Defining Wildness and Wilderness: Minangkabau Images

Defining Wildness and Wilderness: Minangkabau Images
and Actions on Siberut (West Sumatra):
GERARD A. PERSOON

Introduction

The psychology of forest man gave way to the psychology of field

man, as timber retreated before the axe. In that new way of life, in that removal from the dictates of the wild trees to the safer confines of the cabin and the house, men also put a distance between the savage behaviour necessary for survival by hunting and the milder behaviour possible for agricultural folk who could store food and plan a seasonal diet. (...) culture became more possible at each remove from the wilderness and more critical of that primitive past (Sinclair 1977: 22)

.

While the Asian Development Bank is implementing a multi-million

dollar project on the island of Siberut to protect its biodiversity and its unique traditional culture, provincial officials are preparing proposals to convert a large part of the island into a palm oil plantation. If these plans will be implemented it will no doubt be necessary to import a substantial workforce. This will most probably mean transmigration which, until now, has not affected the island.

These two views and their corresponding plans of action regarding

Siberut’s future and the destination of its people and resources, are worlds apart. They represent on the one hand the idea of maintaining a kind a wilderness condition including a traditional people versus the idea of converting ‘unproductive’ forest land to a more profitable form of land use on the other. In the latter view no detailed thoughts are given to the local people.

These contradictions cannot simply be related to attitudes of

government versus national or international NGOs. They refer largely to contradictions within the government itself. This is also not a new phenomenon. Over the last few decades heated debates have taken place within the bureaucracy itself with, in some cases with a strong support from the international environmental and tribal peoples’ movement.

In talking about the government, it is mainly the provincial

government of West Sumatra which plays a central role regarding Siberut. As this province is the homeland of the Minangkabau people, and the provincial government is heavily dominated by this ethnic group, it is also the Minangkabau version of centrally issued policies that has become a crucial element in the process of change on Siberut in addition to more locally

---

conceived policies and decisions.

In this paper I want to discuss the views of the Minangkabau

regarding the natural wilderness and cultural ‘wildness’2 of Siberut both in their official positions as governmental employees as well as in their non- official positions, that is as ordinary members of the dominant ethnic group with regard to Siberut. In peasant views in general as well as in perceptions of governmental officials wilderness and wildness are often closely connected. People living in an undomesticated nature are almost by definition ‘wild’, and uncivilized people. They are supposed to eat wild foods and wild animals; they live in modest huts and their general life style is devoid of any refinement. The forest dwelling people are supposed to live of nature; they consider themselves as subordinate to nature and do not even aim to dominate over it.

First of all I will give a brief sketch of the island and of the

Mentawaians and then I will discuss the views and involvement of the Minangkabau on Siberut. It will be important to differentiate between between those who have come to Siberut as voluntary migrants and those who have been officially transferred to the island as civil servants.3 Island Siberut is the largest of the Mentawaian Islands at some 80 kilometer off the west coast of Sumatra (see map 1). It is inhabited by about 23,000 Mentawaians and a small number of migrants, predominantly of Minangkabau origin. In relation to its total land mass of about 4,090 km2 the island is sparsely populated. About sixty village settlements are scattered over the island though administratively there are only twenty villages (desa), divided over two subdistricts (kecamatan) (North and South Siberut) within the district (kabupaten) of Padang-Pariaman.

Siberut has been an oceanic island for at least 500,000 years and its

fauna and flora have evolved in isolation from the dynamic evolutionary events on the Sunda Self. Hills rise steeply, though the highest peak on the island is less than 400 meters. Many rivers dissect through the thick forest.

---

The Mentawaians are traditionally organized in patrilineal groups of

approximately 30 to 80 people living in small settlements, called uma, along the banks of the rivers. These groups of people were autonomous political units. There was a high frequency of marriages between uma members living in the valley of a particular river, but political units were never formed at that level. The size and density of the population must have been rather stable for a long period. Hunting, fishing and gathering provided most of the daily food. Sago starch, obtained from the sagopalm (Metroxylon sagu) was and still is the staple. Stands of wild and planted sago occur in the swampy areas and along the banks of the river. There is also some domestication of free roaming pigs and chickens. In addition to these food resources people cultivate root crops, bananas and fruit trees. Annual crops like rice and corn are absent however.

