje'an := 'agoq; Helfrich, 1904, p. 5, sub 'agoq (B), 'ago'aq

(S): wedding feast (party); and Helfrich, 1927, p. 6, 'agoq, 'agoq'an: work, etc. Marsden's Dictionary, 1812, p. 256, also gives a similar association: pe-karjä-an := nuptial ceremonies and festivities.
10 The reference to "Passal 16" in the text is the only use of the word "fasal" in this text and apparently refers to both the question and its answer. However, in th is analysis 1 have consistently used the word "paragraph" in association with the Sungai Hitam laws and the word "fasal" in association with the Sungai Lemau laws (c.f. note 1, p. 190).

THE SILEBAR LAWS

Introduction The third law set in this manuscript (Cod. Or. 12.206) is entitled "Kitab Oendang Oendang darie Tandjoeng Auur en Selebar" (The Book of Laws from Tanjung Auer and Selebar). The text is dated "Tandjoeng Auur, 31 July 1855", and was signed by "Daing Makoleh". The Table of Contents at the beginning of the manuscript, af ter listing Sungai Lemau af ter the number 1 and Sungai Hitam af ter the number 2, lists "Tandjoeng Auur, Selebar" af ter numbers 3 and 4 together. However, this third and last law forms a single coherent unit which cannot he divided into two sections along the lines suggested by the title and Table of Contents. Indeed, the place names mentioned in the title are somewhat misleading and their significance is not equivalent to either Sungai Lemau or Sungai Hitam. Tanjung Auer is simply the name of a village which served as the headquarters for the author of these laws. Silebar was at one time a major Pangeranship in the area with which the English contracted a major treaty in 1695 (d. Bastin, 1965, p. 36 ff.). In Raffles' time the Pangeran still claimed control of Sungai Hitam. However, according to Van den Bor's report, in 1855 the Pangeran himself only controlled the four pasars of Silebar (Van den Bor, 1862, p. 256). According to Van Ophuijsen (1862, p. 196), these Pasars were named "Kandang, Pasar Atjéh, Selébar and Pondok Kapoer" and had a population of about 800. However, it is quite clear from the text that the laws do not apply to the area effectively controlled by the Pangeran. These laws are explicitly concerned with "Andelas soengij keroe" and "lima boea Bada". According to Van den Bor thc second of these districts was claimed by inheritance right by the Pangeran of Silebar (Van den Bor, 1862, p. 256). Nevertheless, both of these districts were govemed by a head of division (kapala divisie = divisie hoofd), Daeng Makuleh. Although one has the genera! impression that the Pangeran of Silebar and his district played only a minor role in local poli tics during the first half of the nineteenth cen-

SILEBAR LA WS 193

tury, a substantial population was involved. According to Francis (1842, p. 424), in -+-1833 the territory as a whole contained 50 villages and 6,962 people compared to the 42 villages and 4,122 people of Sungai Hitam and the 143 villages and 12,817 people of Stmgai Lemau. The discrepancy hetween Francis' population figure (6,962) and that given byVan Ophuijsen (1862, p. 196), -+- 800, indicates th at in 1833 Silebar was still a substantial region. From Francis' enumeration it appears that Silebar at that time was considered to include the areas to the east and south of Sungai Hitam, up to the edge of the Seluma region. In 1855 terms th is would include that part of the District of the Environs of Bengkulu fairly near the coast that was not part of Sungai Hitam or Sungai Lemau. Thus, while not reflecting the local political situation, Silebar was the name of a large region in Bengkulu. Taking all of the above qualifications into consideration, the term Silebar laws will he used to refer to the third and final law set to he found in the manuscript Cod. Or. 12.206. While the structure of the Sungai Hitam laws was strongly dependent upon the structure of the Sungai Lemau laws a more general sequential statement can be formulated concerning the contents of these two laws. First, there is a discussion of titles followed by the obligations and rights accruing to headmen. These are followed by a section dealing with marriage. Then criminal matters are dealt with in the following order: killing, wounding, theft, robbery and arson. Af ter criminal matters one finds a section dealing with sexual offences. And finally, there is a discussion of fines and/or legal costs. The manner in which this sequence is partitioned determines the structure of these two laws. While the structures are different one can easily identify the similarities and transformational relationships that relate the two systems of partitioning. The Silebar laws also use this sequence. However, the system of partitioning is substantially different from that used in either the Sungai Lemau or Sungai Hitam laws. The Silebar laws use a three element structure similar to that employed in the Sungai Lemau laws, but they also contain material concerning sexual offences that is more similar to the Sungai Hitam laws. Structurally, there are two main differences between the Silebar and Sungai Lemau or Sungai Hitam laws. First, the marriage section contains only three fasals and does not use the semendo/jujur opposition. Secondly, both the beginning and the end of this law con ta in blocks of undifferentiated data that are not assigned fasal numbers, with the result that thc first numbered fasal begins with the marriage section and the last concludes the section

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

on sexual offences. Nevertheless, no material in the general sequence of both the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam law is omitted. Furthermore, the language and style of the Silebar text is substantially different from that of the Sungai Lemau or Sungai Hitam laws and reflects a greater affinity to that used for the Manna region in Cod. Or. 12.205 and in the "older" portions of Cod. Or. 12.200 (Seluma), Cod. Or.

12.224 (Ngalam), Cod. Or. 12.228 (TaIlo) and Cod. Or. 12.227 (Allas). In the Silebar laws, between the title of the laws and the first numhered fasal is a section dealing with titles and the relations between subject and headmen. The format of the text is unclear and no single pattern emerges that can he used to distinguish between the various matters dealt with. However, using geographical locations, recurring grammatical pattems, and the structures of the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws, a certain degree of order can he imposed on the material. Additionally, the placement of the material on the manuscript page offers some aid but unfortunately this is not consistent. The first partition that can he imposcd is one between the material dealing with titles and that dealing with the relations between subjects and their headmen. The section concerned with titles may he divided into three distinct units. This partitioning leaves out an ambiguous phrase that will he discussed below. All of the titles are stated explicitly. That is, they refer to individuals rather than to more abstract notions like types of titles in general as in the Sungai Lemau laws or like the headmen of specific villages as in the Sungai Hitam laws.
FIRST UNNUMBERED SECTION: UNIT 1 The first unit simply lists Daeng Makuleh as the division head (kapala divisie) of Andelas Soengij keroe and lima boea Bada.

FIRST UNNUMBERED SECTION : UNIT 2 The second unit states: Pangerang Adie Mangolo is the Khalipa of the merga Andelas soengij keroe. Depatie Tjaija Loera is the eldest Proatin (Proatien toea) of Andelas soengij keroe. Proatins other than those listed here are all subjects with ranks helow that of Pambarab.

FIRST UNNUMBERED SECTION : UNIT 3 The third unit lists: Dapatie Radja Moeda of Doessoen Dajngalie in lima boea Bada, Depatie Pamangkoe Radja (Pambarab in lima boea bada) and Depatie Singo (the eldest Proatin (Protien toea) in the merga Lima boea bada). Depatis other than those listed here are all subjects with ranks below that of Pambarab.

WS 195

These last two units are demarcated in two ways. First, one unit applies only to Andelas Sungai Keru and the other only to Lima Buah Bada. Secondly, the ends are marked by the common use of almost identical phrases: "Proatien iang lain diatas sigala2anak boea die bawa pangkat Pambarab" and "depatie iang la in diatas sigala anak boea die bawa pangkat pambarab". However, af ter the second of these recurring phrases is a passage that c1early does not relate to the section on relations hetween subjects and headmen but appears incomplete and outside the section on titles. The phrase is "depatie djaman Radja doessoen tjanagrie Passangan- tongal".l This passage is either incomplete or out of place. The phrase could he part of a fourth incomplete unit. There may he either more titles or a further geographical specification of the location of the village. On the other hand, the phrase could he out of place, its correct position being hefore the final phrase of the third unit of the first unnumhered section. Of the two possibilities, the latter seems the more likely. First, the Silebar laws reflect astrong preference for three element structures, making the likelihood of four units improbable. Secondly, the use of the title Depati in the phrase would not be inconsistent with the other titles listed in the third element. The latent three element structure of this section suggests an expansion on the two element structures of the equivalent sections of the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws. This relationship is further underscored by the first phrase of the Silebar laws: "Paratoeran darie kapala kapala iang manjalasijken perkara negrie" (the regulations of the headmen who settIe the affairs of state). This is almost identical to "Proatien manjalasaij kan parkara Negrie dal am satoe satoe doessoen" (Fasal 1, Sungai Lemau) and is identical to "Paratoeran darie kapala kapala iang manjalassijkan parkara Negri" (Question 1, Sungai Hitam). However, the obvious relationship with the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws a1so serves to locate this phrase in the Silebar laws. The other laws indicate that this phrase applies only to the section on titles and not to the entire unnumhered section before the first numhered fasal or indeed the entire Silebar laws. In both the Sungai Hitam and Sungai Lemau laws the block concerned with tides contains only two elements, while in the Silebar laws the block contains three elements. The most likely oppositional relationship among these three elements unites the second and third in their opposition to the first. Between the Sungai Lemau and thc Sungai Hitam laws a compression transformation related the three element

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

structures of the fonner to the two element structures of the latter. The transfonnation compressed the first two elements of the three element structure into a single element, thereby generating a two element structure. A purely fonnal transfonnation, analogous to that relating the Sungai Lemau to the Sungai Hitam laws, can be generated to relate the three element structure of the Silebar laws to the equivalent two element structure of either the Sungai Lemau or Sungai Hitam laws. In this transformation the last element of the two element structure is expanded to yield two elements, thereby generating a three element structure. This expansion transfonnation is purely fonnal and lacks the substance of the Sungai LemauJSungai Hitam transfonnations. However, it is worthy of note because it is closely related to the compression transfonnation. The second unnumhered section which deals with relations hetween subjects and their headmen can also he divided into three units. This partitioning is virtually identical to the one used in the Sungai Lemau laws. The three categories of the Silebar laws are "katolongan" (aid), "pambriean" (gifts), and "kaoentoengan" (profits). The first two tenns are the same as those used in the Sungai Lemau laws. In place of "kaoentoengan" the Sungai Lemau laws have the tenn assil (hasil = taxes). However, Question 4 of the Sungai Hitam laWs links the two tenns with the phrase "kaoentoengan assil".

SECOND UNNUMBERED SECTION : UNIT 1 The first unit begins "katolongan anak boe a kapada kapala nja" (the aid of subjects to their headmen). If there are public works (perkaradjan Negerie) th at need to be done, like roadwork, bridging, or the like, then the subjects carry out this work.

SECOND UNNUMBERED SECTION : UNIT 2 The second unit beg ins "pambriean anak boea kapada kapala nja" (the gifts of subjects to their headmen). Up until now no gifts have been fixed (i.e., no gifts must be given).

SECOND UNNUMBERED SECTION : UNIT 3 The third unit begins "kaoentoengan kapala darie anak boea itoe" (profits of headmen from their subjects). If a subject finds ivory or wax, he gives a percentage (procent) to his headman when he selIs them. The amount given is 25 duit per 2 rupia.2This money is divided three ways with one share going to the head of division (kapala divisie = divisiehoofd ), one share to the Khalipa and one share to the Proatin in the village where the subject trades.

SILEBAR LA WS 197

While the structure of these three elements is very similar to that of the Sungai Lemau laws, the distinction between subject and non-subject is not used in the Silebar laws where all relations are between headmen and their subjects. However, both of the oppositional patterns occuring in the Sungai Lemau laws are found here. The first and more obvious opposition is between allowed and not allowed transactions between subject and headman. This contrast unites units one and three in their opposition to the second unit. In other words, this opposition generates a center versus extremity opposition. The second oppositional pattern is much more subtle as it is dependent on a difference in syntactic construction. The first unit begins with "katolongan anak boea kapada kapala nja" and the second unit begins with "pambriean anak boea kapada kapala nja". Both of these units use the same syntactic construction. The words anak boea (subjects) are in a possessive relation to the category word, i.e., the subjects' aid and the subjects' gifts. On the other hand, kapala nja (their headmen) is the object of the preposition kapada (to), i.e., to their headmen. In the third unit this syntactic relationship is inverted. "Kaoentoengan kapala darie anak boea itoe". Here kapala (headmen) is in possessive relation to the category word (i.e., the headman's profit, while GlIak boea (subjects) is the object of the preposition darie (from). 1'0 make the transformation purely at the syntactic level without creating an associated change in meaning it was necessary to substitute darie (from) for kapada (to). This purely syntactic inversion unites the first two units in their opposition to the third. Or, in other words, a two plus one structure is generated.3 The structures in this initial segment of the Silebar laws are implicit and latent as opposed to the explicit and overt fasal structures of other laws. The unmasking of these structures was strongly dependent upon a prior knowledge of the structure of the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws. Since the body of the Silebar laws is made up of clearly demarcated three element structures, the fact that these two structures contain three elements strongly supports the argument in favour of their existential reality. The question is not whether these structures exist or not, but why the six elements are unnumbered. There arc two possible explanations for this phenomenon that are not mutually exclusive. First, the lack of numbering allows the scquence pattern of the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws to he preserved while at the same time the numbered portion of the law begins with a marriage fasal. While neither the Sungai Lemau nor the Sungai Hitam laws begin with the topic of

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

marriage, the majority of indigenous South Sumatran legal codes start with a discussion of marriage. Secondly, by not numbering six elements, the quantity of numbers used in the laws is reduced by six. Thus if these elements were numbered the law might contain eighteen instead of twelve numbered fasals. Further, by not numbering these six elements the total number of fasals in the law may be reduced without having to resort to the compression transformation and omission patterns that were used to re duce the twenty-five fasals of the Sungai Lemau laws to the eighteen paragraphs of the Sungai Hitam laws. This second argument is supported by the fact that there appears to be a block of unnumbered elements following Fasal 12. The exact number of elements is difficuit to specify because there is some question as to where Fasal 12 ends and the unnumbered elements begin. However, even the most conservative analysis could not include the final element on legal costs (beijo) as part of Fasal 12. Thus the evidence indicates that the use of unnumbered elements is related to a numerical manipulation of the total number of numbers used in the law. Furthermore, there is some, but less positive, evidence indicating that the manipulation was devised in such a way as to begin the numbering with a marriage fasal. FASAL 1 Fasal1 is entiled "Adat djoedjoer Agoeng" (the adat of large jujur). A man (either a married man or a youth) falls in love with a maiden. When the discussions between them have been settled the man gives 80 reals as jujur money (oewang djoedjoer) to the parents of the maiden. Additionally, the man gives a Bugis style kris with all accessories, which is valued at ten reais. Additional monetary payments include the "beijo-prbeijo" (costs) 4 of 12Y2 reals and the mas moetoeng (literally scorched or bumt money) 5 of five reals. The 80 reals is reduced by 10 reals which is not paid by the man. This amount becomes the tali kulo. Then the maiden is married to the man. The maiden goes to live in the house of her husband. This fixed arrangement extends to her (their) grandchildren (tetapla sampaij kapada anak tjoetjoeng nja).

This fasal contains three main features: the nature and amount of the jujur payment; a statement on residence, and a statement on descent. The basic jujur amount is set at 80 reals, which is equivalent to th.e 160 rupia of Fasal 7 of thc Sungai Lemau laws and Paragraph 6 of thc Sungai Hitam laws. The tali kulo is considered as part of this basic amount and is equal to the 20 rupia of Paragraph 7 of the Sungai Hitam laws and the highest amount of the tali kulo in Fasal 8 of the Sungai

LAWS 199

Lemau laWS. This marriage fonn is explicitly patrilocal. This statement is necessary because the other forms of jujur listed in this law are not necessarily patrilocal. The final phrase of this fasal apparently extends the residential status of the woman to her grandchildren. From the other marriage fasals it becomes apparent that this means that only af ter the second descending generation may descendants return to the woman's village. However, it is not clear whether this applies to marriage or not. Thus this rule apparently intertwines the notions of descent and residence. FASAL 2 Fasal 2 is entitled "Adat djoedjoer Penenga" (the middle jujur). A man falls in love with a maiden. When the matter has been settled between the two of them, the man gives 35 reais, a kris valued at 10 reais, and the mas moetoeng of 5 reais. The "prbeijo" is not given. When this has been done they are married. The woman resides either with her husband or her parents, depending on where she (she, he or they??) pleases. This arrangement extends to their children (dan sampaij kapada anak nja). This fonn of jujur is also called samando baradat (poen damikian poela djoedjoer inie die pangil djoega samando baradat) .

The most striking aspect of this fasal is the equation of jujur and semendo marriage forms. This law not only does not use the opposition between jujur and semendo, but it also neutralizes the opposition. A law could fail to make use of a particular opposition without denying the existence of that opposition. Thus a law might discuss or employ one member of an opposition established in another law without mentioning its opposite. Here, however, the existence of any opposition between jujur forms and semendo fonns is denied. This neutralization of the opposition is most apparent through the use of alternative names for the marriage fonns. However, the substantive base of the standard semendojjujur opposition is also removed by the specifications associated with these marriage forms. While the opposition between semendo and jujur mayor may not imply a corresponding opposition betwecn matrilineal and partilineal descent, it nearly always implies an opposition between matrilocal and patrilocal residence. Ey allowing the residence associated with this type of marriage to be optional the nonnal basis of the opposition between jujur and semendo cannot develop. Then what does the use of the tenn semendo beradat imply? In both the Sungai Hitam and Sungai Lemau laws semendo beradat marriage was defined by the equal rights that the man and woman had in property. In those laws this rule served to distinguish this fonn from ambil anak

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

marriage, which in the Sungai Lemau laws was also called tidak (not) beradat. While the Silebar laws are not explicit on this point, such a formulation does not contradict the logic of the fasal, especially in view of the marriage residence rule. However, Van den Bor, in his report takes the rule a step further by asserting that both man and woman have equal rights in goods and children (Van den Bor, 1862,

p. 267). While it is possible that equal rights exist with regard to the children, the fasal places a curious restriction on their movement by asserting that the residence decision of the marriage partners cxtends to the children. The corresponding phrase in Fasal 1 extends the residence of the mother to the grandchildren. Onee again there is an intertwining of descent and residence rules that is not fully clarified.
FASAL 3 Fasal 3 is entitled "Adat djoedjoer ketjil" (the small jujur). A man wishes to marry a maiden. When the matter has been settled on the basis of discussions, the man gives 10 reals to the maiden's parents. A kris valued at 10 reals is also given. When this has been done, the man and woman are married. The man must reside in the house of his in-laws, they (he?) cannot go to his house to live. When there is a separation by death or divorce (apabila sarak hidoep atouw sarak matie) one person returns to maintain the house (toengoean) of his father. The person who returns may be either a man or woman, depending on the wishes of the man's family (sebla bapak nja). This form of jujur is also called "Samando balik djoeraij" or "Samando ambil anak".

This fasal also equates semendo and jujur as alternative names for the same marriage form. However, the residence rule is purcly and absolutely matrilocal; thus, this form of marriage "should be" a semendo form. Of the two possible semendo names "Samando balik djoeraij" has the more obvious meaning because it refers to the child who returns to maintain his father's house. The meaning of Samando ambil anak in this context is less clear. In both the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws semendo di (or ter) ambil anak is dichotomously opposed to Djoedjoer Agoeng. Here such an opposition parallels that between the exclusive patrilocal residence of Fasal 1 and the exclusive matrilocal residence rule of Fasal 3. A full structural analysis of this three element structure determined by Fasals 1, 2, and 3 and its relationship in transformational terms to the Sungai Hitam and Sungai Lemau laws is

SILEBAR LA WS 201

necessary to explain why an apparently unequivocable semendo marriage form is called djoedjoer ketjil. Four main features determine the structure of this three element group. They are: the linguistic characteristics of the titles of the fasals; the numerical significance of the amounts of money; the nature of the residence of the marriage partners; and the residential status of children in descent terms. The linguistic features of the titles present a simple division of the elements into large, medium, and smal!. These categories, while paralleling those used in the Sungai Hitam laws, are more sharply defined and contain no information extraneous to the partitioning. For example, in the process of the transformation from the Sungai Lemau laws the third jujur element of the Sungai Hitam laws retained material not relevant to the partitioning into large, medium, and small. Thus Question 8 was "Djoedjoer ketjil atouw kabaikan". The "atouw kabaikan" portion is irrelevant to the logic of the oppositional system. In the Silebar laws the third jujur element is only "Adat djoedjoer Ketjil", thus the irrelevant "atouw kabaikan" is eliminated. A comparison on this point with Van den Bor's report (Van den Bor, 1862, p. 267) reveals an important aspect of the relationship between the structures found in legal codes and the data external to such primary sources. In a paragraph that is almost an exact translation of Fasal 3 of the Silebar laws Van den Bor uses the term "djoedjoer ketjil atouw kabanjakan".6 (Van den Bor, 1862, p. 267). Assuming that Van den Bor's report is accurate and considering the lack of scribal errors in the manuscript version leads to an interesting conclusion. In reality, this marriage form was known as Djoedjoer Ketjil or Djoedjoer Kabanjakan. However, in order to make the opposition in the legal text clearer only one of these names Was selected. Thus, the linguistic structure of the fasal titles involves a partitioning into large, medium, and small that was maximally visible in linguistic terms.7However, this does not mean that either the text or the report is more accurate in any absolute sense. The data provided byeach source are of different types and while they may he mutually reinforcing, they cannot be considered as contradictory. Furthermore, only a text contains complete structural information. The amounts of money associated with these marriage forms may he divided into two groups: the basic amounts and the supplementary or anciIIary payments. Tbe three basic amounts are 80, 35, and 10 reais. The middle amount is exactly equal to one half of the difference hetween the largest and smallest amounts, i.e., 80 -10 = 70 and J/2 (70) = 35. This is not equal to the average of the two amounts which is 45, i.e.,

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

80 + 10 = 90 and ~ (90) = 45. The conventional way of finding the middle amount (averaging) of a three element system produces equal differences between the elements, i.e., 80 -45 = 45 -10 = 35. However, the system used in the Silebar laws produces unequal differences between the elements, i.e., 80 -35 = 45 but 35 -10 = 25. Thus, the middle term is not equidistant from the two extremes but equal to one half the distance between them. Furthermore, the inequality is such that the difference between the first and second terms was greater than the difference between the second and third terms. This feature of sequences was common to most of the numerical sequences in the Sungai Lemau laws. While most of the sequences of the Sungai Lemau laws occurred within structural units (i.e., fasals) each of the terms of the Silebar law sequence occurs in a single structural unit. Thus one can establish the inequality that the difference between Fasals 1 and 2 is greater than the difference between Fasals 2 and 3. This unequal division has structural significance; i.e., the difference between the two fasals associated with semendo marriage forms is less than the difference between the jujur fasal and the first semendo fasal. Thus, the inequality suggests that the difference between two semendo forms is less than the difference between a jujur and semendo form. There are three ancillary amounts to he paid: a kris valued at 10 reals; the beijo-prbeijo or prbeijo of 12~ reaIs; and the mas moetoeng of 5 reaIs. The first jujur element requires all three, the second only two of them and the third only one. The system is such th at one element is dropped in the transformation from one step to the next. The amounts involved in these transitions are such that the difference between the first and second steps is greater than the difference between the second and third steps. This pattern reinforces the inequality relations among the basic amounts and the subsequent partition of the fasals into a one plus two structure. However, the ratios between the difference are not the same in both cases. For the basic amounts the ratio is 45 to 25 or 9 to 5 and for the ancillary amounts the ratio is 12Y2 to 5 or 5 to 2. In the Sungai Lemau laws three element sequential structures used a ratio of 2 to 1 as the ratio between differences. The two ratios of the Silebar laws are just off a 2 to 1 ratio. By adding one to 9, the ratio of the basic amounts becomes 10 to 5 or 2 to 1. By subtracting one from 5 the ratio of the ancillary amounts hecomes 4 to 2 or 2 to 1. This addition and subtraction of one to the ratio implies ad ding 5 to the larger of the differences between the basic amounts, i.e., 45 + 5 = 50 and ~ (50) = 25, or subtracting 2~ from the larger of the differences

SILEBAR LAWS 203

in the ancillary amounts, i.e., 12~-2~ = 10 and ~ (10) = 5. Curiously, these correction factors are also in the ratio of 2 to 1 (5 to 2~). Both the basic amounts and the ancillary amounts, as weIl as their sum, decrease in size as the sequence progresses. F or the two semendo amounts (35 and 10) th is means that the amount associated with samando baradat is greater than the amount associated with samando balik djoeraij. This reverses the relationship between the amounts associated with these two marriage forms in the Sungai Lemau laws. There the amount associated with semando beradat was either 5 or 6 reals while that associated with samando baliek djoraij was twelve reals.8 Thus, there are two main structural patterns associated with the amounts of money to be paid with each marriage form. The structural relations among the basic amounts provide a definition of the meaning of the notion "middle" (penenga) occuring in the linguistic structuring of the fasal titles. The "middle" is equal to half the difference between the two extremities. The pattem of the ancillary amounts evokes another structure. The removal of one such payment at each transitional step suggests a structural continuum of decreasing amounts, even though the amounts removed are unequal. These two structural patterns (continuum and the center versus extremity opposition) recur in the residence and descent features of this three element structure. The residence of the marriage partners is clearly and explicitly defined for each marriage form. The first form is strictly patrilocal, the third is strictly matrilocal, while the second form is either matri- or patrilocal. Thus the middle element is a mixed category defined in terms of the two extremities. The use of the word penenga (middle) to describe this form is appropriate. Furthermore, like the middle amount of the basic marriage payments, this category can be seen as being equivalent to half of the difference between the two extremities. These residence categories are the main differentiating feature of the marriage forms. The Sungai Lemau laws also set up an opposition between matri-and patrilocal marriage residence. However, in that law set the opposition was associated with a second opposition between jujur and semendo, which in turn was used to partition the six marriage fasals into two opposed groups of three fasals. In the Silebar laws the same basic opposition between matri-and patrilocal residence opposes the extremities of a three element group without involving a concomitant structural opposition between jujur and semendo. While these extremities are diametrically opposed their clarity and unequivocal nature unite them in their opposition to the middle element. In Hegelian terms the extremities are

