The Historical Delineation of “Eastern Indonesia”

1For the better part of two centuries, researchers, relying on different methods, have attempted to distinguish eastern Indonesia within the wider Austronesian archipelago. Alfred Russel Wallace in his Malay Archipelago (1869) was much concerned with the differences he claimed to perceive between Malay and Alfuru populations in the eastern archipelago. As a consequence, he drew not one but two distinct lines through eastern Indonesia. The first of these lines, which has become known simply as the ‘Wallace Line’ was labelled the “Division between the Indo-Malayan and the Austro-Malayan Regions”. The second line, which extends much further to the east and separates Sumba, Flores and the Moluccan islands from the rest of the archipelago, represented his “Division between Malayan and Polynesian Races” (See Map in Volume I set between pages 14 and 15).

2The next significant attempt to delineate eastern Indonesia was undertaken by the Dutch linguist, J. C. G. Jonker, who served as a language-officer of the Netherlands East Indies government, first in Makassar and then in Kupang from 1885 to 1901, and was eventually appointed, in 1909, as Professor in Leiden. Based on his extensive field research, Jonker produced comparative studies of at least nine different local languages. Although he pointed to critical differences between the languages of eastern and western Indonesia in a major article (Jonker 1914), he was more concerned to describe eastern Indonesian languages; he did, however, distinguish a “Bima-Sumba” group of languages from a “Timor-Ambon” group of languages within eastern Indonesia. He set forth his outline of eastern Indonesian languages in a series of comparative analyses in the Encyclopaedie van Nederlandsche-Indië (1917-1921) that became the basis for S. J. Esser’s 1938 linguistic maps in the Atlas van Tropisch Nederland.

3Among linguists, in 1965, Isodore Dyen, published a lexico-statistical analysis of Austronesian languages in which he distinguished a Hesperonesian subfamily of Malayo-Polynesian whose western boundary fell between Sumbawa, Sumba and Flores in the south, between Sulawesi and Buru to the north and between the Sangir Islands and Halmahera. In an influential anthropological paper that followed on from Dyen’s work, the anthropologist George Peter Murdock (1968:7-8) claimed to find a close correlation between Malayo-Polynesian sibling terms on either side, east and west, of Dyen’s delineation of a Hesperonesian subgroup of languages.

4More significantly, in publications from 1974 to 2009, Robert Blust has argued for a Central Malayo-Polynesian (CEMP) subgroup. He originally designated this as “Eastern Austronesian” (Blust 1974) to distinguish this grouping from Western Malayo-Polynesian. In later reformulations, however, he divided CEMP into a Central Malayo-Polynesian (CMP) and an Eastern Malayo-Polynesian (EMP) subgroup (Blust 1982, 1993). Specifically, the CMP subgroup extends from Bima on eastern Sumbawa to the Aru Islands and from Rote in the south to the Sula Archipelago in the north Maluku. Blust’s methodology is based on a use of the comparative method; his delineation of the islands that comprise his CMP subgroup in eastern Indonesia, however, resembles both Esser’s 1938 Atlas and Dyen’s Hesperonesian or “Moluccan” linkage.

5A particularly influential delineation of eastern Indonesia was made by the anthropologist F.A.E. van Wouden. In his 1935 Leiden dissertation, Sociale Structuurtypen in de Groote Oost, van Wouden proposed a demarcation of eastern Indonesia (de Groote Oost) based on ethnographic criteria of which possession of a “clan system” was primary. His definition of this area is as follows:

“The area covered by this investigation extends over the whole of the south-east of Indonesia: it stretches from the Timor Archipelago in the west to the Southeastern Islands in the east, and is bordered to the north by the islands of Seran and Buru. The choice of this area, which takes in such far-separated territories, has not been determined by geographical or other more or less arbitrary factors, but is based upon various points of similarity from an ethnographical point of view. The different societies of these islands are practically all characterized by the possession of clan systems, still fairly intact, coupled with an explicit preference for cross-cousin marriage in its restricted form.” (Wouden, Types of Social Structure in Eastern Indonesia: 1968:1)

6Van Wouden goes on to contrast the societies of this area with those of Celebes (Sulawesi) and Halmahera, what he calls the “two other large culture areas.” He then qualifies his contrast by explaining that it “applies chiefly to Celebes [whereas] on Halmahera the memory of a former clan system seems still not entirely to have disappeared” (Wouden 1968: 1).

