CHAPTER 7 Kinship and ‘House Societies’ ‘Tueidentification between houses and people provides us, ultimately, with the real key to the understanding. of the house in South-East Asia. Conversely, certain problems in the analysis of kinship systems can, I be- lieve, be clarified by looking at them as house-based systems. How then does the house function to give shape and identity to kinship groupings?" Indonesia is my focus in this chapter. Patterns of, Indonesian kinship organization include a wide variety of types which, however. rarely fit comfortably within the framework of more traditional anthropological ideas about descent: labels such as ‘patrilineal’ ‘matti- lineal’, or ‘double descent’ have a disquieting tendency to come unstuck. The cognatic systems typical of west ern Indonesia have in the past puzzled anthropologists because of their apparent amorphousness and lack of clearly bounded groups. Difficulties in the analysis of eastern Indonesian systems, on the other hand, have nocessitated the development of more sophisticated understanding of indigenous concepts of descent as a non-unilineal process. The actual composition of ‘de- scent groups’ is typically highly irregular, and there is reat flexibility in the choice of alliances.> Fox (1980: 12) concludes thet ‘House’ Is ‘a fundamental cultural category used in eastern Indonesia to designate a par- ticular kind of social unit’, though it is ‘remarkably exible in its range of applications’. He speaks of the house in eastern Indonesia as serving as a metaphor for the descent group. or as the localization of a descent group. Indeed, the idea of localization or origin is im- plied by its nature as a physical structure. Some so- leties, such as the Atoni, do apparently talk much about (non-unilineal) descent as an organizing prin- ciple. Nevertheless, there are a number of other cases where an alternative explanation presents itself; we can make more sense of the apparent irregularities of these systems only if we reverse matters and treat the house itself as the determining feature of the system. The idea that there are certain forms of rganization which can best be described as ‘house socitis' has been put forward by Claude Lévi-Strauss (1983) in his important analysis ofthe kinship systems ofthe North- West Coast of North America. The application of this idea to Indonesian societies promises to be highly re- warding. and makes sense of data which have persist- ently resisted analysis in terms of more conventional categories. I shall argue thatthe kinship systems of the archipelago, inal their variety, can best be understood only when the house s taken as thelr main organizing principle, Lévi-Strauss and “House Societies 4m a recent work, The Way ofthe Masks, Lev-Strauss devotes a chapter to ‘The Social Organisation of the Kwakiut ie points out the difculies experienced by Boas and Kroeber in defining the kinship systems of the Kwaklutl and Yurok of the North-West Coast of North America. They found it virtually impossible to decide whether these societies were really patrilineal, matri- lineal, or bilateral, since they seemed to be patting into operation simultaneously 2 number of principles ‘hich anthropologists have generally considered to be Incompatible, They tended. in their eforts to decide the question, to concentrate on negative aspects of the system: they were not this, nor yet quite the other. In LeviStrauss’s view, the positive feature uniting these societies is the mannerin which houses function as foct of kin organization. House societies’, he sug- gests, may be ientifled over a wide historical and geo- sraphical span, including, for example, both feudal Europe and Japan, and the socleties of the Philippines, Indonesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia, as well as the North-West Coast (Lévi-Strauss 1983: 176). Concera ‘with questions of inheritance—in some cases of land or kingship, in others of tiles and names-—means that 138eee kin and marriage ties are frequently activated in stea- ‘egic ways. Houses in this sort of society, suggests Lévi- Strauss, generally share a number of features: they havea name, which may be inspired by the location or some other feature: they are perpetuated over time and not allowed to disappear, at least from memory: they may be elaborately decorated, especially on the fagade: end they are the sites for the performance of ceremo- nies. House societies are characteristicaly divided into ‘stoups putatively tracing their descent from ancestors who founded the houses. Additional features may in- clude an alternation of generations, with a belief in the reincarnation of grandparents in thet grandchildren a feature of Tsimshian society, as well as of some Indonesian ones. He also notes (1983: 176) the diff- culty