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

thesis and antithesis and the center the synthesis. Furthennore, the opposition of the extremities conforms to the law of the unity of oppo- sites, i.e., a principle is not opposed to any opposite, only to its opposite. In each of these three marriage fasals, following the statement on the residential status of the marriage partners, there is a statement on the status of their descendants. In Fasal 1 the phrase is "tetapla sampaij kapada anak tjoetjoeng nja". In Fasal 2 the phrase is "dan sampaij kapada anak nja". In Fasal 3 the phrase is "apabila sarak hidoep atouw sarak matie maleinkan kambalie saorang managak toengoean die sabla pihak bapak nja, sama djoega lakie dengan prampoean mana iang die soekhie oleh sebla bapak nja". These phrases are in the same position in their respective fasals and thus presumably deal with the same subject. However, only the meaning of the phrase occurring in Fasal 3 is explicit,

i.e., "when there is a separation by death or divorce one person returns to maintain the house of his father. The person who returns may be either a man or a woman, depending on the wishes of the man's family". This is a classic balik jurai statement and the usual implication of such statements is that one child born of the marriage returns.1J With the infonnation contained in Fasal 3, the meaning of the equivalent passages in Fasals 1 and 2 can be derived. The two phrases determined by kapada (to) are comprehensible: kapada anak tjaetjaeng nja = to their grandchildren and kapada anak nja = to their children. The word preceding each of these prepositional phrases is the same in both cases: sampaij = sampai = reaching as far as, extending to. The question is: what reaches as far as the children or the grandchildren? Only the phrase in Fasal 1 contains further infonnation, which is em- bodied in the word tetapla (i.e., tetap + lah). The normal meaning of tetap is "steadfast; constant; secure; regular; fixed (af tenure ar residence) (Wilkinson, 1932, Vol. Il, p. 581; 1959, p. 1215). Given the nature of the equivalent phrase in Fasal 3 and the fact that each of the phrases is preeeded by a statement on the residence of the marriage partners, one ean reasonably eonclude that the meaning of the phrases in question is that the residence arrangements of the marriage partners extend to the grandchildren in the first instance, and to the children in the second. The return of the child provided for in Fasal 3 may he interpreted as: the residence arrangements of the marriage partners only apply to them and are not extended to their ehildren. The important structural feature of these three rules is that the extension requirement is shortened by one generation in proceding from one category to the next. This is isomorphic to the reduction in the numher

SILEBAR LAWS 205

of ancillary marriage payments as one procedes from one category to the next. As intriguing as these extension rules are, it is impossible to specify what is meant in greater detail. Is the rule a marriage prohibition statement or a simple requirement concerning the physical location of individuals? These questions must remain unanswered. Thus, in the three marriage fasals there are no less than five separate structural systems which suggest two structures for this three element group. Two of these systems use a center versus extremity opposition (i.e., the structure of the basic amounts and the structure of marital residence) and two of these systems use the same device of reduction by one element to form a continuum (i.e., the structure of the ancillary payments and the descent/residence extension rules). The linguistic structure of the titles cannot be unequivocably assigned to either of these two structural systems but can be applied to both with equal validity. If a choice of assignment were absolutely necessary, the center versus extremity structure seems only slightly preferabie. This preference is based on the fact that the basic, and thus major financial payments, use a center versus extremity system, while the ancillary and thus minor financial payments use the continuum system. The explanation of the occurrence of a matrilocal jujur marriage form requires an analysis of the transformational relations between this law set and the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws. The first step in any transforrnational analysis is the establishment of correspondence between the elements of one structure and those of the other. In the comparison of systems with an unequal number of elements, such as in the present example, the process of assigning correspondences is critical. If every element in the larger system is assigned to one element of the smaller system, then a compression transformation is required. If, however, every element of the smaller system is assigned to only one element of the larger system, but at the same time the logic of the transformational process requires a transformation from larger to smaller, the result is that only some elements of the larger system are assigned to elements of the smaller system. Thus, in this second case the transformation between the two systems involves not compression but omission. The analysis of the transformational relationship between the Silebar laws and the Sungai Hitam and Sungai Lemau laws necessitates the use of both of these approaches to the assignment of correspondence. The case in which each element of the smaller system (the Silebar laws) is assigned to only one element of the larger system (the Sungai Lemau or Sungai Hitam laws) will be called a basic or minimal correspondence

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

relationship. The case in which as many elements of the larger system as possible are assigned uniquely to an element of the smaller system will be called a maximal correspondence relationship. Because of the complexity of this analytical problem a notational convention is necessary to achieve brevity while at the same time avoiding unnecessary confusion. Fasal 1, 2, or 3 will refer to Fasals 1, 2, or 3 of the Silebar laws. As all three fasals deal explicitly with jujur the symbolic notation for these fasals will he Jb Jii' and JIII respectively. Since the sÏx marriage elements of the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws correspond the convention presented in Table 5.1 will apply.

Symbol Sungai Lemau Sungai Hitam Silebar Silebar (minima! (maximal corres-correspondence) pondence)

J1 Fasal 7 Question 6 J2 Fasal 8 Question 7 J3 Fasal 9 Question 8 Sl Fasal 10 Question 9 S2 Fasal 11 Question 10 S3 Fasal 12 Question 11

For "J b etc." read "the first jujur element, etc." For "Sl, etc." read "the first semendo element, etc.".

TABLE 5.1

The basic correspondence relationship requires that each element

of the Silebar laws he assigned to only one element of the reference structure (in this case the Sungai Lemau -Sungai Hitam structure). The best assignment is as follows:

I. Fasal 1 the first jujur element

1I. Fasal 2 the second semendo element lIl. Fasal 3 = the third semendo element

This minimal correspondence relationship creates the best element to element correspondence but not the most complete. Assignment III is the only one in which some question of validity may arise. The question is whether Fasal 3 should he considered as primarily semendo balik jurai or as primarily semendo ambil anak. The choice of semendo

WS 207

balik jurai over semendo ambil anak is largely based on the fact that all three laws have a principle with double descent implications in the last semendo marriage fasal, which is strongly associated with semendo balik jurai. In general, in the assignment of minimal correspondences the structural loci of the various elements play the decisive role. The transformation from the six to the three element structure can he viewed as a type of lateral compression of two three element groups. In other compression relationships bath elements that were "pushed" together were absorbed into a single unit. Here, however, same units are "pushed out of the way" and in the end omitted from the new structure. The breaking point or shear point is between the jujur and semendo elements of the final structure, or between the first and second elements of each of the constituent structures. This cutting point suggests a one plus two, three element structure. While this structure does not occur in either the Sungai Lemau or Sungai Hitam laws, it does occur elsewhere in the Silebar laws. The structuring of the three elements in the first unnumhered section at the beginning of the Silebar laws suggests the unity of the last two elements in contrast to the first. Similarly, the sequences of monetary payments associated with marriage indicate that the difference between the first and second elements is greater than the difference between the second and third elements.

DIAGRAM 5.1

The second step of the transformation involves converting the various jujur and semendo elements to a single jujur system of classification. The linguistic value of the titles in this system are based on the three jujur elements of the Sungai Hitam laws. It is in this second process that normally semendo forms of marriage acquire their jujur names. The rationale for this assignment is not clear and is virtually unique in South Sumatran legal codes. However, the pattern is apparently based on the total structure of the Silebar laws. The unnumhered elements that bath precede and follow the numbered fasals indicate that one of

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

the basic manipulations of this law set was directed at reducing the total number of numbered elements to a minimum. The lateral compression of the first step of the above transformation also contributes to this effect by eliminating three numbered units from the structure. The mode of this lateral compression, however, preserves the essential forms of marriage. The second step creates the illusion of preserving an entire structural unit of the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws. However, the exact structure preserved is that of the Sungai Hitam jujur questions. At the same time the structure of the semendo questions is eliminated. Further, like the relationship between questions and anSWers in the Sungai Hitam laws, there is a discontinuity between title and content which is the resuit of the second transformational step. The use of jujur titles indicates that the illusion of preserving an entire three element structure from another law was more important than maintaining title-content continuity. Thus the use of jujur names is based on the fact that the Silebar laws reduced the number of marriage elements by three, while preserving the substance of both jujur and semendo marriages and at the same time seeking to create the illusion of not breaking the integrity of three element structures as presented in the Sungai Hitam or Sungai Lemau laws. Thus the logic of the law sets is more important than the content, or any logic directly based upon social reaIity. The transformational system based on a maximal correspondence relation indicates a second but cIosely related pattern. The assignment of maximal correspondence reveals how much of the material in the Sungai Lemau and/or Sungai Hitam laws was carried over into the three element structure of the Silebar laws. While the basic correspondence relation tended to relate structures to each other, the maximal correspondenee relation focuses on the element to element relationships. In other words, the basic correspondence relation relied upon information on the structurallocus of the various elements in their respective structures to achieve the "best" assignment. On the other hand, the maximal correspondence relation is based entirely on the contents of the elements and not on their structural position. Accordingly, the following maximal assignments can be made.

I. Fasal 1 the first and second jujur elements Il. Fasal 2 the second semendo element
lIl. Fasal 3 the first and third semendo e1ements

These correspondences contain two additional assignments. The

LAWS 209

second jujur element dealing with the tali kulo can be associated with Fasal 1, which also mentions the tali kulo. The first semendo element dealing with ambil anak marriage can be related to Fasal 3, which lists semendo ambil anak as an alternative name for this form of marriage. Of special interest is the fact that the third jujur element cannot he assigned to any fasal in the Silebar laws and as a result drops entirely out of the structure. The reason for this omission is the same as that in the analysis of both the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws, i.e., the third jujur element lacks any substantive content. This system of maximal correspondence involves a type of compression different from that associated with the basic correspondence system, but thc same as th at used in the transformation between the Sungai Lemau and the Sungai Hitam laws, i.e., two elements of one structure are incorporated into a single element of a second structure. Tbe manner in which the compressed semendo elements acquire jujur names is identical to the process descrihed in association with the system of minimal correspondence. The assignment of maximal correspondence relationships results in a partitioning of the basic structures different from that created by the system of minimal correspondence. As a result of assignment I the jujur elements of the reference structure are partitioned into a two plus one structure. However, as a result of assignments 11 and 111 the semendo elements are partitioned into a center versus extremity structure. Tbe partitioning of the jujur elements reflects the internal structure of both the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws. On the other hand, the partitioning of the semendo elements presents a new structure for these elements. However, this structural opposition of center and extremities occurs elsewhere in the Sungai Lemau laws. While the transformation based on a minimal assignment treated the reference structure as being composed of two parallel structures, the transformation based on a maximal correspondence relationship necessitates regarding the reference structure as a continuous sequence of elements. While the J 1 +2 = J i relationship presents no ordering problems, the fact that J1 and JI are both jujur agung indicates that 12 is compressed into J 1 and not the other way around. On the other hand, in thc equivalence relations Sl + S3 = Jil and S2 = Jil thc compression transfornlation is relevant to the ordering of the elements in the final structure. Thus, the asscrtion that Sl is compressed into S3 and not the other way around is based only partly upon the fact that the contcnts of Fasal 3 of the Silcbar laws (Jiil) deal primarily with the relations

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

1 } J J. J₁+2--J J2

J3 -Jif> 51

5252J ..

5351+53Jjjj --

DIAGRAM 5.2

In the third semendo element (semendo balik jurai). I t is also based on the fact that the structurallocus of the third semendo element (S3) determines the location of the contents of the first and third semendo elements in the final structure, i.e., in the final structure the fasal dealing with SI + S3 follows the fasal dealing with S2.1° The dominance of the position of the third semendo element indicates that the structural locus of an element may he relevant in an analysis based on the maximal correspondence hetween elements. Therefore, since the maxima! correspondence relationship is sometimes dependent on the structural locus of an element it is also dependent on the minimal correspondenee system. Thus the transformation from the six element marriage structures of the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws to the three element structure of the Silebar laws ean he expressed at three analytical levels. By analyzing only the titles of the Silebar laws the transformation appears to involve the omission of three semendo elements. By using a minintal correspondenee relation two jujur and one semendo element are eliminated. By using a maxintal correspondenee relation only one jujur element is completely eliminated from the final structure. The choice of one of these pattems over the other involves the amount of weight

SILEBAR LAWS 211

that one wishes to give to the various processes of compression and omission. In terms of the analysis of the total structures of these law sets the transformation based on a minimal correspondence relationship is the more satisfactory in that the process of the assignment of correspondence and the nature of the compression transformation involve a strong dependence on structural loci, which is entirely consistent with the structural patterns of these laws. The maximal correspondence relationship, on the other hand, focuses on the preservation of content. The machinations that would he necessary to couple this transformation with a fuIl consideration of structural loci would be artificially complex and unnecessarily confusing. The transformation based on the titles is of an entirely different order but establishes the fact that the authors were using an external structure and considered the integrity of three element groups an important aspect of that structure.

Introduction to the fasals on criminal matters.

Following the marriage section there are six fasals dealing with criminal matters. As mentioned above (cJ. p. 77), criminal matters were particularly sensitive to colonial influence. Of the three laws in this manuscript the Silebar laws reflect the most colonial intervention. From the Van den Bor report one has the impression that the actual level of interference in legal affairs was much greater than either the texts of the Sungai Lemau or Sungai Hitam laws would indicate. The Silebar laws, on the other hand, more closely reflect the level of Dutch involvement as suggested by the Van den Bor report. This feature of the text can he directly attributed to the au thor. U nlike the individuals responsibIe for the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam texts, Daeng Makuleh had no traditional or hereditary authority to govern the area under his contro!. Thus, not surprisingly, his primary allegiance was to the colonial authority from whom he derived his right to govern. Secondly, as a Bugis, Daeng Makuleh came from a line of influential individuals who habitually acted as middlemen hetween the colonial authority and the indigenous population. This line, with occasional lapses like the Parr murder aside, tended to associate themselves with the colonial power in one way or another. Thus the tendency to favour the colonial viewpoint may he attributed both to the family traditions and personal circumstances of Daeng Makuleh. Furthermore, the European distinction between criminal and civil law is relevant to the pattern of external influence. In European law,

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

killing in general and murder in particular, is al most always completely associated with criminal law. In English law, however, while killing is not normally associated with civil law, there are some interesting complications. "The common law maxim was actio personalis moritur cum persona (a personal action dies with the person)" (Smith and Kennan, 1973, p. 218). However, a variety of cases reveal that compensation may be associated with a death. "In Franklin v. South East Railway (1858), 3 H. & N. 211, an old infirm father was held entitled to damages on his son's death since the son assisted his father with the latter's work ... and in Berry v. Humm (1915) I K. B. 627, it was held that a husband might claim in respect of his deceased wife where he was compelled to employ a housekeeper consequent upon his wife's death" (Smith and Kennan, 1973, p. 220). Thus, while in English law killing is normally only associated with criminal law, there are circumstances which may involve a civil action. In South Sumatran legal texts, however, the bangun associated with a killing is of ten purely a matter of civil law in that it only involves a compensation and only rarely punishment. While colonial influence may be seen as being directed towards establishing the principle that certain acts are criminal and therefore punishable, such influence was not necessarily also directed at removing the possibility of compensation. As the examples from English law show, there is no fundamental objection to the co-existence of the two principles. Furthermore, the Silebar laws do not reveal a replacement of compensation by punishment, but the simultaneous existence of the two principles. In this case the principles of compensation usually retain their indigenous form while punishment is assigned to the colonial power. However, the rules used to distinguish between the two principles are difficult to attributc unequivocably to one source or the other. FASAL 4 Fasal 4 is entitled "Adat orang sala mamboenoe orang" (the adat of a person who is guilty of killing someone). If a person kills someone unintentionally, for example, a person shoots at something like a deer and hits someone unbeknownst to him, the matter is brought before a judge when the person dies. The judge orders the killer to pay the bangun to the family (tipak kahoem) of the person who dies. The amount of the bangun is 88 reais, 8 wang, 8 tanci (= duit) and 8 keping, if the person who died is of the same class as the killer and not a descendant of royalty (anak raja) or amantri. H, however, the latter is the case, then the bangun is paid with persons (mambaijar dengan orang). The bangun for anak raja is three slaves and that for the descendants of a mantri (anak mantri) is two slaves. However, if

LA WS 213

the person was not killed but only wounded, th en he must pay the "tepoeng", that is ,he pays the "timbang dara nja" (the estimation of his blood). The judge can decide the amount. If a person kills someone intentionally and the case is brought before a judge with evidence and testimony, the killer is sentenced to death. But he can be free from death but must be punished severely and banished from thc state (negri) where he was bom. And if the court (Hakim Hakim) here cannot impose a punishment because it is too severe he is handed over to the government so th at the gentlemen (tuan) with authority in the Large Council (Raad bessar) can punish the guilty party.

This fasal is divided into two main portions, each of which is in its turn divided into two again. The main partitioning makes a distinction between intentional and unintentional killing. The phrases setting out these two principles are clearly opposed, i.e., "saorang orang soeda mamboenoe Drang dengan tida die sangadja nja" and "saorang mamboenoe Drang dengan die sangadja nja". These phrases divide the fasal into two sections. Each of these two main sections contains two elements. In each case it is the first of these elements that is the more closely related to the main partitioning. The second element of each of these larger sections is defined not in terms of the basic opposition but in terms of the first element of the section. Thus, in the first section the second element deals with a situation in which the judge is to impose a less severe judgment because the terms and conditions of the first element have not been met. And in the second section the second element deals with the situation where the judges (court) are unable (or unwilling?) to impose a severe punishment. The division between intentionaI and unintentional killing is paralleled by an opposition betwecn compensation and punishment. The unintentional killing requires compensation but no punishment. The intentional killing requires punishment but compensation is not mentioned. This opposition is fundamentally different from th at presented in the Code of Laws. In Fasal 21 of the Code of Laws there are two payments associated with a killing: a bangun of one hundred reals and a fine of fifty reals. The bangun is compensation and the fine (denda) is punishment. Though Fasal 21 makes no reference to intent Fasal 22 contains the following phrase: "Orang membunoh orang dengan tidak diseng- haja" (i.e., a person kills someone unintentionaIly). In this case the payment is only a bangun of one hundred reals. Thus FasaI 22 creates an opposition between intentional and unintentional killing. However, there is not a clear opposition between compensation and punishment. Intentional killing requires both compensation and punishment but

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

unintentional killing requires only compensation. Thus, when the Code of Laws was written compensation was always to he paid and in some circumstances a fine was added. In the Silebar laws only some situations required compensation while others required punishment and none required both. In the Silebar laws this de ar opposition between compensation and punishment allows for the isolation of indigenous legal thinking and colonial influence. The details of compensation reflect the basic pattems of local logic while the details and attitudes towards punishment are intertwined with govemmental practice. The most important aspect of compensation is the monetary payment associated with unintentional killing. The payment is specified in the text at 88 reais, 8 wang, 8 duit and 8 keping. This specification contradicts both the Van den Bor report and the text itself. The Van den Bor report (Van den Bor, 1862, p. 268) indicates that in "Andelas Soengei Kroe, Lima Boea Bada and Sêlébar" the bangun is 88 reals, 8 guilders, 8 suku, 8 tali, 8 wang, 8 tanci (= duit), and 8 keping with a fine of 40 guilders (= 20 reais). And Fasal 10 of the Silebar laws themselves contains the following phrase "dia mambijar teboes njawa nja Sapadoea bangoen dan iaitoe ampat poeloe rial dalam" (they pay the tebus nyawa of one half the bangun that is forty reals each). In other words, according to this calculation, the bangun is equal to eighty reais. These discrepancies present an interesting problem for structural analysis. The first question is whether the difference hetween the Van den Bor report and the text is accidental or not. The monetary value of this difference is 8 guilders, 8 suku and 8 tali,u This amount is equal to seven reals (i.e., 8 (~) + 8 (14) + 8 (YB) = 4 + 2 + 1 = 7). If this difference were almost any other amount than seven it could he dismissed as an accident or a scribal error. However, seven and its multiples (especially 14 and 28) occur in the Silebar laws and in the regions to the sou th in the districts Seluma and Manna as one of the most common specifications for fines. For example, in Cod. Or. 12.205 for Manna, Fasal 12 specifies the payments associated with the theft of property as a fine of 28 reais, compensation of 14 reais, legal costs of six reaIs, and a tebus tanda of one real. Similarly, Fasal 17 of the same law specifies the payments associated with the theft of goats as a fine of 14 reais, compensation of 7 reals, legal costs of six re als, and the tebus tanda of one real. Thus the importance of the numher seven suggests the existence of a logical basis to this discrepancy. A comparison of the various legal codes for Manna present a further example of a similar type of discrepancy. The manuscript entitled "Adat yang di pakai di

LAWS 215

dalam pegangan Manna" 12 in bundie H813 of the Western Manuscript collection of the Royal Institute of Linguistics and Anthropology (TL VK-H813 - d-ii) specifies the bangun as 88 reais, 8 tengah, 8 suku, 8 tali, 8 wang and 8 duit. Another manuscript for Manna, Cod. Or. 12.205,13 presents older and more traditional views than the texts discussed above. This manuscript contains three separate legal codes which, however, are continuously numbered. In Fasal 42 of the text the bangun is set at 80 reais, 8 suku, 8 tanci (= duit) and 8 keping. However, Fasal 16, which is in another section and thus in a separate legal code from Fasal 42, sets the pampas at 40 reais, 4 suku, 4 tali, and 4 keping. These three amounts may he calculated as 95.44 reais,

82.06 reais, and 41.51 reals respectively. U nlike the Silebar laws, however, the differences in the amounts are not suggestive. However, all of the lesser amounts, which apparently contain omissions, have one feature in common. They contain four amounts. In the Silebar laws the amounts are in: 1, reais; 2, suku; 3, tanci; and 4, keping. In Fasal 16 of the older Manna laws the amounts are specified in: 1, reals; 2, suku; 3, tali; and 4, keping. Thus, the facts that the difference between the Van den Bor report and the text is seven reals and the pattern of omission of the Silebar texts conforms to a similar pattern in the various Manna laws, indicate that the difference hetween the two sources for the Silebar laws is not accidental, even though the rationale for the discrepancy is not apparent. While the actual amounts of money denoted by these obviously symbolic sequences are not especially revealing, the treatment of the sequences as number systems reveals some important structural patterns. By assuming that there are 10 wang to the guilder, 10 duit to the wang, and 400 keping to the real (c.f. Marsden's History, 1811, p. 171), the amount in the Van den Bor report equals 95.46 reals and the amount in the Silebar text is seven reals less, or 88.46 reais. In the analysis of the systematic and comparative features of these amounts the more complete figure in the Van den Bor report provides the more useful amount. This means than the Van den Bor report figure is regarded as the basic amount and the text is a special transformation on th is figure. The advantage of using the complete amount is that it allows the analysis to reconcile all of the various bangun amounts in the texts from the Environs of Bengkulu. And, further, the use of the fulI figure also permits an explanation of the discrepancy within the Silebar texts itself. While the monetary system has its own pattern of successive division,

OF THE LA WS

part of it confonns to the frequently occurring sequence rule of successive division by two. By treating the monetary system as if it were composed entirely of successive divisions by two an estimate can be derived of the limits of the amounts in the repeated eight patterns. The general pattern of a sequence based on successive halving is: 1, Y2, 1'4, YB ... (Y2)n-l. The sum of such a sequence is: 1 + Y2 + 1'4 + YB +
... + (Y2)n-l + ... A more general fonn is k (1 + Y2 + 1'4 + YB +
... + (Y2) n-l ... ) where k is a constant. The general fonnula for the
nIh partial sum of the sequence is:

(for all positive n)

Then as n increases indefinitely Sn aproaches 2k as a limit. Treating the sequence in this manner implies that the amount of 88 reals contains two portions, i.e., one of 80 reals and one of 8 reals. Thus the sequence in the Van den Bor report becomes 80 reais, 8 reais, 8 tengah (guilders), 8 suku (1'4), 8 tali (YB), 8 wang, 8 duit, and 8 keping. The sequencc containing the halving pattern begins with 8 reals. The limit of the amount of the halving sequence in the Van den Bor report can be estimated by means of the above fonnula as 16 reals. This suggests that the total bangun has a theoretical limit of 96 reals and that this figure may be divided into two portions: one of 80 reals and the other of 16 reals.14This theoretical interpretation of the Silebar bangun pennits a comparison with other law sets. The figure of 80 reals as the basic amount of the bangun is supported in the first instance by the Silebar laws themselves. Fasal 10 works on the assumption that the bangun is 80 reals when it specifies half the bangun as being equal to 40 reais. Furthennore, the largest jujur, which in other laws is related to the bangun, is also 80 reais. The second portion of the theoretical bangun (i.e., 16 reais) is equal to twenty percent of 80, i.e., 80 X .20 = 16. Thus the total bangun is equal to a basic amount of 80 reals plus twenty percent more. Both the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws can be interpreted in such a way as to reveal a similar pattern. In the Sungai Hitam law the payments associated with murder equalled one hundred reals. This amount is composed of two sums: a basic amount called thc tcbus nyawa valued at 80 reals and a fine of 20 reals. In this case the amount equivalent to the bangun is what remains after twenty percent of the total has been removed. Thus, the principle of taking twenty percent remains but the figure upon which the percentage is calculated is the total and not

WS 217

the basic amount. Similarly, in the Sungai Lemau laws the basic amount of the ban gun is 80 reaIs. However, associated with this is a second amount called the kapala bangun, which is equal to 20 reaIs. The text does not specify whether the amount is in addition to the bangun or is to he subtracted from it. Van den Bor (Van den Bor, 1862, p. 268) contends that the kapala bangun is to he subtracted from the bangun. Nevertheless, the figure of 100 reals as the total amount of the payments for murder seems probable in that it conforms to the figure given in the Code of Laws, with which the authors of the Sungai Lemau laws were demonstrably familiar. A law text from a region just to the South of Silebar supports this point of view. Immediately to the south of Silebar lies the district Seluma. Ngalam is the most northerly place in Seluma for which a contemporary law set exists. Fasal 18 of the "older" portion of Cod. Or.

