At the domain and village level, we can identify at least three different levels of authority dealing with the organisation of Land cultivation and land rights; the Lord of the Land (’inetana ’amawatu), the Overseers of the Land (’ine ku, ’ame lema) and individual cultivators (nio tiko éu tako). The honorific title ‘Lord of the Land’, and other titles like it, are common in traditional eastern Indonesian societies. Arndt briefly describes the role of clan leader (kepala woe) among the Ngada tribe in dealing with clan land. Although clan land is divided between smaller groups, it still belongs to the clan (woe) and its cultivation is never free from the intervention of the clan leader (Arndt 1954: 353-4). Among the Endenese, the central position of therhaki pu’u or the rhaki tana (man of the source/land) is still recognised by other traditional leaders such as rhaki ria bewa or ‘speaking lord’ and the ndetu ’au or ‘village head’ (Nakagawa and Aoki 1993: 69; Suchtelen 1921: 69-70, 79, 83). Forth records the honorific title mangu tanangu or ‘owner of the land’ in Rindi, eastern Sumba. The full title in ritual speech is ina mangu tanangu, ama mangu lukungu, ‘mother of the land, father of the river’ (Forth 1981: 249). Among the Kedang of Lembata, Barnes also records the existence of the Lord of the Land (leu-auq wala), who possesses the authority to alienate individual fields (etang) because all land in cultivation is the communal possession of the clan (Barnes 1974: 90).
In ’Udi-Worowatu, which is typical of Keo and even of Nage, the full title for a Lord of the Land is ’ine tana ’ame watu, ‘mother land, father stone’, and refers to someone who represents a group descended from a common male ancestor or’embu. A Lord of the Land had significant power in organising land tenure and in settling various land disputes, and he even had the authority to take away a man’s fields and excommunicate him from village life if he did not fulfil his social obligations. For example, while there was initially land available for so-called war migrants and ‘invited warriors’ (topo todo dé’e taka todo nga), he had the right to prevent any individual from cultivating certain pieces of land. Once, in 1937, the Lord of the Land of Worowatu even abolished the right of the Witu people to erect a sacrificial post (léto laka) and undertake apala ritual in their own village of Witu. Nowadays, however, the authority of the ’ine tana ’ame watu seems to be rather nominal. He has no final power of decision in land disputes, but still possesses a moral authority that is binding in the context of adat assemblies.
In the domain of ’Udi-Worowatu, there are lesser village leaders under the Lord of the Land who are called the ‘heads of the fields’ (‘ine ku ‘ame lema). [11] In actuality, these men are leaders or overseers of the ancestral land of specific kin groups or extended families. They are also sometimes referred to as ‘village leaders’ (mosa nua daki ‘oda). [12] Indeed, every named village has its own leader, who will support the Lord of the Land by taking on some of his responsibilities, or by ‘passing on warnings and instructions to the members of his kin group or extended family’ (wuku ’udu ’énga ’éko). Usually, this position is held by a lineal descendant of the apical male ancestor (’embu). For Worowatu village, the ’ine tana ’ame watu also functions as the ‘ine ku ‘ame lema (always chosen from the descendants of Taku Nuru, the joint-office was most recently held by ’Ameka’e Wea, a descendant of ’Embu Waja ’Ake). For the village of ’Udi, this position is filled by the descendant of ’Embu Rangga ’Ame ’Ari; for the village of Bedo or Kodinggi by the descendant of ’Embu Je Lendo; while in the village of Tudi Wado the position is filled by the descendants of ’Embu Sambu Mite. [13] The village leader of Ma’undai, a Muslim village, does not hold the title’ine ku ’ame lema because he belongs to a group of ‘invited warriors’ (keu mere kambe dewa).
Individual fields cultivated by a personal cultivator are termed nio tiko éu tako. Boundaries are generally demarcated by a line of coconut or areca palm trees. Since no one actually ‘owns’ the land, a person can obtain rights to the land he cultivates as long as he is actively engaged in exploiting the land, belongs to an indigenous male ancestral lineage and respects various aspects of village life (ndi’i nua mera oda). Aspects of village life that should be respected include the rights of other members to gain access to ancestral land, and the obligation to give contributions of food and animals during the ritual ceremonies held in the village (pebhu tindu ndou mapi).
