G. Forth Komodo as seen from Sumba ... - KITLV journals

G. Forth 

Komodo as seen from Sumba: Comparative remarks on eastern Indonesian relationship 

terminology 

In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 144 (1988), no: 1, Leiden, 44-63 

This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl

GREGORY FORTH 

KOMODO AS SEEN FROM SUMBA: 

COMPARATIVE REMARKS ON AN 

EASTERN INDONESIAN RELATIONSHIP 

TERMINOLOGY 

The purpose of these notes is to record several observations regarding 

the terminology of relationship found on the eastern Indonesian island 

of Komodo as described by Father J. A. J. Verheijen in his valuable 

linguistic and ethnographic monograph (1982). The occasion for doing 

so is provided by Professor Needham's recent, mostly formal, analysis of 

Verheijen's data (1986), and more particularly by a notable omission 

from the comparative evidence which Needham adduces in this context. 

Here I refer to eastern Sumbanese mamu, FZ, FZH, as compared with 

Komodo mamo, FZ, FZH, HP. After discussing what the evident connection 

between these two words might imply for an understanding of 

the Komodo terminology, I shall consider several more general features 

of the classification, especially as these bear upon the issues of 

symmetry/asymmetry and prescription in the comparative analysis of 

eastern Indonesian relationship terminologies. 

In an earlier essay, Needham, on the basis of an unpublished version 

of the Komodo terminology provided by Father Verheijen, characterizes 

the terminology with a 'structural formula' written as 'A(S)A' 

(1984:226). What this means is, quite simply,' that the classification 

exhibits asymmetric features in the first ascending genealogical level, 

predominantly symmetric features in ego's level, and asymmetric 

features again in the first descending level. The purposes of Needham's 

more recent remarks on the Komodo terminology, as the author himself 

states, are to justify this 'structural formula' and 'to bring out from the 

new evidence', by which he refers to the Komodo terminological data 

published in Verheijen's monograph, 'some of the singular interest of 

GREGORY FORTH, assistant professor at the University of Alberta, obtained a D:Phil. 

degree from the University of Oxford. Specialized in social anthropology, particularly with 

reference to Indonesia, he is the author of, among other publications, Rindi: An ethnographic 

study of a traditional domain in eastern Sumba, KITLV, Verhandelingen 93,1981, 

and The language of number and numerical ability in eastern Sumba, University of Hull, 

Occasional Paper 9, 1985. Dr. Forth may be contacted at the Department of Anthropology, 

13-15 HM Tory Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 

T6G 2H4.

Komodo as Seen from Sumba 45 

the system'(1986:52). 

While Verheijen's published evidence does indeed bear out 

Needham's earlier characterization, this is hardly surprising, as there is 

nothing to indicate that this evidence differs in any significant way from 

the unpublished data on which his earlier characterization was based. 1 

Yet Needham's analysis has another aspect, for as Verheijen demonstrates, 

more than half of the relationship terms used by the Komodo 

people at present derive from other languages, most notably from 

Bimanese and Manggarai; in fact only just over forty per cent of the 

terms appear to be what Father Verheijen calls 'original Komodo' 

(1982:19). As Needham states in one place (1986:52), therefore, the 

'historical factor' is also critical to an understanding of the Komodo 

system. In particular, one needs, he says, to consider the question of 

whether or to what extent the structure of the present terminology is the 

product of borrowing from other languages. 

In this connection, Needham's conclusions are largely negative. The 

present Komodo terminology, he contends, attests to the 'remarkable 

tenacity of the structure of this classification', which is 'recognizably 

cognate with others in this region of Nusa Tenggara Timur' (1986:66) in 

spite of a long history of Bimanese dominance over Komodo, involving 

migrations of Komodo people from their island to Bima and back again, 

and the introduction to the Komodo language of numerous Bimanese 

and Manggarai words. As concerns the 'original Komodo classification', 

this Needham suggests 'could have been either symmetric or asymmetric, 

though possibly not consistently so in either case' (1986:66), and 

so in this regard not significantly different from the present terminology, 

which Needham elsewhere describes as 'preponderantly asymmetric' 

(1986:59). According to Needham, then, a classificatory structure, comparable 

to that exhibited by certain neighbouring terminologies, has 

persisted on Komodo despite a turbulent history and extensive borrowing 

from other languages. In fact, with regard to terminological 

borrowing, he concludes that 'the only sign of structural change, or at 

least of a change with structural concomitants, is the inferred 

displacement of Komodo mamo by Bimanese pud" (1986:65). The 

inference referred to here, which I discuss further below, is Needham's 

own, made on the basis of comparative linguistic evidence. 

This mention of Komodo mamo brings us directly to one of the main 

points of the present exercise. I do not wish to contest Needham's 

speculations regarding the possible form of an earlier Komodo 

relationship classification, nor his remarks concerning the tenacity 

1 Needham merely acknowledges the unpublished Komodo data supplied by Verheijen 

in the text of his article (1984:222), and he makes no further reference to them, other 

than to mention that 'nearly half the terms are identified by Fr. Verheijen as having 

been borrowed from Bimanese to the west and from Manggarai to the east' 

(1984:231). The article does not include a list of references.

46 Gregory Forth 

of its structure. However, in assessing the possible influence of other 

languages, including especially the possible structural effects of lexical 

borrowing on the Komodo terminology, it is apparent that Needham has 

not taken all of the available evidence into account. In particular, he fails 

to mention anywhere the eastern Sumbanese term mamu, FZ, FZH, and 

the very close phonetic and semantic resemblance between this word 

and Komodo mamo, FZ, FZH, HP. It is to the possible implications of 

this resemblance that I now turn. 

I 

In his Table 3 (1986:57), Needham lists Komodo mamo with the specifications 

FZ, FZH, HP. These, as he notes (1986:58), derive from three 

separate lists in Verheijen's monograph, the first of which (1982:17) 

specifies only HP as the referent of the Komodo term, while the other 

two include FZ and FZH as well. The first list, however, is of further 

interest, because directly after 'MAMO', Verheijen writes in brackets 

'Kmb Sumba [Kmb = Kambera, the main dialect of eastern Sumba] 

mamu, FZ, FZH; Lio embu mamo, voorouders [ancestors]'. Also, in his 

Komodo—Indonesian—Dutch—English word list, the term mamo is again 

followed by the Sumbanese word and its genealogical specifications 

(1982:105). It is therefore abundantly clear that Verheijen regards 

eastern Sumbanese mamu as the relationship term from neighbouring 

languages most closely comparable to mamo. Moreover, since the term 

is listed directly after mamo in two places to which Needham refers, it 

would be difficult to attribute his neglect of it to ignorance of the eastern 

Sumbanese relationship vocabulary or to a mere oversight. 2 

The omission appears even more remarkable when one considers 

that, as Needham himself shows, mamo is a term of some considerable 

significance for the structural characterization of the Komodo classification. 