The partial division of labour was limited to specific tasks between

men and women. Each family was to a large extent economically self sufficient but friends and relatives were always willing to assist in the construction of a house, a dug-out, or for clearing the forest for fruit trees. The only specialist in the villages was the medicine man, the kerei, responsible for communication with the spirits and souls, which play a very important role in the traditional animistic religion of the Mentawaians. Differences in wealth were limited and related to differences in ability and diligence. The Mentawaians never created substantial economic differences because of the generally accepted norms for dividing and distributing possible benefits deriving from these personal qualities.4

Because of numerous processes of change, like missionary activities,

forced resettlement, logging, and local development activities, life on Siberut is moving in different directions. Some of the groups have resisted outside pressure and continue to live more or less ‘traditionally’, they have not given in to new religions and life styles. Others however have embraced ‘modernity’ and given up the life style of their ancestors almost completely. The majority of people fall within these two extremes: they combine in a creative manner elements of both worlds in constellations that may change according to the circumstances and outside pressure. For that reason it is hard to speak about the local people. There is substantial internal variation among the people on the island.

The tropical rainforest on Siberut is well known for its rich endemic

---

wildlife including four primate species. Endemic birds and other animals and plants are also relatively abundant on this island, which makes Siberut an important island in the natural heritage of Indonesia but also internationally (World Wildlife Fund 1980). Siberut as Minangkabau rantau

The Minangkabau people of West Sumatra well known for their

wonderlust and tendency to migrate (merantau). Together with the Buginese they belong to the most mobile ethnic groups in Indonesia5. The dominant patterns in their migration history are labelled as a process of village segmentation moving into newly cleared forest land, circulatory migration of males looking temporarely for work outside their home area and finally the largely urban migration, also called ‘Chinese migration’, referring to the rather permanent nature of the Chinese to other areas (Naim 1979 and Kato 1982). Kato rightfully refers to these patterns as ideal types, allowing for variations. The migration to the island of Siberut certainly falls outside these types. The movement to this island is of a different nature and it also has different consequences.

At the present moment there are well over 2,000 Minangkabau

living on the island of Siberut. The majority of them live in the two harbour villages on the east coast, Muara Sikabaluan and Muara Siberut, but cut across the island in almost every village, one or more Minangkabau are to be found as traders, shopkeepers or teachers. They live a rather isolated life amidst the tribal Mentawaians. Most of the Minangkabau have come to the island as voluntary migrants. They have done so mostly with their families and try to make a living as a trader, fisherman, farmer, contractor, tourist guide, carpenter or, at least until recently, as a temporary employee in the logging business. Some of them work as crew members on the small trading vessels which connect Siberut with the mainland of Sumatra. Other Minangkabau were transferred to the island because of official assignments in governmental positions. Most of them are men who left their families behind on the mainland of Sumatra. I will refer to them later.

---

Voluntary Migrants

A mixture of agricultural and other activities throughout the year is

typical for almost all voluntary migrants’ families. Very few devote themselves entirely to one kind of activity. Within the family they combine cash income generating activities with fishing, swamp rice cultivation and some coastal agriculture for subsistance and cash purposes. These migrants to Siberut do not originate from the core area of the Minangkabau, that is the Central Highlands of West Sumatra, nor from the city of Padang, the booming capital of the province. Most of the migrants come from areas around the coastal towns of Painan and Pariaman. This is to be explained by the fact that in former times these places were harbours for sailing ships going out to numerous places along the west coast of Sumatra and the adjacent islands like Nias, the Batu Islands, Siberut, Sipora, Pagai and Enggano.