Each individual field of ancestral land (tana ’ine ’embu) is under the supervision of an overseer of the land (‘ine ku ame lema). The individual rights to the cultivated fields can never amount to full ownership or possession but only to a right of cultivating the land for one’s livelihood and for feeding one’s children (tau tuka pagha ’ana). This idea might be reminiscent of a concept of usufruct, as Hooker suggests:
Van Vollenhoven and later writers, particularly Ter Haar, denied that the rights of an individual could amount to ‘ownership’ in the European sense by which they meant the availability of the right of a free and unrestricted alienation. Ter Haar indeed went further and refused to distinguish between an individual right of possession and the right of usufruct. (Hooker 1978: 119)
Apart from considering the rights and responsibilities associated with the three levels of guardians of the land, we must also understand the distribution of a sacrificial pig’s head in relation to leadership. In ’Udi Worowatu, apart from the Lord of the Land and his Overseers of the Land, other ‘elders’ (mosa daki) are also considered worthy of receiving special portions at a communal meal (nado mére). [14] That these leaders must be aware of their responsibilities towards the whole of society is well indicated in the adage; ‘The elders should warn after eating and drinking’ (mosa ta ’odo ka waka, daki ta ’odo minu na’u), which means that they are responsible for encouraging others to follow the path of virtue in order to obtain harmonious relations within society and with the ancestral spirits. This seems equivalent to the task of mosa laki among the Lio, that is, ‘to ensure a reproduction of cosmogonic conditions within the limits imposed by the social conditions in contemporary life’ (Howell 1996: 102).
The mosa daki’s powers are limited to their own village (nua). Within their village they are known asmosa nua, daki oda. Even the Lord of the Land (ine tana ame watu), who also has the title of ‘land and stone’ leadership (mosa tana daki watu), cannot intervene in any matters of daily governance in other villages (nua). Each nua is a completely independent body in political terms. Hence, when disputes or conflicts arise between the inhabitants or mosa daki of two different villages (nua), then the two parties will meet under the supervision of a mosa daki from a third nua, who is respected and can function as an impartial judge. According to Keo ideology, a judge is the one who acts as a measurer, and who functions by measuring with a device consisting of a long bar and a counterweight which can be moved back and forth along the longer arm of the bar (the person and the device are called tuka timba mata dasi). [15] In Tana Worowatu, the mosa daki of Nua Bedo (Kodinggi) is called on to act as tuka timba mata dasi whenever Worowatu village is in conflict with either ’Udi or Witu.
A careful examination of ritual speech and practice shows subtle differences in the roles of traditional leaders, and we can identify at least three levels of mosa daki. The highest level is the Lord of the Land, who carries the honorific title ’ine tana ’ame watu. Because he is simultaneously a community leader (mosa daki), he also accepts the title of ‘Lord of the Land and stone’ (mosa tana daki watu). His moral and political leadership used to extend over a wider territorial space known in the ritual language as mosa gége mére, daki danggo déwa, which literally means ‘a big leader who guides in the floods, an influential chief who shepherds in the plain’; that is, someone who has power and authority extending over a wide territory. At the middle level are the Overseers of the Land. Asmosa daki, they receive the honorific title of ‘village leaders’ (mosa nua daki ’oda or mosa ’udu daki ’éko) or the title of leader of a smaller social unit, such as ‘leader of the baskets’ (mosa mboda daki wati). A third group are mosa kamba daki wéa. This type of leadership is attained by means of material wealth (kamba wéa: buffaloes and gold) or some form of prestige associated with the outside world.[16]
These categories of leaders, especially the first two, have existed for centuries in’Udi Worowatu society, but colonial intervention also introduced new types of leadership that did not fit the local context. The Dutch Colonial Government introduced the notion of kingdom (radjaschap) under a raja and a number of lower-ranking supporters (kepala mére,kepala nua andMandoor ). The Indonesian system of government then introduced another set of leadership positions, such as bupati,kepala camat and kepala desa, with various subordinates such as sekretaris,kepala urusan, kepala rukun tetangga and kepala rukun warga.
Concerning the rights and obligations of traditional leaders, my informant, Severinus Rangga, once explained that they ‘put the bad things on their head, and carry the difficulties on their shoulder’ (woso su’u ta re’e, wangga ta amba). This statement implies that adat leaders have obligations more than rights. Personally, ’ine tana ’ame watu never receive any material gift from farmers in exchange for receiving land to cultivate. During rituals, however, those land cultivators who are immigrant newcomers have to pay contributions in cash and kind, which is referred to as ‘adding to and overfilling a half-full basket’ (tutu mbotu, penu mbora). These payments are not for the Lord of the Land and the adat leaders as such, but for the whole society.