For one thing, by virtue of the entailed equation FZ, FZH = 

HP, mamo is one of just four terms that indicate a classification of 

asymmetric prescriptive alliance. The other three are ZH = FZS (uba), 

DH = ZS (koa), and SW = BD (w.s.), WBD (wote). Needham cites the 

first two usages as 'equations which hint of prescriptive relations' 

(1986:59), but rather curiously he fails to mention the third, and more 

strangely still he does not refer at all to FZ, FZH = HP (mamo) in this 

context. Also, in his Figure 1, in which the Komodo terminology is 

2 The reader should be alerted to a couple of errors in Needham's Table 3 (1986:57). 

First, beside dua he writes '(= ama-dua) MeZ'. In fact, dua is equivalent to both 

ama-dua (FeB, MeZH) and ina-dua (MeZ, FeBW), so the complete specifications of 

the term should be FeB, MeZH, MeZ, FeBW. Secondly, lago is given as 'WHZ'; this is 

clearly a typographical error and should read WZH (Verheijen 1982:17, 101). I am 

also informed by Dr. Peter Just (pers. comm. 1987) that the Bimanese term which 

Needham (1986:59) gives as wai ('grandmother, granddaughter") is actually va'i 

(wa'i). Bimanese wai (vai), by contrast, refers to SWP and DHP.


'arranged as in asymmetric alliance', mamo is glossed only as FZ and 

FZH, and not in addition as HP. This appears all the more odd as mamo 

would in fact appear to be even more diagnostic in this connection than 

the other three terms. Thus, according to Verheijen (1982:19), koa and 

wote are probably taken from Manggarai, while uba (eB, FBeS, FZeS, 

MZeS, eZH) includes specifications that are not normally equated in a 

classification of prescriptive alliance. 

The other feature of Komodo mamo that makes it an obvious focus in 

the sort of comparative formal analysis which Needham advances is of 

course its contribution to the consistent asymmetry of the first ascending 

level of the terminology, and indeed to the terminology as a whole, 

which Needham in his earlier paper describes as 'an almost consistent 

classification of asymmetric prescriptive alliance' (1984:231). It is in fact 

in connection with asymmetry that Needham finally refers specifically to 

the term. Thus, he notes that mamo - in this place too defined only as 

'FZ, FZH' - is reminiscent of words in related languages which are 

applied inter alia to MB, and also of Indonesian mamak, '(maternal) 

uncle' and Proto-Austronesian *mama\ 'maternal uncle' (1986:64, 

citing, with reference to PAN *mama\ Wurm and Wilson 1975; see also 

Dempwolff 1938:105, s.v. *mama\ 'Oheim (Mutterbruder)'). The 

terms in the former group instanced by Needham include Lamba-Leda 

Tenggara (east central Manggarai) mama, MB; Rembong (in the 

extreme northeastern part of the Manggarai region) mama, MB, FZH, 

WF; and Ngadha (central Flores) mame, 'uncle'. 3 

Especially in view of Verheijen's linking of the two terms, it is 

extremely puzzling to find that Needham's etymological speculations 

with regard to mamo include not a single mention of eastern Sumbanese 

mamu, FZ, FZH. As is plain, the only difference between the two words 

is the contrast of lol and /u/ in the terminal vowel and the fact that the 

eastern Sumbanese term does not refer to HP (about which more 

below). In contrast, of the possible cognates which Needham does 

mention, only one, Rembong mama (MB, FZH, WF), incorporates any 

single specification covered by Komodo mamo, and this term denotes in 

addition WF (as opposed to HF) and MB, as in fact do all the other 

Indonesian words which Needham lists. In regard to this last point, 

Needham needs to account then for the fact that mamo is applied not to 

matrilateral relatives in the first ascending level but on the contrary to 

patrilateral ones. To this end, and with reference to the historical influence 

of Bima, and to a lesser degree Manggarai, on Komodo, he avers 

that: 

3 Needham's sources for Lamba-Leda Tenggara and Rembong are respectively Verheijen 

1967:308 and Verheijen 1978:100, 101. His source for Ngadha mame ('uncle') 

is Arndt 1961:312 (but see my Table 1, in the text).


'In the first ascending level there seem to have been crucial 

changes in what must have been the original Komodo classification. 

To judge by the apparent cognates of mamo throughout 

western Flores, it looks as though this term, as MB, was displaced 

by Bim. [Bimanese] pua [the term currently used on Komodo for 

MB and MBW and which in Bimanese has the meaning of 'father, 

lord', Verheijen 1982:119] and reallocated to patrilateral locations; 

under the specification FZH, it could have signalled or even 

introduced a third descent line.' (1986:65.) 

It is therefore abundantly clear that Needham regards mamo (FZ, FZH, 

HP) as a crucial source of asymmetry in the Komodo relationship 

classification. Moreover, it is the one modern Komodo usage which he 

considers may attest to a structural change deriving from the introduction 

of foreign relationship words, for as noted earlier, he suggests that 

the only indication of such a change is 'the inferred displacement of 

Kmd. mamo by Bim. pua' (1986:65). 

Since Komodo lies less than 100 kilometres to the north of Sumba and 

since, as Needham himself notes in several places, the two islands appear 

to be historically linked, one might well have thought that eastern 

Sumbanese mamu (FZ, FZH) would have merited some consideration 

in this connection. In fact, as I discuss further below, there is reason to 

believe that Komodo mamo may represent an adoption of some form of 

the Sumbanese word. Before going any further, however, I should say 

that I regard Needham's linking of Komodo mamo with terms in other 

Indonesian languages that refer to MB as essentially correct. Indeed, in a 

study for which I have been collecting data during the last several years, 

and which I have alluded to in a recently published article concerning 

other evidence for the evolutionary development of Sumbanese relationship 

terminology (Forth 1985:128), I argue that eastern Sumbanese 

mamu, as well as the Komodo term, is a reflex of Proto-Austronesian 

*mama' (MB) and thus cognate with a variety of relationship terms from 

eastern Indonesian languages (including the two noted by Needham) 

which include MB among their specifications. These terms are listed in 

Table I. As to how the Sumbanese word came to have its present range of 

reference, moreover, I endeavour to show that this could have come 

about in connection with a general transformation from a symmetric to 

an asymmetric system on Sumba; and I argue on comparative grounds 

that the specifications of the forerunner of modern eastern Sumbanese 

mamu included FZH as. well as MB, and that the equating of FZH and 

FZ — and likewise of MB and MBW (at present called tuya in eastern 

Sumba, loka in western Sumba) - is a specific result of this transformation. 

4 While similar in its initial premises, this interpretation of course 

differs from Needham's speculation regarding the possible development 

of Komodo mamo. To begin with, Needham does not countenance the


Table 1. Possible eastern Indonesian cognates of Komodo mamo (FZ, 

FZH, HP) and eastern Sumbanese mamu (FZ, FZH). 