7The problematic aspect of his presentation of the region is its implied characterization of all the societies of eastern Indonesia as unilateral (i.e., unilineal). This assumption was further fostered by the application of the Needham model of prescriptive alliance that requires societies with directed alliance systems with cross-cousin marriage to have what Needham called lineal terminological equations (Needham 1973, 1974).

9Despite the differing methods of these researchers, there is nonetheless a relative coincidence in the demarcation of what may be called ‘eastern Indonesia’: the eastern end of Sumbawa, the islands of Flores eastward, Sumba, Savu and Timor together with some or all of the Moluccan islands. Map I shows Wallace’s 2^nd line, the Blust’s linguistic line and the van Wouden ethnological line – all of which purport to divide eastern Indonesia from western Indonesia (Map 1).

The Focus of this Paper

11This paper is concerned with regional variation in terminological relations of consanguinity and affinity: patterns of relationships that underlie the social formation of Austronesian societies. The paper takes Taiwan as its starting point and is inevitably concerned with the whole of the Austronesian language family. It focuses on certain prominent patterns of relationship that differentiate western Austronesia from eastern Austronesia and examines the distribution and transformation of these patterns.

12This paper is drawn from a comprehensive monograph, Regional Variation in Austronesian Terminologies, which is still in preparation. This monograph is based on a collection (at this stage) of nearly four hundred Austronesian terminologies assigned to a list of some sixty (regional) language groupings – an extension of the list originally proposed by Malcolm Ross (1995) – intended to cover the entire Austronesian language family.

13Whereas Regional Variation attempts to consider the entire range of relations in Austronesian terminologies, both affinal and consanguineal across all generations, this paper can only examine a subset of this range of relations: specifically categories of relative age in conjunction with sibling relationships, together with a particular defining affinal configuration – all of which clearly distinguish eastern from western Indonesia.

14Although relative age terms (the categories: “elder/younger”) are a prominent feature of Austronesian societies from Taiwan to Tahiti, these terms, though indeed prominent, are not a universal feature of Austronesian relationship terminologies. With this in mind, it is nevertheless possible to identify certain broad patterns in the use of these terms.

Western Austronesia including Taiwan

15The languages of Taiwan are the appropriate starting point for an investigation of the Austronesian relationship terminologies because the Taiwanese terminologies are a reservoir of relational patterns that recur in Malayo-Polynesian. Given the language diversity of Taiwan, Blust (1995, 1999) has argued that the Taiwanese languages form nine separate first-order branches of Austronesian. Ross (2009, 2012) has collapsed this proposed categorization into four branches: 1) Puyuma, 2) Rukai, 3) Tsou and 4) what he calls “Nuclear Austronesian” which includes all the remaining Taiwanese languages and is the source from which Malayo-Polynesian derives (table I).

Table I

Society	Elder Sibling	Younger Sibling	Sibling/Cousin
PUYUMA
PUYUMA	iva	iwadi	trus
RUKAI
RUKAI	taka	aki	---
TSOU
TSOU	ohaiva	ohaisa	nanatoohaisa
NUCLEAR AUSTRONESIAN
AMIS	kaka	sava	puton
ATAYAL	qabusuyan	sasoi	naqun
TARUKO	gubsulan	umsuwai	nagun/mulawan
BUNUN	masitoxas	masinauba	mantas?an
KA’KANABU	kanovoa	kanaloa	turanga
KAVALAN	qaqa	swani	swani a qaqa
SAISIAT	minacini	minaici	minatini

16The ten Austronesian societies of Taiwan cited here all make use of relative age terms: with one term for elder sibling and another term for younger sibling. In this usage, these elder/younger terms do not distinguish gender but refer to both male and female siblings and they combine with another gender neutral term for siblings/cousins. There are few lexical similarities among the terms that make up these terminological sets. However, the pattern of relationship these terms denote is stable among all these terminologies and forms part of a basic bilateral structure that characterizes Taiwanese terminologies.

