Our own ideas of origin — either the Judeao-Christian-Muslim or the evolutionary view of human derivation — ill prepare us to appreciate Austronesian ideas of origin or to take seriously the implications of these ideas. Our ideas look to a unitary, if not unified, conception of origin whereas the Austronesians tolerate — or, rather relish — the notion of multiple origins. Often this multiplicity derives from an initial unity that is shattered — the destruction of a cosmic tree, the internal rupture of a universal egg, or the separation of a primary couple — but once this unity is shattered, concern is with a multiplicity of entities. Although this general notion may be applied to all beings, I shall confine myself here to ideas of the origin of humankind and its implications for the structuring of society.

In some myths, a creator god attempts various experiments before achieving the appropriate creature. Usually this creature is an aristocratic form of human being — not the progenitor of all humankind. In other myths, a variety of humans derive from the destruction of different parts of a cosmic tree; in still others, this variety comes from the fertile union of different sorts of beings. In most Austronesian societies, however, a multiplicity of origins is assumed and groups as well as individuals are allowed to trace their origins as is deemed appropriate for social differentiation. The sharing of origins is socially defined and thus always circumscribed. Thus in a now classic ethnography, Michael Young reports that the eight clans of the Kalauna of Goodenough Island emerged from the earth in a specific order “bringing with them the customs and competences by which [they] …are still identified” (1971:29). The same description would hold for the hundreds of name-clans of the Atoni Meto of Timor, most of whom trace their separate origins to some emergence site marked by a rock and tree.

Under the influence of Islam or Christianity, some unifying of human origin accounts has occurred. The rulers of Java trace a double origin relying on genealogies of the right and left, one of which derives from the gods and heroes of Java, the other from the prophet and saints of Islam. Similarly the aristocracy of some of the domains of Roti have included Biblical figures in their own royal genealogies but such genealogies do not embrace all members of their own domain; they would deny a common origin with all of their commoner class. The introduction of new sacred versions of origin have enhanced rather than obliterated the idea of multiple origins.

The notion of multiple origins is a prime means of social differentiation. Such a notion may operate at many levels within a society. For my purposes here, I want to concentrate on the implications of this notion for the structuring of society, focusing on selected examples. I use the phrase “origin structure” as a general designation for the diversity of social formation by which Austronesians explain and order their derivation.