The Mentawaian Archipelago is a relatively recent destination for

Minangkabau migrants but it is known that traders visited the islands with their sailing ships (biduk) irregularly for centuries, even though none of them settled down permanently (Kato 1980). They roamed around the islands for months in search of trade products. In particular they were looking for coconuts, sago, rattan, turtle shields and resins in exchange for glass beads, iron wear, cloth and tobacco (Hinlopen and Severijn 1855). Once in a while there were conflicts and even killings between Minangkabau and the local Mentawaians about these transactions. It was only after the Dutch colonial administration actually occupied the island of Siberut in the first decade of this century that some Minangkabau (and Chinese) sailing traders dared to settled down on the island. In the beginning the community was very small, numbering not more than a few families from Pariaman and Painan. They were traders and fishermen. Their houses were constructed very close to the mouth of the Siberut river at some distance from the military barracks. The establishment of an open penal settlement for about 250 condemned criminals from Java an Sumatra in the 1920s meant a substantial relief for the Minangkabau settlers, as the criminals were used to dig ditches and to construct and maintain landing stages for their sailing ships and the governmental boats. The convicted men were also forced to build quay walls of mangrove poles to protect the Minangkabau houses and governmental offices against flooding.

---

By the time the Japanese took control over the island in 1942 there were about thirty families living in Muara Siberut which had become the centre for the local administration and for trading purposes. A number of traditional sailing ships were also built in this village using the high quality wood on the hills nearby. In the meantime another Minangkabau harbour village had developed in the north of the island, Muara Sikabaluan. In the period after the Japanese occupation the number of voluntary migrants increased but so did the number of civil servants, policemen and teachers who were transferred to Siberut. The community in Muara Siberut had a difficult period during the PRRI rebellion (Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Indonesia) at the end of the 1950s. For a long time there were no ships from Padang to deliver food products and other goods or to load forest products from the island. The Minangkabau were forced to become completely self-sufficient for that time. It was only after suppression of the revolt in 1961 that the communication and the flow of goods returned to normal. Defining the Island’s Wildness and Wilderness How do the Minangkabau migrants look at Siberut? How do they look upon the local people and upon the forest? And to what extent have these views determined their activities related to the forest and the relations with the local people? Theoretically there is an interesting difference between these two elements (forest and people) compared to the situation on the mainland. Forest is a well known phenomenon for the Minangkabau so to some extent at least one could expect a certain kind of continuity in basic attitude and practices towards the forest. Ethnically however the situation is different as the land of the Minangkabau is culturally rather homogeneous and even the neighbouring ethnic groups share many cultural traits and have been strongly influenced by one another over the course of decades and even centuries. On Siberut however this situation is radically different. But first I will take a closer look at the perception of the forest. To the Minangkabau in West and Central Sumatra forest is a well known phenomenon though the process of deforestation has greatly reduced the

amount of forest in this province. Particularly in the fringe areas, the daily life of the Minangkabau is closely connected to the forest. It is an important source for timber and fuel wood, non-timber forest products including bush meat. But the forest also has its non-utilitarian values. Forest is also the world of a number of categories of spiritual beings including the ancestors. Some of these spiritual beings manifest themselves as wild animals. In particular beliefs and stories about tigers are very much alive. The forest is also of ‘living space’ of the spiritual founding fathers (Bakels, n.d.). These spiritual beings play an important role in the wellfare of the community and of individual people. Also in healing ceremonies performed by the local dukun the forest spirits are often called upon to assist in the healing process or to give their blessing to the one who fell ill. What is important here is also the notion of localised beliefs: they do not refer to ‘forest’ as an unspecified category, it is not just ‘any forest’. Most of these beliefs are related to the forest surrounding the settlement and even the somewhat unclear ‘deep forest’ is the area behind the transition zone (Aumeeruddy 1994; Aumeeruddy and Bakels 1994; Osseweijer 1994). Most authors about these spiritual elements in Minangkabau culture, or the culture of related ethnic groups like the Kerinci people, indicate that processes of change have reduced the strenght and knowledge about these beliefs. Through economic incorporation and a strong islamization of the belief system, these beliefs are losing their relevance for guiding the actions of local people in relation to the forest. Practical and utilitarian considerations have gained importance over religious and symbolic functions in recent years. In some cases this is happening in spite of the fact that symbolically the forest and its spiritual inhabitants survive in stories and myths while ecologically the forest is greatly changed. This difference between wildness and wilderness was theoretical however to some extent as most of the Minangkabau migrants to Siberut are of coastal origin. Most of them make a living by fishing, trading and sailing. There are not many families with a strong sedentary agricultural background. ‘Forest’, both in terms of material wellfare (agriculture, forest products, hunting), or in terms of spiritual beliefs did not play a big role in the lifes of many of these migrants in their home area. Ideas about forest were not very strong. In that respect these Minangkabau migrants did not belong to the Minangkabau core area, surrounded by heavily forested mountains which were important for

---

agricultural as well as in terms of religious or symbolic beliefs. I also have the impression that the strength of the Islam in these coastal areas, has replaced a lot of these forest based beliefs.

