Ecology of Indonesian Papua Part One. Andrew J. Marshall
Читать онлайн книгу.
is New Guinea: the last unknown by G. Souter (1963, Sydney). A useful earlier review (to 1934) by C. C. F. M. le Roux appears in Klein’s Nieuw-Guinée (1, 1935; see above). Valuable for expeditions, individuals and localities up to 1902 is the very detailed Entdeckungsgeschichte von Neu-Guinea by A. Wichmann (1909–1912, Leiden; in Nova Guinea, 1–2). All three works are well documented.
Botanical exploration (for Malesia in general) is covered by M. J. van Steenis-Kruseman in series I of Flora Malesiana (1, 1950; 5, 1958; 7, 1974) with later coverage in Flora Malesiana Bulletin. For zoology, entomology, and marine biology, there is no single source, although monographs and reviews of major groups sometimes include historical sections.
"Bioinventory"—a current successor to "primary" and most "secondary" biotic exploration—is usefully aired in W. Takeuchi and M. Golman, Floristic documentation imperatives: some conclusions from contemporary surveys in Papua New Guinea (in Sida 19: 445–468. 2001) and A. Allison, Biological surveys—new perspectives in the Pacific (in Organisms, Diversity and Evolution 3: 103–110. 2003). Finally, reference may be made to The natural world of New Guinea: hopes, realities and legacies by the present writer (pp. 89–138 in Nature in its greatest extent: Western science in the Pacific (1988, Honolulu), ed. R. MacLeod and P. F. Rehbock).
Acknowledgments
For their 1982 chapter, Frodin and Gressitt were indebted for assistance to Drs. F. R. Fosberg, L. B. Holthuis, P. Raven, P. van Royen, J. J. H. Szent-Ivany, and to curators and librarians of the Bishop Museum, California Academy of Sciences, American Museum of Natural History, Museum of Comparative Zoology, the University of Papua New Guinea, the Rijksherbarium (Leiden), and others. The present revision has been entirely the work of the writer, who here acknowledges the facilities of the Herbarium and Library of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, as well as some assistance through personal communications.
Marshall, A. J., and Beehler, B. M. (eds.). 2006. The Ecology of Papua. Singapore: Periplus Editions.
1.3. The Socio-cultural Plurality of Papuan Society
J. R. MANSOBEN
The Socio-cultural Diversity of Papuan People
THR PROVINCE OF PAPUA (as construed to include all of western New Guinea) is the largest in Indonesia (416,000 km2, or three times the size of Java). Within this expansive area, two million people live at the lowest population density in Indonesia (approximately 4 persons per km2; 1999 census data). Despite this relatively small population size, Papua exhibits a much greater diversity of ethnicities and cultures than any other Indonesian province. This chapter is an overview of the variation in language, social structure, leadership systems, religion, livelihood systems, land tenure system, orientation of cultural values, and work ethic in this highly diverse province. Although a complete review of these diverse elements would fill many volumes, the information given here may help provide some insight into Papua’s rich cultural and social heritage, and may assist in the design of suitable and sustainable programs for the development of Papua and its peoples.
Languages
According to language experts at the Summer Institute for Linguistics, approximately 269 living local languages are spoken in Papua (Ethnologue Website). Language provides a means of communication as well as a symbol of group identity, suggesting that Papua contains a minimum of 269 distinct ethnic groups.
Papua’s languages are typically classified into two large groups, or mother languages: Austronesian and Non-Austronesian (often called Papuan). The Austrone-sian mother language group is comprised of languages spoken by coastal communities (e.g., Biak, Wandammen, Waropen, Maya). The Non-Austronesian (or Papuan) language group contains languages spoken by people that live in remote areas in the center of the island, from the western Vogelkop to the eastern tip of New Guinea (e.g., Meybrat, Dani, Ekari, Asmat, Muyu, and Sentani).
The Papuan language groups are divided into ten phyla: The Trans New Guinea Phylum, West Papuan Phylum, Sepik-Ramu Phylum, Torricelli Phylum, Sko Phylum, Kwomtari Phylum, Arai (Left May) Phylum, Amto-Musian Phylum, Geelvink Bay Phylum, and East Bird’s Head (Vogelkop) Phylum. These phyla are further split into language families. Hence, one phylum consists of several language families, each containing several local languages or dialects. This language classification was initiated by Voorhoeve and McElhanon. The high linguistic diversity on Papua provides a unique opportunity for the study of languages and language evolution.
The diversity of languages in Papua poses a challenge to development efforts in this area, since mutual understanding and communication is difficult when so many different languages are spoken in one province. However, the diversity of languages in Papua has led in recent decades to the widespread adoption of Bahasa Indonesia (and Melayu languages in the past), which serves as an intermediary language that is used among different ethnic groups within Papua and with people from other parts of Indonesia. Therefore, despite the high linguistic diversity in Papua, most Papuans speak and understand Bahasa Indonesia. Indeed a higher proportion of Papuans are fluent in this language than people in most other Indonesian provinces. This common language helps to offset some of the challenges inherent to the high linguistic diversity in Papua, and should aid development efforts in Papua in the future.
Social Structure
In this context, social structure refers to the patterns of social relationships that maintain group cohesion and social unity. Typically, these patterns of social relationships are organized around kinship, and can be characterized by the terminology used to refer to family members and their inheritance systems. Kinship terminology is extremely useful in understanding social structure because kinship terms frequently convey details about the roles of family members and the interactions among them, and about social rights and responsibilities, all of which may differ greatly among groups.
Pouwer (1966) suggests that the people of Papua can be divided into at least four groups based on their systems of kinship terminology. The first group uses a kinship terminology system similar to the Iroquois, a Native American nation (Iroquois type). The Iroquois system classifies cousins in parallel with siblings, and uses a different expression for cross-cousins. Another characteristic is the use of the same expression for father and all male brothers from both maternal and paternal sides (uncles). The languages of Biak, Iha, Waropen, Senggi, and Marind-Anim, Humboldt (Yos Sudarso) Bay, and Me are included within this group.
The second group uses kinship terminology similar to those used by native peoples in Hawai’i (Hawai’ian type). In this system, the same expression is used for siblings and all parallel and cross-cousins. Ethnic groups using this kinship terminology include Mairasi, Mimika, Hattam-Manikion, Asmat, Kimam, and Pantai Timur Sarmi people.
The third group uses the Omaha type kinship system. Omaha type is a system that uses different terms for matrilineal and patrilineal cross-cousins and incorporates information about generations into their kinship terminology in an asymmetric way. On the maternal side, cross-cousins are raised a generation while those on the paternal side are lowered a generation. Hence, the expression for mother’s brother’s son is the same as mother’s brother and the expression for father’s sister’s son is the same as sister’s son. Included in this group are the people of Auwyu, Dani, Meybrat, Mek in the Star Mountains, and Muyu.
The fourth group contains people that use the Iroquois-Hawai’ian type of kinship terminology. Included in this system are people of Bintuni, Tor, and West Coast of Sarmi (Pouwer 1966).
Papuan peoples can also be classified according to which of two major inheritance systems they recognize. The first inheritance system used in Papua is patrilineal, where inheritance is from father to son or among other male kin. This system is used by the people of Meybrat, Me, Dani, Biak, Waropen, Wandammen, Sentani, Marind-Anim, and Nimboran. The second major inheritance system used in Papua is the matrilineal system, in which inheritance is passed through the female kin. Some Papuan people use a system that is intermediate between these two major types. In such bilateral systems, inheritance is either through the father’s or the mother’s kin. This type is used by remote communities in Sarmi. Similarly, some communities practice ambilateral or ambilineal structure,