12.224 (Ngalam) contains the following passage "banyak bangun orang -100 real dan 20 (real) kembali kepada raja penghulunya -dan 20 (real) kembali kapada ad ik sanaknya oleh orang yang mati itu" (the amount of the bangun of a person is 100 reaIs. 20 reals returns to the headmen and 80 reals returns to the relatives of the person who dies). This rule explicitly asserts that the decomposition rule is basedon twenty percent. The advantage of viewing the total payment for murder as one hundred reals with a subsequent decomposition into two distinct amounts of 80 and 20 reals is that it establishes a relationship between the two most frequently occurring specifications of the bangun, 80 and 100 reaIs. By treating the 20 real amount as a percentage, one can make a comparison with the repeated eight sequences. Further, the general rule that the basic amount is 80 reals plus twenty percent of something links the majority of ban gun specifications into a single framework. Thus the analysis of the amount of the bangun of the Silebar laws works at two levels. One level proceeds with the figure given in the Van den Bor report and converts this figure to an estimated limit. A comparison with other spatially related laws can be established. At a second level, the pattern of the text, while different from the Van den Bor report, can he demonstrated to be a non random variation on the amount given in the report. The comparison with the Manna laws indicates that the reduction of the numher of elements in the specification follows a recurring pattern. Further, the actual amount of the difference is a significant number. However, while these features indicate that the discrepancy is non random they do not reveal the rationale for the patterned phenomenon.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

The second portion of the first section of Fasal 4 of the Silebar laws deals with accidental wounding. This is a logical progression from the topic presented in the first element of th is section, that is, the accidental situation of the first element results not in death but only in a wound. Be this as it may, the net result is that the situation discussed is not covered by the title of the fasal, which is specifically limited to killing while Fasal 5 deals with wounding. However, a complete confusion of categories does not result hecause the wounding situation described does not require the payment of the pampas. Thus this element is dependent upon the first element of the section but does not directly relate to the basic partitioning which opposes intentional and unintentional killing. The second major section of Fasal 4 deals with intentional killing. The consequence of such an act is punishment as a criminal without the possibility of paying a sum of money in lieu of the more severe form of punishment. In the Sungai Hitam laws the punishment for killing, as given in Fasal 12, is death. But this punishment can he commuted by the payment of the tebus nyawa and a fine. The Silebar laws begin with the same rule, i.e., the punishment for intentional killing is death. The fasal continues with the familiar phrase "dan boleh poela lepas darie nama matie" (and he can also he free from the death sentence). However, instead of listing a monetary payment, there is the following ominous passage: "tetapie dia mistie die seksa dengan seksa iang amat pedie serta die hinakan die moeka Chalikoella 15 iang banjak dan die keloear kan dia darie dalam Negrie tempat dia terperanak" (But he must he punished with something very painful, together with being humiliated before the populace and he is banished from the state where he Was bom). While the Silebar laws are not explicit on the nature of the physical punishment, a manuscript 16 containing court proceedings from Bengkulu dated January 1828, presents a detailed account of what was meant. A man found guilty of heing an accomplice to murder was sentenced "to he flogged 100 stripes with a rattan on his back then branded thereon with a red hot Iron afterwards to he banished from Bencoolen for the period of 20 years and worked during that time in chains on the public works" (TLVK H813bi). A second account concerns two men who were found guilty "of having a knowledge of" murder and were sentenced "to he banished from Bencoolen to Nattal or to any other place the Resident shall determine on for the period of six years without chains but to work at the public works during the time of their banishment" (TLVK H813bi). These punishments are

SILEBAR LA WS 219

totally contrary to Sou th Sumatran legal thinking and reflect astrong Europcan influence. The second element of the second section makes the impact of European authority even more apparent. In certain cases the guilty person was to he handed over to the Government for punishment. The tcxt is not very explicit as to the circumstances in which the individual is to be surrendered. The relevant passage is "dan kiranja tida boleh Hakim Hakim die sin ie malaloekan itoe hoekoeman sebab terlaloe bessar ... " (and however if the court here cannot impose a punishment because it is too large ... ). The first element of this section says that they must impose a severe punishment but the second element seems to imply that if the punishment is too severe, the guilty person must be handed over to the government. Howevcr, the desired middle range between these two specifications is not elaborated upon. Nevertheless, the second element of the second section, like the second element of the first section, is defined in terms of the first element and involves a continuation of the logic of that element. However, there is no direct association bctween this second element and the basic opposition which divides the fasal into two sections. Thus, Fasal 4 is divided into two sections by an opposition between intentional and unintentional killing. Each of these sections contains two elements. The first of these elements are directly related to the basic opposition. However, the second elements of each section are directly related only to the first element of their respective sections. This relationship involves a continuation or elaboration on a point presented in the first element which does not directly involve the basic opposition. Thus, while the first elements in each section may be opposed to each other, a substantive opposition of the second elements is not possible because the exact nature of their links to the first elements are not congruent. In other words, the only structural relations possible between the second elements must bc based on the opposition of the first elements to each other and not any inherent difference between the elements themselves. In purely structural terms, the contents of the second element in each section of the fasal lack a basis of unity that would make a meanillgful opposition possible. The only basis of unity available is a purely formal one, i.e., they are both related to the first element of their respective sections. The opposition generated from this basis of unity is identical to the opposition of the first elements. However, th is opposition is purely forma I and totally independent of the contents of the concerned elements.

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

FASAL 5 Fasal 5 is entitled "Hoekoem orang sala maloekai orang" (the law for a person guilty of wounding someone). One person wounds another for whatever reason. When a suit results it is brought before a judge who examines the wound. If the wound looks like it will become a physical defect on the person's body (tjatjet tjela dia tas badan) then the rule is that he must pay a pampas of 12~ reals which is given to the in jured party and a fine of seven reals which is kept by the judge. If, however, the wound does not result in a physical defect or can be covered by the clothing then the pampas is 6Y4 reals and the fine 3~ reais.

In this fasal no distinction is made between the possible motives In the act of wounding. Instead, attention is focused on the consequences of the act, i.e., the severity of the wound. Two categories of wounds are distinguished: those that result in a permanent bodily defect and those that do not. A qualifying phrase associated with the second category suggests an anomalous case and at the same time clarifies the principle of classification. A bodily defect which can be concealed by the clothing is not a bodily defect. Thus the partitioning of the fasal into two categories is not based simplyon the severity of the wound but on the lasting effeets of the wound. And further, the injury, in both a literal and alegal sense, is defined in terms of its visible effects. Thus the greater amount of compensation is required for the socially visible consequences of an act of wounding, and not only the fact of injury. The lesser amount of compensation, on the other hand, is primarily for the act of wounding. Since the lesser amount is exactly one half the greater, the following composition rule is indicated. Half of the larger pampas is for the socially visible consequences of wounding and half is for the act of wounding itself. Associated with the pampas is a fine. In each case the fine as punishment is Ie ss than the pampas as compensation. And like the pampas, the fine for the Ie ss serious case is one half that for the more serious case. This association of a fine with the pampas is unusual and may he attributable to European influence. However, the numerical specification of seven and half of seven as the amount of the fine involves the use of a symbolically important number that cannot be attributed to the Europeans. The minimum amount of the pampas conforms to the standard minimum specification of 6Y4 reais. However, the largest amount is not one half of the bangun as in the other laws for this region but simply twice the minimum amount. This indicates the existence of a discontinuity between the bangun and pampas that violates the normally

614 reals is exactly one-sixteenth of one hundred reais. However, one-sixteenth of 96, the theoreticallimit of the Silebar bangun, is six reais. A variety of other numerical manipulations produce only approximations of the bangun of the Silebar laws. For example, 9% reals (the sum of the fine and pampas) multiplied by ten equals 97.5 reais; 614 reals (the minimum amount) multiplied by fourteen equals 87Y2 reais. However, none of these or similar manipulations yield an exact rclationship between the pampas and the bangun. Thus, there is not only the lack of the fundamental rule th at the pampas equals one half the bangun but there is also a lack of any numerical relationship between the amounts of the bangun and pampas that is analogous to that found in other laws. However, the amounts can he related by reference to patterns external to the structure of the Silebar laws. The bangun of the Silebar laws can be seen as a transformation upon the one hundred real bangun of the Code of Laws or the Ngalam laws (Cod. Or. 12.224, Fasal 18). Similarly, the pampas of the Silebar laws can be related to the one hundred real bangun by a simple transformation on this basic amount. However, while bath may be related to a common structure, the transformational relationships are not parallel and thus the resulting discontinuity in the Silebar structure is produced. This type of structural relationship is not an analytical convenience conjured up on an ad hoc basis to explain inconvenient irregularities. Similar structural patterns occur in linguistic analysis. For example, in Portuguese certain irregular plurals are of ten a confusing problem for the neophyte. The plural of máo is máos, the plural of naçáo is naçoes and the plural of capitáo, capitáes. Thus, apparently there is an ir- regularity in the rules for forming the plural of nouns ending in*-áo.* This is one of the things "that just have to he learned". However, a comparison with Spanish helps to regularize the pattern. The Spanish-Portuguese equivalences are as follows: mano (Sp.) = mao (P); nacion (Sp.) = naçao (P) and capitan (Sp.) = capitao (P). Thus three different types of Spanish word endings are compressed into a single Portuguese form: -on, -no, and -an of Spanish = -ao of Portuguese. The plurals of the Spanish forms conform to regular rules: mano = manos; nacion = naciones and capitan = capitanes. (The combination -ns is not allowed in Spanish; thus words ending in jnj form the plural by adding -es). From these Spanish plurals the Portuguese plurals can be generated: manos = maos; naciones = naçoes and capitanes =

LOGIC OF THE LA WS

Inl and the formation of a dipthong from the two phonemes that were on either side of the Inl However, while the Inj loses its phonemic status, the nasality feature of the Inl is retained and becomes a prosodic feature associated with the first element of the Portuguese dipthong. Thus the discontinuity between the singular and plural Portuguese farms can be eXplained by the fact that the Portuguese singular farms are related to Spanish by one type of transformation and the Portuguese plural forms are related to Spanish by a second, fundamentally different transformation. The abstract formal properties of this system are isomorphic to the system by which the bangun and pampas of the Silebar laws relate to the system of either the Code ot Laws or the Sungai Lemau laws.17 While Fasal 5 does not contain an opposition between intentional and unintentional wounding, such an opposition can be developed in the context of the Silebar laws as a whoie. The second element of the first section of Fasal 4 deals with accidental wounding. The compensatory payment for such wounding is called "tepoeng", thus forming a contrast with the pampas for wounding specified in Fasal 5. The opposition between "tepoeng" and "pampas" is exploited in both the Sungai Lemau laws and the Code ot Laws. In Fasal 14 of the Sungai Lemau laws the "setapoeng setawar" is simply listed as being Ie ss than 12.50 rupia (614 reais). Fasal 26 of the Code ot Laws is more specific. If the compensation for wounding is Ie ss than six reais, one suku, then it is na longer called the pampas but "tepung sitawar". Thus both of these texts create a fundament al distinction between the pampas and the tepung sitawar. The numerical marker of this distinction is 614 reais. In the Silebar laws the lowest pampas is specified as 614 reais. Thus by analogy with the other texts the tepung of Fasal 4 is not only for a less severe type of wound but also belongs to a different conceptual category. The clearest indication of this fundamental distinction in categories is the fact that the tepung sitawar occupies a different structural locus than the pampas. And further, it is not unreasonable to assume the opposition in compensation categories and structural loci is parelieled by an opposition between intentional and unintentional wounding. Thus while there is no continuity between Fasals 4 and 5 in terms of the numerical relationships between the bangun and pampas, the relationship is formed in another manner. The pampasjtepung opposition establishes a link between Fasal 5 and the second element of the first section of Fasal 4. However, the second element of the first section of Fasal 4 is relatcd to the first elcment of that section in tcrms of thcir

SILEBAR LAWS 223

common feature of unintentional acts. And finally, the first element of the first section of Fasal 4 presents the bangun, thus completing the link between bangun and pampas. In addition to this pattern of direct reference that links the bangun and pampas, the contents of these two fasals are linked by a system of interlocking structures. In total, these fasals contain six elements: four in Fasal 4 and two in Fasal 5. These six elements can he analysed as a continuous sequence. This procedure requires treating the individual element as the basic unit of the analysis and the partitioning into fasals as a higher order structural phenomenon. This is contrary to the normal method in which fasal partitioning was considered to be the fundamental structural phenomenon. According to this more usual procedure one analysed the relationships hetween the fasals as elements, or the various features within a single fasal as elements. However, it was only rarely and then only as a supplementary procedure that features in more than one fasal were treated as elements of a single common structure.18 The sequence of six elements in Fasals 4 and 5 of the Silebar laws can he described using the following notation:

Az

Bz (12~

J!4

Let Ab Az, etc. he the first element dealing with killing, the second element dealing with killing, etc. Let Bb etc., he the first element dealing with wounding, etc. This sequence contains two subsequences, one dealing with killing (Al' Az, A3) and one dealing with wounding (Bb Bz, Ba). These two subsequences are interlocked by interposing the elements of one sequence between the elements of tbe other. Thus Bl is inserted between elements Al and Az of the subsequence Ab Az, Aa and Az and A3 are inserted hetween elements Bl and Bz of the subsequence Bl' Bz, B3' In each case the inserted element or elements occur hetween the first and second elements of the other subsequences. This pattern of interlocking sequences created by inserting elements of one sequence hetween the elements of another is rare in the legal texts from the Environs of Bengkulu but is more common in law texts from the Seluma and Manna regions. In particular, tbe three laws that

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

make up the manuscript Cod. Or. 12.205 use such a system of interlocking sequences as their basic organizing principle. The process of interposition effectively divides each subsequence into two sections. In addition to their interlocking effect the interposed elements also function as insulators between the two sections of a sequence. Thus, the interposition of elements has two effects on each of the sequences considered separately. First, the interposed element divides the sequence into two sections. And secondly, it insulates the two sections from each other. In both of these sequences the net effect is the same: the interposed elements structurally mark and insulate the opposition between intentional and unintentional acts. In this sequence of six elements there are five structural boundaries. The most obvious of these are the initial and terminal boundaries. Thus, technically there is a boundary before element Al and af ter element B3' However, of these two boundaries the one af ter B3 is the stronger in that it marks the end of the sequence of the B-elements. This assertion of relative strength is based on the fact that terminal markers are more frequently used than initial markers in South Sumatran legal texts. The most common terminal marker is the back reference. Parallel to the weak initial boundary is a third boundary between Al and BI denoting the beginning of the B-element sequence. Inside the total sequence there are two relatively strong boundaries. The structural boundary between elements BI and A2marks the distinction between intentional and unintentional acts for the entire sequence. And the boundary between A3 and B2marks the end of the A-element sequence. In terms of the structure of this two element group two of these five boundaries are extremely strong. The boundary af ter element B3 not only marks the end of the B-elements and the end of the structure but is also a fasal boundary in the total structure of the laws and has the typical strength of a terminal marker. The features of this boundary would support the assertion th at the boundary before Al is actually a terminal boundary for the marriage section, more than an initial boundary of this sequence. The other terminal boundary inside the sequence (i.e., af ter Aa) also has significance in the total structure of the laws in that it coincides with a fasal boundary. Thus in this six element sequence there are a number of structural boundaries. However, only those associated with terminal markers acquire additional significance in the context of the total structure of th is law set. From a purely formal point of view the two interpositions occur simultaneously, that is, the interposition of element BI in the sequence

Al> A2' A3 has the same value as the interposition of A2 and A3 in the sequence Bl> B2' B3. However, if one of these interpositions can he seen as analytically prior to the other a dependency relationship can he established. The pattern of the sequence is such that if one interposition is seen as occuring first, the other automatically follows. Thus, for example, if A2 and A3 Were the intentional interposition, the interposition of element Bl would follow automatically as an effect. However, the assignment of analytical priority in order to he valid must he based on a posteriori reasoning. By reference to external structures it can he shown that the interposition of the element Bl into the sequence Al' A2' A3 is the antecedent or primary manipulation while the apparent interposition of A2 and A3 in the sequence Bl> B2' B3 is the consequent effect. In both the Sungai Lemau laws and the Code ot Laws the rules governing compensation for wounding always begin with the pampas and conclude with the tapung (or tapung sitawar). Thus the pattern of the Bl> B2' B3 sequence of the Silebar laws inverts the pattern of the primary and secondary reference laws in that Bl and not B3 presents the tapung. Thus the manipulated sequence was the one dealing with wounding and not that dealing with killing. Thus the entire interlocking effect and the resulting structural relations is dependent upon the changed structural locus of an element that normally would have been located at the end of a sequence. This process also effectively establishes the fasals dealing with killing and wounding as a single structural unit within the Silebar laws. While the means of expressing the unity of these fasals is radically different than that of the Sungai Lemau laws the effect is the same: the first two elements of a three element structure are united in their opposition to the third which deals with theft.19

FASAL 6 Fasal 6 is entitled "Hoekoem orang iang mantjorie arta orang atouw mantjoerie karbouw" (the punishment of a person who steals someone's property or steals a buffalo). If a person steals someone's property but does not "open" a house or break a door or window (mamboekak Roema atouw mematja pintoe djandela), that is, he only takes goods which were stored, then the following applies. When the case, with circumstantial evidence (tanda biti) and testimony, comes hefore a judge, the rule is that the goods are returned twofold to their rightful owner and the judge receives a fine of five reaIs. If a person steals property and there is "opening of a wall or breaking of a door or window in the house which is robbed" (mamboekak dinding atouw

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

mamatja pintoe djandela Roema iang die tjoerie nja itoe), together with the removal of property, then the following applies. When the case comes before a judge, with circumstantial evidence (tjantjang ragas nja tanda bitie) and statements against the accused, or there are two witnesses (doea orang sahada = sahädat) who are valid (sahie = ~al:IÏ.J:!), the person is punished severely, that is, a severe corpora I punishment is administered and he is banished from the state (negri) where he was bom. However, if the judges here do not have the authority to impose such a punishment then the person is handed over to thc authority of the Government so that the gentlemen with the authority in the Hakim bes ar in the state of Bengkulu will impose punishment upon the guilty.

While this fasal contains th ree elements the basic division is into two ma in categories. These categories are opposed by two almost identical phrases: "tida poela mamboekak Roema atoûw mematja pintoe djandela" and "sampaij mamboekak dinding atoûw mamatja pintoe djandela Roema iang die tjoerie nja itoe". The shared contents of these phrases are nicely summarized by the English expression "breaking and entering".llo Thus the basic opposition is one between thefts involving breaking and entering and thefts without breaking and entering. In both the Sungai Lemau and Sungai Hitam laws the three element groups dealing with killing, wounding and theft have a two plus one structure. One manner of formulating this partitioning is to oppose crimes committed against an individual with crimes committed against property. As if to avoid a possible ambiguity in these laws buffaloes are mentioned in the titles of all three of the fasals (or, in Question 13 of the Sungai Hitam laws) dealing with theft. Thus, it is indicated that while buffaloes are living like men, they are to be classified as property.1l1 By way of contrast, in the few laws where slaves are mentioncd, they are property but still classed as men in that the bangun must be paid (c.f. Fasal 18, the "old portion", Cod. Or. 12.228 (TaIlo)). Thus the basic partitioning of these three fasals involves considering: killing as a crime by man against man, wounding as a crime by man against man, and theft as a crime by man against property. In these three laws the fourth possibility is not developd, i.e., a crime by property (buffaloes) against man. However, this possibility is discussed in Fasal 28 of the Code of Laws where in some cases the owner of a buffalo must pay the pampas for the actions of his anima!. This opposition between crimes against property and crimes against other men is maintained in the titles of the Silebar fasals. However, the contents of Fasal 6 of the Silebar laws suggest an

"barang satoe mendjadie doea artie nja melipat ba rang itoe" (goods which are one become two, i.e., they are doubled) is the standard compensation rule for theft. The fine of five reals is somewhat unusual but parallels the equally uncommon fines associated with the pampas discussed in Fasal 5. Thus when damage to a house is not involved the rule evoked conforms to the rules for theft given in the Code of Laws, the Sungai Hitam laws and the Sungai Lemau laws. However, when damage to a house is associated with the theft the principle of compensation is dropped and severe corpora I punishment and banishment instituted in its place. Thus the damage to a house overrides the crime of theft and its associated rule of compensation. This logical pattern is identical to that presented in Fasal 4. There, the lesser crime, unintentional killing, is associated with a rule of compensation. However, for the more serious crime, intentional killing, the rule of compensation is dropped and a severe punishment and banishment are instituted in its place. Indeed, the rules governing the more serious crime in Fasals 4 and 6 are almost identical, i.e., severe corporal punishment and banishment. And further, in both of these fasals there is a provision for handing over the guilty party to the government. Thus in the context of this three element group theft associated with breaking and entering a house is equated with intentional killing. This equation is reinforced by the actual nature of the punishment for both crimes and by the structural parallels between Fasals 4 and 6. Thus a crime of a man against a house is equated to a crime of a man against a man. While the word "rumah" is used in this fasal to denote "house", the alternative word for house, "tungguan", indicates the close association between houses and persons. Marsden gives the meaning of tungguan as house (Marsden's History, 1811, p. 244) and as "attendance; dwelling, abode, (or) settled residence" (Marsden's Dictionary, 1812, p. 76). However, this basic meaning is extended in various legal contexts. In Fasal 15 of the Code of Laws "tungguan" is synonymous with patrilineally inherited titles. And in the Commentative Digest one finds "the Toongooan or Family Respect" (Commentative Digest, p. 299). These linguistic usages establish a general association betwecn the literal meaning of houses and the persons or families living in them. However, two law texts from the Seluma region specifically relate damage to a·

LOGIC OF THE LA WS

house by breaking and entering with the crime of murder. In the Ngalam laws (Cod. Or. 12.224, "old portion"), spatiaIly at least the closest in this region to the Silebar laws, Fasal 25 reads as follows: "kalau menikam orang meretas dinding kalau seperti kurang daripada adat rukunnya melainkan hakim boleh memikirkan" (If a person is stabhed while breaking through a waIl and there is something in the situation that does not conform to the appropriate legal rule the court may consider the matter). While the precise legal meaning of this fasal is not entirely clear the other fasals give the impression that the stabbing of a person caught in the act of breaking through a waIl is not a crime. A second more distant text from TaIlo (Cod. Or. 12.228 "old portion") confirms this impression and is very specific. Fasal 19 reads "membunoh orang maling didalam rumah melainkan mati2 saja kalau ada risau itu membunoh orang yang punya rumah kalu dapat keterangannya melainkan risau itu terbangun -dan kalau orang sedang meretas dinding ditikam mati2 saja luka2 saja" (If a thief is killed in a house the matter ends there. If an outlaw kiIls the person who owns the house and there is testimony to th at effect, he must pay the bangun -if a person is stabbed in the act of breaking through a wall the matter ends with the killing or with the wounding). This fasal specificaIly asserts that the killing of a thief who is inside one's house or in the act of breaking through a wall is justifiable homicide. The phrases used to indicate this (mati2 saja or mati2 saja, luka saja) literally mean "death only" or "death only, wound only" and are used in a variety of contexts in Sou th Sumatra to indicate that the bangun or pampas need not be paid. Thus the notion of justifiable homicide is directly connected with situations in which the bangun need not he paid.22These references to the Ngalam and TaIlo laws indicate that breaking and entering a house is considered to he equivalent to or more serious than the act of killing in some of the regions to the south of Silebar. This order of precedence can he established in several ways. By analogy to intentional killing, which overrides the possibility of compensation, the entering of a house as a crime overrides the possibility of punishing the killer of the thief. Another possibility is that the crime of housebreaking allows the owner of the house to usurp the legal process and punish the criminal himself. This is an unusual situation and serves to underscore the seriousness of the crime. Thus the association between the structures of Fasals 4 and 6 as weIl as the contents of the more serious case in each of these fasals is entirely reasonable. The Tallo laws (Cod. Or. 12.228) provide a further, somewhat

SILEBAR LA WS 229

curious aSSOCIatlon. Fasal 19 occurs between the fasal dealing with compensation for killing and the fasal dealing with wounding. The similar association hetween the crime of breaking and entering a house with the fasals for killing and wounding in the Silebar laws, therefore, may not be entirely related to two kinds of theft alone. However, the main thrust of Fasal 6 of the Silebar laws is to create two categories relating to the crime of theft. Fasals 4, 5, and 6 form a three element group with a pattern similar to that found in the Sungai Lemau laws. The first two elements are united in their contrast to the third. However, the structure of this oppositional relationship is based on the component elements of the three fasals. The sequence discussed in the analysis of Fasals 4 and 5 can be extended to include the three elements of Fasal 6. Thus the total sequence can be represented as follows: Al> BI, A2' A3, B2' B3, Cl> C 2, C 3 with Al> A2' A3; Bl> B2' B3; and Cl, C 2, C 3 being the subsequences. Thus the three fasals contain nine elements th at may he divided into three subsequences with three elements each. The A-sequence deals with killing, the B-sequence with wounding and the C-sequence with theft. This partitioning of the elements into subsequences suggests a composition of nine as three plus three plus three or three times three (i.e., 3 + 3 + 3 = 3 X 3 = 9). However, the partitioning of these nine elements into fasals suggests another composition. Since Fasal 4 contains four elements, Fasal 5 two elements, and Fasal 6 three elements, the following composition of nine is indicated: 2 + 3 + 4 = 9. This closely parallels the composition of six as: 1 + 2 + 3 of the Sungai Lemau laws, i.e., both six and nine are revealed as equal to the sum of three consecutive numbers. On the other hand, the two plus one structure of the three element group determined by the three fasals suggests a 6 + 3 = 9 composition with 6 = 2 + 4. However, in each fasal there is one basic opposition. In Fasal 4 th is opposition is hetween intentional and unintentional killing. In Fasal 5 the basic opposition is hetween more serious and less serious wounds. And in Fasal 6 the opposition is hetween thefts associated with breaking and entering and thefts not associated with breaking and entering. The relationship between these oppositions, the partitioning into fasals, and the three element subsequence is most fully revealed in Fasals 4 and 6. In this re gard the most important feature of these fasals is that they each contain a complete three element subsequence. Thus all the A-elements are in Fasal 4, all of the C-elements in Fasal 6, but not all of the B-elements are to be found in Fasal 5. In both Fasals 4 and 6

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

the basic opposition that characterises the fasal is expressed in the first two elements of the subsequence that is completely contained in that fasal. Thus, Al deals with unintentional killing, A2 with intentional killing, Cl with theft not associated with breaking and entering, and C2with theft associated with breaking and entering. In both of these cases the third element of the subsequence is not directly relatcd to the basic opposition. The A-element subsequenee and the C-element subsequence, therefore, eontain two plus one struetures of the fasals themselves. On the other hand, the B-element sequence appears to re verse this pattern, since the basic opposition is eontained in the seeond and third elements of the sequenee and together they are eontrasted to the first element (Bd. However, this inversion is more apparent than real when one examines the logical internal structure of the subsequenee. The notation of the elements in the B-element sequence ean be changed as follows: the first element of Fasal 5 the second element of Fasal 5 the second element of Fasal 4

This procedure allows the B-element subsequence to conform to the two plus one structural pattern of the A and C-element subsequenees as weil as the structure of the three element group determined by the partitioning of the fasals. This approach to the B-element sequence is supported by the fasals dealing with the pampas in both the Sungai Lemau laws and the Code of Laws. Further, this change in notation suggests that the apparent inversion of the structure of the B-element subsequence is not so mueh the result of the internal logic of the subsequenee as the result of the structural manipulation leading to the interlocking strueture of Fasals 4 and 5. A similar eonclusion was reaehed in the analysis of the structural relations between Fasals 4 and 5 (cJ. p. 222 f. above). However, th at analysis did not indieate th at any particular analytical advantage could be gained by changing the notation of the B-element subsequence. But, the total eonfiguration of the nine elements of Fasals 4, 5, and 6 reveals the advantage of th is change in the notation.