of distinguishing whether a socicty of this type hhas ‘Hawaiian’ or ‘Eskimo’ terminology, since one’s judgement on this will be affected by which usages and contexts one chooses todivell on. What, however, will be noticeable is the recurrent use of house’ imagery to express aspects of Kinship and marriage relations. ‘Where rank and inheritance are prime concems, the tactical aspect of marriage will be seen in the occur- ence, typically, of both very ctose martlages, in vari- ous classic patterns of cousin marriage, and of very distant marriages, uniting kingdoms, or laying claims to new titles and lands. Lévi-Strauss (1983: 166,177) compares the opportunistic tracing of genealogical ties in the royal houses of medieval Europe (which fre- uently exploited links through women or by adoption, in spite of a patrilineal law of succession) Practice in Kwakiutl noble families of allowing suc- cessfon through marriage, from the wife's father to ‘the son-in-law. So important was this potential mode of succession that ‘an individual desirous of “entering ‘a house” where there was no marriageable daughter, ‘would symbolically marry a son, or failing a son, a part of the body (arm or leg) of the house chief, or even a piece of furniture’ ‘The fandamental feature of Lévi-Strauss's analysis fs that it groups together as ‘house societies’ a range of North-West Coast socteties with ostensibly very differ- ent kinship systems: in as much as the labels can be ‘pplied at all, the Kwakiutl, Nootka, and Bella-Bella systems are cognatic, the Tsimshian. Haida, and Tlingit are ‘frankly matrilineat’, while the Yurok of northern California were described (with reservations) by Kroeber a5 patrilineal. Kroeber considered the houses of the ‘Yurok only in a chapter on material culture, from the oust societies point of view of techniques of construction and utili- tarian function. and ignored them when he spoke of Social organization. Yet, his own data demonstrate utte clearly that houses were enduring units of social organization, with important jural and ceremonial functions, and that their owners even took thelr names from the house itself. At the same time. finding that avallable analytical categories, such as ‘tribe’, ‘clan’, or ‘village community’. failed to fit the Yurok case, Kroeber was reduced to the conclusion that they simply hhad ‘no society as such ... no social organization ... no authority. ”. Contemporary ethnology did not supply him with the concept of “house’ which might have helped to make sense of such apparent formlessness (Krocber 1925; Lévi-Strauss 1983: 171-3), ‘LéviStrauss’s approach to these kinship systems as “variations on a theme’ parallels his treatment of myths 4s variant sets. Within island South-Bast Asia we find a similar range of apparently very different kinship systems which have given anthropologists just as much trouble as those of the North-West Coast, but which, if treated as “house societies’. suddenly come into sharper focus. it has always been something of a Puzzle for anthropologists to explain the concentration of cognatic kinship systems in western Indonesia and of unilineal, ‘prescriptive alliance’ systems in eastern Indonesia (as well as parts of Sumatra). Adopting a Lévi-Streussian approach, we may begin to see all these systems as possible variants, whose common feature is the importance of the house as a focus of social organ- lation. A good starting-point for such a generative ‘approach may be found in 2 paper by James Fox (1985) oon the possible reconstructions of early Austronesian Kinship organization. He suggests how a whole range of regional developments might have taken place, ac- companied ty fairly minor modifications to a basic set of original Proto-Austronesian kin terms.* At the same time, new and detatled research in the archipelago allows us to bring to bear the concept of ‘house s0- cieties' on problems of present-day Indonestan kinship organization, Kinship and Rank Clearly, the construction of buildings on the scale of a Borneo longhouse, a Nias chief's house, or a Toraja tongkonan, demands either the co-operation of a large group of people, or else a concentration of wealth on the part of the owners. and the ability to mobilize a 139 SRETHe UVic large labour force, ‘The same, indeed. may apply to other projects, such as the dragging of huge stones for tombs or monuments-—in Nias, Sumba. or Toraja, for example—or the building of temporary ritual struc- tures—as in Toraja, where thousands of guests may be accommodated for a large ceremony.