Endenese (ngao dialect) 1 mameh, MB, FZ, 'aunt older or 

younger than mother' (Van Suchtelen 

1921:384-385) 

Lamba-Leda Tenggara (western 

Flores) mama, MB (Verheijen 1967:308) 

Nage (central Flores) mame, FZ, MBW, MZ 2 (Forth n.d.) 

Ngadha (central Flores) mame, 'uncle' 3 (Arndt 1961:312) 

Rembong (western Flores) mama, MB, FZH, WF (Verheijen 

1978,111:100,101) 

Tanebar-Evav (Kei Islands) memem, MB, FZH (Barraud 1979: 

260; cf. Proto-Ambon *meme, MB, 

Blust 1980:212 n.l) 

Tana Ai (eastern Flores) mame, MB, FZH, HF, WF (E. D. 

Lewis, pers. comm. 1985) 

Tanimbar (northern dialects of 

Jamdeen) memi, MB, FZH, HF, WF (Drabbe 

1940) 

Atimelang (Alor) mama, F, FB, MB (Nicolspeyer 1940: 

55) 

1 The source for Ende ngao, Van Suchtelen (1921), does not list a word 

for FZH. 

2 In Nage, MZ is also classified as ine (M), as, according to some 

accounts, is MBW as well. The least equivocal specification of mame is 

therefore FZ. 

3 The exact specifications of Ngadha mame are unclear. Arndt 

(1961:312) glosses the word as 'uncle', as he does another word, 

pame, which Barnes (1972:85), citing Arndt in this connection, gives 

as 'FB, MB'. In a terminology from the Ngadha district of Mataloko 

which I recorded in 1985, pame is given as FB, MZH, MB, FZH. As 

mame is not included in this terminology, it probably belongs to 

another dialect of Ngadha. 

4 It may be of some interest to note that in a letter of 25 April 1984, concerning the Lio 

term mamo, I wrote to Dr. Janet Hoskins, then at the Australian National University, 

as follows: 

'From what you say it seems rather unlikely that [Lio] mamo is related to eastern 

Sumbanese mamu (Komodo mamo, etc.). I am now of the opinion that the Sumbanese 

word can be associated with PAN *mama\ MB, and that it earlier designated MB and 

FZH in a symmetric classification on Sumba. This is part of the argument of a paper I'm 

working on at the moment.'


possibility that the Komodo term may once have designated both FZH 

and MB, since he speaks of mamo being 'reallocated to patrilateral 

positions' (1986:65) - and this despite the fact that Rembong mama, for 

example, refers at once to MB, FZH and WF. In addition, he says 

nothing about how mamo might have come to apply to FZ and HM as 

well as to FZH and HF, and in this context he does not mention that the 

term pua, which he speculates replaced mamo as a reference to MB, 

specifies not only MB but MBW as well. 

II 

It should by now be clear how the question of the relationship between 

Komodo mamo and eastern Sumbanese mamu is in fact highly relevant 

to the issues which Needham addresses, and that his failure to consider 

the Sumbanese term therefore represents a serious lacuna in his analysis. 

For if mamo (FZ, FZH, HP) is to be interpreted as a reflex of Proto- 

Austronesian *mama' and as the word earlier used on Komodo for MB, 

as Needham suggests (and with which I am in full agreement), then 

clearly the same interpretation can - indeed must - be applied to eastern 

Sumbanese mamu (FZ, FZH). And if this is accepted, then one has to 

account for the entailed circumstance that the two languages contain 

virtually identical words which originally designated MB (and, as I 

would argue, FZH as well) but now in both cases specify FZ and FZH 

(and in Komodo HP also) but not MB. In contrast, in nearly all other 

languages in this part of eastern Indonesia, current reflexes of *mama' 

refer to MB while only two (Nage mame, FZ, MBW, MZ, and Ende ngao 

mameh, MB, FZ) designate FZ. Moreover, while several comparable 

eastern Indonesian terms designate FZH (see Table 1), none of these 

refers simultaneously to FZ (or for that matter to MBW). On these 

various grounds, therefore, it would seem rather improbable that 

Komodo mamo and eastern Sumbanese mamu represent entirely 

independent developments from an earlier protoform referring inter alia 

to MB. A more likely hypothesis is that Komodo mamo, as the current 

term for FZ and FZH, reflects influence from Sumbanese mamu, either 

through direct adoption or by way of Sumbanese influence on a preexisting 

cognate of mamo. On the other hand, if the present phonetic and 

semantic similarity between the two words were to be ascribed to a 

simple cognatic relationship, then one would have to accept that mamo 

and mamu probably reflect a root other than Proto-Austronesian 

*mamd > (maternal uncle), an interpretation which on other grounds 

seems unlikely, and which in any case is contrary to the one Needham 

himself advances. 

In this connection it is also relevant that cognates of mamu and mamo 

(and thus reflexes of PAN *mama') seem not to occur in other languages 

of the 'Bima-Sumba group' outside Flores. I am reliably informed by Dr. 

Peter Just (pers. comm. 1987), an anthropologist who has worked


among the Dou Donggo of eastern Sumbawa, that none occurs in 

Donggo, nor in Bimanese (see also Jonker 1893) or Wawo (also in 

eastern Sumbawa). The Savunese language as well appears to contain no 

relationship words related to mamu and mamo (see Van de Wetering 

1926). One may reasonably conclude, therefore, that in eastern 

Indonesia reflexes of PAN *mama' that refer exclusively to patrilateral 

relatives and wife-taking affines in the first ascending level are unique to 

Komodo and Sumba. 

Before going any further, this seems an appropriate place to consider 

the Lio (eastern central Flores) phrase embu mamo, 'ancestors'. As 

noted, this is the other eastern Indonesian usage, besides Sumbanese 

mamu, which Verheijen compares to Komodo mamo. Despite the 

phonetic similarity, however, other evidence suggests that Lio mamo is 

not cognate with the Sumbanese and Komodo terms, and that it therefore 

cannot be considered as a reflex of Proto-Austronesian *mama\ 

According to information kindly supplied by Dr. Satoshi Nakagawa and 

Ms. Eriko Aoki (pers. comm. 1984), both of whom have recently done 

fieldwork in the Lio region, embu mamo combines two separate relationship 

terms: embu, 'great-grandparents' (PPP), and mamo, 'grandparent' 

(PP) and 'grandchild' (CC). 5 Also, while mamo is used as a 

general term for grandparents, the ethnographers add, 'grandfather' 