A M ethodological no te

The general procedure hy which analytical notations are assigned and subsequently modified reveals an important aspect of the methodo-

WS 231

logy of structural analysis. The purpose of any notation IS to permit a more facile means of analysing a structure by creating a series of symbols. While such symbols have a correspondence relation to the original data they are more manageable than the data themselves. In the greater part of this analysis the correspondence relationship is simple and obvious, i.e., a square box with a given number inside corresponds to the fasal with that number. However, in a partial analysis where the basic elements are not the explicitly numbered fasals, the correspondence relationship is more difficult to establish. As a general rule, in such cases the initial correspondence rules should be based on some simple but explicit feature of the data. In the above case two such features were selected, the overt content of the element (i.e., killing, wounding and theft) and the order in which they occur in the text. However, such assignments of ten require an interpretative decision as to what is explicit. Nevertheless, an initial correspondence can be established based on the fundamental features of the text but without reference to the detailed structural analysis. Upon completion of all or part of the analysis it may become apparent that an alternative notation is desirabie. The basis of the change in notation should always be to make some structural feature more explicit in the final representation of the total structure. However, sin ce the initial correspondence rules are based on a primitive interpretation of the structure, the change in notation can be related to a transformational relation between the initial primitive structure and the complex finalone. Thus while a change in notation may he based on the need to make a particular structural relation more explicit, the relationship between the alternative notations also reflects a change in level within the analysis.

The structure of Fasals 4, 5, and 6

Using the changed notation Diagram 5.3 represents the structure of the nine elements that make up Fasals 4, 5, and 6. This representation indicates that the basic oppositions of each fasal are: (Al> A₂); (Bl> B₂); and (Cl> C₂). The third element is represented as heing primarily contrastive to both elements of the opposition, rather than to a particular element of th is opposition. This approach maximizes the two plus one aspects of the entire structure and tends to minimize the fact that A3 is more closely related to A2 than to Al and that C 3 is more closely related to C2than Cl. This emphasis means that greater importance is attached to the basis of unity of the fundamental op-

LOGIC OF THE LA WS

Fasal 4

Fasal 5

Fa sa I 6

DIAGRAM 5.3

posItlOns than the partial Ie ss powerful oppositions that either of the elements may be a party to. This representation also serves to indicate the nature of the interlocking structure. The element interposed in the A-element subsequence (B3) occurs between the elements of the basic opposition in that sequence (i.e., Al and A₂). Thus B3 functions as an insulator between the elements of the opposition and is at the same time bound closely up in the A-element subsequence by virtue of the strong basis of unity of the basic opposition. On the other hand, the binding effect associated with the consequent interposition is much less. A2 and A3, which become interposed between B3 and Bb do not form a primary structural unit in the A-element subsequence. While A2and A3 may be contrasted as a single unit to Ab this partition of the subsequence is secondary to the partitioning based on the basic opposition. Secondly, the basis of unity of the opposition between BI + B2and B3 is weaker than the basis of unity of the opposition between BI and B2 (or Al and A2 or Cl and C₂). Thus the binding effect in this consequent opposition is Ie ss than if the elements had been interposed between the more strongly opposed elements. While the analysis of the structure of Fasals 4 and 5 revealed that the locus of B3 was the antecedent interposition the final analysis also reveals that the interlocking effect and the subsequent binding of the two suusequences is more closely related to the interposition of B3 in the A-element squence than the interposition of A2and A3 in the B-element sequence.

LAWS 233

Fasals 7-9, Introduction Fasals 7, 8, and 9 form a third three element group. While there is a certain degree of continuity between the last element of Fasal 6 and this group of fasals, the integrity of the group is nevertheless maintained by a system of back referencing. The contents of these three fasals follow the pattern suggested by Fasals 16, 17, and 18 of the Sungai Lcmau laws or Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Sungai Hitam laws. However, while the distinction between the first two categories is not fuIly developed in either of these other laws, the Silebar laws develop a fuIl structural sequence based on the material in all of these fasals.

FASAL 7 Fasal 7 is entitled "Hoekoem orang manjamun doessoen atouw Roema" (the punishment of a person who robs a village or a house). If the thief is caught he is brought before a judgc and is examined by him. If the robbery has involved killing, the subduing of a victim (mannawan orang), or the lowering (i.e., from a house) of a substantial amount of goods, and therc exists condemning circumstantial evidence (tambang tjaija) as weIl as valid testimony, then thc following punishment applies. The person is killed or is banished (die hilang kan) from the state for as long as he lives. And if the judges do not have the authority to impose such a punishment the case is handed over to the authority of the Government.

Unlike Fasals 4, 5, and 6 this fasal contains only one category: robbery with the implication that a house is entered. Indeed, it is somewhat difficult to differentiate in terms of the details of the crime and its punishment between the contents of this fasal and the last two elements of Fasal 6 which deal with theft which is associated with breaking and entering a house. However, a distinction can he made on the basis of the difference between the two verbs: samun (menyamun) and curi (mencuri). Normally curi is associated with simple theft and samun with robbery with violence. The last two elements of Fasal 6 involve theft which is paired with breaking and entering. This attack on or damage to a house is indirectly related to an attack on individu als and has a punishment that reflects the implied severity of the crime. However, the samun of Fasal 7 directly implies an attack on an individual with the intent to steal. However, the title of the fasal also implies that there may be an attack upon a house correlated to the intended theft and associated violence. Thus Fasal 7 presents a crime more severe than that presented in the last two elements of Fasal 6, in that a crime by a man against a man is directly implied. And further, the punishment,

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

because the death penalty is explicitly mentioned, more closely follows that discussed In the last two elements of Fasal 4 (i.e., intentional killing). The essence of this fasal, however, is that the nature of the crime involves or could possibly involve, all of the categories presented in the immediately preceding three element group. While such a relation existed hetween Fasal16 and Fasals 13, 14, and 15 of the Sungai Lemau laws, the Silebar laws are even more comprehensive. This increase in detail is due to the fact that the first element dealing with robbery (samun) in both of these law sets could involve breaking and entering a house. However, it is only in the Silebar laws that th is possibility is worked into the fasal dealing with theft. However, while this connex ion in one sense establishes a back reference link to the previous section, the main function of this fasal is to establish an initial reference point for its own three element group.

FASAL 8 Fasal 8 is entitled "Hoekoem orang manjamoen die tengah djalan saorang dirie atouw bertaman taman" (the punishment of persons who commit robbery in the middle of a road (i.e. commit highway robbery), either a person by himself or with accomplices. If a case comes before a judge it is examined by him. If the person who was robbed dies, then the punishment follows the punishment for persons who rob villages or houses (hoekoem orang manjamoen doessoen atouw Roema). In this case he is also handed over to the Hakim Besar. However, if the person who was robhed does not die but is only wounded or bruised, the punishment is to he severely beaten and made a güvernmental slave (boedak kampanie) but only within the state (Negri). Furthermore, he is given a specific time for this service by the court and then he is released. But the following is requested. The fin al settlement of the matter is left to the Hakim Besar who can either approve the punishment of the lower court or impose its own punishment.

The title üf this fasal creates an oppüsition with the title of Fasal 7. The oppositiün is based on the loc at ion üf the crime, either in inhabited 0'1' uninhabited areas. This is the oppositiün which was used tü differentiate Fasals 16 and 17 of the Sungai Lemau laws. Within the fasal itself there is a return to the two opposed categüry pattern which characterized the basic structure of Fasals 4, 5, and 6. The basic üpposition here is between those robberies in which the associated violence results in a killing and those in which the violence results in a wounding. This opposition between killing and wounding is the same as that used to differentiate Fasals 4 and 5 from each other. However,

pb ce with a robbery in which an attack on a house is strongly implied but a kiIIing need not have accompanied the crime. Thus, while a robbery associated with a killing is punished in almost the same way as intentional killing, the logic of the laws makes the association with a robbery committed against a house or vilIage. This phenomeon demonstrates a fundamental principle in the structural analysis of legal codes. A specific act may be labelled in a variety of ways. The manner in which specific action by a specific person is matched to a specific crime is an aspect of the study of comparative jurisprudence. However, the procedures and methods used by the indigenous population to label a specific act are not of fundamental significanee in structural analysis. Structural analysis is concerned with the logical relationships between categories as conceptual entities, and not with the relationship between action and category. Thus, from a juridical point of view, a robbery associated with kiIIing is punishable by death, banishment, etc., because it is clearly a case of intentional kilIing. However, from a structural point of view a robbery associated with death is a subcategory of robbery and the more relevant question is whether the crime took pi ace in an inhabited or uninhabited area.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

The second logical category of Fasal 8 is a robbery that results only in a wound to the assaulted party. This category is the least severe form of robbery and as such provides a minimum definition of samun (menyamun). The minimum requirement for a crime to qualify as samun is that some act of aggression must be intentionally committed against another person. In South Sumatran legal codes the minimal aggressive act with weIl defined legal consequences is wounding. Thus a robbery associated with only the threat of violence is not classified as samun. The specific mention of a wound in this fasal establishes the difference between theft and robbery as an opposition between the presence or absence of committed, not threatened, violence. However, while wounding is the minimal requirement of robbery, the logic of Fasals 7 and 8 provide a definition of the least serious form of robbery, that is, the robbery must take place outside of an inhabited area. Thus there are two defining principles associated with this category. First, the location of the crime allows for the placement of this category within the various types of robbery. And second, the specification of wounding means that it is less serious than a robbery with killing but still serious enough to be considered samun. In terms of all crimes labelled samun there are two hierarchically arranged oppositions. One opposition contrasts the relative severity of the violence associated with the crime. The other contrasts the possible locations of the crime from each other. Of the two oppositions the one concerned with location takes precedence, that is, if a robbery takes place in an inhabited area the opposition between the forms of associated violence is irrelevant. If, however, the robbery takes place in an uninhabited area the second opposition comes into play. While the relationship between these two oppositions may be analysed in hierarchical terms, the structural principle of neutralization mayalso be applied. The use of neutralization requires that the differences in spatial location of the crime be treated as structural contexts in which the second opposition may occur. When a robbery occurs outside an inhabited area, the opposition between killing and wounding produces a change in significance (i.e. punishment). However, when the robbery occurs within an inhabited area the opposition between killing and wounding loses its ability to produce a change in meaning. It is noteworthy that the behaviour of the opposition in the position of neutralization conforms to linguistic patterns. First, the features common to both killing and wounding (i.e., violencc against a person) remain. This undifferentiated violence is necessary so that the crime may

WS 237

be dassified as samun. Secondly, while only the features common to both members of the original opposition are relevant in the position of neutralization, the opposition may be represented in the position of neutralization either by a combination of features distinct to either element or by one member of the opposition.23In this particular case the opposition between killing and wounding is represented in the position of neutralization not by a combination of features but by only one element of this opposition. Thus, in the position of neutralization, the opposition between categories of violence is represented by the killing element of this opposition. This representation is explicit in that a specific back reference is employed to indicate the connexion.

FASAL 9 Fasal 9 is entitlcd "Hoekoem orang mambakar Roema orang" (the punishment of a person who burns somcone's house). H someone burns a house and is caught at the scene of thc fire with circumstantial cvidence in his possession, such as a torch, a slow match (toenam), or sulphur matches, then the matter is brought before a judge who examines the extent of the damage. H the fire does not complctely destroy thc house or its contents then a corporal punishment is administered and the pcrson is made a governmental slave (boedak kampanie) for six months to a year. H, however, the fire inflicts sevcre damage to the house and its contents then the punshment follows the specifica ti ons of Fasal 7.

The pattern of this fasal follows that of Fasal 8. Two main categories are distinguished based on the seriousness of the consequences of the illegal act. While in Fasal 8 there is a dear distinction between killing and wounding, Fasal 9 is rather vague as to the dividing line between the categories based on the amount of the damage. However, the similarity between Fasals 8 and 9 is revealed by a comparison of the punishments associated with the crimes. In both fasals the punishment for the more serious offence is described by means of an explicit back reference to Fasal 7. In Fasal 8 this back reference is accomplished by referring to the title of the fasal and in Fasal 9 the back reference explicitly mentions the number of the fasal. These two processes are complementary in that one mentions the title but not the number of the fasal and the other mentions the number but not the title. In both fasals the punishment for the less serious offence involves becoming a "boedak kampanie" (= budak kompani = governmental slave). However, there is a difference between the fasals. Fasal 9 gives a specific time period for this bondage but makes no reference to handing the guilty party over

OF THE LAWS

to higher authority. Fasal 8 does not specify limits for the bondage but has aprovision for handing the case over to the Hakim Besar for approv- al. While the structures of the two fasals are similar, one is tbe inverse of the other. Thus while the back reference to Fasal 7 occurs in the initial category of Fasal 8, it occurs in the final category of Fasal 9. The structural features of the relations between Fasals 8 and 9 help to elucidate the conceptualization of the crime of arson as described in Fasal 9. Incomplete burning of a house is equated with wounding and total destruction is equated with killing. This logical association further supports the assertion that attacks on or damage to a house can be equated with assaults on human beings. AIso, this fasal presents a crime which is explicitly and solely an attack on a house. Wh en free from complications, such as a second associated crime, the equivalence of houses and individuals is complete. The lesser crime against a house is associated with the lesser attack on a human being (i.e. wounding) and the more serious crime against a house is associated with the more serious attack on a human being (killing). However, conccptual problems develop in those crimes which involve a combination of acts that are individually associated with different crime categories. Thus, the second category of Fasal 6 involves a theft and an assault on a house and Fasal 7 involves stealing, an assault on a person, and an assault on a house. While the actual damage done to a house in either of these cases would, in all probability, be lcss than or equivalent to that presented in the lesser category of Fasal 9, the effect of the involvement of a house is to inerease the seriousness of the combination beyond what would be expected if the same person had committed the individu al crimes on separate occasions. In other words, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Therefore, when another crime is associated with an attack on a house, the involvement of the house serves to potentiate the significance of the crime. Thus, in Fasal 7 the implied involvement of houses automatically makes the crime the most serious of the samun categories, and in the process neutralizes the opposition between categories based on the severity of the assault on a person. Tbe three element group determined by Fasals 7, 8, and 9 has two main structures. The first, based on the titles of the fasals, is the frequently occuring two plus one configuration. The titles of both Fasals 7 and 8 contain the word menyamun (samun), while the title of Fasal 9 contains the word mambakar. Thus, a structure is established in which the first two elements dealing with robbery are opposed to the single final element dealing with arson. Like other such structures the first

Sungai Lemau laws. A second structure can be generated from the contents of the fasals. This structure is the inverse of th at based on the titles. Instead of a two plus one structure, there is a one plus two structure. This partitioning of the three elements into a one plus two structure can be based on the opposition between dependent and independent units. Thus the back references of the first element of Fasal 8 and the last element of Fasal 9 to Fasal 7 mean th at Fasal 7 is totally independent while Fasals 8 and 9 are dependent upon Fasal 7. This same partitioning can be generated by using a second principle. Fasals 8 and 9 contain two main categories while Fasal 7 contains only one category of crime. Further analysis of the structure of the contents of Fasals 7, 8, and 9 requires an examination of the constituent units of these fasals. While the analysis of Fasals 4, 5, and 6 required the use of the smallest possible units, the analysis of Fasals 7, 8, and 9 is optimally based on units which arc distinguished by the nature of the crime and not the nature of the punishment. Thus while the analysis of Fasals 4, 5, and 6 treated the alternative punishments of a single crime category as distinct units, this method is difficult to employ in thc analysis of Fasals 7, 8, and 9. In the more serious categories of Fasals 4 and 6 there are two possible punishments: one administered locally and one administered by a higher authority. The same pattern is repeated in Fasal 7. However, the back references to Fasal 7 create an analytical problem. In particular, does the element containing the back reference count as one element or are the two elements of Fasal 7 to be counted again? This problem is not insunnountable and a solution will be attempted below. However, such a solution involves considerable speculation in comparison with an analysis which is based purelyon categories of crimes as opposed to categories of punishment. Five categories can be distinguished in Fasals 7, 8, and 9. They may be differentiated using the following notation.

a h a b

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

These five categories are partitioned by a one plus two fasal structure using either of the principles discussed above. In terms of these five categories this partitioning of the fasals results in a division into two segments, one containing a single element and the other four elements. The structure of the four element segment provides the key to the total structure of the five categories. The punishments associated with Ba and 9 b are the same and involve a back reference to category 7. Similarly, the punishments associated with categories Bb and 9a are nearly the same in that they both involve the use of the concept "boedak kampanie" (= budak kompani = governmental si ave ). The opposition hetween these two pairs of elements involves an opposition hetween center and extremity in the context of the four element system. The strength of this pattern suggests that the back reference to Fasal 7 can be described as being from the extremities of the four element segment as weIl as from elements Ba and 9b as individu al stmctural units. Thus the representation of the structure presented in Diagram 5.4 is indicated.

DIAGRAM 5.4

Another interesting feature of the structure of Fasals 7, B, and 9 can he demonstrated through the analysis of the smallest possible units. The sub-division of the punishments associated with a particular category are counted as individu al elements. A most interesting result can he obtained if the punishments associated with a back reference to Fasal 7 are counted as two elements (i.e., the back reference is to both elements of Fasal 7). Using these principles the following may be obtained.

WS 241

Number of minimal elements

2 2 2 1 2

TABLE 5.2

There are a total of nine elements distributed among the three fasals as follows: Fasal 7 = 2 elements; Fasal 8 = 4 elements; and Fasal 9 = 3 elements. Thus a composition of 9 as equal to 2 + 3 + 4 is indicated. This is the same result as obtained in the analysis of the minimal units of Fasals 4, 5, and 6, i.e., there are nine elements partitioned by fasal boundaries into groups of two, three, and four elements. The major difference between the two partitionings is in the order relation obtaining between the groups of elements. In Fasals 4, 5, and 6 the order is four elements, two elements, and three elements. In Fasals 7, 8, and 9 the order is two elements, four elements, and three elements. In other words, the order of the first two groups is inverted. However, the composition of nine using the two plus one structure remains unchanged (i.e., 6 + 3 = 9), the only difference is that in one case 6 = 2 + 4 and in the other 6 = 4 + 2. As in other laws, the fasals dealing with criminal matters form a single major subdivision of this law set. What is perhaps unique to this law set is the degree of European influence found in criminal matters. The particular manifestation of this influence is the unusual severity of physical punishments and the frequent references to higher governmental authority. However, while the contents of the fasals reveal sa much external influence, their structures conform almost entirely to the patterns found in other more traditional laws. In addition to these general observations about the fasals dealing with criminal matters, one notes that these fasals as a whole display a number of structural features. Fasals 4, 5, and 6 have a two plus one structure. Similarly, th is type of structure is found in the titles of Fasals 7, 8, and 9. On the other hand, the contents of Fasals 7, 8, and 9 invert th is pattern and have a one plus two structure. This inversion can be described as a transformation upon either the structure of the fasal titles or upon the structure of Fasals 4, 5, and 6.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

Another more interesting structure involving all six fasals also demonstrates this inversion relationship. The six fasals can he partitioned into two groups based on the nature of the crimes presented in each fasal. The opposition is between those fasals which unequivocallY deal with one sort of crime and those which involve a combination of criminal acts. In the first division one finds Fasal 4 dealing with killing, Fasal 5 dealing with wounding, and Fasal 9 dealing with arson.24In the second division one finds Fasal 6 in which theft and breaking and entering may be associated, Fasal 7 in which stealing, wounding or killing, breaking and entering, and robbery may be associated, and Fasal 8 in which stealing, wounding andjor killing may be associated. Each of these divisions has its own internal structure. In the division containing Fasals 4, 5, and 9, Fasals 4 and 5 are united in their contrast to Fasal 9. This oppositional contrast is expressed in a variety of ways. First, there is the traditional association of bangun and pampas uniting Fasals 4 and 5. Secondly, there is the elaborate interlocking structure which further reinforces this frequently occuring association of bangun and pampas. And thirdly, the standard partitioning of the six fasals into two groups of three consecutive elements isolates Fasals 4 and 5 in one group and Fasal9 in the other group. Thus Fasals 4, 5, and 9 have a two plus one structure. In the division containing Fasals 6, 7, and 8, Fasals 7 and 8 are united in their contrast to Fasal 6. First, the structure of the titles of Fasals 7 and 8 in the th ree element sequence determined by Fasals 7, 8, and 9 unites these two elements in a single unit. Secondly, the standard partitioning of six fasals into two groups of three consecutive elements isolates Fasals 7 and 8 in one group and Fasal 6 in the other. Thus Fasals 6, 7, and 8 have a one plus two structure. Therefore, these two three element structures are the inverse of each other in much the same way as the structure of the contents of Fasals 7, 8, and 9 is the inverse of the structure of the titles of these fasals or the inverse of the structure of Fasals 4, 5, and 6.

In conclusion, Fasals 4, 5, 6, 7,8, and 9 form a single structural block with a variety of unusually complex structures. This level of complexity may he ascrihed to two main features. First, the categories dealing with criminal matters are abnormally elaborate, and necessitate a more complex structure in order to unite them into a single coherent whoIe. And secondly, the punishments associated with these categories are also elaborate but they are still further complicated by continual references to higher European authority. While alien in concept ion to the legal

SILEBAR LAWS 243

categories of the crimes, these punishments are nonetheless worked into the structure of these six fasals.

FASAL 10 Fasal 10 is entitled "Hoekoem orang Pandjingan" (the punishment of panjingan). When a man is guilty of wrongdoing with another man's wife who has been left behind while her husband is travelling, the case comes before a judge with testimony (sahada = sahádat) or with the woman naming the responsible or guilty party. For this to occur complete guilt (sah samparna kassalaän) must be established. In other words, the woman must he pregnant while it is perfectly clear to the people of her house or neighbourhood that the pregnancy occurred in the absence of her husband. When these legal conditions have been met the parties are sentenced ta death. They can be free from the death penalty, however, if they pay a "teboes njawa" of ane half the bangun,

i.e., 40 reals each. They cannat he married until she has been divorced fram her husband. Although the text is long, camplicated and invaluted, the implicatian is dear. Adultery is defined as an illicit pregnancy in circumstances in which the biological father and social father of the child cauld not passi- bly be the same person. Thus, this fasal presents two distinct but related notions. First, this is the only fasal in this law set which deals with the infidelity of a married woman. Second, in the range of possible illicit sexual relatians, the fasal presents the case in which a married woman becomes pregnant by someone other than her legal husband. The first of these notions is significant in that it reflects an important categary of Fasal 20 of the Sungai Lemau laws. However, the second not ion presents the category which is specifically relevant to the last group of numbered elements in this law set.
FASAL 11 Fasal 11 is entitled "Hoekoem Pandjingan dengan Gadies atoûw Marando" (the punishment for panjingan with a maiden or a widaw). If a maiden or a widaw is found by her penghulu to be pregnant without being married (barlakie ), and if when the matter is investigated, she accuses a particular youth or married man, the matter is brought before a court which examines bath parties. When the man acknaw- ledges his responsibility, they are fined 14 reais, i.e., 7 reals each. They are also responsible far the "pambassoe doessoen" (deansing the village) which consists of giving a goat, 50 measures of rice with the appropriate spices (assam-garam) to the penghulu and malims of the village, or they themselves may prepare a meal which they give to all the people of the village. Hawever, if the accused man denies his responsibility

THE LOGIC OF THE LA WS

under oath and the woman cannot provide a satisfactory explanation or witnesses, thcn the woman is fincd singly. If she does not pay a fine of 28 reals she becomes the slave of the Raja (boedak Radja).

The title of this fasal provides the basic contrast with the material of the previous fasal. While Fasal 10 deals with the illicit pregnancy of a married woman, Fasal 11 deals with the illicit pregnancy of an unmarried woman. An important point is th at in both of these fasals thc marital status of the man is irrelevant to the partitioning of categories. Fasal 11 is explicit on th is irrelevancy and refers to "saorang lakie lakic sama djoea boedjang atouw batin" (a man, equally a youth or a married man). Fasal 10, on the the other hand, makes no specific reference to the marital status of the man. Thus there are no grounds for assuming th at the marital status of the man is relevant and considerable support for the assertion th at the distinction between unmarricd and married men is not pertinent to the relationship betwecn these two fasals. However, the opposition between married and unmarried women is the basis of the opposition between Fasals 10 and 11. On the other hand, there is unity in this opposition in that both fasals deal with illicit sexual relations that have resulted in pregnancy. While Fasal 10 does not elaboratc upon the basic category presented, Fasal 11 has an internal partitioning into two opposed catcgories. Thc opposition is betwcen cases in which a man accepts his responsibility for the pregnancy and cases where he denics any such responsibility. This opposition of categories is paralleled by a multiplication of the associated fine. When considering the tot al fine imposed on thc crime, the 14 reals of the Ie ss serious case is multiplied by two to produce the 28 reals of the more serious one. However, when considering the amount actually paid by one person, the amount in thc lesser case is seven reals and that in the more serious case 28 reais, or the multiple is four and not two. The three amounts of money discussed (i.e., 7, 14, 28 reais) form a numerical sequence governcd by the special case of the general rule for halving sequences. tn = tI (2 1-n)

n = 2, tI = 28 n = 3, tI = 28 t3= 28 (21-3) = 28 (2-1) (2-2)

In addition to the important sequence relationship, thc numbers of the sequence themselves display a variety of significant properties. The

Of particular im-

portance to the 7, 14, 28 sequence is that 28 is equal to the sum of the first seven consecutive integers. The number seven also possesses an interesting property, i.e., 7 = 1 + 2 + 4. While these addends have the same ratio to each other as the terms of the sequence in which the seven is located (7:14:28::1:2:4), the ratio of 1,2,4 is a basic feature of most of the major sequence relations in the numerical features of South Sumatran legal codes. In general, this sequence of 7, 14, 28 is one of the most frequently occuring of all numerical series, especially in the texts from the Manna and Seluma regions. In particular, there is a strong association between multiples of seven and sexual offences, with seventy of ten being the highest amount. However, the strength of 7, 14, 28 as a sequence as opposed to being a collection of numbers which are the multiples of seven is demonstrated by the fact that twenty-one almost never occurs as the specification for a fine. The contents of this fasal display two further interesting features. The reference to the woman becoming the si ave of the raja recalis the andam rules of Fasal 19 of the Code of Laws. However, in that law set andam as a punishment was also applied to a woman who became pregnant in her husband's absence. Given the peculiar political circumstances of the region governed by the Silebar laws, it is not certain who the raja was. Normally one might expect it to be the Pangeran of Silebar, but in this case it could refer to the Division Head or even the government. Secondly, the details of the "pambassoe doessoen" appear to be closely related to the food payments associated with the bangun in Fasal 13 of the Sungai Lemau laws. There, in addition to the money, one was obliged to give a buffalo, 100 measures of rice, and the assam-garam (karbauw saikoer bras 100 koelak serta dengan assam garam nja). The specification of the Silebar laws (a goat and 50 measures of rice and the assam-garam) appears to be one half that of the Sungai Lemau laws in that the sequences are obviously conceptually related (animal + x measures of rice and assam-garam). This comparison produces thc useful suggestion that a goat is equal to one half of a buffalo. This assertion is supported by the fact that the animal associated with the bangun in

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

the Sungai Lemau laws is a buffalo while the animal associated with the pampas is a gaat. This parallels the basic assumption that the largest pampas payment is equal to one half of the bangun. However, as interesting as these associations may be, the basic feature of the internal logic of this fasal is a two element opposition between more serious and Ie ss serious situations concerning illicit pregnancy which are correlated to multiples or fractions of a basic fine. This opposition is maintained by the distinction between cases in which the man responsible for the pregnancy is identified and cases in which his identity is not known.