17This pattern can be represented as in figure I [where e = elder sibling of either sex /y = younger sibling of either sex; PSbC: Parents’ Siblings’ Child = Cousin] (figure I):

19For many of these language groups, there are numerous instances. For this reason, I provide here an abbreviated illustrative list to cover the range of these language groups among western Austronesian languages (table II).

Table II

Society	Elder Sibling	Younger Sibling	Sibling/Cousin
BATANIC (IVATAN)
IVATAN	kaka	wari	kakteh/kataysa
YAMI	kaka	wali	kaktu
NORTHERN PHILIPPINES
ATTA	kaka	urian	wagi/kapittan
BALANGAO	pangolowan	enawdi	apenghan
DUMAGAT	aka	wadi	pensan
ILONGOT	‘eka	‘agi	katan’agi
MESO-PHILIPPINES
BUHID	kaka	fuyu	faduasay
CEBUANO	manghud	manghud	igqagaw
PALAWAN	ukaq	ariq	tipusäd/ ägsa
TAUSUG	mangulang	manghud	pagtunghud
SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES
MAGINDANAON	kaka	ali	suled/tenged
MANOBO	kakay	hadi	dumahadi
SUBANUN	gulangbataq	ngudang	pated/tinindegay
SOUTH MINDANAO
BINUKID	manulang	manghed	suled/igqagaw
BLAAN	twege	twali	flanek
TIRURAY	ofoq	tuwarey	se timan ideng
MINAHASAN
MINAHASA	kakak	tuari	---
SAMA-BAJAU
BAJAU	siaka	siali	denakan
YAKAN	saka	sali	danganakan
CENTRAL SULAWESI: BUNGKU-MORI-TOLAKI
TOLAKI	kaka	hai	kotukombo
TORETE	tukaka	tuai	paekompo/poteha
CENTRAL SULAWESI: KAILI-PAMONA
DA’A	totuakae	totua’i	sampesuvu
CENTRAL SULAWESI: TOMINI
AMPIBABO	si a’ang	tuai	lulus
PENDAU	si a’a	si tuai	sampe suvu
TOTOLI	tukka/itaita	tuali	ponguusatan
MUNA-BUTON
MUNA	isa	ai	kakuta
MORONENE	tukaka	tuai	petila/topisa
WOLIO	aka	andi	tolida
SOUTH SULAWESI
BUGIS	daéng	anri/andi’	sapposiseng
MAKASSAR	daeng	andi’	sari’battang/sampo sikali
TORAJA	kaka	adi	siulu’/sampu
NORTH/NORTHWEST BORNEO
BENTIAN	tuke	ani	peyari
PENAN	tuke	tadin	pesak
KENYAH	sekun	sadin	chenganak
LUNDAYEK	rayeh	isuut	kianak
LAND DAYAK (INLAND SOUTHWEST BORNEO)
DAYAK	umbu	adi	adi tungar
EAST BARITO (SOUTH BORNEO)
MA’ANYAN	tata’	ani’	tuwari
WEST BARITO
NGAJU (19th century)	aka	andi	pahari
UUT DANUM	oka’	ari’	hari
TAMANIC
MALOH	kaka’	adi’	saparanak
MOKEN AND MOKLEN
MAKWEN	aka	uai	---
MALAYO-CHAMIC
CHAM	sa ai	aday	---
IBAN	aka	adi	menyadi
OR. RIMBA	kakok	adik	dulur
JAVA-BALI-LOMBOK
OLD JAVANESE	raka	rari	sanak
SASAK	kaké	ade	sematon

20This is the primary pattern for relative age and sibling/cousin relations in western Austronesia. Overwhelmingly the terms for relative age reflect the proto-terms, *kaka/aka for “elder” and *Sua(n)ji or *hua(n)ji for younger while the general terms for siblings/cousins are diverse.

