On the basis of oral tradition and mythical history, I would conclude that under the Dutch, the size of a landholding might have played an important role in political leadership in some parts of eastern Flores. The people of ’Udi-Worowatu, however, based their Lord of the Land position on the authority passed down from generation to generation from the founding ancestor, Taku Nuru. Although this traditional office was more pertinent to the ritual sphere than to modern politics, recent democratic elections have given descendants of the Lord of the Land a new opportunity to gain political office by using their traditional prestige, their newly acquired educational qualifications and a knack for charismatic leadership.

The people of ’Udi-Worowatu clearly still hold to the philosophy that ‘no one owns the land, but people belong to the land’. This philosophy depicts a notion of the land as mother, as is implied in the metaphors of ritual speech. Every individual cultivator (nio tiko eu tako) has a right to a share of ancestral land (tana suku ortana ’ine ’embu) under the supervision of the guardians of the land, namely the Lord of the Land (’ine tana ’ame watu) and the Overseers of the Land (’ine ku ’ame lema). In proportion to their land usage rights, they have socio-religious obligations to participate in various rites dealing with the sacred land that is under the control of the ritual domain (tana) of Worowatu, a federation that consists of the villages of Witu and Ma’uara. Groups of Muslims and indigenous migrants have been incorporated into a particular source house, and are all part of this ritual confederacy.

Every village (nua) in the domain (tana) of Worowatu consists of a constellation of dwelling houses (sa’o ndi’i) derived from a single source house (sa’o pu’u). Each village has its own elders (’ine ku, ’ame lema) and can be categorised as a unit of customary law (’uku ’ada), underwritten by a very strong link of kinship and co-residence. In reality, this extended kin group has the right to cultivate and control certain pieces of land through the office of the ’ine tana ’ame watu. Moreover, the daily cultivation of the land is carried out by particular individuals or families. Continuous cultivation of a certain piece of land or even several pieces of land tends not to create or produce personal rights over the land. In dealing with the rights and authority of ’ine ku, ’ame lema, some of the sociopolitical and religious authority given to the Lord of the Land is also invested in the sub-lords of the land, who operate at the level of the nua. The authority to receive a pig’s head, to lead an adat assembly (mbabho ngasi) as a legal and executive leader, and to place the first corner stone for a new construction are all invested in the ’ine ku, ’ame lema.

Although narratives of origin are designed to establish an order of precedence for each person or house group, conflicts over power and status are continually played out in disputes between neighbouring groups, between the descendants of the younger brother and the elder brother, between the Lord and the Overseers of the Land. The most controversial case of conflict recorded was between the indigenous people and Muslim migrants, the Hadramis, in Ma’unori. The Hadramis were outsiders but had been accepted as insiders for generations until their recent violation of theadat contract with the indigenous people caused tension. Thus, the notion of installing outsiders on the inside has not proven to be an absolute transformation in this case. The relative ease of contestation for land claims based on oral history may well provide a basis for future conflict between indigenous people and migrants, between the commoners and the Lord of the Land. In the context of current national politics, religion is becoming more important as compared with other forms of identity construction. However, the idea that the indigenous people are ‘children of the land’ (’ana tana) remains central, as does the idea of indigenous groups entering relationships with newcomers by incorporation into a common source house and by subsequent sharing of the same ancestral land (tana ’ine ’embu).