FASAL 12 Fasal 12 is entitled "Hoekoem orang barmain moeka boedjang sama Gadis atouw batin dengan maranda" (the punishment of persons who indulge in "illicit playing", either a youth with a maiden or a married man with a widow). If they are found by someone in a room or some other secluded place and there exists sufficient evidence of their guilt (i.e., their hair or clothing is in disarray ), the matter is brought before a judge. The judge considers whether or not the discovery is valid and whether those concerned were involved in a situation governed by the law of illicit relations (oendang oendang soembang) .2U If sa, they are fined 14 reals and married. However, the court must order the person who catches them to swear an oath th at he caught them engaged in illicit activity (parkard jan soembang).

The title of this fasal is contrasted with the unity and opposition of the previous two fasals. First, Fasals 10 and 11 are united by their comman concern with illicit pregnancy. However, Fasal 12 is concerned with illicit sexual activity in which pregnancy is not involved and thus an eye-witness account is necessary in order to establish the fact that an offence took place. This partitioning of illicit sexual activity into those acts which result in pregnancy and those which do not yields a two plus one structure for this group of three fasals. However, the opposition between married and unmarried which contrasted the first two fasals of this three element group is remoulded and presented in the title of the last fasal. While Fasals 10 and 11 opposed the acts of a married woman with those of an unmarried woman, Fasal 12 uses this opposition in another manner. In the title of Fasal 12 one finds an opposition between married and unmarried men (batinjbujang) which is correlated to an oppasition between ance married (but na langer married) wamen and never married wamen (merando j gadis ). These twa appo- sitions are paired to produce only two combinations. Firstly, an unmarried and presumably never married man (bujang) is paired with an unmarried and never married woman (gadis). Secondly, a married man

WS 247

(batin) is paired with a fonnerly married woman (merando). This explicit pairing rules out a number of possibilities: youth/widow; married man/maiden; etc. Thus the title of Fasal 12 imposes an artificially stringent limitation on the categories of the individu als who might be paired up in illicit sexual activity. This limitation is achieved by remoulding the opposition of the first two fasals of the three element group. Thus while Fasals 10 and 11 opposes married and unmarried women, Fasal 12 creates a double opposition hetween married and unmarried men and once married and never married women. Signifi- ficantly, the use of these oppositions results in the omission of the adulte rous wife who does not hecome pregnant. The contents of Fasal 12 have two main features: the determination of the crime and its punishment. Unlike panjingan, where the existence of a pregnancy is taken as prima facie evidence of an offence, the case presented here requires an eye-witness not only to identify the guilty parties but also to prove that an offence has even occurred. While this seems to encourage legalised voyeurism, other texts go even further. Fasal 13 of the "old portion" of the Ngalam laws (Cod. Or. 12.224) deals with the wages (upa) of the person who reports the various categories of illicit sexual activity to the authorities.27Given the dependency of even the existence of an offence on the account of an eyewit- ness, it is necessary for an oath to he sworn. Unlike other matters, where the offence is known to have occurred, this procedure is not simply a judicial one designed to match a crime with a guilty party but an essential aspect of the logic of categories in that the procedure helps to establish the fact that an offence has occurred. The only other crime with a similar problem is theft. In same cases involving the notion of theft the occurence of a crime is obvious but in other cases there may be a question of legal versus illegal possession of property. However, unlike the above example, in cases of theft there is usually some material evidence indicating that a crime occurred. The problem is whether or not this evidence is indicative of a crime, e.g., if A has property that B says helongs to him, the property involved may be used as evidence of a crime if A cannot establish his legal right to possession. However, in the present example there is no procedure for the examination of virgins that would provide prima facie evidence for the existence of an offence,28 even though it might he difficult to locate the responsible male. This is the only type of offence where the nonnal problems of evidence which relate to a statistical model may directly influence the existence of a category in the mechanical model.

LOGIC OF THE LA WS

The nature of the punishment further elucidates the evidence prob-Iem. The fine of 14 reals is the same as that for panjingan between a man and an unmarried woman when the man acknowledges his re spon- sibility. In Fasal 12 the specification of the woman remains unchanged even though there are logical but not necessarily legal restrictions on the possible combinations of categories of men and women. Thus the fact that the fines are the same means that fornication leading to pregnancy and fornication not leading to pregnancy are equated. The nature of the evidence procedure in Fasal 12 precludes the possibility of an offence defined as fornication not leading to pregnancy when the man is un- knOWIl. Thus acts of fornication are punished when proof exists, irregardless of whether a pregnancy results or not. Thus in this law set the existence of pregnancy does not affect the seriousness of the offence when other procedures can establish the fact that a punishable offence has occurred. On the other hand, the existence of a pregnancy is a category of evidence opposed to another such category, i.e., the eye-witness account. Thus the two plus one structure which opposes fornication leading to pregnancy and fornication not leading to pregnancy involves not so much an opposition between categories of illicit sexual activity but between the possible forms of evidence indicating that an offence has occurred. The differences in the nature of the evidence in these categories allows for a greater degree of elaboration when a pregnancy results, i.e., a woman can be punished alone when a pregnancy exists. Of particular significance is the fact that adultery which does not result in a pregnancy is not discussed at all whereas it is discussed in Fasal 20 of the Sungai Lemau laws and the Code ot Laws. This omission can be eXplained in terms of the limitations that the structural pattern of the laws imposes on the possible categories of illicit sexual activity. The adultery of a married woman not associated with pregnancy would have made an excellent fourth category. However, the strong preference for three element groups with a two plus one structure makes the existence of a fourth category impossible. Similarly, the inclusion of such a category in Fasal 10 would have confused the clarity of the two plus one structure. Thus this logically possible and exceedingly probable category was omitted simply because there was no room for it in the structure. Furthermore, the omission is explicit, i.e., the category is ruled out by the title of Fasal 12. Thus, the assumption of omission is not based on the fact that there is no mention made of the category. Fasal 12 explicitly concerns itself with illicit sexual activities of unmarried women (widows and maidens). And further, the pairing of youths with

WS 249

maidens and married men with widows makes the generation of a third category involving married women extremely difficuIt. This insistence on unmarried women in Fasal 12 generates an alternative structure in that the last two elements of the group of three are concemed with unmarried women while the first is concemed with married women, thus creating a one plus two structure based on this opposition. However, as stated above, the aduItery of the married woman which does not resuIt in a pregnancy cannot be worked into the structure.29

The final unnumbered sections

Fasal 12 is the last numbered element in this law set. In the manuscript af ter Fasal 12 there is a space (± 17 mm) which is more than twice the size of the space that normally occurs between consecutive lines (± 7 mm). Following this space there are four unnumbered elements. The individual elements can he indentified by a variety of phenomena, none of which is used all of the time. These phenomena include exaggerated capital letters at the beginning of an element, spaces left unfiIIed at the end of the final line of an element, and identations. These four elements are partitioned into two sections. There are three elements in the first section but only one in the second. This partitioning is primarily made on structural grounds but there may have been a visible partioning in the original. However, in the copy analysed here, the third element ends at the bottom of one page, while the fourth begins on the following page. Thus any space that may have existed in the original does not appear in this copy. The third unnumbered section provides the rules for dividing the fines levied in accordance with the provisions of Fasals 10, 11, and 12.

THE THIRD UNNUMBERED SECTION, FIRST ELEMENT

[The rules for dividing] the fines levied on panjingan with a man's wife (denda orang pand jingan dengan binie orang). The 40 reals is divided three ways: one share goes to the Raja who rules in the state (negeri) (the govemment???); one share goes to the Chalipa, Pambarabs or Mantris; and one share to the Proatin of the viIIage where the offence takes place or to the Datos, Pemangkus, or Penghulus.

THE THIRD UNNUMBERED SECTION, SECOND ELEMENT

[The rules for dividing) the fines levied on panjingan with a maiden or widow (denda pandjingan dengan Gadis atouw marando). The 14 reals is divided as is stated above.

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

THE THIRD UNNUMBERED SECTION, THIRD ELEMENT

[The rules for dividing] the fines levied on illicit sexual activity (denda orang main moeda). The 14 reals is divided as is stated above.

The structure of these three elements repeats that of Fasals 10, 11, and 12 in that each of the three elements refers to one and only one fasal without any alteration in their order. However, since the division of the fines is the same in all three cases, a fact which is explicitly presented by back references, the three element structure appears to exist for its own sake. In other words, the examination of the contents of these three unnumbered elcmcnts reveals nothing that would pre- clude their compression into a single element. Thus, the existence of these three elements is based on an intentional transfer of certain features that might normally be a part of Fasals 10, 11, and 12 into a parallel but unnumbered structure. The relationships between the individual unnumbcred elements and their numbered counterparts display a number of important features which elucidate the structure of Fasals 10, 11, and 12 and suggest alternative structures for the unnumbered elements. The basic difference between the titles of the fasals and the identifying phrases of the unnumbered elements is the first word. Fasals 10, 11, and 12 all begin with the word "hoekoem" (punishment, rule) and the unnumbered elements begin with the word "denda" (fine). There are some curious but irregular differences between the tides of the fasals and their counterparts in the unnumbered elements. While Fasal 10 deals with fornication leading to the pregnancy of a married woman, the title of Fasal 10 is simply "Hoekoem orang Pandjingan" (the punishment of panjingan). However, the first phrase of thc first unnumbered element is more specific, i.e., "Denda orang pandjingan dengan binie orang" (the fine for panjingan with a person's wife). The difference between Fasal 11 and the second unnumbered element is only the difference in the use of hoekoem or denda. There is, however, a considerable difference between the title of Fasal 12 and the first phrase of the third unnumbered element. Tbe title of Fasal 12 is "Hoekoem orang barmain moe ka boedjang sama gadis atouw batin dengan maranda" (the punishment of persons who indulge in "illicit playing" either a youth with a maiden or a married man with a widow). On the other hand, the first phrase of thc third unnumbered element is

LAWS 251

"Denda orang majn moeda" (the fine of persons who indulge in "youthful playing"). The major structural difference betwcen the fasal and the unnumbered element is the omission of the detailed specification of the pairing patterns. However, the shift from bermain muka to main muda may help to compensate for this loss of detail provided that the shift from muka to muda was intentional and not associated with a scribal error. Mukah as defined by Wilkinson (1932, Vol. lI, p. 151; 1959, p. 785) means "illicit sexual intercourse" or "a party to such intercourse". Mllda nonnally means young but in association with main it comes to mean flirtation or illict association. The implication of forni- cat ion is confinned by the answers to Question 17 of the Sungai Hitam laws. Thus, the reference to main mllda might compensate for the loss of specification in so far as it suggcsts the involvement of unmarried people. Thus, the process of referring back to the various fasal categorics also involves a transfonnational pattern of abbreviation. But the abbreviated references have a structure in thcir own right. The most apparent structure is a two plus one partitioning of the threc elcments involving an opposition between panjingan and main muda, i.e., between fornication leading to pregnancy and fornication not leading to pregnancy. The internal opposition of the two element segmcnts is between married and unmarried women. If anything, th is structural pattern is clearer than that of the fasals because a majority of the information not directly relevant to the opposition has been removcd. Thus the features of the unnumbcred elements tend to be cither opposed or identical to each other with little extraneous information which does not contribute to either an identity or opposition relationship. However, while this structure preserves the main features of the structuring of Fasals 10, 11, and 12, the remoulding of the married/unmarried opposition occurring in the title of Fasal 12 is lost. A second system of reference suggests an alternative structure. In each of the three elements only one amount is mentioned as being subject to the rules of division. The amounts are 40, 14, and 14 reals respectively. While Fasals 10 and 12 only mention one amount of money, Fasal 11 discusses two fines, one of 14 reals and the other of 28 reais. Thus the use of only one of these amounts (14 reais) in the second unnumbered element implies a degree of selectivity. This is the amount of the fine for fornication leading to pregnancy of an unmarried woman when the guilty man accepts his responsibility. And as stated above, it is the aspect of Fasal 11 most closely related to Fasal 12. This association leads to the

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

assertion that an alternative one plus two structure existed based on the opposition between married and unmarried women involved in fornication. This one plus two structure is to be found in the unnumbered elements but is expressed differently. Here the opposition is generated by the contrast between 40 and 14. The linguistic equivalents of these numbers (empat puluh and empatbelas) indicate that tbe opposition is, in reality, only that between puluh and -belas. These two words for ten are associated with empat in different ways, thus creating the numerical difference. It is worth noting that the puluh -belas relationship played an important part in the structure of tbe Code of Laws.

Distinctive Features of Fasals 10, 11, and 12 and Tbe last Unnumbered Section of tbe Silebar Laws

Fasal Status of Basic Fine Pregnancy Panjingan woman in Reals in Title (married/ (as in unnumbered (present/ (fasals & un- unmarried) section) absent) numbered section)

10+40+ + 11 14+ + 12 14

TABLE 5.3

FOURTH UNNUMBERED SECTION

Tbe legal costs (Beijo) in debt and credit cases. The costs amount to 5 "tantjie" (= duit) per rupia. Tbe amount is divided among the individuals who act as judges in the settlement of the case. 'lbe relative rank of the penghulu is relevant to the division and each gets a share according to his rank.

The significanee of this element is purely structural. It is a single isolated element standing at the end of the structure and as such corresponds to Question 18 of the Sungai Hitam laws and Fasal 25 of the Sungai Lemau laws. The total structure of the Silebar laws can be represented by Diagram

5.5.

WS 253

o ~

1 1

DIAGRAM 5.5

The structure contains seven three element groups with a single element at the end. The most prominent structural feature is the contrast between numbered and unnumbered elements. Thus there are three unnumbered three element groups and four numbered three element groups. However, the relationship is more appropriately seen as an opposition between the totality of elements and the numbered elements, and in particular those elements occurring in three element groups. Thus the totality is 21 or 7 x 3 and the numbered elements equal to 12 or 4 x 3. The fact that 12 and 21 may be related to each other by a ti ansformation which interchanges the position of the digits may not be coinciden tal. Within the numbered elements there is a center versus extremity opposition. The center deals with criminal activity while the extremities are concemed with the regulation of sexual activity. The extreme elements are opposed to each other in that the first three element group deals with the regulation of legitimate sexual activity while the last three elements are concemed with the regulation of illicit sexual activity. This center versus extremity opposition may be expressed numerically; the sum of the numbers in the extreme categories is equal to the sum of the numbers in the central category, i.e., 1 + 2 + 3 + 10 + 11 + 12 = 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 = 39. Similarly, the contrast between numbered and unnumbered elements involves a somewhat asymmetrie center versus extremity opposition, or quite simply, the numbered elements are surrounded by unnumbered elements. The rationale behind the existence of the unnumbered elements is quite clearly to manipulate the total number of numbered elements. In particular, the Silebar laws contain exactly twelve numbered elements. This is six less than the eighteen elements of the Sungai Hitam laws. If one accepts the premise that even though the Sungai Lemau laws contain twenty-five elements the structurally significant number is twenty- fOUf (c.f. p. 153 f.), then a variety of interesting relations emerge based

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

on the number six. Thus the 24 of the Sungai Lemau laws is equal to 6 x 4, the 18 of the Sungai Hitam laws is equal to 6 x 3 and the 12 of the Silebar laws is equal to 6 x 2. As one progresses through the laws of this manuscript each successive law has six less significant numbered elements. This six based factor relation is actually only one of a number of possibilities.

Sungai Lemau 24 6x4 3x8 2 x 12 Sungai Hitam 18 6x3 3x6 2x9 Silebar 12 6x2 3x4 2x6

Anather relation is that 18 is halfway between, or the average of, the extreme elements, i.e., 24 + 12 = 36; 12 (36) = 18. As with all such numerical analyses one is confronted with the problem as to which features are antecedent or consequent and which are accidental or intentional. In conclusion, while the Silebar laws reflect a considerable degree of affiliation with the category names of the Sungai Hitam laws, their structure, which is based on a partitioning into three element groups, is that of the Sungai Lemau laws. However, the Silebar laws do not reveal the close structural dependency on the Sungai Lemau laws that the Sungai Hitam laws do. As for their contents, the Silebar laws are more similar to the codes from the Seluma region than to the other laws from the Environs of Bengkulu. The similarity in the topics discussed, as weIl as the order in which they are presented, suggests that in all probability the problem had been set by the Dutch authorities. However, the structure and intricacies of the solution are a distinctly native product. Indeed, the settling of the problem with minimal limitations is an asset and not a hindrance in that these th ree legal codes are sa similar that their differences are dramatic.

CHAPTER 5 -NOTES

1 The last two words of this phrase may belong to the next section. 2 According to indigenous usage ten duit often equalled one wang (c.f. Helfrich, 1904, p. 194), and because three wang equalled one tali and eight tali equalled one real there were 240 duit to a rea!. However, a Dutch monetary reform specified one hundred duit to the guilder or two hundred duit to the rea!. In this case, however, the two hundred duit to the real system was intended for Van den Bor's report (Van den Bor, 1862, p. 263) gives the amount as 12 % per cent. A similar confusion exists concerning the value of the rea!. One finds the real valued at both two and a half as weIl as two

LAWS 255

guilders (c.i. Helfrich, 1904, p. 80 f. and p. 137). Although Helfrich consistently values the real at two and a half guilders, legal texts usually value it at two guilders. The logical patterns of South Sumatran legal codes usually indicate which relationship was intended, even if these contradicted the amounts actually paid as revealed by contemporary Dutch reports. 3 Interesting but inconclusive support for the existence of this two plus one structure can be found in the visual form of the manuscript. The beginning of the second unnumbered section is difficult to demarcate visually with any degree of certainty. There is, however, a clear partition in the second unnumbered section. Instead of direct visual continuity between the units concerned with "pambriean" and "kaoentoengan", there is a blank space in the manuscript. This space follows the last phrase concerned with "pambriean" and allows the discussion of "kaoentoengan" to begin on a new line. The structural significance of this blank space is that it partitions the second unnumbered section in a manner identical to that suggested by the variation in syntactic construction. 4 The word beo, beijo, etc., is usually used to refer to legal costs associated with court cases and is not to be confused with costs related to the wedding. These latter "costs" are usually referred to with the word belanja. 5 For moetong c.f. Helfrich, 1904, p. 102. 6 The use of kabanjakan in place of kabaikan supports the assertion made above, c.f. p. 170, that the use of kabaikan was a scribal error. 7 The shift from Djoedjoer tengah of Question 7 of the Sungai Hitam laws to Djoedjoer Penenga (pe + tengah = penengah) of the Silebar laws does not affect the structure in any way. 8 The possibility that the last jujur fasal of the Silebar laws is also associated with the ambil anak fonus of either the Sungai Hitam or Sungai Lemau laws will be examined below. 9 The Van den Bor report specifically supports this contention for the Silebar laws (Van den Bor, 1862, p. 267). 10 In the text itself Samando balik djoeraij is the first of the alternative names given for djoedjoer Ketjil. 11 In texts where such eight based sequences are employed one usually finds "tengah" (literally one half) instead of guilders, recepis, or rupia. 12 The body of this manuscript is an incomplete Romanized version of "Kitab Undang2 Adat Lembaga Manna", which is part of Cod. Or. 12.200. However, the initial part of the Cod. Or. 12.200 version is removed and two sections, one dealing with murder and the other with theft, are inserted and form the first portion of the Manna manuscript in BundIe H 813. On the other hand, the report by J. van DuIken dated 24 July 1855 (TLVK H 813-c-v) and printed in BKI 8, 1862, pp. 301-308, refers to a law text with the same date as Cod. Or. 12.200 but gives a specification of the bangun which is not to be found in Cod. Or. 12.200. But the basic amount given by Van DuIken is equivalent to the Manna manuscript TLVK H 813-d-ii. 13 The "Kitab Undang2Adat Lembaga Manna" discussed above is written in Arabic characters. In another part of the same manuscript (Cod. Or. 12.200) is alegal text in Romanized Malay also dealing with Manna. This is not a transcription of the "Kitab Undang2Adat Lembaga Manna" but a partial transcription of the Manna laws presented in Cod. Or. 12.205. 14 It is wor th noting that both of the actual figures of the complete Silebar and Manna specifications are less than th is amount, i.e., 95.46 and 95.44. These figures indicate that the portions associated with the sequence are 15.46 and

15.44. It is also worth noting that these figures occur between the fourth

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

partial sum (S4 = 15) and the fifth partial sum (S5 = 15.50) of the halving sequence. 15 "Chalikoella" is probably a corruption of the Arabic khalqullah = the crea- tures of God (c.f. Lane, 1865, p. 801). Thus in the context of this fasal "chalikoella" means populace. 16 There are actually two manuscripts which are almost the same in BundIe H 813 (TLVK H 813b-i and H 813b-ii) of the Western manuscript collection of the Royal Institute of Linguistics and Anthropology. AIthough one of these is in very bad condition, bath are signed by Robert Boge!. The signature is apparently authentic in that it is different from the handwriting in bath of the texts. It is worth noting that even though the Dutch had officially taken over the administration of English possessions in Sumatra by virtue of a treaty dated 7 March 1824 and their official presence had begun to be feIt in 1825, in 1828, the date of these documents, official copies of court proceedings were still being kept in English. 17 1 am indebted to W. F. W. Adelaar for pointing out this relationship between Spanish and Portuguese; however, I am responsible for any or all linguistic heresies associated with the use of this example. 18 C.f. the numerical sequence linking Fasals 13 and 14 of the Sungai Lemau laws, p. 140. 19 This argument concerning structural baundaries is dependent upon the assumption that Fasals 4 and 5 are the constituent elements of a two element structure. This is not an unreasonable assumption given the normally strong association between the bangun and pampas and the presence of a system of interlocking relationships that binds the two elements together. However, the tota! fasal structure of the laws indicates that these fasals are also among the constituent elements of a three element structure. The difficulty is that the two element structure is not embedded in the three element structure. Thls means that the abave argument on structural baundaries so essential to the description of the two element structure is irrelevant to the analysis of the three element structure described on pages 231-232 below. 20 In English Common Law the legal notions associated with burglary and housebreaking were closely related to houses. Originally in English law burglary "consisted in breaking into houses, churches, or the walls or gates of a town by night. Later, however, it came to be defined in common law as breaking and entering the dwelling house of another in night, with intent to commit some felony therein, whether such felony be actually comrnitted or not" (Turner, 1958, p. 229). While initially the condition that the offence must take place at night did not apply, later this condition became an essential feature of the definition of burglary. Thus if all conditions for the felony of burglary were met except the time condition the offence was only a misdemeanour known as housebreaking (c.f. Turner, 1958, pp. 233, 236). Thus the use of the term "breaking and entering" to describe the conditions of Fasal 6 of the Silebar laws in place of the more suggestive term "housebreaking" reflects the fact that the text does not mention a condition essential to making a distinction between burglary and housebreaking. As with the discussion of arson presented abave this example demonstrates some of the problems associated with the translation of Malay language legal concepts. 21 It is worth noting that only the Sungai Hitam laws mention buffaloes in the substantive discussion of theft. 22 The only other case of justifiable homicide regularly occurring in South Sumatran legal texts is related to a "crime passionnel". If a person catches hls wife with a lover in flagrante and kills them on the spot he is not guilty

SILEBAR LA WS 257

of any crime. However, this rule apparently does not extend beyond the act of discovery situation. 23 The Ipl of spill in English is an example of the first type of representation and the final ItJ of de nood and de noot in Dutch is an example of the second type of representation (c.f. pages 181-182 above). 24 The presence of unintentional wounding in Fasal 4 does not violate the partitioning principle in that unintentional wounding cannot occur simulta- eously with either unintentional or intentional killing. 25 The text actually has 40 reals but the reference to 7 reals each and another reference to 14 reals in the second element of the third unnumbered section at the end of the text clearly indicate that 14 reals was intended. 26 In Malay sumbang usually means incest but in this case such a meaning is much too strong and limited. 27 The text of the Ngalam laws uses the word mengembarkan (= pairing) for the act which is rewarded. But Fasal 16 of the "old portion" of the Tallo laws (Cod. Or. 12.228) has the words mengembarkan and mengabarkan (Iiterally = report), suggesting that the mim (= m) in mengembarkan may may he an excrescent. 28 Such an examination of virgins played an important role in the trial of Joan of Arc. 29 It should be pointed out that the manipulation of categories specified in the title to Fasal 12 relates directly to the structure of this law and cannot be ascribed to gene rally held notions about illicit sexual activity common to all South Sumatran legal texts. In particular, Fasals 19 and 21 of the Sungai Lemau laws mention other possible combinations: married man with widow (Fasal 19), youth with widow (Fasal 19), widow with youth (Fasal 21), widow with married man (Fasal 21), widow with widower (Fasal 21), man with married woman (Fasal 20). Fasal 20 of the Sungai Lemau Laws gives the impression of dealing with adultery between married persons and Question 16 of the Sungai Hitam laws is specific in its reference to the man being married. Thus the only category that might be ruled out either on cultural or probabilistic grounds is illicit sexual activity involving a married woman and an unmarried man. Thus the specific existence of other combinations in other texts supports the assertion that the title of Fasal 12 involves the manipulation of categories for the sake of the structure.