21There is, however a variation on this primary pattern. Instead of two terms for relative age, this variant pattern relies on three terms: a term for elder brother, another term for elder sister with a third term for younger sibling plus a general sibling/cousin term. This pattern is represented by Figure II :

22Table III lists societies that utilize this variant pattern of relative age terms in the western Austronesian world and gives some idea of the relatively circumscribed distribution of this pattern. It includes one instance from Taiwan and from Northern Philippines but is concentrated among Malayo-Chamic languages.

Table III

Society	Elder Male/ ElderFemale (>Elder M/FCousin)	Younger Sibling (>Younger Cousin)	Sibling/Cousin
TAIWAN: NUCLEAR AUSTRONESIAN
PAZEH	ma:mah/ iah	suazi	---
NORTHERN PHILIPPINES
ITNEG	manang/manong	ading	sonod/kasinsin
MALAYO-CHAMIC
JARAI	ayong/amai	adöi	---
ACEH	abang/kakak	adoe
GUMAI	kakak/ayuk	ading	---
LOM	kakak/ayak	adek	sanak pupek
MINANG	tuan/kaka	adiek	dunsanak
SAKAI	upik/ino	adik	---
MALAY	abang/kaka	adi(k)
SELAKO	abang/kaka’	adi’	gambar kepala
JAVA-BALI-LOMBOK
JAVA	kakang/mbaqju	adi	naqsanaq
SUNDA	akang/cece	ade	misan/sepupu
BALI	beli/mbok	adin	---

24The majority of instances of societies using this pattern belong to the Malayo-Chamic language group and to languages of Java-Bali-Lombok. Among most of these societies, the *kaka/aka term is retained for one of the two elder gendered categories as is the *hua(n)ji for younger. Essentially this pattern involves adding a term at the elder level. Historical records show that Old Javanese relied on the primary two-term relative age pattern (raka/rari) but at some time after the 14^th or 15^th century, adopted the three-term pattern which is in use today (see Fox 1986). Pattern II may well be a Malayo-Chamic innovation that has influenced other neighbouring societies.

25There is a strong correlation between Pattern I or Pattern II relative age terms in Ego’s generation and bilateral arrangements in the 1^st ascending generation. All of the societies from Taiwan through the Philippines, Borneo, most (but not all) of Sumatra, Sulawesi and the Sunda Islands are structurally bilateral or, in an alternative terminology, “cognatic” (see Fox 1994, 2005).

The Transformation of Relative Age Categories in Eastern Indonesia

26Were one to draw a line through the middle of the island of Sumbawa and continue northward passing to the east of Selayar off the coast of Sulawesi, this line would demarcate an area of eastern Indonesia in which there occur a number of critical transformations in Austronesian terminological configurations. The eastern end of the island of Sumbawa straddles this line of transformation. Bima and Dou Donggo possess a combination of terminological features that look both ways: east and west.

27A majority of societies in eastern Indonesia use relative age terms but the use of these terms is dependent on sex-of-speaker. Thus a male-speaker applies these terms to his male siblings and male parallel cousins while a female-speaker applies them to her female siblings and female parallel cousins. The single general term for sibling found in western Austronesian is replaced by either one or two terms that are applied according to gender and sex-of-speaker. The more common variant on this pattern has two terms: a term for brother used by a sister and a term for sister used by a brother.

28This pattern can be represented as follows in Figure III:

Table IV – Relative age with two opposite sex terms

Society	Sibling/Parallel Cousin Elder/Younger (Same Sex)	Sibling/Parallel Cousin:
		Brother (w.s)	Sister (m.s.)
		(Opposite Sex)
BIMA+SAVU
DOU DONGGO	sa’e/ari	amania	amancava
SAVU	a’a/ari	na’mone	na’weni
DHAO	a’a/ari	ana mone	ana heni
EAST FLORES
KOMODO	ha/ari	na	?
MANGGARAI	ka’e/ase	nara	weta
RIUNG	ka’é/azé’	nara	weta
RONGGA	ka’e/azhi	nara	weta
CENTRAL FLORES
ENDE	ka’e/ari	nara	weta
HOGA SARA	kae/azi	nara	weta
KEO	ka’e/’ari	nala	weta
NAGE	ka’e/azi	na	weta
NGGELA	kae/aji	nara	weta
PALUE	ka’e/hari	naja	Weda
CENTRAL EAST FLORES
TANA AI	wué/wari	nara	wine
EAST FLORES, SOLOR TO ALOR
BELOGILI	kaka/ari’	na’a	biné
LEWOTALA	kaka/adé	na’a	biné’
KEDANG	aqe/arin	narin	binin
BARNUSA	kakang/aring	nang	bining
TIMOR
ROTI	ka’a/fadi	na’a(k)	feto(k)
HELONG	kaka/pali	blane	bata
ATONI	tataf/olif	nauf	fetof
BEKA’IS	ka’an/walin	manek	fetok
MAMBAI	kaka/alin	nara	tbo
ISNI	ka’an/alin	naran	hatonu
TOKODEDE	kaka/alin	na	moto
CENTRAL MALUKU
BURU	kai/wai	naha	feta
SOUTHEASTERN ISLANDS
DAMA	kake/weye	mmuno	vwota7

31This pattern with separate terms for both brother and sister and opposite sex parallel cousins is not, however, the only terminological pattern in eastern Indonesia. It is logically possible to have a single reciprocal term for the opposite sex sibling. This other pattern variant also occurs in eastern Indonesia. Examples of societies in eastern Indonesia that apply sex-of-speaker to their relative age terms but utilize a single term for the opposite sex sibling, are as follows.

32This pattern can be represented as follows:

33This configuration occurs less frequently than the first pattern and appears more frequently in the area closer to New Guinea.

34Table V lists the societies of eastern Indonesia with this pattern:

Table V – Relative age with a single opposite sex sibling term

Society	Sibling /Parallel Cousin		Sibling/Parallel Cousin
Elder/Younger: Same-Sex		Single Term: Opposite Sex
TIMOR
NAUETI	kaka/wari		mae
CENTRAL MALUKU
ALUNE	wali mena/wali muli		beta
SOUTHEAST MALUKU
KEI	a’an/wari		uran
TANEBAR-EVAV	a’an/wari		uran
SOUTH HALMAHERA/ NEW GUINEA
IRARUTU	atagfad/agfut		aruig

Sumba’s Alternative Patterning of Relations in Ego’s Generation without Relative Age

35While Patterns III and IV predominate throughout much of eastern Indonesia from the islands of Flores eastward to Timor and to the Moluccan islands as far as the coast of New Guinea, they are not the only Ego-generation patterns that occur in the region.

36Sumba is a particularly instructive case because the use of relative age terms among societies on the island is of little significance. Instead Sumba has a patterned set of terminological relations that resemble Pattern III but do so without the use of relative age.

37Pattern III terminologies distinguish between same sex and opposite sex relations in Ego’s generation. While relative age terms define relations among members of the same sex, two terms are used to define relations between members of the opposite sex. By contrast, Sumbanese terminologies have two separate terms for members of the same sex; these terms are sex-of-speaker dependent; and these terms are combined with two terms for the opposite sex which are also sex-of-speaker dependent. This Pattern IV is one without relative age terms.

38Figure V illustrates this basic pattern of relationships.

39Table VI sets out these terminological relations for Sumba moving from east to west across the island:

Group	Sibling/Parallel Cousin (Same-Sex)		Sibling/Parallel Cousin (Opposite Sex)
	(m.s.)	(w.s.)	(w.s.)	(m.s.)
Kambera	angu paluhu	angu kawini	ana moni	ana wini
Memboro	angu wua	angu kawini	ana moni	ana wini
Wanokaka	angu wua	angu mahawa	ana moni	ana wini
Lauli	angu wua	angu mawine	na’a	woto
Kodi	dungo kambo	angu winye	lamone	lawinye

40In effect, as in the example of Kambera, angu paluhu is used by a brother to his brother and parallel cousins; angu kawini by a sister to sister and her parallel cousins, while ana wini is used by a brother to his sister and parallel cousins and ana moni is used by a sister to her brother and parallel cousins.