(PF) in Lio can be specified as babo. This latter term in fact provides the 

essential clue to the correct interpretation of Lio mamo, since it is clearly 

cognate with Nage and Ngadha (central Flores) babo, 'namesake'. The 

practice of naming children after grandparents, like the common use of 

reciprocal terms for PP and CC, is indeed widespread in this part of 

Indonesia, and it is this fact and the meaning of babo in Lio as compared 

to its meaning in other languages of Flores that point towards a connection 

between Lio mamo (grandparent) and words like Nage and Ngadha 

tamo, which also mean 'namesake' in these languages (see also eastern 

Sumbanese tamu, 'name, namesake'). I,would therefore conclude that 

Lio mamo, as a grandparental term, is cognate with words meaning 

'namesake' rather than a reflex of Proto-Austronesian *mamd' 

(maternal uncle). Of course, it might be suggested that Komodo mamo, 

and eastern Sumbanese mamu too, could also be linked with words 

meaning 'namesake'. But whereas it is easy enough to explain how the 

meanings of 'namesake' and 'grandparent' can be associated in this 

ethnographic region, this is much less easily done for 'namesake' and 

'FZ, FZH'. Furthermore, if on the contrary Lio mamo were taken to be a 

reflex of *mama? (maternal uncle), one would then have to account for 

5 This information was conveyed to me by Dr. Janet Hoskins (pers. comm. 1984), to 

whom I originally addressed my queries regarding Lio mamo, and to whom, therefore, 

I am also very grateful.


the fact that it refers not to cognatic kin in the first ascending level but to 

grandparents and grandchildren. 

Ill 

At this point it should be noted that the interpretation I am proposing for 

mamo is somewhat contrary to Verheijen's suggestion that the word can, 

along with ten others, be considered as an 'original Komodo' relationship 

term (1982:19). This characterization is perhaps not too surprising, 

especially if one considers that the possibility of mamo reflecting influence 

from a Sumbanese source gains force mainly from a comparison of 

this term and Sumbanese mamu with other eastern Indonesian relationship 

words of the sort outlined just above, a comparison which Verheijen 

himself appears not to have undertaken. At the same time, though, in his 

monograph Verheijen does provide several pieces of evidence, to which 

Needham also makes reference, that indicate historical links between 

the people of Komodo and Sumbanese. In particular, the following 

points are worth rehearsing: 

1) Statistics Verheijen provides on the derivation of male heads 

of families resident on Komodo reveal that six out of 85 (or 7 

per cent) derived from Sumba (1982:3; cf. Needham 

1986:54). Of the total of 85 cases, Verheijen further notes that 

eight male family heads had immigrated within the last thirty 

years. However, as none of these eight is listed as having come 

from Sumba, we are given no idea as to how recently the 

Sumbanese arrived on Komodo, or even whether or not they 

were born there or on Sumba. In other words, origin or derivation 

(Dutch afkomsi) might here refer to 'descent'. 

2) As is consistent with the foregoing surmise, Verheijen 

(1982:4) also mentions 'Sumba' as one of the 'founding clans' 

on Komodo. In this connection he also recounts a mythical 

tradition according to which the first Sumbanese to land on 

Komodo was a 'medicineman' who helped a woman in delivery, 

as a result of which both she and her child survived the 

birth. Because of this the Sumbanese was invited to stay on 

Komodo, and a part of the island, the region called Wau, was 

given to him. 6 

6 Before this time the original inhabitants of Komodo were supposed to have been 

unfamiliar with the normal method of delivery: a child was brought into the world by 

means of an operation which invariably resulted in the mother's death. As Verheijen 

notes (1982:4 n.18), this theme appears in other places as well. Indeed, I have myself 

encountered it in the Nage-Keo region of central Flores, where, interestingly enough, 

it is told how two ancestors from this region introduced knowledge of childbirth 

practices to the previously ignorant Sumbanese of the north coastal district of Kanatangu. 

Here too, then, there is a link with Sumba, only the relationship is inverted.


3) A fuller account of the settling of Sumbanese on Komodo is 

given in one of the translated Komodo texts which Verheijen 

includes in his monograph (1982:44-47). This provides the 

additional information that the Sumbanese 'medicineman', 

before being asked to stay on Komodo, intended to continue 

his sea journey to Bima (1982:47), and that the district of Wau 

which was ceded to him has remained the property of 

Sumbanese to the present day. Quite possibly, then, the latter 

are the Sumbanese referred to in Verheijen's list of family 

heads. It is a pity that no name is given for the original Sumbanese, 

since by this means it might have been possible to determine 

from where on Sumba he derived. 

4) Unfortunately, Verheijen gives no further information on 

what sort of grouping 'the clan Sumba' on Komodo constitutes, 

although he does mention other 'clans' of foreign derivation 

(e.g., 'the clan Kapu from Munting in Manggarai' and 'the clan 

Ambon', 1982:4), and he points out that he uses 'clan' in a 

'wide sense' (1982:68 n. 17). Needham, who reviews this 

evidence in relation to the question of whether any particular 

rule of descent is followed on Komodo, notes that Verheijen 

traces the Komodo word for clan, turuna, to Bimanese and 

that, in his main wordlist, the term is 'translated merely by Ind. 

[Bahasa Indonesia] turunan, descent' (1986:63). In fact, the 

Indonesian word is more correctly translated as 'descendant' 

(see Echols and Shadily 1963, s.v. turun; and cf. keturunan, 

'descent'). Yet, however the Komodo term is to be glossed, in 

Indonesian or in English, it seems clear enough that in this 

context it can refer simply to the descendants of a particular 

ancestor, or group of ancestors, that came from a particular 

place. Verheijen mentions the 'Sumba clan' again in regard to a 

rite performed in the event of childlessness which is led by the 

eldest member of this group and which is called 'to go and 

summon the ancestress from Sumba (Wai Sumba) in the place 

[called] Wau' (1982:14). An obvious surmise is that this ceremonial 

specialization is connected with the medical knowledge 

relating to childbirth attributed to the first Sumbanese immigrant 

on Komodo. 

Although Needham is clearly not unaware of these connections between 

Komodo and Sumba, he nevertheless discounts Sumbanese influence 

as a possible factor accounting for the present Komodo relationship 

classification. He gives two reasons for this. First, Needham 

suggests that: 

'The Sumbanese who by tradition were early arrivals on Komodo 

may not have come from parts of Sumba where asymmetric pre-


scriptive systems prevailed; if they came from anywhere to the 

west of Mamboru their own classification would have been nonprescriptive 

(Needham 1980a), and all they would have contributed 

would be a commitment to the practice of asymmetric 

(matrilateral) alliance that is common throughout Nusa Tenggara 

Timur (Needham 1984).'(1986:66.) 

Secondly, he states that 'there are no distinctly Sumbanese terms in the 

Komodo vocabulary' (1986:66). I shall deal with these objections in this 

order. 