CONCLUSION

The anthropological study of law can be characterized by two fundamentally contrastive but not necessarily opposed approaches. On the one hand, law is of ten viewed as a functional system th at operates at multiple levels and in a variety of ways to regulate and maintain the social order. On the other hand, in this study, 1 have taken the view that law is a conceptual system (i.e., a formally organized system of categories). Before turning to an examination of the relations between these two approaches it is perhaps useful to examine some of the linguistic dimensions of the problem. While anthropologists are quick to point out that the societies they study of ten use words that are difficult to render into their own language, they of ten fail to realize that one scholarly language may employ words and concepts that are difficult if not impossible to render into another scholarly language. This problem is especially acute in structural anthropology, and to a lesser ex tent in the anthropological study of law. The development of structural anthropology has been strongly influenced by the fact that most of the important contributions to the field have been written in French or Dutch. The anthropological study of law, on the other hand, has made its greatest strides forward in English language studies, particularly with reference to Africa. In law, where there is a body of generally accepted vocabulary and concepts, the problem of being tied to a single language is less severe. In a developing discipline like structural anthropology, which has no established vocabulary to draw on, the linguistic problem is peculiarly acute. And further, the basic problem has been exacerbated by the traditional in- transigence and hostility that the French and English have had towards each others' languages. Perhaps the best known example related to structural anthropology that demonstrates this point is de Saussure's opposition between langue and parale. Attempts to trans late this into English have of ten resulted in an opposition between language and speech. This has proven to be

so unsatisfactory that many writers have elected to use the original French. However, while this opposition is difficult to translate, it has come to the attention of anthropologists in an already simplified form. In de Saussure's original formulation there were three elements: langage, langue, and parole. He describes their relations as follows: "La langue est pour nous la langage moins la parole" (de Saussure, 1968, p. 112). Mauss offers another example that is structurally indentical to de Saussure's but is specifically relevant to the anthropological study of law: "Ie droit comprend l'ensemble des coutumes et des lois" (Mauss, 1967,

p.135). This quotation from Mauss points out a problem concerning the discussion of law in English. In contrast to French and Dutch, among other languages, English has only one basic word for law.1In French one finds the words droit and loi which correspond fairly closely to the Dutch words recht and wet. With relatively few modifications, this opposition between recht and wet (or droit and loi) can be used to help clarify some of the differences between law as a functional system and law as a conceptual system. With a few important exceptions the English word "law" can he translated as recht. The most striking of these exceptions is that legislation or statutes (and by implication any written law) must he translated into Dutch as wet (pI. wetten). The other main exception is that laws of science or nature are also wetten. With respect to the semantic domains of the Dutch word recht, one finds a variety of connotations of which only one corresponds closely to the English word law. The closest correspondence between recht and law relates to the study of law. Thus, a law student is a rechtenstudent and not a wetsstudent, a jurist is a rechtsgeleerde and not a wetgeleerde, and Indonesian customary law is adatrecht and not adatwet. However, the Dutch word recht extends to semantic domains not covered by the English word law. In Dutch the notion of recht is closely associated with the judicial process. Thus the Dutch word for judge is a rechter, the administration of justice is recht- spraak, a legal case is a rechtszaak, a court of law is a rechtbank, and a courtroom is a rechtszaal. The Dutch word recht also has st rong ethical and perhaps even moral connotations. Thus the opposition between recht and onrecht must be translated as justice and injustice and the terms rechten and plichten as rights and obligations.2 Thus the Dutch word recht implies many of the attributes that are assigned to law in functional analysis. The association with the formaI judicial process emphasizes one element of Iaw that some anthropolo-

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

gists see as one of the necessary conditions for law. The association of recht with the notions of ethics, justice and rights helps to underscore the fact that law (i.e., recht) can he viewed as an open system. On the other hand, the Dutch word wet secms to be more appropriate to the laws that form the basis of this study. In the first place wet is used to refer to legislation and statutes, and by implication, written laws in genera!. In Malay and Indonesian undang-undang generally refers to statutes or legislation. Undang-Undang is the name most frequently given to legal codes in South Sumatra.3Secondly, the word wet (wetten) must he used to translate the English expression "the laws of Nature" (Wetten der Natuur)4 into Dutch. It is th is second usage of the word wet that begins to approximate the view of law that I have taken in this study. In the Western scientific tradition a law of nature of ten means little more than a statement about the naturalorder. One of the basic assumptions implicit in the structural analysis of Malay language legal codes is that they are statements about thc social order. One finds support for this view in the use of the French word loi. Montesquieu's masterpiece is entitled De l'Esprit des Lois and not De l'Esprit du Droit and Montesquieu quite clearly is attempting to descrihe the fundamental principles of the social order as he saw it. This opposition between recht and wet (or droit and loi) is useful if it is not carried too faro It can be used quite profitably to separate the view of law as a functional system from the view of law as a conceptual system. In general, I believe that the notion of law as recht is more appropriate to the functional approach than the notion of law as wet is to the conceptual approach. With this restrietion in mind, the following example from Dutch helps to illustrate the usefulness of the opposition of recht and wet. In Dutch the two words rechtsgeleerde (literally, one learned in law (recht)) and wetgeleerde (literally, one learned in law (wet)) have sharply contrastive meanings. Rechtsgeleerde may he translated into English as jurist. Wetgeleerde usually has the connotation of one learned in written law, especially religious law, e.g., Jewish rabbinical law. Implicit in the difference between a rechtsgeleerde and a wetgeleerde is an opposition between open and closed systems. A rechtsgeleerde, by implication, goes heyond thc narrow confines of law and may often take ethical, sodalor moral factors into consideration. On the other hand, a wetgeleerde strictly confines himself to the literal implications of law as a closed system. Thus a wetgeleerde is primarily concerned with the relation of law to itself and not to any external factors. For example, it is entirely possible for an opinion hy a

wetgeleerde on some point of law to be on the one hand unethical and immoral in its implications, but completely legal on the other. The opposition between rechtsgeleerde and wetgeleerde can be profitably used to describe the authors of the law texts used in this study. When sitting as judges, hearing cases, and passing judgment the authors were undoubtedly functioning as rechtsgeleerden. However, when they undertook to write the texts it is clear from the preceding detailed analyses of the laws that they were functioning as wetgeleerden. In one situation they were evaluating circumstances, testimony, social conditions and perhaps the moral and ethical implications of the matter before them. In the other they were attempting to formulate a statement about the laws of their society as if they were a closed system of formally organized legal categories. Thus, the authors of the law texts, when writing these texts, were functioning as loigiciens and the study of their work is properly called loigique, i.e., the Logic of the Laws.

The functional approach

The basic characteristic of the functional approach to the anthro~ pological study of law is the assertion that law or legal systems are the means by which conflicts and disputes are resolved in a given society. The most eloquent advocates of this approach to the study of law are Gluckman and his followers. The Manchester school embracing Rad- cliffe-Brown',> notion of functionalism has taken the view that law is a system that operates in conjunction with other systems to regulate and control the social order. They consider society as a system in equilibrium and believe that law functions to maintain or establish equilibrium through the management and regttlation of conflict. This view of law and legal systems is not in and of itself fundamentally antithetical to the view taken in this study that law is a closed system of formally organized legal categories. However, in many legal systems the administration of law may be such that the conceptual order must give way to other considerations in the practical administration of justice. Thus J. F. Holleman, in eXplaining his selection of case material for inclusion in his study of Shona Customary Law writes: "They have been selected not, because they are always correct interpretations of Shona law (many of them are not), or because they carry thc wcighty authority of a legal precedent such as is found in our legal system (they are never, in fact, interpreted like that), but because they are illus- trations of an indigenous administration of justice in which a satisfac-

OF THE LA WS

tory solution of the conflict between the parties often matters more than a correct interpretation of the legal principles involved" (HoIleman, 1952, p. x). Another area where it is quite possible for the functional and conceptual views to he at variance with each other relates to thc distinction previously made between rechtsgeleerde and wetgeleerde. A person functioning in a judicial capacity may find himself in a dilemma. On the surface of the matter he may he confronted with a case that seems to indicate that a certain legal principle must he foIlowed even though ethical and moral considerations require that the legal principle he ignored or even overruled. However, the skilful judge in a primitive system may he able to evokc a rule that had never hefore heen considered in order to reconcile the demands of justice (i.e., recht) and the ideas inherent in the legal system. Having descrihed just such a case among the Barotse Gluckman points out, "Barotse law, like all bodies of law, consists of a large numher of rules of different kinds, which are not necessarily related 10gicaIly; and juristic skill, in the Barotse's estimation, consists in the ability to find and apply the rule that will most appropriately give justice in the case under trial" (Gluckman, 1965,

p. 17). In lcgal systems such as this the skilful judge is one who is able to reconcile his double function of wetgeleerde and rechtsgeleerde. However, when thc demands of the two functions are at variance with each other that of wetgeleerde will usuaIly give way to that of rechtsgeleerde.

The double institutionalization of law

Among the differing views and definitions of law espoused by the various authors writing within a functional framework the work of Bohannan stands out as heing especiaIly useful in bridging the gaps th at exist between the functional and concept ua I approach to the anthropological study of law. Bohannan has been able to descrihe law in terms of a deceptively brilliant principle which he calls "double institutionalization" (Bohannan, 1965, pp. 34-37). This concept is developed in such a way that it requires the notion of legal institution to have been previously defined. He describes alegal institution as "one by means of which thc people of a society settle disputes that arise hetween one another and counteract any gross and flagrant abuses of the mIes ... of at least some of the other institutions of society" (Bohannan, 1965, p. 35). This definition is phrased so that it includes the focus on conflict re- solution of the functionalist approach as weIl as the genuine penal law

of modem nation states. Having established the meaning that Bohannan assigns to alegal institution we can now turn to the principle of double institutionalization. "All social institutions are markedby 'customs' and these 'customs' exhibit most of the stigmata cited by any definition of law. But there is one salient difference. Whereas a custom continues to inhere in, and only in, these institutions which it governs (and which in turn govern it), law is specifically recreated by the agents of society, in narrower and recognizable context -that is, in the context of the instÏtutions that are legal in character, and, to some degree at least, discrete from all others" (Bohannan, 1965, p. 34). It is quite dear that not all of the rules associated with legal ins ti- tutiOllS are laws that are the result of the restatement of the rules or norms of another institution. In short, one can usually identify rules or customs that are peculiar to, or inhere in, the legal system. Such rules can be described by the blanket term "procedure" and are sometimes called adjectivallaw (Bohannan, 1965, p. 35; Hoebel, 1966, p. 441). In contrast to procedural or adjectival law there is substantive law, which indudes those aspects of law which are the result of the process of double institutionalization. Hoebel describes the relationship between substantive and adjectival law in the following terms, "Procedural or adjectivallaw designates who may rightly punish a breach of substantive law; it also lays down the rules for prosecuting a case and fixes the customary penalties to be applied to each type of offence" (Hoebel, 1966, p. 441). In the Malay language legal codes that form the basis of this study the categories of substantive law are the means by which the writers have identified the fasals relating to a specific legal category (i.e., the fasal structure is the structure of categories of substantive law). Thus the penalties (I take the term penalty to indude both compensation and punishment) for murder, wounding and theft (bangun, pampas, and lipat), while they farm a basic structural framework within the fasal structure, are never used in the titles of the fasals. Thus one finds adat orang membunoh orang (the custom relating to a person who kills a person) and not adat bangun as the title for fasals dealing with homicide. With the exception of the categories of penalties I have not used the rules of adjectival law as a means of identifying or analysing the basic legal categories of the texts in this study.5 In particular, I have not been concerned with the rules for handling cases, nor the social background to these cases. It is my belief that the functional approach to the anthropological study of law has relied heavily on aspects of procedural law

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

while the conceptual approach is fundamentally concerned with substantive law. The analysis of how alegal system manages conflict requires a knowledge of legal procedure. The structural analysis of conceptual legal categories is not dependent upon such knowledge though in many instances it might be useful. The principle of the double institutionalization of law thus applies almost exclusively to substantive law which in turn is the main basis of the conceptual approach to the anthropological study of law. The great advantage of this principle is that it provides a conceptual framework for describing how rules, customs, norms, ethics, morals, etc. acquire the power or status of law and how laws lose their legal status and become customs or norms. In short, it is a dynamic model that can be used to describe change as well as account for the curious but well-recognized phenomenon that law of ten appears to be out of step with society as a whoie. In many legal systems there are formal mechanisms through which the process of double institutionalization operates. The legislative process is perhaps the most obvious of the formal mechanisms. An example of how such a mechanism works is prohibition in United States law. As a result of various political and moral pressures the moral statement that one should not drink alcohol acquired the force of law by virtue of an amendment to the United States Constitution. There are strict formal procedures by which th is constitution is amended and the power of this constitution is such that this law could not be altered by the judicial process. As aresult, when the law prohibiting the consumption of alcohol became unworkable thc same process of amendment had to be followed in order to remove the legal power of the originally moral statement,

i.e., another amendment was passed saying that the previous one was no longer valid. Another mechanism of double institutionalization is the judicial process itself. In many legal systems judicial decisions arising out of the settlement of a case may create law. The precedent system in English law works in this fashion. Llewellyn and Hoebel see the Cheyenne system of law developing through cases though it is uncertain how similar the mechanism is to the precedent system. While the judicial process may create law in many simple legal systems, the use of cases in the anthropological study of law poses certain methodological problems. On the one hand, cases may function to create law, i.e., the judicia! process is a mechanism of double institutionalization. On the other hand, a legal case may serve as evidence indicating that a custom

has the authority of law. In the latter instance the case does not create law but only indicates that the process of double institutionalization has taken place. In addition to the legislative and judicial mechanisms customs may acquire the authority of law by virtue of the fact that they satisfy certain requirements intrinsic to the custom itself. For example, in English law a local custom can acquire the status of law if it satisfies certain formal criteria, the most fundamental of which is immemorial existence. Another feature required is that "People must feel bound to observe it" (Smith and Kennan, 1973, p. 9), i.e., "the cu stom must have obligatory force" (ibid.). Furthermore, the custom must he consistent with the legal system, i.e., it cannot be contrary to statute (i.e., legislation) or a rule of common law (cJ. Smith and Keenan, 1973, p. 9). This process is essential in the English legal system hecause the process of creating common law involved taking local customary rulings and moulding them "into one uniform law 'common' to the whole kingdom" (Smith and Keenan, 1973, p. lf.). Some of the features that are essential to local customs acquiring the authority of law in the English legal system may he seen to opera te, though in altered form, in many other legal systems. In English law the principle of immemorial existence means that the custom must have existed at the beginning of legal memory. Leaving nothing to doubt, the limit of legal memory is arbitrarily fixed at 1189 A. D. (Smith and Keenan, 1973, p. 8). In many other types of legal systems this mythical charter of antiquity is of ten replaced by reference to specific mythical or historical personages who either established the law themselves or acquired it from another figure who is frequently the creator. Thus, according to the Undang Undang of Moeo Moeo, the two basic but conflicting systems of Minangkabau law were established by "Perpati Sabadang" and "Katummunggungan." The law of the revealed scriptures of Judaism (i.e., the Torah) was revealed to Moses by God. This is in direct contrast to Talmudic law, which is derived from rabbinical commentary on the Torah. Though in many instances one is able to identify the mechanism of double institutionalization, i.e., the specific process by which customs or norms become laws, th is is of ten impossible. When the mechanism is not readily recognizable or definable, case reports often provide the desired evidence th at double institutionalization has taken place; however, as I stated above, this does not necessarily mean that the case has made the law.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

The view of law as the result of the process of double institutionalization is useful in the present context because it can be used to bridge the gap between the functional approach to the anthropological study of law and the approach taken in this study. As has been demonstrated above, the notion of double institutionalization can account for many of the aspects of law emphasized in the functional approach without creating what I believe to be any fundamental injustices to th is view. Similarly, this principle can be applied to the conceptual approach without distorting the views I have adopted in th is study. The law texts that form the basis of this study are legal statements about the social order of the society for which they were written. The process of extraction or abstraction from the social order and their formulation into formal legal statements is analogous to the process of double institutionalization described by Bohannan. The legal codes of Sou th Sumatra are not a simple legal statement of the principles operating in the legal system but a restatement of those principles in different terms in an effort to impose order upon what Gluckman refers to as "a large number of rules of different kinds, which are not necessarily related logically" (Gluckman, 1965, p. 17). From the analysis of the texts it is apparent that the writers feit that it was necessary to make their rules logically related, not necessarily to find the order but to find an order. Though the range of variation in these legal codes indicates that no single solution to the problem of imposing order was uniformly selected, the formal properties of the logic of the various solutions show a remarkable degree of similarity. While the process of restatement and imposing order on the legal system is in part responsible for the quasi- legal appearance of these legal codes, it is not solely responsible for this. The same process of imposing order on the legal system is also applied directly to the customs and norms of the society. Thus the texts are part of a triangular relation. On the one hand they are drawn from law, which in turn is a restatement of custom. On the other hand, they are also drawn from, and are a restatement of, the customs and norms of the society without reference to the legal system.

The conceptual approach

The conceptual approach to the anthropological study of law is concerned with the nature and resuits of the process by which the principles of legal systems and the non legal norms and cu stoms of a society are restated as a system of formally ordered categories. While material

written by the members of a society is not necessarily the only type of data amenable to this approach, such material is undoubtedly the best. With every attempt to commit a set of laws to writing, the authors wiU usually endeavour to present the material in at least a minimally ordered fashion. The texts from South Sumatra which form the basis of th is

texts

"l aw ""E::<~ ___----"customs 11

DIAGRAM 6.1

study are significant in that they are elaborately ordered, i.e., they possess a structure th at is the result of a conscious attempt to present the material in a more or Ie ss logical fashion. In the legal codes of South Sumatra this conscious effort manifests itself in the ordering of the individual fasals th at comprise a single text. On the other hand, the contents of the individu al fasals of ten display a variety of structural features that are difficult to interpret as the result of conscious processes. The problems related to the interplay of the conscious and unconscious dimensions of the structuring of the laws is admirably demonstrated by Fasal 24 of the Sungai Lcmau laws. This fasal presents the various legal consequences associated with the eventuality of a woman, who is in the process of marrying by jujur, dying af ter she has left her own village but before the process of marriage is complete. Though this fasal clearly deals with marriage it is separated from aU of the othcr fasals relating to marriage. The numerical structure of the laws indicates that th is placement is not random. Thus, it is only possible to conclude that the placement of this fasal in the text was a conscious and

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

deliberate act on the part of the writers. In contrast to this manifestly conscious phenomenon, one is confronted by the categories that make up the fasal itself. The almost pedantic richness of these categories is such that it is extremely difficult to assert th at all of their structura! features are attributable to conscious fabrication on the part of the writers. However, one cannot be certain as to whether they are entirely unconscious. For example, it is entirely possible that some of the categories existed and were part of the legal system but the authors may have added some categories of their own in order to create the balanced internal structure of the fasal. This problem of disentangling unconscious and conscious phenomena is probably the most artificial and most unnecessarily confusing aspect of structural analysis. The notion of unconscious cspoused by Lévi-Strauss is briIIiantly deceptive in its simplicity. As is so common in dealing with the works of Lévi-Strauss a simple example from linguistics easily demonstrates his use of the term. At the phonemic level language possesses a structure; this structurc is not conscious, ergo it is unconscious. Social anthropologists greatly (and perhaps unconscious-Iy??) influenced by Freudian thinking have interpreted this simple not ion of unconsciousness as The U nconscious and have assigned an almost mystica! force to it not dissimilar to that possessed by the three Freudian homunculi: the ego, the id, and the superego. The distinction that Lévi-Strauss makes is not one between conscious and unconscious but one between conscious and unconscious models. In his article "Social Structure" under the heading "consciousness and unconsciousness" (N.B., unconsciousness and not the unconscious) he asserts that "a structural model may be conscious or unconscious without th is difference affecting its nature" (Lévi-Strauss, 1953, p. 527).6 He then goes on to make the perhaps paradoxical point that where conscious models exist they may serve to obscure the structural organization being studied. Once again, an example from the study of language provides elucidation of what was intended. The use of Latin based grammars to account for features of the English language for a long time exercised a malevolent if not perverse influence on the understanding of this language. An explicit example of this influence is the fact that most native speakers wiII insist th at English has at least three tenses (past, present, and future ) while technically there are only two (present and past). Among the educated elite one is likely to find more tenses, e.g. the future perfect, the past perfect (pluperfect), etc. This is the basic principle; but how was it applied in anthropology? "For conscious models, which are usually

known as 'norms', are by definition vel)' poor ones, since they are not intended to explain the phenomena but to perpetuate them" (Lévi-Strauss, p. 527; 1963, p. 281). This equation of conscious models with norms is somewhat idiosyncratic but accords weIl with the reference to linguistics. One of the main functions of the Latin based grammar of English has been to perpetuate and maintain specific standards of usage. This equation of norms and conscious mode Is is especiaIly relevant when one views law as the result of the double institutionalization of norms. The primal)' function of the double institutionalization process is to increase the probability th at the desired behaviour implied by a norm will be perpetuated. And indeed, the process operates in such a way that there can be no question of whether the norm is explicit and conscious or not. In order to have the authority of law a norm must be explicit and conscious. However, while the restatement of a norm into law is intended to pcrpetuate behaviour without eXplaining it, the restatemcnt of the rules of the legal systems in South Sumatra into legal codes explains the law by imposing order upon it. This aspect of legal codes shares certain features with myth. Like the legal codes myths are primarily explanations. They account for, explain, and of ten justify the social order by means of a process not intrinsicaUy different from that employed in the legal codes. For both myths and legal codes the key to this process is selectivity or what Lévi-Strauss caUs "appauvrissement" (c.f. Lévi-Strauss, 1964, p. 347). This process is, as Lévi-Strauss points out, analogous to the acquisition of phonemes in child language. The initial babbling stage in which an enormously wide variety and combination of phonetic sounds can be heard gives way, of ten dramatically, to the disciplined and restricted pattcrns of thc phonemic system. The actual process of this transition from babbling to phonemic structures is especiaUy relevant to the analogy. On the one hand, "those articulations which are lacking in the language of the child's environment easily disappear from this inventol)''' (Jakobson, 1968, p. 2lf.). But on the other hand, "it is striking that, in addition, many other sounds, which are common bath to the child's babbling and to the adult language of his environment are in the same way disposed of, in spite of this environmental model that he depends on" (Jakobson, 1968, p. 22). Then the phoneme system is built up by means of a series of progressive oppositions (c.f. inter al. Jakobson, 1968, pp. 65-91). Thus the process contains two fundamental characteristics: impoverishment (i.e., selectivity) and the building up of a structure based on oppositions. Lévi-Strauss unites these principles and describes their relation-

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

ship to each other in the following manner "il faut d'abord l'appauvrir: ne retenant d'elle qu'une petit nombre d'éléments propres à exprimer des contrastes, et à former des paires d'oppositions" (Lévi-Strauss, 1964,

p. 347). However, it is possible and perhaps desirabie to extend the use of this analogy. Not only are the irrelevant elements removed but also many of the relevant ones as weil. And the developmental progress of a child's language is of ten such that these relevant forms are only reacquir- ed af ter a substantial period of time. When all relevant forms have been acquired the structure may be said to he complete. Thus with reference to myths and legal codes it is correct to assume that the elements included are relevant and important but in a given myth or legal code it may be incorrect to assume that all of the important and all of the relevant materials are included. This observation is especially true in legal codes where frequently one has evidence that some important aspect of the legal system has been omitted from the code. In the legal codes of South Sumatra this process of impoverishment is displayed in two ways. First, only certain categories of the legal and social system are included in the conscious fasal structure of a law while others are omitted. For example, in Fasal 16 of Cod. Or. 12.205 one finds a discussion of the legal consequence of wounds that are the result of physical aggression between children, while no mention is made in th is fasal or any other of what happens when the wounds are to adults by adults. When there is evidence of selective exclusion (or inclusion), it is not always possible to ascertain whether the excluded element is relevant or not. The second type of impoverishment relates to the amount of information given with regard to a specific category. Frequently one is given only the essential and minimal information necessary to contrast (or oppose) a given category from (or to) another. This aspect of the principle is demonstrated by the answers to Questions 9 and 10 of the Sungai Hitam laws (c.f. p. 173 above). While both myths and legal codes share certain features there are some essential differences. The logical constraints operating on legal codes in the process of impoverishment and re statement are much greater than those for myths. This phenomenon is especially apparent in the legal codes th at I have chosen for this study. Because I was seeking, in the first instance, to explain the structural principles in operation in South Sumatran social organization, I was forced to choose texts that were neither unduly influenced by the colonial authorities nor so traditional as to ren der them incomprehensible. Thus texts like the U ndang Undang Moco Moco, which in many ways could be analysed as a myth,

were unsuitable for inclusion in this study because I did not possess enough background information about the social structure. Thus, in structural analysis one is of ten confronted with an analytical paradox. In order to understand a law or myth it may he necessary to have a good working knowledge of the social organization on which they are based. However, in order to fully comprehend the social order one must analyse laws and myths where they are available. In addition to the constraints imposed on the selection of legal codes for inclusion in this study, there are constraints related to the intrinsic nature of the legal codes of South Sumatra in general which do not apply to myths. At a superficiallevel it is possible for a myth to appear to he at variance with the social order. Indeed, frequently the mythic structure intentionally inverts or distorts the social order in the process of providing an "explanation" of it. Thus, mythic thought has a wide range of freedom in the processes that it may use. On the other hand, legal codes must maintain a high degree of verisimilitude. Alegal text must appear to he true, even at the most superficial of levels. This need is largely the result of the fact that the social consequences of a mis- interpretation of a legal code are much more serious than those that would result from a misreading of the significance of a myth. However, at deeper levels of analysis and interpretation the myth may of ten provide the more profound explanation of the social order than a law because the myth is not so constrained in its choice of vehicles for expression. These differences notwithstanding, I take the view that the differences hetween the structural analysis of myth and legal codes reside not at a theoretical level but at a methodological one. That is to say, the differences between Lévi-Strauss' approach to the analysis of myth and the approach to the structural analysis of legal codes employed in this study are due to the nature of the data and not due to any fundamental differences in the realm of theory. There is, however, a significant difference in the use of structural analysis. In the four volumes of Mythologiques Lévi-Strauss has searched for and found certain regularities in the structures of the myths occuring in the New World. He has succeeded in demonstrating that a relatively small number of structures and oppositional forms enjoy a very wide distribution. His search for recurring structures has meant that while he has demonstrated the breadth of distribution of particular structural features, he has underestimated the diversity of possible structural features. Thus, in the analysis of individual myths he has endeavoured to find and

LOGIC OF THE L<\ WS

identify those structures that are similar or related to the structures in other myths, while at the same time minimizing the fact that any one of the myths may possess a much larger number of latent structures. This implied criticism, however, must be seen in the light of what he was trying to achieve. Ris own goal was to demonstrate that the processes of mythical thinking are fundamentally similar in a wide range of cultures and thus by inference in mankind in general. Thus his successful search for recurring structures may be seen as a consequence of this basic goal.7 In this study 1 have taken a somewhat different approach. Instead of trying to demonstrate that the structures of marriage systems are fundamentally the same throughout South Sumatra hy showing that the same structural patterns recur in a large number of legal codes I have endeavoured to analyse the fulI range of structural phenomena occuring in a relatively small number of legal codes. My original reason for attempting to analyse the legal codes of South Sumatra Was to find regularities in the diversity of marriage forms. (Though I have not demonstrated it here, I believe such regularities exist). But as the analysis of successive legal codes proceded it became apparent th at the logic of the marriage laws was in reality only a part, though a very important part of a complex structure of relations that embraced the full range of legal thought. Accordingly, the focus of the study shifted and as aresuIt each code has been analysed almost exhaustively. Out of these detailed analyses the most significant phenomenon to emerge is the fact that a relatively small number of formal properties are distributed through a large number of structures within a single legal code and because of their formal similarities these structures are mutually reinforcing.

