Marshall Sahlins, in a well-known essay on “The Stranger-King”, has called attention to the origin of the Noikoro chiefs of Fiji who trace their beginnings from a handsome stranger who is carried to the shore of Viti Levu by a shark, wanders into the interior of the island, is taken in by a local chief whose daughter he marries and becomes the founder of the ruling clan known as “The Sharks”. Thus the ruler has a different origin from the rest of the population; he is a stranger, a guest, a person of the sea as opposed to the people of the land. In form, this is a classic origin narrative that is repeated in different guises throughout the Austronesian world. In Timor, the ancestor of the ruling line of Sonbai is discovered in mysterious circumstances as a resplendent youth who is taken in by the local population and elevated to ruler. The Sonbai ruler was treated like the Fijian ruler. To quote Sahlins: “he is … immobilized: he ‘just sits,’ Fijians say, i.e., in the house as a woman — ‘and things are brought to him”’ (Sahlins 1985:91).

Another variant of this narrative can be seen in the origin of the ruling line of Termanu on the island of Roti. Here the ancestor of the ruling clan arrives from the sea and in a series of contests outwits the ancestor of the land, thereby gaining rule but without ritual authority over the earth. Thus the ruler shares a different origin from the head of the earth and this dichotomy forms the basis of the domain.

Structurally similar variants of this narrative are cited as the foundation of many of the ruling lines of the coastal states of Western Indonesia. To cite but one example, the founder of the once powerful line of the Muslim ruler-saints of Giri on the north coast of Java was washed ashore in a box at Gresik and raised by a pious widow. This figure, known originally as Jaka Samodra, “Sea Youth”, became the first Sunan Giri, one of the most important purveyors of Islam on Java (Fox 1991:24-28).

Another variant of this narrative serves as one of the principal legendary charters for the structure of Bali. This legend begins with a victory by the Javanese Hindu kingdom of Majapahit in Bali and the despatch of a noble entourage led by a Brahmana priest named as Ida Dalam Ketut Kresna Kepakisan to bring civilization to the island. From this priest and his entourage come the ruling Triwangsa who continue even after the fall of Majapahit to provide the knowledge of the Hindu rituals and of statecraft that transforms the Bali Aga populations of the island. Only a minority on Bali, however, are twiceborn; the charter of their origin links spiritual derivation with a historical locality, physical conquest with civilizing status and distinguishes them from the majority of the population. This enduring charter is predicated on multiple origins and the perpetuation of different statuses. Instead of being contested, it is further embellished by other charters that also claim separate origins for particular social groups (Fox in press).

A diversity of origins within the same society creates a diversity of possibilities. In many Austronesian societies, origins are conceptualized as a form of growth: derivation from a “source”, “root”, “base”, or “trunk”. In this structure, which may be graphically described as a tree, vine or climbing plant, growth is either upward or outward toward a “tip” or apical point. The Rotinese use this metaphor to describe their maternal origins as well as the structure of their clans; other populations in eastern Indonesia, such as the Weyewa of Sumba, the Mambai of East Timor or the Atoni of West Timor use a similar metaphor to describe “origin structures” of varying sorts (Fox 1971, 1980, 1988a; Kuipers 1985; McWilliam 1990; Traube 1989). The central Polynesians use the same metaphor to trace origins among different island populations; the Satawal of Micronesia to identify the matrilineal source clans on their island of origin (Siikala in press; Sudo in press).

Where this metaphor is used to describe specific groups, it would be more appropriate to refer to these groups as “ascent groups” rather than “descent groups” —an observation made some years ago by Hooper in his discussion of Tahitian social organization (1970). For these groups, social reckoning is from a base upwards, rather than from some apex downward (see Fox 1988a). Often in societies with such ascent structures, one group “grows” to prominence and it is around this group that other ascent groups cluster. Thus in Termanu on the island of Roti, one clan, Masa-Huk, of outside origin forms the base (huk) that gives rise to a complex set of multiple lineage branches (ndanak) in whose shadow other lesser clans are shaded.

Such “ascent groups”, however, are only one form of origin structure among the Austronesians. Heavenly origins are also a common form of “outside origin”. Groups claiming origins of this sort may more aptly be called “descent groups”. The nobility in societies of southern Sulawesi — the Bugis, Makassarese and some Toraja — trace their origins to a class of heavenly beings known as the tomanurung, the “descenders” who contributed the white blood that distinguishes nobles from commoners. Like the rulers of Fiji, the lords of Timor, or the Triwangsa of Bali, the nobles of southern Sulawesi trace separate origins distinct from the rest of the population over whom they hold authority.