populace. Similarly, the orang kaya were alleged to oppress the ordinary man by extortion, knowing that their influence and wealth guaranteed immunity frem punishment. Such a description indicates that there was considerable scope for conflict within Minangkabau society, and indeed its constant internal warring was noted by many outsiders. The potential for conflict was increased by the sharp division of the Alam Minangkabau between two different types of adat-tradition, called, like the negeri federations, /aras. These were the /aras Koto Piliang and Bodi Caniago, founded respectively by the legendary adat law-givers Datuk Ketemanggungan and Datuk Perpatih Nan Sebatang. These men were half-brothers, the former of royal blood and the latter the son of a sage, but in later life they quarrelled violently, establishing rival groups that a Dutch scholar has compared with political parties. Some Minang- kabau sources attribute the quarrel to the arrival of Adityawarman, the prince from Majapahit who became the ruler of Minangkabau in the 14th century.20 Datuk Ketemanggungan was prepared to recognize the newcomer as a ra/a, but his half-brother would only recognize him as a minister. Thenceforth all Minangkabau negeris adhered to one tradition or the other. Those who conceded Adityawarman royal status joined the Koto Piliang /aras and adat, the others the Bodi Caniago, whose followers were defeated in a civil war. W. J. Leyds describes the two ‘political parties’: ‘one of a democratic, even perhaps revolutionary inclination, the other formed by the conservative followers if not of the persons of the princes, then at least of the royal tradition.’2* Even in the late 18th century when some negeris had become ‘mixed’ and followed the adat of their dominant group, pure Koto Piliang negeris were regarded as having ‘an exalted position’ in the darat.22__ In general, Agam was Bodi Caniago, while Tanah Datar had two large ‘blocks’ of Koto Piliang surrounded by Bodi Caniago negeris. In matters of internal government, a Bodi Caniago negeri was the more egalitarian, a Koto Piliang negeri recognizing a more sharply defined hierarchy among its penghulus. This was symbolized by the differences between the ba/ais of the two /aras; a Bodi Caniago ba/ai had a level floor, whilst in the Koto Piliang ba/ai there was a raised dais at the end for certain penghulus.' The Koto Piliang tradition recognized one penghulu as pucuk, or primus inter pares, and was thus more autocratic than that of Bodi Caniago. The Bodi Caniago /aras also gave more scope for discussion and the election of a penghulu’s successor, Furthermore, there were differences in the criminal law of the two /aras, Koto Piliang adat being more conservative and its punishments closer to those of Islamic law. More important, the seats of the three Rajas and four Ministers were all Koto Piliang. The Ministers, and above them the Rajas, served as courts of appeal for people of the Koto Piliang /aras. The negeris of three of the four Ministers, the Mang- kudum of Sumanik being excepted, supported the authority of the three Rajas and were named Tanah Datar Tuanku Nan Tiga, or the three pillars of Minangkabau. The Ministers had corresponding titles; for instance, the Bendahara of Sungai Tarab was also called Pamuncak Koto Piliang. The main trade route from Pagarruyung to Padang passed through Koto Piliang negeris such as Semawang, Singkarak and Saningbakar; it was vitally important for the Rajas to keep open this route. South of Tanah Datar lay Batipuh, also on the strategic road to the coast. There dwelt the largely independent Tuan Gedang of Batipuh, known as the Harimau Koto Piliang (the tiger of Koto Piliang), a forceful adherent of the three Rajas. For the Bodi Caniago /aras the highest court of appeal was the rapat of all Bodi Caniago held in the Balai nan Panjang at Tabat in Lima Kaum, close to the Koto Piliang seven seats, but completely ignoring their jurisdiction. The highest authority of Bodi Caniago adat was a penghulu of Lima Kaum, entitled Datuk Bendahara Nan Kuning (yellow), in direct contrast with the Koto Piliang Bendahara of Sungai Tarab, who was 20. T. Abdullah, ‘Modernization in the Minangkabau World’, p. 186-7 and fn. 1, p. 183. 21. W. J. Leyds, ‘Larassen in Minangkabau’, Koloniale Studien, 10:1 (1926), p. 395. 22. J.J. de Hollander (ed.), Sjech Djilal Eddin: Verhaal van den Aanvang der Padri-Onlusten ‘op Sumatra (Leiden, 1847), p. 41 (hereinafter, Hikajat Djajaluddin).