During communal meals (nado mére), the local leaders alone have the right to ‘sit cross-legged’ (bhodhu pémba jawa) at the centre of an adat assembly (mbabho ngasi). At the same time, they have obligations to solve problems in the assembly and to instruct the people of the village by way of ‘calling the people from the head and the tail of the village’ (tau wuku ’udu ’énga ’éko). Only then, during the concluding meal, do they ‘receive the head of the pig’ (simo ’udu wawi). The social and moral status associated with traditional leadership has nevertheless been sufficiently desirable to create competition among various descent lines for the title of Lord of the Land and other local offices.
In the case of Worowatu, only descendants of the so-called ‘three ancestors’ (’embu tedu) are candidates for the office of Lord of the Land and are allowed to receive sacrificial animal heads (pig, goat or dog) at communal meals. The gift and subdivision of an animal’s head in a village ceremony thus functions as the symbolic representation of a social order of precedence. [17] The ‘three ancestors’ are three siblings: Waja De’e, her younger brother, Waja ’Ake, and the youngest brother, Waja Sébho, as depicted in Figure 1. [18]
The real authority askepala mére belongs to a descendant of the elder brother, Waja ’Ake, and the man who currently holds this office is Amekae Wea. He is the one who ‘sits silently like a basket’ (eta kemu, bhodhu jotu bhida ko’o sondu) and never speaks in adat assemblies. The right to speak (mbabho ngasi) falls to a descendant of the youngest brother, Waja Sébho, namely to Jamaludin Husein. My informant explained that the upper part of the pig’s head including the ears should be offered to Amekae Wea, who sits, leading and listening, while the snout of the pig should be offered to Jamaludin Husein, because he is the one who speaks. [19] The eldest female line is not considered in the distribution of power among origin houses. There is a right associated with her seniority as the eldest, namely the right to speak, but this right is passed on to the house of the youngest brother, Waja Sébho. This type of diarchy, or dyadic structure of speech and silence, is encountered in other eastern Indonesian societies as well.[20]
A pig’s head is most commonly given to someone as the acknowledgment of his authority and leadership as Lord of the Land or Overseer of the Land. These offices are based on communal acceptance (’ata mbé’o). Consequently, to ask for a pig’s head at a communal meal without entitlement is an insult to the whole community and a violation of the social order. For example, an incident related to a pig’s head occurred in the early 19th century, which demeaned the Lord of the Land of Worowatu and caused a serious tribal war between ’Udi-Worowatu and the Niondoa and Giriwawo villages. [21] The oral history is as follows:
Once upon a time, ’Embu Daki Tonggo from Sa’o Mere Doka Ora (central large house) in the village of ’Udi invited the neighbouring village leaders (mosa daki), relatives, friends (minda woe ka’e ari) and people in the village to participate in clearing a garden (songga) in Dandu. The leaders from the neighbouring villages were ’Embu Nanga Medi from Niondoa, ’Embu Jawa Wonga from Giriwawo, ’Embu Siga Dalo from Worowatu and ’Embu Tiko Embo from Bedo. At breakfast time (pesa ’uta poa), Nanga Medi and Jawa Wonga asked for the pig’s head, but Daki Tonggo did not give it to them. This degenerated into a dispute. The work did not go well. The leaders from ’Udi, Worowatu and Bedo with their people abandoned their work and left the leaders of Giri Wawo and Niondoa behind. They brought their food down to Ku Dhema, near the village of ’Udi, where they had their communal meal (nado ka) on their land. Nanga Medi and Jawa Wonga did not come along. The conflict went on and resulted in a tribal war between the two parties. Tiko ’Embo sided with and helped the ’Udi-Worowatu group. Nanga Medi and Jawa Wonga’s group sent a courier to seek help from Tiko ’Embo from Bedo. Unofficially, Tiko ’Embo sent several men under the guard of ’Embu Wenggu Wonga as peacekeepers (koe timbo né’e tuki ’api). The main support was received from the Lio people (’Ata Aku) led by ’Embu ’Epu Kojo. The ’Udi-Worowatu party sought help from ’Embu Nggawa Ende and Kala Ende. Both parties used guns and black magic (kadha), and the war is said to have lasted for 12 years.
At the end of the war, it was announced that Pi’o Bhoko, a man from ’Udi, and the invited war leader from Lio, Epu Kojo, had both been killed. Finally, a Bedo peacekeeping team was able to bring about a truce. As a reward, Bedo village received seven pieces of land from the Niondoa and Giri Wawo parties.