CHAPTER 6 -NOTES

1 P. E. de Josselin de Jong (1961, p. 32) has previously pointed out that the fact that English has only one word for law has contributed to the confusion surrounding the meaning of "Iaw". 2 Some of the other meanings of the Dutch word recht not directly associated with the concept of law help to add depth to the perception of its meaning. Rechts is also opposed to links, i.e., right versus left. Recht is the word used to describe a straight line, as opposed to a curve. Recht may be used to describe something in a vertical position as opposed to slanted. In this last usage it is worth noting that the word for slanted (schuin) is used to describe a "dirty (in a sexual sense only) joke" (schuine mop). 3 Wilkinson, 1932, Vol. lI, p. 632; 1959, p. 1266 defines undang undang as "Iaws made by a legislature and not based on ancestral custom (adat) or

religion (hukum)". He associates (Wilkinson, 1932, Vol. I, p. 413; 1959,

p. 413) hukum with Moslem law and adat with customary law but limits the usage to Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan. In modern Indonesian jurisprudence undang undang usually refers to legislation while the compound word hukum-adat is roughly equivalent to common law. With respect to South Sumatran legal texts undang undang usually refers to a formal collection of laws. An exception to this general rule is the use of the expression "undang undang sumbang" in Fasal 12 of the Silebar laws. On the other hand, the words hukum and adat are most frequently used to refer to the component parts of such an undang undang. I have not been able to discover any consistent rule governing the use of the words hukum or adat based on the nature of the material involved.
4 The expressions 'wetten der natuur' and 'natuurwetten' should not be confused with 'natuurrecht' which means natural law. 5 Another aspect of procedural law that might play an important role in specifying the relations between categories of substantive law are the categories of evidence in the broadest sense of the term (i.e., testimony, oaths, circumstantial evidence, etc.). The Minangkabau possess elaborate categorical systems related to types of circumstantial evidence (c.c. Van Hasselt, pp. 236-

240). However, in South Sumatran legal codes detailed specifications as to the requirements of evidence are rarely given. And when some information is given it is so irregular that it cannot be used as the basis of structural analysis. An exception to this general statement is to be found in Fasal 12 of Cod. Or. 12.205 where certain linguistic features of the descriptions of oaths may be used as a basis for analysis.
6 It is worth noting that the distinction between "consciousness and unconsciousness" is made in an article that originally appeared in English in Kroeber's Anthropology Today. Thus Lévi-Strauss seems to have been explicitly careful in his choice of words in that he avoided the facile and more common opposition between "the conscious and the unconscious". In the French trans-Iation that appears in Anthropologie Structurale the opposition is between "conscience et inconscicnt" (Lévi-Strauss, 1958, p. 308). When the translation of Anthropologie Structurale into English appeared, in spite of the fact that the original article "Social Structure" was reprinted with some modifications (c.c. Lévi-Strauss, 1963, p. 383), this original opposition was Ie ft unchanged (Lévi-Strauss, 1963, p. 281). 7 The frequent use (some critics would have us believe exclusive use) of binary oppositions in Lévi-Strauss' work can, in part, be explained in terms of his search for recurring structures. Since binary oppositions are the simplest structural form, they are most likely to enjoy the widest distribution.

"relations between elements" have been habitually if not rigorously described by anthropologists as transformations. Unfortunately, the anthropological and mathematical implications of the word transformation are not the same. For most mathematicians the word mapping would be a more accept- abie term for what anthropologists usually call a transformation. Thus the elements of a mathematical group are and must be anthropological transformations. A rigorous definition of a group is to be found on page 1 of Zassenhaus' classical work The Theory of Groups.

"Definition: A group is a set in which an operation called multiplication is defined under which there corresponds to each ordered pair x, y of elements of the set a unique third element z of the set. z is called the product of the factors x and y, written z = xy. For this multiplication we have

I. The associative law: a(bc) = (ab)c.
11. The existence of a left identity e with the property ea = a for all elements a of the group. lIl. The solvability of the equation xa = e for all elements a of the group."
For the purposes of structural analysis this mathematical de fini ti on can be restated in a Ie ss rigorous form as a list of properties which are necessary conditions for a set of transformations to be a mathematical group.

1). The set is closed with respect to multiplication: i.e., if the trans-
formations x and y are elements of the set then the mathematical product

= z means

that if the transformation x is applied and then the transformation y is applied the result is the same as if the transformation z had been applied.

2). "The associative law states that a product of three factors is
determined soleley by the order of its factors" (Zassenhaus, p. 1). No satisfactory intuitive anthropological explanation of this rule is available. However, the example given helow demonstrates its significance.

3). Zassenhaus' second axiom (11) can he interpreted, for anthro-
pological purposes, as stating that an identity element (e) exists such that ea = ae = a. This essential mathematical property is anthropo- logicaIly trivia!. In anthropological analyses ane can always postulate the existence of a transformation which when multiplied by a second transformation always yields the second transformation.

4). Zassenhaus' third axiom (111) can he interpreted for anthro-
pological purposes as stating that for every element of the set there exists an inverse. In anthropological terrns this means th at for every transformation there exists a means of reversing or undoing that transformation.

One of the most frequently used groups in anthropological analysis is the Klein group (d. Lévi-Strauss, 1968, pp. 293-295, 332, 346 and 1971, pp. 188, 240, 244, 58H.; Barbut, 1969). Some of the properties of groups in general and of the Klein group in particular can be demonstrated by the following example based on Islamic law. According to Islamic law the punishment for the first conviction for theft is amputation of the right hand. For the second, third, and fourth convictions the punishments are, respectively, the amputation of the Ie ft foot, right foot, and left hand. The punishment for the first conviction for certain types of robbery is amputation of the right hand and Ie ft foot and for the second conviction amputation of the right foot and left hand (Juynboll, 1930, pp. 308-310). These punishments involve both hands and both feet. Three transformations can be used to describe the process of proceding from any one of these extremities to any other.

1). The horizontal transformation describes the transition in a hori-
zontal direction from one hand to the other or from one foot to the other.

2). The vertical transformation describes the transition in a vertical

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

direction from one hand to one foot or from one foot to one hand on the same side of the body.

3). The diagonal transformation describes the transition from one
hand on one side of the body to the foot on the other side of the body or from the foot on one side of the body to the hand on the other side of the body.

To this set of three transformations one may add an 1dentity (I) which in this case may he descrihed as a transition that results in no displacement, either vertically or horizontaIly. The relations among these transformations can be represented by

Diagram 1.1.

0~(---H---7JD

DIAGRAM 1.1

This set of four transformations is a group.

1). The multiplication table helow demonstrates that the product of
any two transformations is a third transformation which is an element of the set.

I 277

~

An element in list a is multiplied by an element in list band the result is read from the tabie, e.g., V X H = D; these multiplications may he checked against Diagram I.l.

2). The fact that the associative law holds for this set can be demon-
strated by using the tab Ie:

a(bc) = (ab)c

Let a = V; b = H; c = D V(HD) = (VH)D From the table H x D = V; V x H = D V(V) = (D)D From the table V x V = I; D x D = I I = I

Note: A full proof of the associative law would require that every

possible combination of factors be tested.

3). As indicated above the identity is a member of the set. lts
fundamental property appears in the multiplication tabie: V x I = V', Hxl = H; and DxI = D.

4). The inverse is a transformation which when multiplied by any
element yields the identity. The following equations can be solved by consulting the multiplication tabie.

Vxq

=

In other words, each element is its own inverse. This is a property common to many transformations employed in structural analysis. In anthropologicaI terms one usually says that such a transformation is reversible.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

While the preceding example has focused on the mathematical properties of a group, this particular group structure, known as the Klein group, has a number of features that are of particular interest to anthropologists. For the anthropologist only three of the four transformations are especially relevant. The identity alone is devoid of anthropological content. From a strictly formal point of view any one of these transformations can be derived from the other two:

i.e., VxH = D; HxD = V; VxD = H
From the formulation used to describe the transformations used above it appears logical that the diagonal transformation is the result of the combination of the vertical and horizontal transformations. However, if one examines the original data on Islamic law one notices that transitions for successive punishments only employ the vertical and diagonal transformations. Thus from a strict anthropological viewpoint one must conclude that the horizontal transformation is derived from the vertical and diagonal transformations. Thus for the anthropologist the Klein group is the exhaustion of possibilities generated by two transformations (or oppositions). Lévi-Strauss continually emphasises this aspect of the Klein group in his choice of terms to describe the basic processes, "opposé, inverse, inverse de l'opposé" (e.g. Lévi-Strauss, 1968, pp. 293-295). The purpose of the example given here has been to demonstrate some of the anthropological features of groups in general and the Klein group in particular. The approach used here has been designed to minimize a basic confusion implicit in the use of group theory by anthropologists. Transformations are relations between elements. But the transformations in their turn become the elements of a group. In careful analyses these two types of elements, each belonging to different structural levels, must be rigorously separated. However, an anthropologist who suspects the presence of a Klein group relating a set of transformations on elements of his data may represent the material in another manner which is usually much clearer for the anthropologist but may be confusing for the mathematician. Returning to the example from Islamic law the extremities can be represented by the following notation:

RH = right hand; LH = left hand; RF = right foot; LF = Ie ft foot.

And the pattern of transformation can be represented by Diagram 1.2.

RH~<----------~)LH

v v

RF+-(-----H--~) LF

DIAGRAM 1.2

When an anthropologist finds that he can represent the transformational relations between elements of his data with a diagram that is formally equivalent to Diagram I.2, he can in all confidence assert that the structure of the relations between the transformations is a Klein group.

On the one hand,

for obvious reasons, texts which reveal astrong degree of colonial influence are unsuitable. On the other hand, for less obvious reasons, those texts which are genuine indigenous produets are also unsuitable. The problem witb these indigenous texts is that they of ten employ an abbreviated aide-mémoire style of writing that does not provide tbe anthropologist with sufficient in format ion for a structural analysis. Thus in order to read and analyse this type of text it is of ten necessary to have a prior knowledge of the nature of their social systems. In a study such as this where the primary goal has been to discover the nature of indigenous legal systems such texts of ten present more problems than they can possibly solve. This does not mean that these truly indigenous legal statements cannot be analysed by structural methods. On the contrary, once the structures of South Sumatran legal systems are adequately known the analysis of such texts becomes not only possible but highly desirabie. The following passage is an example of a traditional legal statement taken from the "Undang Undang of Moeo Moeo" which was published in 1822 as Numbers 13 and 14 of Volume II of Malayan Miscellanies. The Malay text is a transcription of the text which was published using Arabic characters. The notes to this transcription are those of tbe present author. The translation of this passage is exactly as was published and the notes are those of the original translator.

The following passage is based on the sixth paragraph of the text. However, in the fifteenth paragraph of the Malay text there is a repetition of the sixth paragraph. Because of the similarities between the sixth and fifteenth paragraphs, the translator of tbe previously published version did not provide a translation of the fifteenth paragraph. However, these two paragraphs are not identical and the

11 281

differences are mutually elucidating. The most important of these differences are mentioned in the notes to the Malay text.

manatah adat bagi dek rayat tuanku pertama adat katumunggungan di cenceng dipampas di bunoh di ban gun salah mati gawa berutang utang di bayar potong 1 di terima surang berageh 2 selang berpalangan bertaku kayu bertahil emas terang berhukum kelam berkalam allah 3 ber ... 4 berpapar bercupak bergantang 5 sabong nan berjuara keran 6 bertungganai pukat berpuawang prau bernakhoda ubar2 gantong kemudi hak dacing pengeluaran berupeti kabawah duli tuanku itsulah 1 adat nan di pegang nan di pakai didalam al am minangkerbau

NOTES The English translation indicates that the form "piu tang" as found in paragraph 15 is correct. 2 C.f. Wilkinson, 1932, 1959, p. 9, "Suarang di-ageh" (property acquired during coverture is shared equallyon divorce). 3 In paragraph 15 one finds "kelam bersumpah" in place of "kelam berkalam allah". Furthermore, in paragraph 15 "kelam bersumpah" precedes "terang berhukum". 4 In paragraph 6 one finds "ba-ra-alif-ya(?)-ra" and in paragraph 15 "ba-ra- hamzah-ya-wau-ra"; possibly beriur from iuran = regular payment, e.g., subscription or contribution. 5 In paragraph 15 one finds "beteraju beneraca" between the forms "bergantang" and "sabeng", c.f. Wilkinson (1932 11, p. 573; 1959, p. 1207) "teraju = pair of scales, balance" and Wilkinson (1932 11, p. 169; 1959,

p. 803) "neracha = balance for weighing".
6 The construction of the phrase "keran bertungganai" and the following pair of similarly constructed phrases indicates that the word "keran" is a substantive. The translation indicates that this substantive has something to do with salt making. The most fruitful suggestion as to its meaning comes from Helfrich (1904, p. 73; 1915, p. 11; 1927, p. 45) who suggests that a keran is a fireplace outside the house where aren(g)? or sugar syrup is boiled down. This extends the distribution of the usage given by Wilkinson (1932 I, 1959,

p. 511) for Sarawak and Brunei Malay, i.e., karan = earthen oven for sugar boiling.
7 Paragraph 15 replaces the obviously incorrect letter tha with ta.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

What are the usages applicabIe to the subjects of the Tuanko? -they are the usages of Katumunggungan, for wounds, pecuniary compensation; for killing, the payment of the bangun; for high crimes, death; for offences, fines; for debts, payment and receipt; for partners, their just shares; for accounts, adjustment; -to notch the tree 1 (ber taku kayu); to pay fees 2 (be tahil amas); to receive sentence when proved; to be acquited on oath when doubtful; to bestow freely; to purchase fairly; to measure by the chupa and gantang; to cock fight skilfully; to make salt in appropriate places; to fish by fishermen; to have vessels with nakhodas or masters; to pay duties on anchorage 3 (ubar ubar gantang kamudi); to receive fees on weighing; to pay tribute at the foot of the throne of the Tuanko; these are the usages which are observed and enforced in the kingdom of Menangkarbau.

1 This alludes to the custom of recording solemn agreements by cutting a notch in a tree on the spot where the engagements are concIuded; hence the name of Durian di taku Rajah, above mentioned, having been cut by the king in commemoration of the settlement of boundaries. 2 Literally to weigh the gold, the fees of the courts having usually been paid in gold which was weighed in court. S Literally, "the ubur ubur" (medusa) cIinging to the rudder, a figurative expression for harbour dues.

TO MANUSCRIPT REFERENCES

Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde (TLVK), Western Manuscript Collection

TLVK H580: Correspondence of J. Walland

TLVK H799: De Besemahers, volkenkundige bijdragen; O. L. Helfrich; unpublished ethnography of the Pasummah Peoples; for full description c.c. De Graaf, p. 80 f.; Hoofdstuk IV, Familieleven en Familierecht; Section IX, Huwelijks en erfrecht. TLVK H813: "Stukken over het Rechtswezen in de Residentie Benkoelen"; originally on loan from the local Archives of Bengkulu; part of the Helfrich bequest to the Institute in 1958; c.L De Graaf, 1963, p. 66. TLVK H813-a: Extract uit het Register der Besluiten den G.-G. v.

N.-I. dd. Buitenzorg, 5 April 1844; e.C. De Graaf, 1963, p. 66.
TLVK H813-b: Proceedings of the Native Court in the Bencoolen Residency; c.c. De Graaf, 1963, p. 66. TLVK H813b-i: Proceedings of the Native Court in the Bencoolen Residency; thin paper, bad condition. TLVK M813b-ii: better copy of H813b-i with slight variations, especially in format. TLVK H813-c: According to De Graaf, 1963, p. 66: "Kortoverzigt van de inrigting des binnenland sc he bestuurs en van de wetten, gewoonten en instellingen in de afdeeling Ommelanden van Benkoelen". However, this is the ti tIe of the first section while the proper name of the bound bundIe is on the cover: "Assistent-residentie Benkoelen-Kompendium van de instellingen gewoonten en zeden". The contents of the bundIe are divided into seven separate reports which have been labelled by the present author as H813c-i to H813c-vii. TLVK H813c-i: Kort overzigt van de inrigting des binnenlandschen bestuurs en van de wetten, gewoonten en instellingen in de Ommelanden van Benkoelen; Date: 14 Sept. 1855; Author: J. E. van den Bor; published in BKI 8, 1862, pp. 255-270. TL VK H813c-ii: Overzigt der zeden en gewoonten en instellingen in Afdeeling Lais in gebruik; Date: 31 August 1855; Author: "De WdPosthouder"; published in BK! 8, 1862, pp. 271-274. TLVK H813c-iii: Atoeran den Oendang Oendang de dalam pegangan Mocco Mocco; Date, 31 July 1855; Authors: Tuankoe Regent van Mocco Mocco and De Gezaghebber.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

TLVK H813c-iv: Kort overzigt betreffende de wetten en instellingen benevens de inrigting van het Inlandsch-Bestuur in de afdeeling Seloema; Date: 17 July 1855; Author: Pruijs

v. d. Hoeven; published in BKI 8, 1862, pp. 291-300.
TLVK H813c-v: Kompendium over de afdeeling Manna; Date: 24 June 1855; Author: De Gezaghebber, published in BKI 8, 1862, pp. 301-308. TLVK H813c-vi: Nota van toelichting nopens de instellingen onder de bevolking van de afdeeling Kauer; Date: 16 August 1855; Author: De Posthouder van Kauer; published in BKI 8, 1862, pp. 309-316. TL VK H813c-vii: Circulaire Assistent-Resident van Benkoelen dd. 14 Mei No. 196 -Beantwoording van den Kontroleur 2" klasse belast met het gezag te Kroe; Date: none; Author: Arnold; published in BKI 8, 1862, pp. 275-290. TLVK H813-d: "Maleise fragmenten"; e.c. De Graaf, 1963, p. 66. TLVK H813d-i: "Kauer pada 1 hari Juni 1844"; a brief legal document. TLVK H813d-ii: Adat jang di pakai di dalam pegangan Manna. TLVK H813d-iii: Adat boedjang Gadis; Soengei Lemauw Oeloe Benkoelen.

Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde (TL VK), Oriental Manuscript Collection TLVK M-XLIV Cod. 180 Or. 93 Neg. 141 Atoeran dan Oendang Oendang di dalam pegangan Mokko Mokko. TLVK M-XLV Cod. 210 Or. 94 A code of laws as established by the Pangerans' Court at Fort Marlborough eolleeted by Henry Robert Lewis, Esq., of the Beneooien Civil Service and late Magistrate; plus a letter from J. A. Aeekerlin dated Benkoelen, 14 Maart 1883.

Leiden University Library (UB), Oriental Manuscript Collection

U. B. Cod. Or. 12.200 Mal. 6828 Van Ronkel 142 Oph. 79 "Oendang Oendang adat Kauer, Kroé, Manna en Seloema"; A large assemblage of legal material in Dutch, Romanized Malay, Arabic script and indigenous alphabets. Contents relevant to this particular study include:
a) "Kitab undang2adat lembaga mana", a revised and extended version of TLVK H813d-ii;

TO MANUSCRIPT REFERENCES 285

h) "Oendang Oendang Seloema", similar in format, construction and content to Cod. Or. 12.224, Cod. Or. 12.227 and Cod. Or. 12.228. Contains two legal codes:
i) one dated 27 July 1844 ii) undated, contains 26 fasals, referred to in this study as "older" portion;
c) A partial transcription into Romanized Malay of Cod. Or. 12.205;
d) "Undang yang hernama undang ini adat lemhaga" for Kauer, a variant of text found in Cod. Or. 12.225 and TLVK H813d-i.
U. B. Cod. Or. 12.205 Mal. 6833 Van Ronke! 144 Oph. 84 Oendang Oendang Manna; a single code of consecutively numbered fasals in which three distinct sections can be identified.
U. B. Cod. Or. 12.206 Mal. 6834 Van Ronke! 131 Oph. 85 Oendang Oendang Benkaoeloe; contains 3 legal codes:
a) for Sungai Lemau dated 7 J uly 1855;
h) for Sungai Hitarn dated 30 June 1855;
c) for Silehar dated 31 July 1855.
U. B. Cod. Or. 12.207 Mal. 6835 Van RonkeI 145 Oph. 86 Oendang Oendang Lais; largely an administrative document.
U. B. Cod. Or. 12.217 Mal. 6845 Van RonkeI 132 Oph. 96 Oendang Oendang Mokko Mokko; an additional copy of TLVK H813c-iii and TLVK M-XLIV.
U. B. Cod. Or. 12.224 Mal. 6852 Van Ronke! 140 Oph. 103 Oendang Oendang Ngalam; contains two legal codes:
a) one dated 24 January 1846;
b) undated, contains 26 fasals, referred to in this study as the "ol der" portion.
U. B. Cod. Or. 12.225 Mal. 6853 Van RonkeI 143 Oph. 104

OF THE LAWS

Oendang Oendang Kauer; d. Cod. Or. 12.200 and TLVK H813d-i.

U. B. Cod. Or. 12.227 Mal. 6855 Van Ronkei 141 Oph. 106 Oendang Oendang Alias; contains two legal codes:
a) one dated 7 August 1848;
b) undated, contains 24 fasals, referred to in this study as the "older" portion.
U. B. Cod. Or. 12.228 Mal. 6856 Van Ronkei 146 Oph. 107 Oendang Oendang Tallo; contains two legal codes:
a) one dated 20 July 1842;
b) undated, contains 22 fasals and additional unnumbered regulations, referred to in this study as the "older" portion.
Archief van de Adatrechtstichting (Archives of the Customary Law Foundation) No. 96 (d. Jaquet, 1973, p. 13); a Commentative Digest of the Laws of the Natives of that part of the Coast of Sumatra immediately dependent on the settlement of Fort Marlborough and Practised in the Court of that Presidency.

A/gemeen Rijksarchief (Nationa/ Archives), Ministry of C%nies Archives (non-secret) 27 September 1894, No. 41. Memoranda concerning areas in the Residency Palembang.

1. 30 January 1899 Schuiler tot Peursum
2. 9 July 1889 Van Driest
3. 17 October 1889 De Heer
4. 31 October 1889 Van Driest
5. 12 November 1889 Van der Meulen
6. 16 December 1889 Raedt van Oldenbarnevelt
7. 10 January 1890 Roskott
8. 10 January 1890 Vonck
9. 23 January 1890 Engelhard

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABBREVIATIONS

Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde Tijdschrift voor de Indische Taal-, Land en Volkenkunde (Batavia) Tijdschrift voor Neêrlandsch (Nederlandsch) Indië (Batavia) VBG: Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen (Batavia) Proceedings: Proceedings of the Agricultural Society established in Sumatra, (q.v)

Abegg, J. R. 1862 BK] 8, pp. 255-316; incorrect assignment of authorship, c.f.: Bor, J. van den pp. 255-270 Sausin, C. B. F. pp. 271-274 Arnold, M. J. A. pp. 275-290 Pruijs van der Hoeven, A. pp. 291-300 Duiken, J. van pp. 301-308 Kluijver, A. J. pp. 309-316. Anonymous 1821a "Substance of a Report on the Condition of Society among the Native Population of Bencoolen and its immediate subordinates on the West Coast of Sumatra, October 1819", Proceedings, Vol. I, No. 11; referred to as Proceedings 11. Anonymous 1822a "Translation of the Undang Undang of Moco Moco", Malayan Miscellanies, Vol. 11, No. XIII, 1822. Anonymous 1822b "The Undang Undang of Moco Moco in the Menangkarbau Dialect and Character", Malayan Miscellanies, Vol. 11, No. XIV, 1822. Anonymous 1822 "Benkoeleesche [sic] Adat", Recht en Wet, Afl. 2, 1882, pp. 68-71. Anonymous 1913 "Oendang Oendang Moko-Moko (1862)", Adatrechtbundel VI, 1913, pp. 322-352. Anonymous [H. R. Lewis?] 1913 "Engelsche Opteekening van Adatrecht ter Hoofdplaats Benkoelen (omstreeks 1807)", Adatrechtbundel VI, 1913, pp. 281-321.

OF THE LAWS

Anonymous 1972 Pedoman Edjaan Bahasa !ndonesia Jang Disempurnakan; Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudajaan Republik Indonesia 1972.

Arnold, M. J. A. 1862 "Kort overzigt van de inrigting des Binnenlandsche Bestuurs, en van de wetten, gewoonten en instellingen in de Afdeeling Kroe", BK! 8, 1862, pp. 275-290.

Barbut, Marc 1969 "Sur Ie Sens du Mot Structure en Mathématiques", Les Temps Modernes 22, Nov. 1969, No. 246, pp. 791-814.

