The three societies I have focused on were chosen purposely. In historical linguistic terms, which are relevant to this discussion, each of these societies belongs to a different Malayo-Polynesian subgroup: the Ilongot belong to the Western; the Ata Tana ’Ai to the Central; and the Kalauna to the Eastern. Together they cover a wide dispersal of Austronesian-speaking peoples. However, in the anthropological literature that has made descent and marriage the principal — if not exclusive — criteria for defining and typifying Austronesian societies, such societies as these would rarely be considered together except possibly as contrastive types.^[2] My purpose in considering these three societies was to show their similarities to one another, particularly in their concern with origins as a prime marker of social identity. In doing this, I have simply attempted to take seriously precisely those features of identity that the members of these societies appear to regard as fundamentally important.

Having set the stage for an alternative understanding of Austronesian societies through a consideration of their origin structures, I now wish to extend my initial observations in a more speculative fashion. If one were to adopt a bird’s eye (or perhaps better, a “satellite”) view of the Austronesian societies from Madagascar to Hawaii, one might venture a few generalizations based on our current knowledge of these societies. The first of these is that the Austronesians show a range of ways in which they reckon their social origins: from fully bilateral reckoning to strict lineal reckoning. The majority of Austronesian societies, when examined closely, are neither fully bilateral nor strictly lineal. This large middle range of Austronesian societies that is neither exclusively one nor the other is, of course, what is interesting to the analyst of social organization. But for the purposes of analysis, it is better to examine the two extremes of the continuum. If, as a first approximation, one were to ask not just which societies are the most bilateral in their modes of social reckoning but where these societies are located, a crude pattern appears to emerge. These societies are found on the relatively large islands of the Austronesian world, areas of potential expansion, where land and other resources are (or, in recent historical times, were once) readily available. Thus bilateral societies are most common in the main Philippine islands but particularly in northern Luzon, Mindoro and much of Mindanao; in Borneo; large areas of Madagascar, and in Java; but bilateral reckoning is also characteristic of the early Maori of New Zealand and of historical Hawaiians.^[3] The principal mode of social differentiation in these societies is relative age (i.e. elder/younger) which may, in certain contexts, provide the means of creating an extended order of precedence (as, for example, amongst the Maori) but more generally offers an opportune line of fission, whereby the younger — or in a few cases, the elder — sibling simply moves away to found a new settlement. The founder of this new settlement thus becomes the point for a new system of local precedence (Bellwood in press). I would describe all of these systems as systems of lateral expansion.

In contrast to these societies are those that endeavour to restrict social reckoning in an ever-more-exclusive mode. Again, if one looks to the distribution of these societies, they are to be found on smaller islands, but not on islands too small to support such exclusivity, on the coastal margins of large islands where they are (or were) concerned with trading and raiding, and also among specific notable status groups in the very midst of societies with bilateral reckoning. Status is a preoccupation in these societies and it is reckoned in subtle and complex ways. Such societies are centred on a single source. Elaborate narratives of origin — and with them, exclusive genealogies — to this source are seen as a prerogative of high status. Such narratives are exclusively preserved and jealously guarded. The degree to which such exclusivity is achieved may vary as do the means to achieve precedence in such societies.

What is striking is that throughout the Austronesian world the same formal structure has been devised for achieving this exclusivity. I refer to this formal structure as a system of apical demotion.^[4] In such a system, only one line retains status; and within that line, in each generation, ultimately one individual. All other individuals are automatically demoted and thus lose status relative to a single apical point. Unless they can manage to reunite their line with that of the highest status line, they continue to decrease in status. Such a society has a single source of precedence with restricted modes of reckoning relationships to this source.

Examples of societies that have developed systems of apical demotion are numerous but these systems, by their exclusivity, generally do not apply to the whole of these societies. Apical demotion is a dynastic device of an elite to distinguish itself from the majority of its own society. This form of precedence emerges within particular societies and invariably leads to an internal division, whereby one segment of society traces exclusive origins in marked contrast to a more reflexible reckoning of origins by the rest of the population.

Such systems of apical demotion are generally to be found in societies with royalty — rulers, kings, rajas, sultans and sacred chiefs — though not all such societies rely only upon apical demotion. Examples of such systems are those of the Merina aristocracy, the ruling classes of the Malay states as well as those of the former Bugis and Makassarese, or of the nobility of Mataram on Java and of the high Balinese who claim to come from the kingdom of Majapahit. In eastern Indonesia, the ruling clans in many of the states and domains of the region — in eastern Sumba or in central Roti, for example — are predicated on systems of apical demotion. In the Pacific, the classic systems of this sort are those ruling elite of Tonga, Samoa, Tahiti and Hawaii.

As a first step, it is useful to note some of the common features of systems of apical demotion wherever they occur in the Austronesian world. With this perspective, it is possible to recognize formal resemblances between Bali and Tonga or the Merina kingdom and the Malay states. It is, however, the differences among these systems that are of equal interest. Thus within a formal system, it becomes possible to delineate specific structural differences. In systems of apical demotion, it is not the way that status is automatically diminished that is significant, but rather the variety of ways by which status, in different systems, is maintained and promoted.

Thus generally within the western subgroup of Malayo-Polynesians, a greater relative stress is placed on the husband/wife couple as a focus of status determination. Genealogies that record high status often preserve the names of marriage partners (see Bulbeck, in press, for a particularly lucid examination of the Makassarese system of apical demotion based on substantial written records of married couples). Status derives from both sides of the marriage and involves a careful balance. Further elements may add weight to this balance. Among the Merina, the first-born is a social category of particular importance. Hence the marriage of a first-born man of high rank with a first-born woman of equally high rank was the ideal device for attaining apical distinction. By contrast, in the central-eastern subgroups of Malayo-Polynesians, greater stress is focused on the brother/sister pair. A cultural ideal, muted among the Western Malayo-Polynesians, is that the brother/sister pair (or the lines of sibling differentiation that they represent) should be reunited in their offspring. Among the Central Malayo-Polynesians, the brother in this pair is accorded positive status with the result that, in structural terms, the mother’s brother’s line retains and confers status. Marriages tend to return to this line to maintain status. Further to the east, especially in Polynesia, greater weighting is given to the sister in this pair with the result that relations to the father’s sister’s line are crucial to status reckoning. Tonga represents an excellent example of this Austronesian transformation.

Another characteristic feature of systems of apical demotion relates not to the achievement of status but to what occurs when the achievement of status is blocked. Systems of apical demotion often function as systems of predatory expulsion. They regularly expel frustrated figures of high status who, by the authority of their status, can gather around themselves followers who will join them in leaving the old system and establishing a new status system elsewhere. The history of the Austronesians, especially as this history is told in elaborate oral narratives or early written chronicles, is replete with instances of predatory expulsion. The point to be made, however, is that this form of expansion is a result of “crowding” in the system. Without “crowding” —with few restrictions on resources of land and water — systems of apical demotion do not arise and expansion is more likely to occur by lateral “hiving off” of social groups of equal status.