41The expression of relations between members of the opposite sex are like those in Pattern III: for example, Lauli has na’a/woto (*ñaRa/*bǝtaw) while the reciprocal, ana wini//ana moni, terms are like those of Savu na’weni/na’mone.

Critical differences in alliance relationships

42The literature on eastern Indonesia emphasizes the importance of positive alliance relations among groups and the establishment, over generations, of relationships between wife-givers and wife-takers. Given this as one of the chief characteristics of the societies of eastern Indonesia, it is critical to note how such relationships contrast with all alliance relationships in western Austronesia. This is notable and definable in the terminologies of western and eastern Austronesia.

43In western Austronesia, the category of “child’s spouse’s parent” defines a reciprocal relationship between parents whose children have married. In Malay/Indonesian, this is the besan-relationship. The following figure provides a diagrammatic representation of this CSpP relationship.

44This categorical relationship is found in terminologies from Taiwan to Sumbawa. It occurs among some but not all of the Austronesian societies of Taiwan (Saalua, Puyuma, Pazeh and Yami) and among the Cham and Jarai of Vietnam. It is also reported among virtually all the societies of the Philippines, Borneo and Sulawesi, in most of Sumatra, and from Java to Sumbawa (Dou Donggo). However, it virtually ceases to occur beyond Sumbawa in eastern Indonesia, with the exception of the Buli of Halmahera and possibly also the Sobei of the north coast of New Guinea.

45Table VII sets out the evidence for the distribution of this category overwhelmingly in the western Austronesian region. Although for presentation here, I have abbreviated this list – the present data set has 85 instances of the CSpP category – this list still shows both the spread and diversity of the lexical terms used for CSpP.

Table VII – Child Spouse’s Parents (CSpP) Terms in Austronesian Languages

SOCIETY	CSpP Term	Further Specification
TAIWAN
PUYUMA	ali	CSpF
	anai	CSpM
SAALUA	ts’uts’uta
PAZEH	lagi
BATANIC (IVATAN)
YAMI	kuakai	CSpF
	kabakus	CSpM
NORTHERN PHILIPPINES
AGTA	kabalay
BONTOK	aliwid
DUMAGAT (Casiguran)	balaqi
GA’DANG	kafalay
ILOCANO	abalayan
ISNEG	abalay
KALINGA (S. Tanudan)	aboryan
KANKANAY (Northern)	kaqising
SAGADA IGOROT	kaising
MESO-PHILIPPINES
BUHID	balayi
CEBUANO	balaqi
PALAWAN	bajsan
TAGALOG	belage
TAGBANWA (Calamian)	balii
TAUSUG	baqi
SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES
MANOBO (Ilianen)	belaqi
SUBANUN	bela’i
SOUTH MINDANAO
TIRURAY	belaqi
TBOLI	laqi
SAMA-BAJAU
BAJAU	ba’i
YAKAN	baqi
MALAYO-CHAMIC
ACEH	bisan
CHAM	para	SWP
	parai	DHP
GUMAI	warang	CSpF
	besan	CSpM
IBAN	isan
JARAI	rui
LOM	bisén
MALAY	besan
SELAKO	imat
SEMENDO	besan
	kakak besan	SWP
	adik besan	DHP
NORTH/NORTHEAST BORNEO
BENTIAN	sanget
BUKAT	isan, avé’
KEREHO UHENG	avé, sangé
LUN DAYEK	arum
TAMAN	isen
LAND DAYAK (INLAND SOUTHWEST BORNEO)
LAND DAYAK	dami
EAST BARITO (SOUTH BORNEO)
MA’ANYAN	bulau
WEST BARITO
NGAJU (Upper Mentaya)	sanger
UUT DANUM	sangew
TAMANIC (CENTRAL BORNEO)
MALOH	isan
LAMPUNG
LAMPUNG	sabai
MENGGALA	sabai
NORTH WEST SUMATRA/BARRIER ISLANDS
ALAS	bésan
GAYO	umé
NIAS	mbambato
SAKKUDEI (Mentawai)	kaddei
JAVA-BALI-LOMBOK
JAVA	besan
OLD JAVANESE	warang
BALI	warang
SASAK	warang
SUNDA	warang
CENTRAL SULAWESI: BUNGKU-MORI-TOLAKI
TOLAKI	meoasa
TORETE	baisano anangku
CENTRAL SULAWESI: KAILI-PAMONA
DA’A	sumbava
CENTRAL SULAWESI: TOMINI
PENDAU	poposialap
MUNA-BUTON
MUNA	samponi
MORONENE	asamponi
WOLIO	oera
SOUTH SULAWESI
BUGIS	baiseng
MAKASSAR	de’nang
SA’DAN TORAJA	baisen
BIMA
DOU DONGGO	vai
HALMAHERA
BULI	paing
SARMI-JAYAPURA BAY
SOBEI	penabi