On the basis of the limited evidence available one obviously cannot 

deny the possibility that the Sumbanese immigrants may not have derived 

from parts of Sumba where 'asymmetric prescriptive systems' 

prevailed, if one is to understand from this (as the above quote suggests 

one is) that they may not have come from parts where the relationship 

terminology evidenced both asymmetric and prescriptive features, i.e. 

terms equating cognatic kin and affines. 7 However, Needham mentions 

no reason for believing that this was the case; and although Komodo lies 

marginally closer to most of the area west of Mamboru than it does to 

most of the eastern part of Sumba (where terminologies of asymmetric 

prescriptive alliance prevail), the fact that over two-thirds of the island is 

at present occupied by speakers of languages and dialects with prescriptive 

classifications, suggests there is a good chance that the earliest 

Sumbanese immigrants on Komodo did employ an asymmetric prescriptive 

terminology. Furthermore, Needham's statement assumes that the 

distribution of prescriptive and non-prescriptive classifications on 

Sumba when the Sumbanese arrived on Komodo - and Verheijen gives 

no hint as to when that might have been, though we are told that they 

were early arrivals - was exactly the same as it is now. This seems 

unlikely, especially in relation to the thesis that asymmetric prescriptive 

classifications regularly evolve into non-prescriptive ones. Somewhat 

ironically, it is Professor Needham more than anyone who has been 

concerned to advance this view, and particularly with reference to 

Sumba (see Needham 1966:45-46, 1980:43-47, 1984:228) 8 ; and on 

various comparative grounds it does indeed appear highly probable that 

the relationship classification found in all Sumbanese languages (or put 

another way, that of the original Sumbanese language; see Onvlee 

1973:165) at one time entailed prescriptive equations. 

7 This issue is not entirely clear, however, since in the paper Needham refers to in this 

connection (Needham 1980) he speaks of 'asymmetric prescriptive alliance' being 

practised in several western Sumbanese domains that have terminologies which, 

according to all available evidence, are plainly non-prescriptive (see Forth 1980:223). 

8 'In a comparative analysis of structure and variations in western Sumba I have made an 

argument that asymmetric prescriptive systems on that island have transformed, 

concomitantly with an increasing stress on matrifiliation, into a series of non-prescriptive 

systems'(Needham 1984:228).

Komodo as Seen from Sumba 5 5 

Interestingly, Needham's argument against Sumbanese influence on 

Komodo specifically in regard to the present occurrence of non-prescriptive 

terminologies in most parts of western Sumba, might have been 

applied with at least equal validity.to the possibility of Komodo mamo 

reflecting influence from eastern Sumbanese mamu. The fact is that 

mamu is slightly less widespread on Sumba than are prescriptive terminologies 

in general, for at present it does not occur in Mamboru (where it 

is replaced by tiama), or anywhere to the west of this north coastal 

region. 9 Yet this does not of course mean that the term may not have 

been more widespread in the past. Indeed, it is worth mentioning in this 

connection that since eastern Sumbanese /u/, in final and other positions, 

is regularly replaced by lol in some western Sumbanese languages, 

Komodo mamo calls to mind a distinctly western variant of eastern 

Sumbanese mamu. 

As noted, Needham's second objection to the idea of Sumbanese 

influence on the Komodo classification is that 'there are no distinctly 

Sumbanese terms in the Komodo vocabulary' (1986:66). The source of 

this categorical statement would appear to be Verheijen's analysis of a 

sample of 1615 words in modern Komodo from which he deletes 144 

variant forms, thus leaving a total of 1471. From an examination of the 

latter, Verheijen concludes that 897 words are original or specific to 

Komodo while 574 have been borrowed from other languages, most 

notably from Bimanese, Manggarai and Malay (1982:39; cf. Needham 

1986:55-56). More to the point, none of the loanwords is indicated as 

being of Sumbanese origin. But this observation applies only to the 

sample of 1471 (or 1615). Also, in his introduction the author states that 

the list 'is very limited in extent', and that 'many commonly used words 

will not be found [in it]' (Verheijen 1982:76). These circumstances 

therefore leave open the clear possibility that modern Komodo may 

after all contain Sumbanese loanwords which are not accounted for in 

Verheijen's survey. 

In fact, there is at least one word that Verheijen records in his list, and 

again in the text of his monograph, which strongly suggests Sumbanese 

influence. This is mbarapu, 'spirit of a dead person', "spirit, ghost, 

spectre' (1982:106, 69 n. 35). Mbarapu is furthermore the name of an 

9 It should also be noted that in the dialects spoken in Rindi, Umalulu and Mangili, all in 

the extreme southeastern part of Sumba, mamu is used only for FZ while FZH is 

designated as kiya, a term which also occurs in several western Sumbanese languages 

(see Forth 1985:129). In his recently published dictionary, Onvlee (1984 s.v. kiya) 

states that in Mangili, Rindi and Melolo (i.e. Umalulu), kiya refers to FZ. This however 

is incorrect (see Forth 1981:303). The same author (Onvlee 1984 s.v. mamu) also 

indicates that mamu appears in the western Sumbanese district of Anakalangu as the 

term for FZ (and possibly FZH as well), whereas according to the data he supplied to 

Fischer (1957:12) the Anakalangu term for this relative is the descriptive compound 

ana wini ama, 'sister of father'.


(apparently mythical) island where the spirits of the Komodo dead are 

supposed to reside, and in this context Verheijen comments that the 

word is 'probably etymologically identical to Sumbanese marapu, 

"spirits" ' (1982:13). Of course, this reference to marapu - a term 

which, it is important to note, occurs in this form and with only slight 

variation in meaning throughout Sumba - might be taken to mean that 

Verheijen regards the two words simply as cognates. Yet such a relationship 

seems rather unlikely. The initial element in the Sumbanese word, 

ma, represents the relative pronoun which has become fused with the 

root rapu (Kapita 1976:87; Forth 1981:87; see also Lambooy 

1937:428, 437). Accordingly, this element is absent from cognates of 

marapu which appear in other languages of the Bima-Sumba group, viz. 

Manggarai (general) rapu 'corpse'; western (and occasionally central) 

Manggarai rapu, 'spirit' (Verheijen 1967:532) and Donggo rafu, 'soul of 

a dead man' (Kapita 1976:86; see also Ngadha repu, 'earthquake spirit, 

ancestor of the clan Ngadha', Arndt 1961:460). Since the initial ma in 

the Sumbanese word is evidently an extraneous element, the occurrence 

of the homologous element mba in mbarapu would thus appear to rule 

out the latter as a form specific or original to Komodo or a loan from 

Manggarai. In the absence of any other explanation of mba, therefore, 

influence from Sumba appears highly probable. 10 

Finally, it should be noted that, despite the conclusions he draws from 

the sample of 1615 words, Verheijen himself seems not to discount 

entirely the possibility of linguistic influence from Sumba. Thus, in the 

section that directly precedes his summary tabulation, he notes six 

Komodo words which, he suggests, reveal 'very unexpected etymological 

correspondences' (1982:39). One of these is Komodo bengga, 

bungga, 'dog', which he compares with Laora (Laura) and Kodi (both in 

western Sumba) bongga, 'dog'. Another is Komodo nemu, 'six', which 

as regards its similarity with Kambera (eastern Sumba) nomu and Kodi 

(western Sumba) namu, 'six', Verheijen remarks has 'a strikingly Sumbanese 

form'(1982:39)." 