Most of these voluntary migrants did settle down as fishermen, and

traders and craftsman. Up till now I know of none Minangkabau who has taken up upland agriculture on the island as they would have done in other frontier areas. In other parts of Sumatra the Minangkabau would have cleared the forest, burned the vegetation and prepared fields for growing upland rice, corn or other crops like tobacco. Maybe in a later stage they would have started to grow tree crops like rubber in combination with coffee and make the transition from shifting agriculture to more permanent forms of agriculture. In the forest they were looking for valuable non-timber products such as rattan, honey, resins and incense woods in addition to timber for construction purposes. This is pretty much the process of village segmentation in the forest fringe areas as described by Kato (1990). In this process the dominant attitude was that the forest is an exploitable resource and that converting it into agricultural land is the best possible use.

On Siberut however this has not happened. In spite of the sparse

population on the island the Minangkabau migrants have refrained from competing with local people by occupying agricultural land to any significant degree. They have mainly established themselves in a number of coastal settlements. In these areas they have not started upland agriculture for dry rice or corn. Some of them started wet rice cultivation in the cleared swamps surrounding these settlements, mainly for home consumption. It is only recent that the Minangkabau have bought little pieces of land along the coast for cultivating coconuts and cloves. With the present crisis in the clove trade (prices are extremely low) however most of the clove gardens are neglected.

The Minangkabau on Siberut have never taken up hunting. The

absence of hunting, including the collective pig hunt (see Errington 1984), must probably be attributed to the fact that this activity would bring them in direct conflict with the local people. The Mentawaians have divided the forests and all the resources contained in them among the uma and their individual members. The early Minangkabau migrants have never claimed these resources or started to negotiate in order to obtain access to them. Fishing, trading and coastal agriculture are the dominant activities of these migrants. Fishing is done in small boats with outboard motors. There are a

---

few beach seines on the island but these are seldomly used. Since the transport facilities to Padang have been improved and since fish can be properly stored in boxes cooled with imported ice, there is a tendency to focus even more on the sea fishing6.

In other words the Minangkabau have by and large refrained from

exploiting the forest on the island directly. They have looked for other niches to occupy. This tendency may be explained by the historical process of settlement on the island during which the colonial government kept the ethnic groups apart and particularly in the first decades of this century the Minangkabau did not dare to settle away from the centre of administration and protection. This may have attracted a special type of migrant. Siberut was simply not an attractive option for Minangkabau primarily looking for arable land. Moreover people interested in land still had large tracts of forest available on the mainland of Sumatra. The presence of large numbers of free- roaming pigs which would certainly have destroyed the newly cultivated fields might have contributed to keep the Minangkabau away from the forest. The local practice of not using fire in forest clearings made upland agriculture even less attractive7. So to the migrants coming to Siberut the forest had no attraction. I have no indication that their attitude was based on their original beliefs regarding the forest. Probably they just accepted the idea, initially forced upon them by the colonial administration, that the forest on Siberut did not belong to them. They kept distance and left the forest to the Mentawaians and their spiritual beings8.

The homeland of the Minangkabau is ethnically rather homogeneous

and in the border areas in the surrounding provinces there is a gradual shift from Minangkabau culture to other ethnic groups with decreasing Minangkabau influence. The neighbouring ethnic groups such as the Malay and Kerinci people and even the Orang Kubu9, are thought to be historically (truely and fictitiously) related to the Minangkabau as is evident from many stories and folk tales. There are varying degrees of cultural continuity in these areas regarding language, kinship structure, religion, architectural styles, agricultural practices, and life style in general. People from these ethnic groups also acknowledge exchange of symbolic knowledge10. In addition these peoples are connected through extensive trade networks and have been so for extended periods of time.