46Among these terms for CSpP, there appear to be a number of particular clusters. The most prominent of these is a cluster – balaqi-belage-abalay – that is found throughout the Philippines from north to south. The Pazeh of Taiwan have the term, lagi, for CSpP and this may possibly be cognate with terms in this Philippine cluster. This cluster also includes the Bajau, ba’i, which may be related, as well, to the Dou Donggo, paing and the Buli vai. The Bajau have had settlements for centuries on the coasts of Sumbawa and Halmahera.

47The other prominent cluster – besan-bisan-isan-kaising – predominates among Malayo-Chamic languages but occurs as well in Northern Luzon, Borneo, Java and southern Sulawesi. Malay or Malayic influences may have been responsible for some of this distribution. Old Javanese, for example, once had warang as the term for CSpP but several hundred years ago it borrowed besan, probably from Malay. The term warang identifies another cluster that occurs from southern Sumatra to Lombok.

The Sociological Significance of the CSpP Relationship

50In most societies that rely on the CSpP relationship, there is no significant, continuing differentiation between wife-givers and wife-takers. By contrast, in many eastern Indonesian societies, significant differentiation is made between wife-givers and wife-takers. Wife-takers refer to wife-givers with distinctive terms that both elevate and honour them and in some of these societies, this distinction is, as it were, built into the relationship terminology and maintained by positive rules that designate marriage with a particular category of relative. In societies where positive rules direct marriages in a regular and repeated fashion, the category of wife-giver is part of a set terminological configuration. Since the CSpP category is applied after marriage, it would be socially incompatible within a terminology where the categories of marriage relationship are prefigured within the terminology itself. Moreover the category is applied between related families and thus defines a more limited form of alliance than that between larger (lineage or clan) groups as in eastern Indonesia. It defines a relationship for each marriage separately. For parents with many children, it configures multiple different individual relationships.

51Given its sociological importance, the presence or absence of the CSpP relationship category provides a clear demarcation of difference between western Austronesia and eastern Austronesia.

52Besides distinguishing between the presence and absence of the Child’s Parent’s Sibling relationship, this line of demarcation may be regarded with greater symbolic significance. To the east of this line is the region characterized by the occurrence of the Patterns III, IV or V which define relations in Ego’s generation. While these patterns are one of the defining characteristic of eastern Indonesia in relation to western Austronesia, two of these patterns are not confined to eastern Indonesia. They constitute some of the principal patterns that define terminological relationships in Ego’s generation in Oceania.

Sex-of-Speaker, Relative Age and Opposite Sex Sibling Distinctions in Oceania

53When one turns to Oceania, there is great variability in sibling terms with both the presence and absence of relative age terms. Similar patterns to those in eastern Indonesia are discernible and, one could argue, significant. My purpose therefore is not to provide a comprehensive picture of the variety of these sibling terminologies but rather to show the prevalence of formal patterns like those that are most prominent in eastern Indonesia.

54It is best to begin with Pattern IV: this pattern consists of relative age terms for same-sex siblings and a single reciprocal term for opposite-sex siblings. The pattern occurs predominantly in the Moluccan islands and on the coast of New Guinea. It could be called the “Near New Guinea” pattern because it is also found around the north coast of New Guinea and among the islands at the West Papua Tip extending to the Solomons and onward to Fiji.