Bastin, J. (ed.) 1957 The Journalof Thomas Otho Travers, 1813-1820; Memoirs of the Raffles Museum. No. 4, May 1957.

Bastin, John 1965 The British In West Sumatra (1685-1825). Kuala Lumpur. 1966 "Introduction", pp. iii-x in Marsden, W. 1966.

Berg, L. W. C. van den 1894 "Rechtsbronnen van Zuid-Sumatra", BK! 43, 1894.

Bohannan, P. 1965 "The Differing Realms of the Law", American Anthropologist, Special Publication The Ethnography of Law, ed. Laura Nader, Vol. 67, No. 6, Part 2, pp. 33-42.

Bool & Feith 1867-68 "Adats in werking in de afdeeling Mokko-Mokko adsistent-residentie Benkoelen", Koloniaal Verslag over 1865; Tweede Zitting 1867-1868, Bijlage B, No. 4, pp. 27-40.

Bor, J. E. van den 1862 "Kort overzigt van de inrigting des Binnenlandschen Bestuurs, en van de wetten, Gewoonten en Instellingen in de Afdeeling Ommelanden van Benkoelen", BK! 8, 1862, pp. 255-270.

Church, T. and BogIe, J. 1821 "Comparative Statement of Rice Planted in the Years 1819-20 & 1820-21", Proceedings, Vol. I, Addenda 11; referred to as Proceedings J.

Delamotte, D. and Halhed, C. 1821 "New Regulations Regarding Debtors and Slaves Dated November 1820", Proceedings, Vol. I, Appendix G; referred to as Proceedings G.

Djamour, Judith 1965 Malay Kinship and Marriage in Singapore. LSE Monographs in Social Anthropology, No. 21; London; with corrections. 1966 The Muslim Matrimonial Court in Singapore. LSE Monographs in Social Anthropology, No. 31; London.

DuIken, J. van 1862 "Kompendium over de Afdeeling Manna", BK! 8, 1862, pp. 301-308.

C. P. J.
1825 Maleisch, Nederduitsch en Fransch Woordenboek door C. P. J. Elout naar het Maleisch en Engelsch Woordenboek van den Hr. W. Marsden: Dictionnaire Malai, Hollandais et Français par C. P. J. Elout traduit du Dictionnaire Malai et Anglais de Mr. W. Marsden. Haarlem. Forbes, H. O. 1885 A Naturalist's Wanderings in the Eastern Archipelago. London. Francis, E. A. 1838 "Korte beschrijving van het Nederlandsch Grondgebied ter Westkust van Sumatra, 1837", TNI, 11, No. 1, 1839, pp. 28-45, 90-111, 131-154. 1842 "Benkoelen in 1833", TNI 4, 1842, pp. 417-450. 1856-1860 Herinneringen uit den Levensloop van een Indisch' Ambtenaar van 1815 tot 1851. Vol. I, 1856; Vol. II, 1856a; Vol. lIl, 1860; Batavia. Gardner, Martin 1961 More Mathematical Puzzles and Diversions. London.

Gersen, G. J. 1873 "Oendang-oendang of verzameling van voorschriften in de Lematang-Oeloe en IIir en de Pasoemahlanden van oudsher gevolgd en door langdurig gebruik hadat of wet geworden", TBG XX, 1873, pp. 108-150. Gibb, H. A. R. and Kramers, J. H. 1965 Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam. Leiden and Ithaca. Gimson, A. C. 1972 An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English. 2"" edition with corrections; London. Gluckman, Max 1965 The Ideas in Barotse Jurisprudence. New Haven and London. de Graaf, H. J. 1963 Catalogus van de Handschriften in Westerse Talen toebehorende aan het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde. 's-Gravenhage. Guest, David 1939 A Text Book of Dialectical Materialism. London. Halhed, G.; Church, T.; and Lewis, J. D. 1821 "Report on the Population, § c. of the District of Lumba Selapan", Proceedings, Vol. I, Appendix C; referred to as Proceedings C. Hasselt, A. L. van 1882 Volksbeschrijving van Midden Sumatra. Leiden. Hazairin 1936 De Redjang. Bandoeng. Helfrich, O. L. 1904 "Bijdragen tot de kennis van het Midden Maleisch (Besemahsch en serawajsch dialect)", VBG 53, 1904. 1915 "Nadere Aanvullingen en Verbeteringen op de Bijdragen tot de kennis van het Midden Maleisch (Besemahsch en serawajsch Dialect) ", VBG 61/3-4, 1915, pp. 1-28.

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

Helfrich, O. L. 1921 "Supplement op de in deel LXI, 3" en 4" stuk, der Verhandeling en gepubliceerde Nadere aanvullingen en verbeteringen op de Bijdragen tot de kennis van het Midden Maleisch (Besemahsch en Serawajsch Dialect) (ver- schenen in Deel LIII der Verhandelingen)", VBe 63/1, 1921. 1926 "Lampoengsche en Midden-Maleische Adatrechtstermen", Adatrechts- bundel XXV, 1926, pp. 191-216. 1927 "Nadere Bijdragen tot de kennis van het Midden Maleisch (Besemahsch en Serawajsch Dialect) ", VBe 68/3, 1927. 1933 "Bijdragen tot de kennis van het Midden Maleisch (Besemahsch en Serawajsch dialect) ". Supplement op de "Nadere Bijdragen". The Hague. Heyne, B. 1814 Tracts, Historical and Statisticaion India; with journals of Several tours through various parts of the peninsuia; also, an account of Sumatra in a series of letters. London. Hoebel, E. A. 1966 Anthropology: The Study of Man. Third edition; New York. Holleman, J. F. 1952 Shona Customary Law. Manchester; second impression 1969. Jack, W. 1821 "First report of the Agricultural Society Established in Sumatra in 1820", Proceedings, Vol. I, No. 111; referred to as Proceedings 111. Jakobson, R. 1931 "Prinzipien der historischen Phonologie", Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, IV, pp. 247-267, 1931. 1949 "Principes de Phonologie Historique"; revised version of Jakobson, 1931, translated by J. Cantineau; appears as Appendix I to Troubetzkoy, 1949, pp. 313-336; reprinted in Jakobson, 1971, pp. 202-220. 1968 Child Language, Aphasia and Phonological Universa/s. The Hague. 1971 Roman Jakobson, Selected Writings: Vol. I Phonological Studies. Second expanded edition; The Hague. Jaquet, F. G. P. 1973 "Overzicht van het Archief van de Adatrechtstichting", Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde.

Jaspan, M. A. 1964 From Patriliny to Matriliny: Structural Change among the Redjang of Southwest Sumatra. Doctoral thesis; Australian National University.

Jennings, W. R. 1821 "New Regulations for the Management of the Out-Stations, Dated May 1820", Proceedings, Vol. I, Appendix F; referred to as Proceedings F. Jennings, W. R.; Lumsdaine, J.; and Presgrave, E. 1821 "Report on the Population, § C. of the Town and Suburbs of Marlborough", Proceedings, Vol. I, Appendix A; referred to as Proceedings A. 1957 "Report on the Population, § C. of the Town and Suburbs of Marlborough"; referred to as Proceedings A; reprinted as Appendix II in The Journalof Thomas Otho Travers 1813-1820, Memoirs of the Raffles Museum; No. 4, May 1957, pp. 166-181.

"Anthropological Tradition in the Netherlands: lts Formation and Change" (mimeographed); unpublished paper prepared for the participants in a conference entitled "The Nature and Function of Anthropological Traditions", 17-21 April, 1968 at the Werner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, New York, N.Y. Juynboll, T. W. 1930 Handleiding tot de kennis van de Mohammedaansche Wet volgens de leer der Sjdfi'itische School. Fourth edition; Leiden. Kathirithamby-Wells, J. 1973 "A Survey of the Effects of British Influence on Indigenous Authority in Southwest Sumatra (1685-1824)", BKl 129, 1973, pp. 237-268. Kemp, P. H. van der 1894 "Een bijdrage tot E. B. Kielstra's opstelling over Sumatra's Westkust", BKl44, 1894, pp. 257-320, 525-615. Klinkert, H. C. 1947 Nieuw Maleisch-Nederlandsch Woordenboek, met Arabisch Karakter, naar de beste en laatste bronnen bewerkt. Vijfde Druk; Leiden. Kluijver, A. J. 1862 "Nota van toelichting Nopens Instellingen onder de bevolking van de Afdeeling Kauer", BKl 8, 1862, pp. 309-316. Kroeber, A. L. (ed.) 1953 Anthropology Today. Chicago and London.

Lane, E. W. 1863-1893 An Arabic English Lexicon. London-Edinburgh; 8 vols. 1863, 65, 67, 72, 74, 77, 85, 93.

Laskin, B. 1951 Canadian Constitutional Law. Toronto.

Lawrence, T. E. 1940 Seven Pillars of Wisdom. London.

Lekkerkerker, C. 1916 Land en Volk van Sumatra. Leiden.

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1953 "Social Structure" in Kroeber, 1953, pp. 524-553. 1958 Antropologie Structurale. Paris. 1963 Structural Anthropology. New York. 1964 Le Cru et Ie Guit. Paris. 1968 L'Origine des Manières de Tabie. Paris. 1969 The Raw and the Cooked, lntroduction to the Science of Mythology: I. John and Doreen Weightman, translators; New York. 1971 L'Homme Nu. Paris.

LOGIC OF THE LAWS

Lewis, Henry Robert 1821 A Code of Laws as established by the Pangeran's Court at Fort Marlborough eoUeeted by Henry Robert Lewis, Esq., of the Beneooien Civil Service, and late Magistrate. Undang2 adat lembaga melayu yangdi pakai oleh raja dengan penguhulu dalam negri bengkehulu kota malbera yang dimuafakat kan oleh Henry Robert Lewis Magistrate. Lincoln's-Inn-Fields (London).

Llewellyn, K. N. and E. A. Hoebel 1941 The Cheyenne Way. Nonnan, Oklahoma.

Lumsdaine, J. 1821a "Report on the Cultivation of Spices at Beneooien, 1819-20", Proeeedings, Vol. I, Appendix D; referred to as Proceedings D. 1821 b "Report on the General Salubrity of the Settlement", Proceedings, Vol. I, Appendix E; referred to as Proceedings E. 1957 "Report on the Cultivation of Spices at Beneooien, 1819-1820"; referred to as Proceedings D; reprinted as Appendix 111 in The Journal of Thomas Otho Travers 1813-1820; Memoirs of the Ratfles Museum, No. 4, 1957, pp. 181-195. Lumsdaine, J.; Lewis, W. T.; Baskett, W. 1821 "Report on the Value of Landed Property and the Produce of Spices for the Ensuing Five Years, Dated February 1821", Proeeedings, Vol. I, Addenda I, referred to as Proceedings H.

Mackenzie, W. G.; Lewis, W. T.; Bogie, R. 1821 "Report on the Population, §c of the District of Dua-Blas", Proceedings, Vol. I, Appendix B; referred to as Proceedings B.

Marsden, E. W. (ed.) 1838 A Brief Memoir of the Life and Writings of the late William Marsden,

D. C. L., F. R. S. §c. §e. Written by Himself: With Notes from his Correspondenee. London; referred to as Marsden's Memoir.
Marsden, W. 1783 The History of Sumatra. London; referred to as Marsden's History, 1783. 1784 The History of Sumatra. London; referred to as Marsden's History, 1784. 1811 The History of Sumatra. London; referred to as Marsden's History, 1811. 1812 A Dietionary of the Malayan Language. London; referred to as Marsden's Dictionary, 1812. 1812 A Grammar of the Malayan Language with an introduction and praxis. London; referred to as Marsden's Grammar, 1812. 1966 The History of Sumatra. Kuala Lumpur; a reprint of the third edition introduced by John Bastin.

Mauss, M. 1967 Manuel D'Ethnographie. Paris.

Ophuijsen, C. A. van 1896 "Eenige opmerkingen naar aanleiding van de door Prof. Mr. L. W. C. van den Berg, bezorgde uitgave van de Oendang-Oendang Djambi", BKl 46, 1896, pp. 153-213.

"Iets over het ontstaan van eenige Regentschappen in de Adsistent-Residentie Benkoelen", TBC XI (1862), pp. 193-196.

de Perez, P. J. B. (trans.) 1849 "Maleische Wetten, Gewoonten en Instellingen (Adat Lambaga) door Radja en Pongoeloe in het landschap Benkoelen opgevolgd wordende zoodanig als dezelve in overeenstemming met gezegde Radja en Pongoeloe bij dezen bundel (Oendang-oendang) zijn Verzameld en in schrift gebragt, door Henry Robert Lewis, Esq. Magistraat te Benkoelen", Het Regt in Nederlandsch-Indië, Vol. I, 1849, pp. 256-284.

Proceedings of the Agricultural Society Established in Sumatra 1821 Vol. I, Bencoolen. Proceedings I = Raffles, T. S. 1821 Proceedings 11 = Anonyrnous 1821a Proceedings 111 = Jack, W. 1821 Proceedings A Jennings, Lumsdaine, and Presgrave 1821 Proceedings B Mackenzie, Lewis, and Bogie 1821 Proceedings C Halhed, Church, and Lewis 1821 Proceedings D Lumsdaine, J. 1821a Proceedings E Lumsdaine, J. 1821b Proceedings F Jennings, W. R. 1821 Proceedings G = Delamotte, D. and Halhed, C. 1821 Proceedings H = Lumsdaine, Lewis, and Baskett 1821 Proceedings J = Church and Bogie 1821

Pruijs van der Hoeven, A. 1862 "Kort Overzigt Betreffende de Wetten en Instellingen, Benevens de Inrigting van het Inlandsch Bestuur in de Afdeeling Seloema", BK! 8, 1862, pp. 291-300.

Raffles, Lady Sophia 1830 Memoir of the Life and Public Services of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles. London.

Raffles, T. S. 1821 "Address by the President on the Institution of the Society", Proceedings, Vol. I, No. 1; referred to as Proceedings I. Ronkel, Ph. S. van 1908 "Catalogus der Maleische Handschriften van het Koninklijk Instituut voor de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië", BK! 60, 1908, pp. 181-284. 1909 "Catalogus der Maleische Handschriften in het Museum van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen", VBC LVII, 1909. 1921 Supplement-Catalogus der Maleische en Minangkabausche Handschriften in de Leidsche Uniuersiteits-Bibliotheek. Leiden.

Sausin, C. B. J. 1862 "Overzigt der Zeden en Gewoonten en instellingen in de Afdeeling Lais in gebruik", BKI 8, 1862, pp. 271-274. De Saussure, F. 1968 Cours de Linguistique Cénérale. Paris.

OF THE LAWS

Skeat, Walter William 1900 Malay Magic being a,n introduction to the Folklore and Popular Religion of the Malay Peninsuia. London. Smith, Kenneth and Keenan, Denis J. 1973 English Law. Fourth edition by D. J. Keenan; London. Smith, W. Robertson no date Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia. Reprint of the 1903 edition; Boston. Spencer, A. (ed.) 1948 Memoirs of Wil/iam Hickey. London; 4 vols. [De Sturler] 1876 "Oendang Oendang Simboer Tjaija, Verzameling van adats uit de Residentie Palembang", TNl (new series), No. 5, 1876, pp. 13-32, 122-141. Swaab, J. L. W. 1916 "Beschrijving der Onderafdeeling Redjang", BKl 12, 1916, pp. 460-552. Toorn, J. L. van der 1891 Minangkabausch-Maleisch-Nederlandsch Woordenboek. The Hague. 1899 Minangkabausche Spraakkunst. The Hague. Travers, Thomas Otho 1957 The Journalof Thomas Otho Travers 1813-1820. Edited by John Bastin; Memoirs of the Raffles Museum, No. 4, May 1957. Trubetzkoy (EngIish, German) Troubetzkoy (French), N. S. 1938 Grundzüge der Phonologie. 5 Auflage 1971; Göttingen. 1949 Principes de Phonologie. Paris; trans. J. Cantineau. 1969 Principles of Phonology. Berkeley and Los Angeles; trans. C. A. M. Baltaxe. Turner, J. W. C. (ed.) 1958 Kenny's Outlines of Crimina I Law. 17'h edition; Cambridge. Tuuk, H. N. van der 1899 Kawi-Balineesch-Nederlandsch Woordenboek. Volume 11; Batavia. Vollenhoven, C. van 1918-1933 Het Adatrecht van Nederlandsch-lndië. Vol. I, 1918; Vol. 11, 1931; Vol. 111, 1933: Leiden. Voorhoeve, P. 1955 Critical Survey of Studies on the Languages of Sumatra. Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde, Bibliographical Series 1; The Hague.

Wade, Mason 1968 The French Canadians: 1760-1967. Revised edition; 2 volumes; Toronto.

WaIl, H. von de 1877-84 Maleisch-Nederlandsch Woordenboek. Op last vam het gouverne- ment van Nederlandsch-lndië samengesteld. Uitgegeven met weglating van al het overtollige door H. N. van der Tuuk. 3 volumes; Batavia.

O. L.
1923 Zuid-Sumatra. Overzigt van de literature der Gewesten Bengkoelen, Djambi, de Lampongsche Districten en Palembang. Deel I, Loopende tot het einde van 1915. 's-Gravenhage. Westenenk, L. C. [1921] "Memorie van overgave van den aftredenden Resident van Benkoelen", Mededeelingen van het Bureau voor de Bestuurszaken der Buiten- gewesten bewerkt door het Encyclopaedisch Bureau, XXVIII, Semarang-Soerabaia-Den Haag. 1922 "Residentie Benkoelen Schaal 1: 750,000 Bewerkt door het Enclopae- disch Bureau Naar gegevens van den Top. Dienst van den Marine 1922". Map accompanying Westenenk [1921]. Wiener, N. 1961 Cybernetics or Control and Communication In the Animal and the Machine. Second edition; Cambridge (USA). Wilken, G. A. 1888 "De Verbreiding van het Matriarchaat op Sumatra", BK! 37, 1888, pp. 161-215. 1891 "Over het Huwelijks-en Erfrecht bij de Volken van Zuid Sumatra", BK! 40, 1891, pp. 149-235. 1912 De Verspreide Geschriften van Prof. Dr. G. A. Wilken verzameld door Mr. F. D. E. van Ossenbruggen. 4 volumes; Semarang, Soerabaja, 's-Gravenhage. Wilkinson, R. J. 1932 A M alay-English Dictionary (Romanized). 2 volumes; Mytilene (Greece). 1959 A Malay-English Dictionary (Romanized). 2 volumes; London. Wink, P. 1924 "De Bronnen van Marsden's Adatbeschrijving van Sumatra", BK! 80, 1924, pp. 1-10. 1926 "De Onderafdeeling Lais in de Residentie Bengkoeloe", VBG LXVI, Tweede Stuk, 1926. W[inter] 1874 "De Familie Daing Mabella, volgens een Maleisch handschrift", TN! 111, n.s. 1874, pp. 115-21. Zassenhaus, H. 1958 The Theory of Groups. Second edition 1958?; Göttingen.

OF THE LAWS

ol!: E 0 0

«N

0::

I-0 « ~

~ :::>0

U) 0 I
0

I-lil

:::> 0

U)

MAPS 297

Moko Mol

RESIDENCY

Ngalam Seluma o ,25 50 75 100 km raIo Alas

afterWestenenk.1922

INDEX

AND INDEX OF MIDDLE MALAY LEGAL TERMS

In the indexes the following notation has been wed:

1) An .cL" with a subscript refers to a legal code with: Ll The Code of Laws L2The Sungai Lemau Laws L3 The Sungai Hitam Laws L4 The Silebar Laws
2) The Arabic numerals foIIowing the indicator of a law refer to the numbered fasals
e.g. L2 6 = the sixth fasal of the Sungai Lemau laws
3) The upper case Roman numerals foIIowing the indicator of a law refer to unnumbered sections. The lower case Roman numerals refer to the subdivisions or units of the unnumbered sections
e.g. L4 IIii= the second unit of the second unnumbered section of the Silebar laws.

INDEX

Code of Laws

Fasal Page Fasa! Page Fasa! Page

Ll 1 Ll 29

Ll 2 Ll 16 Ll 30

Ll 3

Ll 4 Ll 32

Ll 5 Ll 19 Ll 33

Ll 6 Ll 20

Ll 7 Ll 21

Ll 22 Ll 36

Ll 9 Ll 23 Ll 37

Ll 10

Ll 25 Ll 39

Ll 26

Ll 13 Ll 41

Ll 28 Ll 42

Sungai Lemau Laws

Fasal Page Fasa! Page Fasa! Page

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

Sungai Hitam Laws

Fasal Page Fasal Page Fasal Page

Silebar Laws

Fasal Page Fasal Page Fasal Page

Ii

lIi

OF MIDDLE MALAY LEGAL TERMS

The following index of Middle Malay legal tenns is based on the original texts and not the translations of the material as provided in this hook. The index is complete. Thus, the number of references following a given legal tenn serves to indicate its frequency and distribution of occurrence.

alm, mengaku: to accept responsibility for Ll 3, 11, 41 L219, 21 L4 10, 11 ambil anak: lito to take the child or children ambil anak: marriage form (c.f. semendo) Ll 5 L 2 10 La 9 L4 3 ambil anak: verb form L2 8 anak: child anak angkat: adopted child Ll 13 anak budak: child of a slave (c.f. anak mas) Ll 35 anak kandung: one's own child L 1 13 anak mas: lito child of gold; child of a slave (c.f. anak budak) L16, 35, 36 anak semendo: semendo child L13 anak uwang: lito child of money; interest L130, 31 andam: a form of bondage Ll 19

anggun2 :ritual payment or gift L114 angkat: lito to raise, to adopt (not to be confused with ambil anak q.v.) Ll 13 antaran, pengantar, pengantaran: marriage payment L12, 8, 9 L2 11, 12 La 5

baik: good; kebaikan: goodness La 3, 8 bakar: to bum; membakar rumah: arson (c.f. panggang) La 15 L4 9 bangun: compensation for killing Ll 10, 21, 22, 26, 28 L2 13, 14, 25 L4 4, 10 adat kapala bangun L 2 13 basoh: to wash pembasoh dusun: cleanser of a village L4 11 pembasoh rumah: cleanser of a house L137 berbelah: to share, esp. a debt reIation L] 39 belanja: costs L11, 14, 33

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

gan: marriage payment La 5 gadaian: pawn Ll 42

harta: property harta pembujangan: property of bachelorhood Ll 3 harta pencarian: see sub cari harta pusaka: inherited property Ll 13, 14 hasil: tax L 5 2 4 La

beo, bea: casts L2 23 L3 18 L4 1, 2, IV beri: to give pemberian: gift L2 4 La 4 L4 lIii budak: slave Ll 6, 19, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40 L4 4, 11 budak kompani: governmental slave Ll 29 L4 8, 9 buka, bukak: to open (cJ. paca) membukak rumah: breaking and entering L4 6 bunga: lito flower; tax bunga kayu: tax on wood L2 5 bunga padi: tax on rice L 2 5 bunga rotan: tax on rattan L2 5 bunoh, membunoh: to kill Ll 21, 22 L 2 13, 16, 19 La 12 L4 4, 7

cari: to earn pencarian, harta pencarian: earnings Ll 3, 37, 39 L210, 11, 12 La 9 caro: payment related to marriage andJor divorce Ll 2, 11 cerai: divorce, separation (c.f. sarak) La 9, 10 curi: to steal Ll 23 L215, 21, 22 La 13, 14 L4 6

denda: fine Ll 6, 8, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29 L219, 20, 21, 22, 25 La 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 18 L4 5, 6, 11, 12, lIIi, IIIii, IIIiii

'iddah: waiting period Ll 12 iring, mengiring: to follow; bondage debt relation L] 7, 30, 37, 38 isi kawin: lit., contents of marriage; marriage payment (c.f. mas kawin) Ll 2 L3 5'

jujur: general, patrilocal marriage form Ll 7 L2 6, 24 La 5 jujur agung: marriage form L 2 7 La 6 L4 1 jujur bertungu: marriage form L2 8 jujur kecil: marriage form La 8 L4 3 jujur orang kecil atau orang kabanjakan: marriage form (cJ. jujur kecil) L 2 9 jujur tengah (penengah) : marriage form La 7 L4 2 jurai: descent line, descendent (c.f. semendo balik j urai) L 2 12 L3 11 L4 3

mas: gold mas kawin: marriage payment (c.l. isi kawin) Ll 2 La 5 mas mutung: marriage payment L4 1, 2 mungkir: to deny responsibility for (c.l. aku) LIl, 40 L4 11

kakas, perkakas: lito appliances accessories brought by a woman in marriage L2 7 L4 1 perkakas risau: an outlaw's tools L4 9 kendak: paramour; berkendak: fornication La 17 keras: harsh, obstinate, cause of divorce Ll 11 kerbau: buffalo kerbau menaduk kerbau lalu: legal phrase Ll 28 kris: a weapon with ritual value L 2 7, 24 L4 1, 2, 3

lacung: to falsify Ll 27 lari: to flee Ll 8, 37, 41 L 2 21 lawan: partner; berlawan: paired Ll 12 L 2 21 lipat: to return twofold, compensation (c.f. pulang) LIl, 23, 39 L 2 15 La 13 L4 6 luka: wound Ll 26, 34 L 2 14, 16 La 12 L4 4, 5, 8

paca: to break (c.l. buka) memaca pintu jandela: breaking and entering L4 6 pampas: compensation for wounding Ll 26, 28 L214 La 12 L4 5 panggang: 10 burn (c.f. bakar) memanggang rumah: arson L 2 18 pangkat: title (c.f. tungguan) L2 2 La 2 panjingan: fornication andJor fines for fornication L219, 21 La L4 16, 10, 11, 18 IIIi, IIIii pukau: sleep inducing drug

pulang: Ll 25 to return (c.l.lipat)

pulang undang: to return twofold L215, 16

Ll 9

La 17 L4 IIIiii bermain muka: flirtation L4 12 marga, merga, mergo: group of associated villages L22, 13, 21

L 2 21

sahadat, syahadat: testimony L4 10 saksi, syaksi: wi tness

L1 2, 3, 24, 25, 40

THE LOGIC OF THE LAWS

saIah: wrongdoing taIi kulo: marriage payment Ll 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 20, 23, 24, 34, L28

2 Ll 10, 12, 20

7,8

Ll 3, 5, 11, 12

Ll 26

Ll 1

2 IIi

Ll 15

Ll 4

Ll 3,4

Ll 33 Ll 33

Ll 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41 Ll 10

an oath Ll 6, 19, 30

Ll 21, 23, 24, 40

L 2 21 L4 11, 12