---

But culturally the situation of Minangkabau migrants on Siberut is

radically different. There is little cultural ressemblance between the Minangkabau and the Mentawaians. There is also no evidence nor stories about close historical relations. The people of Siberut speak a different language, adhere traditionally a different religion, and practice a totally different form of land use, not based not wet rice cultivation nor on a kind of upland agriculture with dry rice and corn as the major crops. They also raise pigs. In short, the cultural context of Siberut is really of a different nature and for a long time the Mentawaians showed no inclination to accept the language and culture of the ‘strangers’. Besides the Minangkabau living in the three coastal settlements of Muara Siberut, Muara Saibi and Muara Sikabaluan, almost every settlement has one or two Minangkabau traders who have come there as voluntary migrants. They have settled there to buy forest products, in particular rattan in exchange for a wide range of consumer items like tobacco, clothing, sugar, coffee, and batteries. But they also sell tools like bush knives, and fishing gear. Most of them have left their family in the coastal settlements or even on the mainland of Sumatra. These Minangkabau live a rather isolated life: they do not participate in the daily routine of the Mentawaians. They look after their shop and travel up and down to the coast to export the rattan, copra and other products and to get new supplies. They remain ethnic strangers even though some of them have spent more than twenty years amongst the Mentawaians.

The Minangkabau on Siberut feel culturally superior to the

Mentawaians in almost all aspects of life: food, housing, clothing, religion, and material culture. Some of the most ‘primitive’ elements of the local culture according tot the Minangkabau are the religion (not considered as a ‘religion’ in the proper sense of the word), the raising of pigs, freely roaming around the house, the lack of labour specialization, body decorations (tattoo), the lack of formal education in which Minangkabau take a rather great interest. Minangkabau also look down on the Mentawaians because of their lack of solidarity and absence of a spirit of cooperation. Jealousy between the uma within a village, based on the old rivaly between the groups, frustrates many development activities. The Mentawaians are also said to lack a future orientation; according to the Minangkabau they live too much on a day-to-day basis. The Minangkabau can not understand why the Mentawaians refuse to imitate them or why they do not want to learn from them. For most of the

---

Minangkabau, Siberut is a ‘wild’ place inhabited by ‘wild’ people who do not want to become modern (maju).

This message is also nicely illustrated by two popular novels called

Depok, anak Pagai, and Mentawai, Pulau Darah. The first is written by the Minangkabau author Damhoeri, who had gained some experience on Siberut. The second is written by Arifin. They were published at time that many Minangkabau novels appeared but as far as I know they were the only ones in which reference is made to Mentawai. The penny novels have often been reprinted and revised as well. They are known by many Minangkabau on the island either from reading or from hearsay.

The first story recounts the adventures of a converted Mentawaian

called Depok in West Sumatra. He is a young man from Siberut, wild (liar) and very strong but unfamiliar with with religion (Islam) and good manners (kesopanan). His character however is good. After meeting a haji Depok wants to embrace Islam, adopt the Minangkabau way of life and moreover he desperately wants to marry the daughter of the haji, who pushes this marriage strongly. Buth the daughter turns Depok down because they are not of one blood and because of lack of love. In the end Depok returns home to Siberut and before he dies he urges the people from his village to convert to Islam which brings peace and safety. Depok is now considered modern (maju), full of experience, civilized and with a world view of those from across the sea (Damhoeri 1940 and 1965).11 The second novel Mentawai, Pulau Darah (‘Mentawai, Blood Island’) which appeared for the first time during the Japanese occupation contains quite a few ethnographic details about the islands in addition to the main story12. The main tale, a love story, is about a young Minangkabau man on Siberut, called Musa, and a local girl, called Haowa. This young man falls in love with the girl who does not (yet) know what civilization (peradaban) is, who does not cover her body with silk cloth, nor uses face powder or wears gold. She also has not learned deceiving trics. In the end however Musa returns to Padang, ‘to the world of civilization and a society filled with created beauty.’