Since this assessment could be applied with at least equal validity to 

Komodo mamo, it is a reasonable interpretation of the available evidence 

to suggest that the resemblance between this term and Sumbanese 

mamu, and between the other words which Verheijen mentions, may 

reflect Sumbanese influence on Komodo. And if this is accepted, then 

10 As mba does not appear in Verheijen's main wordlist, it would seem probable that it 

does not exist as an independent particle in modern Komodo. 

11 Namu is 'six' also in Mamboru, in Napu on the north coast of eastern Sumba (Verheijen 

1982:111), and in other places in the eastern part of the island (see Wielenga 1917:67 

s.v. zes). The original Komodo word, Verheijen speculates, should have been *eneng.

Komodo as Seen from Sumba 5 7 

one needs to consider also whether some variant of Sumbanese social 

classification (which may or may not be exactly represented on Sumba at 

present) has not in some way affected the structure of the Komodo 

classification. Of course, lexical influence from elsewhere does not 

necessarily bring about structural change in a relationship terminology, 

and all I am suggesting is that Sumba is worthy of some consideration as a 

possible source of influence on the terminology of modern Komodo. 

Certainly if one expects to provide a balanced assessment of the possible 

effects of external linguistic influence on the form or content of a social 

classification, then it is imperative that all likely sources of such influence 

be taken into account. 

IV 

I now wish to pass on to several more general matters bearing on the 

possible comparative significance of the Komodo relationship terminology. 

As an inspection of Verheijen's data will show, Needham's characterization 

of the terminology with the formula 'A(S)A' is correct as far as 

it goes. Yet this form of notation, since it provides no more than a 

summary statement of whether symmetry or asymmetry predominates 

in each of the three medial levels considered separately, cannot in fact 

characterize the classification as a single system. The formula is moreover 

somewhat misleading in the stress it apparently places on symmetry 

in ego's level. Thus, whereas 'A(S)A' suggests a classification that is 

preponderantly symmetric in one of the three medial levels, Needham 

elsewhere states that 'with the main exception of one symmetric feature 

(WB = ZH) the terminology as a whole composes an almost consistent 

classification of asymmetric prescriptive alliance' (1984:231, emphasis is 

mine). As if in support of this, Needham notes in his later analysis that 

several other equations found in ego's level, including Z = DHM, FZS = 

B, FZD = Z, and SWM = FZD, are consistent with asymmetric rather 

than symmetric alliance, and he further remarks that the only support, 

besides WB = ZH, for the definition of ego's level as symmetric is FZD 

= MBD (1986:59, 61). This last equation, however, is abstracted from 

the several specifications of ncawa, and since this term further denotes 

Z, FByD, MZyD, SWM and DHM, its total range of reference lends a 

bilateral, or non-lineal, cast to the terminology rather than providing any 

clear indication of symmetric alliance. One can therefore well agree with 

Needham when he says that at this level 'there is not an unqualified 

prescriptive symmetry' (1986:61). In fact, the only unambiguous indication 

of such a system is WB = ZH (kesa), and even this is compromised 

by the fact that eZH is equated (under another term) with FZS but not,


apparently, with MBS, for which specification Verheijen provides no 

term at all. 12 

Needham's mention of prescription in the two phrases quoted just 

above raises another, more intriguing question regarding the proper 

characterization of the Komodo relationship terminology, namely 

whether or in what sense it can be called a classification of prescriptive 

alliance - regardless of whether it is at the same time predominantly 

asymmetric or symmetric. Although in several places he speaks as 

though the Komodo terminology can be classified as a prescriptive one, 

this is an issue which Needham does not treat explicitly, even though it 

has considerable comparative import in an eastern Indonesian context. 

As an aspect of kin classification, prescription is of course indicated by 

the occurrence of usages equating affines with cognatic kin. Yet this 

conception raises the question, which has never been properly resolved, 

of what proportion of a terminology such usages must constitute before 

it can reasonably be designated as one of 'prescriptive alliance' (see 

Forth 1980:224). Very likely this is a question that can never be 

answered to everyone's satisfaction, and to that extent it might be argued 

that the notion of a classification of prescriptive alliance is meaningless, 

except perhaps in reference to terminologies, such as those of eastern 

Sumba or Kedang, where a clear majority of diagnostic usages involve 

prescriptive equations. On the other hand, though, the appearance of 

such equations, even where they are few in number, can have a significant 

bearing on the structure of a classification as a whole, as well as on 

the compatibility of the classification with social practice. In this regard, 

then, one needs to consider whether the four Komodo terms which entail 

prescriptive equations together compose a systematic feature of the 

terminology or whether they are no more than a collection of random 

and incidental usages lacking in structural coherence. 

At least two facts are relevant in this connection. First, all four of the 

prescriptive terms are at the same time symptomatic of asymmetry in 

that none equates matrilateral and patrilateral cognates or wife-giving 

and wife-taking affines. Put another way, the specifications of none of 

the four terms indicate a symmetric prescription, while conversely those 

features of the terminology which do suggest symmetry do not indicate 

prescription and are therefore not contrary to an asymmetric prescriptive 

system. The description of the four terms as symptomatic of a system 

of asymmetric prescriptive alliance applies even to uba, despite the use 

12 In this connection, it may also be of interest that Needham's characterization of the 

terminology of eastern Sumba as 'AAA' (1984:226), that is, as consistently asymmetric 

in all three medial levels, does not take into account the fact that, in at least one 

eastern Sumbanese domain, namely Rindi, the term dawa is employed symmetrically 

to designate both ZS (m.s.) and WBS (Forth 1981:303,315). It is, however, impossible 

to assess whether or not this single symmetric usage would for Needham constitute a 

sufficient ground for placing the third 'A' in brackets, as nowhere does he indicate the 

source of his information on eastern Sumbanese relationship terms.


of this term for eB, FBeS, and MZeS as well as for eZH and FZeS, since 

the term does not designate WB (kesa) or, so far as is known, MBS. In 

fact, uba can be seen to be consistent with asymmetric prescriptive 

alliance in another way, namely in so far as it equates the male patrilateral 

cross-cousin and a wife-taking affine with male siblings and parallel 

cousins, all of whom, in contrast to MBS, would be ruled out as potential 

providers of wives in such a system. The equations involved in uba are 

therefore analogous to the equation of Z, FBD, MZD (m.s.) and FZD 

(m.s.), which is common in other asymmetric terminologies (such as that 

of eastern Sumba), but which in the Komodo classification is obscured 

by the further application of ncawa (Z, FByD, MZyD, FZD, etc.) to 

MBD, SWM, and DHM. 