* But often enough we find a combination of these factors—both the co-operation of a large group associated with the house, and the existence of a social ranking system within which members of an aristocracy enjoy the wealth and power which enable them to undertake Impressive construction projects. In such cases, the hhouse is designed, by its Impressive size, distinctive shape, and fine omamentation. to give visible sub- stance to a family’s claims to superior status, and to serve as an enduring sign of their prestige. Its construc- tion involves expensive ceremonies, and when finished it becomes the site of rituals. as has been discussed in Chapter 3. Each of these adds to its glory and may be commemorated by the addition of specific ornamental elements to the house—gable horns for the Nage, or ‘among the Toreja the carved head of a bulfalo for those who have held the highest level of funeral ceremony. ‘The horns of sactificed buffaloes fastened to the house posts, in Toraja (Figure 124). Sumba, Flores, and else here, likewise bear witness to past ceremontes, The aristocracy may, as among the Toraja. reserve to itself the right to construct a certain type of house, erect a particular kind of stone monument, or hold a particu- lar ritual. But they depend upon the co-operation of the rest of the community to help them execute these pro- jects, a fact which Is generally acknowledged in the distribution of meat ftom sacrificed animals in order to feed all those who have assisted In what follows, shall deal with a range of examples, in which we may see the house functioning (as far as rank and ritual systems are concerned) in a number of| slightly different ways. One special category is formed. by longhouse communities, in which the house itself constitutes both the soctal and the ritual universe: it shelters an entire community, and serves as the largest ritual unit. Longhouse societies may be highly egall- tarian like the Tban or the Sakuddel, or hierarchical lise the Maloh, Kenyah, or Kayan: but, as we shall see, the phenomenon of multi-family dwelling arrangements Is also extremely common in South-East Asia. Then there are societies within whose village communities some houses enjoy higher status than others, but which have no overall ranking system cutting right 140 though the society—no hereditary classes of nobles. commoners, or slaves. for example—only a ranking of houses within a particular village community in terms of seniority or closeness to a founder. Aa example is ‘Tanimbar. where rank is fluid rather than fixed and ‘may be lost over time as branch houses become further removed from core origin-houses, or through debt and clientage. Conversely. a debior reduced to slavery could on time, ifhe had enough children to help him. work himself out of penury and back up to commoner status (McKinnon 1983: 276-80). The Toba Batak provide another example. for traditionally each Toba clan or lineage dominated others within the villages which ts ‘own members had founded. while occupying a sub- ordinate role in other villages where they were not the founders—-for example, where members resided with their wifegivers. Thirdly. there are distinctly. hier- archical societies like the Toraja, Tetum, Savunese, ot Sumbanese with their hereditary ranks of nobles, commoners, and (formerly) staves. Here. aristocrats often presided (both politically and ritually) aver @ much larger district community or domain. Their houses were the political focus of their communities and were especially impressive structures, built to lst. Identification between ruling nobles and their houses, was a very close one, In Roti, indeed. the rulers of domains are called by the name of the house from which they are descended. In this type of society iis sometimes the case that “house’ ideology is largely ‘monopolized by the aristocracy—ordinary people have only a shallow genezlogical memory and less attach- ‘ment to houses. Fox suggests this is the case for the Atoni, except in the Insana princedom studied by Schulte Nordholt and Canningham—an area which has been influenced by their strongly house-oriented neighbours, the Tetum. fn a case like the Toraja, by contrast. nobles monopolized the right to build fine carved wood houses. yet the organization of kinship Ideology around the house is, as we shall see, a pria- ciple which applies throughout the society AL the end of this continuum we find centralized state systems, organtzed around a couct where hiet= archy and the etiquette of rank assumed still greater social importance. In a number of peity states, an ideology of kingship (often including a strong ritual component) was grafted on to ideas about the house— as for the Atoni or the Bugis with their concept of the ruler as ideally remaining in his/her palace (basically aan extra large house of traditional style), representingthe powerful navel or ‘still centre’ of the kingdom. similarly, the Minangkabau raja dwelt inland in the heart of Minangkabau territory. occupying the large timber palace at