Some illustrative examples of this pattern (Pattern IV) are as follows: Table VIII – Pattern IV

SOCIETY	Sibling (Same-Sex) Elder/Younger	Sibling (Opposite Sex) One Term
NORTH NEW GUINEA
WOGEO	toka/tei	lu
PAPUA TIP
MOTU	kaka/tadi	taihu
MEKEO	a-/atsi	afakua
MUYUW	tuawa-/bwada-	na-t
TROBRIANDS	tuwa-/bwada-	lu-ta
N.W. SOLOMONIC
VARISI	togana/kaena	vavanina
S.E. SOLOMONIC
BAEGU	sauana/sasina	waiwane
CENTRAL PACIFIC
FIJI (BAU)	tuaka-ŋgu/taci-qu	gane-ŋgu

Table IX – Pattern III

SOCIETY	Sibling (Same-Sex) Elder/Younger	Sibling (Opposite Sex): Two Terms
		Brother (w.s)	Sister (m.s.)
ADMIRALTIES
BALUAN	toung/naing	mwaning	patning
SOUTH VANUATU
KWAMERA	prea-/prisi-	pumani	pini
CENTRAL PACIFIC
TONGA	taokete/tehina	tuongaane	tuofefine
ROTUMA	sasigi/sasiga	sagaväväne	saghani
HAWAI’I	kaikua’ana/kaikaina	kaikunane	kaihuahine
RANGIROA	tua’ana/teina	tu’ane	tu’ane
MAORI	tuakana/teina	tungane	tuahine

59This pattern can be seen in Figure VII. It resembles Figure V, which applies to Sumba in eastern Indonesia. The pattern lacks relative age terms as is the case on Sumba but instead of two terms for the opposite sex as in Sumba, it consists of a single reciprocal term used between members of the opposite sex.

60Table X provides examples of this basic arrangement:

Table X

SOCIETY	SAME-SEX B, (MZS FBS) (m.s.) Z, (MZD FBD) (w.s.)	OPPOSITE-SEX Two B, (MZS FBS) (w.s.) Z, (MZD FBD) (m.s.)
NORTH NEW GUINEA
TAKIA	tei	lu-
PAPUAN TIP
BASIMA	sia-	nu-
DOBU	tasi	nu’u
TUBE-TUBE	kakava	du
S.E. SALOMONIC
AROSI	doora	haho
MONO-ALU	kai	fafine
WEST NEW BRITAIN
VITU	tazi-gu	livuku-gu
NEW IRELAND
LELET	netak, paton	minmin
CENTAL PACIFIC
TIKOPIA	taina	kave
GILBERT ISLANDS	tari	mane

61This wide-spread arrangement of same-sex//opposite sex relationships is distinctive to Oceania and constitutes as important a pattern of relationship as either Pattern III or IV.

Comment and Conclusions

62This paper has examined several critical terminological features that differentiate the societies of eastern Indonesia from the societies of western Austronesia and link these societies on the basis of similar terminological features with societies in Oceania. The principal evidence for these differences can be seen in relative age and sibling terminologies but include as well the way in which marriages are systematically defined on a post-hoc basis in western Austronesia compared to the broad tendency toward terminologically “directed” marriage in eastern Indonesia. This paper has also looked at the variation in terminological patterning that occurs in eastern Indonesia and how this pattern “carries on” into Oceania. The two most prominent terminological patterns for relative age and opposite-sex siblings are found in eastern Indonesia as well as in Oceania. However, as in eastern Indonesia, there are other patterned variations in Oceania. To illustrate this point, this paper has also identified a particular terminological variation in sibling relations (same-sex/opposite-sex) that is distinctive to Oceania.

63All of this discussion offers a partial glimpse of the significant variation in the terminologies of the Austronesian-speaking world. Its purpose was to provide a focus on eastern Indonesia. By this same token, this examination ought not to be given overdue significance. It forms a part of a larger perspective which is the focus of my comprehensive monograph, Regional Variation in Austronesian Terminologies.