The second general feature of the Komodo terminology that is pertinent 

to the question of whether prescriptive equations constitute a 

systematic aspect of the classification is the fact that three of the four 

prescriptive usages (mamo, uba, and koa) occupy a single continuous 

area of the terminology, since they define the line of the male ego's 

wife-takers in the three medial terminological levels (see Fig. 1). The 

fourth term, wote (BC [w.s.], WBC, SW), on the other hand, is connected 

with this set as the reciprocal of mamo (FZ, FZH, HP). It needs to be 

pointed out in this context that as regards its specifically affinal referent, 

mamo is exclusively a women's usage, at least so far as Verheijen's data 

permit one to determine. However, as mamo is used by males as well as 

females for FZ and FZH, it is reasonable to suppose that the term can 

also refer to ZHP (m.s.). Since Verheijen lists no other term for a man's 

ZHF or ZHM, there is no reason to believe that this is not the case. 

koa 

ZD 

m f m f m 

mamo 

FZH (ZHF) 

uba 

FZeS, eZH 

koa 

ZS, DH 

mamo 

FZ (ZHM) 

(EGO) 

wote 

WBD, SW 

wote 

WBS 

Figure 1. Komodo terms evidencing prescriptive equations arranged in 

a scheme of asymmetric prescriptive alliance. 

Although certain fairly crucial details of the classification (most 

notably the man's term for MBS) are lacking, I would therefore provisionally 

conclude that the four prescriptive terms in Komodo do 

together compose a systematic aspect of the terminology and are not


random or fortuitous usages. To that extent, then, it would seem reasonable 

to treat the classification as a whole as one of prescriptive alliance, 

which, as noted earlier, is what Needham in fact appears to do. Ultimately, 

of course, this is a question of judgement and utility, and no 

doubt some might query whether a terminology which contains only four 

prescriptive terms should in its entirety be characterized as one of 

prescriptive alliance. Yet, however that may be, it seems clear enough 

that in Needham's own view the Komodo classification can be called 

prescriptive. After all, in his 1966 paper on terminology and alliance, he 

describes the 'consolidated Manggarai terminology' as one of 'symmetric 

prescriptive alliance' (1966:151) on the basis of no more than four 

sets of prescriptive equations, and these moreover are drawn from 

discrepant terminological data supplied by two different ethnographers 

(see MB, FZH = WF [amang] and FZ, MBW = WM [inang], from 

Verheijen reported in Fischer 1957, and FZS, MBS = ZH, WB [kesah] 

and MBD = W [ivina], from Coolhaas 1942). What is more, prescription, 

considered as a property of terminology (see Needham 1973), is 

something that in any case admits degrees, so that while two terminologies 

can both be classified as prescriptive, one can be more prescriptive, 

that is, can include more terms involving prescriptive equations, than the 

other. A good example of this is the terminology of Rindi, eastern 

Sumba (Forth 1981), as against the terminology of Mamboru, western 

Sumba (see Fischer 1957). 

I mention all of the foregoing in order to elucidate another singular 

interest of the Komodo terminology of relationship. In previous publications, 

Needham has undertaken to demonstrate that symmetric and 

asymmetric terminologies can exist with a variety of marriage rules. The 

attested combinations include an asymmetric prescriptive terminology 

with an asymmetric rule; a symmetric prescriptive terminology with an 

asymmetric rule; a symmetric prescriptive terminology with a symmetric 

rule; and a non-prescriptive terminology with an asymmetric rule. A 

combination which evidently does not occur, and which moreover seems 

highly unlikely on logical grounds, is an asymmetric prescriptive terminology 

and a symmetric marriage rule. Yet there is at least one other 

possibility that should be considered, namely an asymmetric prescriptive 

terminology operating in the absence of any positive marriage rule at all. 

Now, if it is accepted that the Komodo classification can generally be 

characterized as both asymmetric and prescriptive, then this system 

would quite clearly exemplify such a combination, for according to 

Verheijen there is no positive marriage rule in this society, only 'a very 

weak preference', expressed by old people, for the marriage of one son 

with a daughter of one of his mother's brothers, and no prohibition on 

unions with the other three types of female cousins (Verheijen 1982:16; 

Forth 1983:57; Needham 1986:62). In this respect, the Komodo system 

can be seen to represent a hitherto empirically unattested variant among


the formal combinatory possibilities of relationship terminologies and 

marriage rules, and thus, so far as I am aware, is quite unique, at any rate 

in Indonesia. 

Even though the arrangement would appear to be perfectly workable, 

it must be admitted that the existence of prescriptive terminological 

usages in the absence of a marriage prescription looks decidedly odd. 

After all, if for example a woman is not required.to marry a man 

belonging to the category of her FZS, then why should FZ and FZH be 

equated with HP as mamo? One possibility, of course, is that Komodo 

did once have an asymmetric marriage prescription which has since 

disappeared, while certain terminological features consistent with it 

have been retained. In other words, one may suppose that in this society 

the marriage rules have changed in advance of the associated system of 

terms - a situation which, from an evolutionary perspective, would also 

account for the combination of symmetric terms with an asymmetric rule 

such as occurs elsewhere in eastern Indonesia. The only other possibilities 

are that, on Komodo, an asymmetric prescriptive terminology has 

developed in the absence of any positive marriage rule, or in conjunction 

with no more than a weak marriage preference. The first of these latter 

two possibilities, especially, is worth a closer look. Thus, it is conceivable 

that the terminological equation of FZ and FZH with HP (to take this 

example again) expresses no more than the fact that all these specifications 

denote wife-takers of one's own natal group in the first ascending 

genealogical level. Put another way, the term in question (in this case 

mamo) might refer merely to existing affinal connections between 

groups, without any implication that an individual woman should always 

marry a man belonging to the category of her FZS. However, for several 

reasons — including the fact that all neighbouring societies with asymmetric 

prescriptive classifications also have positive marriage rules, and 

the apparent absence of anything like alliance groups on Komodo - this 

interpretation looks rather unlikely, and it seems far more probable that 

the Komodo people did once have an asymmetric marriage prescription. 

Indeed, the sorts of historical vicissitudes which Verheijen documents 

may well have played a major part in the disappearance of such a rule on 

Komodo, although they would not of course explain the retention of a 

prescriptive form of classification. Looked at in this way, then, the 

'remarkable tenacity of the structure of this classification' to which 

Needham (1986:66) refers, appears all the more remarkable. 