Pagarruyung. The raja had almost no political power and principally fulfilled a sacred, sym- bolic role, representing the unity of the Minangkabau. world (P. B. de Josselin de Jong 1951: 108), We can see, then, how closely kinship and ranking systems are intertwined within the house: the above frame- work should elp to clarify the examples which follow. in South-East Asia Wherever we look in the archipelago, we find societies in which the word ‘house’ designates not only a physical structure, but the group of kin who are living in itor who claim membership in it. Rumah among the Koro Batak or the Minangkabau, uma among the Sakuddei of Siberut, amu in Sava, uma again in Roti or among the Tetum and Ema, jada for the Mambal, rahan in Tanebar-Evav, tongkonan in Toraja, are all examples of such words, Even on the northern feinge of the Austronesian world, among the aboriginal peoples of Teiwan, the same centrality of the house can be seen in kinship organization, Shih Lei (1964; 110), writing of the Austronesian-speaking Paiwan, states: The family as institution is recognized by three aspects: the house. the name attached to it, and the people living in it, Even a single man or woman when provided with a house along with its traditional name may be considered as @ family. A house-name cepresents not only a house but also the members of a family living in the house. “House Socteties In Sumatra, among the patrilineal Karo, each house has its own name and lands, while among the matr- lineal Minangkabau, the most important unit is the saparuik (sublineage). or ‘people of one womb’, usually associated with a group of people living in one rumah dat (‘traditional’ house, or one where rituals are observed) or rumah gadang (great house). A great house ideally may accommodate three generations of people related through women: the saparuik has been escribed as ‘the most important functional unit’ of Minangkabau society {P. B. de Josselin de Jong 1951: 11; Kato 1982: 44). For the Sakuddei, uma refers both to the longhouse itself and to the patrilineal descent group which lives Im tt. As we saw in Chapter 3, the uma represents an ideal unity, reflected in communal participation in rituals, for which the house provides the setting. At 142 ee trl Ss SES SETS, the same time, these rituals are designed to diffe and ‘overcome the conflicts inherent in this style of group living, which demands intensive interaction between, its members. inthe case ofa conflict between two wa a third longhouse may intervene to act as @ neutral negotiator (Schefold 1982: 126-7). In Sava, both the house and the group tracing descent from ts founding ancestor ate called amu. The ‘house’ bes controling Interests in land, livestock, and the marriages ofits members. The Savunese compare their houses and villages metaphorically to bosts. ‘Like the members of a village. writes Kana (1980: 228). ‘the members of a house form a group of passengers on a perabts [boet.” The identification of house and kin group is explicit also in West Sumba, Van Wouden (1956: 192) states ‘hat here. the word uma means both the house and the patrilineal descent group associated with it. Bulding a new house makes a person the founder ofa lineage conferring undying prestige end ensuring that he will bbe worshipped as an ancestor (narapu) by his descend- ants. Even ifthe house should disappear. twill stil be remembered and the group ofits members retalas the possibility of rebuilding it, most particularly in the context of a feast or ceremony. A house maintains ceremonial inks with other houses from which it has branched off; thus some rituals ofthe oldest house in 4 community may embrace the whole village (van Wouden 1956: 193). Among the Ema of Timor, lamagirand (1975: 44) notes that kin groups (or groups of wite-glvers and wile-takers) are also thought of as ‘houses’ (uma). Some houses ate rendered sacred by the presence of heizloom valuables (gold and silver dises which con- stitute the house's insignia). A house of this kind plays 8 central part in the lives ofthe group of brothers who are linked to It (though not necessarily resident init) Certain rituals essential to the life of the group can only take place here. Clamagirand calls a house of this kind a ‘core house’ (Figure 125).Italwayshas around roof and is built on lend which is subject to ritual pro- hibitions, wherees ordinary houses, dependent on thelr core house, may have a ridged roof and can be built on ‘open land, Clamagirand (1980: 136) stresses, how- ever, that the ‘house’ group, consisting of a group of elder and younger brothers resident in the core house and its dependent houses, cannot be equated with a lineage: Although all members of @ group recognize @ common an- cestor, genealogical ties are not memorized. Rather. a group