On a concluding note, it is pertinent to raise again a question touched 

on earlier, namely, if the term mamo does form an instance of lexical 

influence from Sumba, then might not the structure of the modern 

Komodo terminology reflect a similar influence? The answer has to be 

that this is possible but by no means necessary. As noted, two of the four 

terms which are symptomatic of both asymmetry and prescription are 

borrowings from Manggarai. Similarly, as regards the practice of asym-


metric alliance, if this were something that was introduced to Komodo, 

or that was buttressed or consolidated by outside influence, then it could 

have been derived either from Sumba or from western Flores. A more 

general point is that the adoption of a relationship term from another 

language does not require that the term will be applied in its new setting 

to exactly the same positions it designated in the source language. This 

point has bearing on the fact that Sumbanese mamu does not at present 

refer to HP, whereas Komodo mamo does. Quite possibly HP and FZ, 

FZH were earlier equated on Sumba, as would accord with the otherwise 

thoroughly prescriptive character of the terminology of those Sumbanese 

dialects in which mamu is currently encountered. Yet it is also 

conceivable that HP developed as a new specification after Sumbanese 

mamu, or some variant thereof, was introduced to Komodo. Whatever 

the case, and regardless of which term mamu may have replaced in an 

earlier Komodo terminology, modern Komodo mamo (FZ, FZH, HP) 

attests to a prescriptive form of classification which has evidently persisted 

in the absence of a formal prescription or any system of marriage 

alliance. This in itself makes Komodo a source of much interest in the 

comparative analysis of eastern Indonesian social structure. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Arndt, P., 1961, Worterbuch der Ngadhasprache, Fribourg, Suisse: Posieux. [Studia Instituti 

Anthropos Vol. 15.] 

Barnes, R. H., 1972, 'Ngada', in: F. M. LeBar (ed.), Ethnic groups of insular Southeast 

Asia, Vol. 1: Indonesia, Andaman Islands, and Madagascar, New Haven: Human 

Relations Area Files Press. 

Barraud, C, 1979, Tanebar-Evav: Une societe de maisons tournee vers le large, Cambridge: 

University Press/Paris: Maison des Sciences de l'Homme. 

Blust, R., 1980, 'Early Austronesian social organization: The evidence of language', 

Current Anthropology 21:205-47. 

Coolhaas, W. Ph., 1942, 'Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Manggaraische volk (West- 

Flores)', Tijdschrift van het Koninklijk Nederlandsch Aardrijkskundig Genootschap 

59:148-77,328-360. 

Dempwolff, D., 1938, Austronesisches Worterverzeichnis (Vergleichende Lautlehre des 

austronesischen Wortschatzes 3), Berlin: D. Reimer. 

Drabbe, M. S. C, 1940, Het leven van den Tanimbarees; Ethnografische studie over het 

Tanimbaresche volk, Leiden: E. J. Brill. 

Echols, J. M., and H. Shadily, 1963, An Indonesian-English dictionary, 2nd edition, Ithaca 

and London: Cornell University Press. 

Fischer, H. Th., 1957, 'Some notes on kinship systems and relationship terms of Sumba, 

Manggarai and South Timor', Internationales Archivfiir Ethnographie 48:1 -31. 

Forth, G. L., 1980, Review of J. J. Fox (ed.), The flow of life: Essays on eastern Indonesia, 

in Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford 11 -.222-21. 

—, 1981, Rindi: An ethnographic study of a traditional domain in eastern Sumba, The 

Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. [KITLV, Verhandelingen 93.] 

—, 1983, Review of J. A. J. Verheijen, Komodo: Het eiland, het volk en de taal, in 

Indonesia Circle 23:56-58. 

—, 1984, Letter to Dr. J. A. Hoskins, Australian National University, dated 25 April 

1984.


—, 1985, 'Layia (FZS, ZH, m.s.): The evolutionary implications of some Sumbanese 

affinal terms', Sociologus 35; 120-141. 

—, n.d., Nage field notes (1983-85). [Unpublished.] 

Hoskins, J. A., 1984, Personal communication. 

Jonker, J. C. G., 1893, Bimaneesch-Hollandsch woordenboek, Verhandelingen van het 

Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen 48, pt. 1. 

Just, P., 1987, Personal communication. 

Kapita, Oe. H., 1976, Masyarakat Sumba dan Adat Istiadatnya, Waingapu: Panitia 

Penerbit Naskah-Naskah Kebudayaan Daerah Sumba Dewan Penata Layanan Gereja 

Kristen Sumba. 

Lambooy, P. J., 1937, 'Het begrip "Marapoe" in den godsdienst van Oost Soetnba", BKI 

95:425-439. 

Lewis, E. D., 1985, Personal communication. 

Needham, R., 1966,'Terminology and alliance: 1. Garo, Manggarai', Sociologus 16:141- 

157. 

—, 1973, 'Prescription', Oceania 43:166-181. 

—, 1980, 'Principles and variations in the structure of Sumbanese society', in: J. J. Fox 

(ed.), The flow of life: Essays on eastern Indonesia, Cambridge (Mass.) and London: 

Harvard University Press. 

—, 1984, 'The transformation of prescriptive systems in eastern Indonesia', in: P. E. de 

Josselin de Jong (ed.), Unity in diversity; Indonesia as afield of anthropological study, 

Dordrecht: Foris. [KITLV, Verhandelingen 103.] 

—, 1986, 'Principles and variations in the social classification of Komodo', BKI 142:52- 

68. 

Nicolspeyer, M. M., 1940, De sociale structuur van een Aloreesche bevolkingsgroep, 

Rijswijk: V. A. Kramers. 

Onvlee, L., 1973, Cultuur als antwoord, 's-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. [KITLV, Verhandelingen 

66.] 

—, 1984, Kamberaas (Oost-Soembaas) - Nederlands Woordenboek, Dordrecht: Foris. 

Suchtelen, B. C. C. M. M. van, 1921, Endeh (Flores), Weltevreden. 

Verheijen, J. A. J., 1967, Kamus Manggarai, I: Manggarai-Indonesia, The Hague: 

Martinus Nijhoff. 

—, 1978, Bahasa Rembong di Flores Barat, Volume III, Ruteng: S. V. D. [Cited in 

Needham 1986.] 

—, 1982, Komodo: Heteiland, het volk en de taal, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. [KITLV, 

Verhandelingen 96.] 

Wetering, F. H. van de, 1926, 'De Savoeneezen', BK7 82:485-575. 

Wielenga, D. K., 1917, Vergelijkende woordenlijst der verschillende dialecten op het eiland 

Soemba en eenige Soembaneesche spreekwijzen, Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch 

Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen 61 pt. 5. 

Wurm, S. A., and B. Wilson, 1975, English finderlist of reconstructions in Austronesian 

languages (post-Bandstetter), Canberra: Australian National University. [Pacific Linguistics, 

Series C, 33.] 

ABREVIATIONS USED: 

BKI: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 

KITLV: Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde

G. Forth Komodo as seen from Sumba ... - KITLV journals

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?