Among these Minangkabau migrants however there is certainly also

an amount of respect for the Mentawaians. The Minangkabau appreciate their craftmanship in building houses and dugs outs. And among the Mentawaians

---

friendly relations. But as a whole the Minangkabau people do not think very highly of them and, in private discussions while pointing to many failed efforts to raise the standards of living, they often raise radical methods to change the situation on the island13. On the other hand they acknowledge the fact that the Minangkabau on Siberut profit from the present state of development of the Mentawaians. The Minangkabau can successfully operate as middleman, trader and shopkeeper due to the fact that they can easily exclude the Mentawaians from serious competition in these fields.

Mainly based on the same profit driven view, but nevertheless an

interesting change is this relation and a different view on the ‘wildness’ of the people started to appear at the end of the ’80s at least among a particular group of Minangkabau. Suddenly and fully driven by Minangkabau entrepreneurship, these socalled ‘primitive’ aspects of the Mentawaians became a valuable asset. Once connections between Padang and Siberut started to be more frequent and maintained by new boats, some Minangkabau started to promote ‘adventure travel’ and ‘Stone Age Culture’ on Siberut among the backpack travellers passing through Bukittinggi. They did so successfully: within a few years a steady and still growing wave of western tourists started to come to the island guided by young Minangkabau. So at least for some group of Minangkabau the ‘wildness’ of the Mentawaians became an economic opportunity which gradually gave rise to more appreciation of the culture. Soon networks developed between these Bukittinggi-based touroperators and Siberut-based Minangkabau who own boats, stores and who were also quick to provide simple accomodation. The ‘original’ or ‘wild’ Mentawaian suddenly becme valuable as a target for the tourists eagerly looking for some rainforest adventure travel. What is important here is the change in attitude among a particular group of Minangkabau who suddenly started to have an economic interest in the traditional local people. They also do not want this situation to change. On the contrary: the more traditional the people are, and above all the more traditional they look, the more attractive they will be to the tourists (Persoon and Heuveling van Beek 1997).

Civil Servants

As part of the province of West Sumatra, Siberut receives its share of

provincial and national governmental attention. First of all this is through the regular, all Indonesian programmes in the field of education, local administration, communication, health care, and agriculture. But because of its isolated position, the implementation of these programmes is somewhat different from that on the mainland. But second and more important is that Siberut deviates from the rest of West Sumatra because of the nature of its population which is classified as different from the rest of the province. This has given rise to special programmes which are being implemented by the Department of Social Affairs.

In order to implement all these programmes numerous civil servants

are sent to Siberut in order to serve their term on the island. Policemen, teachers, nurses, and civil servants from various departments are transfered to the island. Most of them are stationed in the two main harbour villages, Muara Sikabaluan and Muara Siberut, which are the centres for the two kecamatan on the island (North and South Siberut). Generally civil servants consider the transfer to the island as a necessity which they have to accept as part of their civil servant (pegawai negeri) position. Most of them look forward to the day they can return to the mainland or tanah tepi as they call it.14

These employees are provided with local housing. Almost all civil

servants are of Minangkabau origin: this is to be explained by the fact that the West Sumatra is dominated by the Minangkabau and so far very few Mentawaians have achieved the necessary level of education to fulfill the requirements for these positions.15

Within the context of this paper I would like to focus on two

departments in particular because they deal with the ‘wildness’ and ‘wilderness’ aspects of the island.

---

Defining Wildness: Social Affairs

The native population of Siberut is officially classified as masyarakat

terasing (isolated people), a category of people which deserves special attention according to the policies of the government. Although the entire population of the Mentawai Archipelago was classified as such but over the years, the focus of attention has been on the people of Siberut only.

Though the population of Siberut was already classified as an

isolated ethnic group in the ’50s, it was not until 1972 that the special development programme designed for these tribal people started its first project. This ‘civilization and development’-programme as developed by the Department of Social Affairs, aims to integrate all isolated people in Indonesia into the mainstream of social and cultural life. It aims to turn the ‘wild’, isolated, backward and hinterland people into modern Indonesian citizens. The classification of a particular group of people as an isolated group is based on a number of criteria like religion, food patterns, settlements, housing, and world view. The development programma to integrate these people into the mainstream is implemented through resettlement projects in which all- encompassing development activities are executed over a period of five to seven years. These include sedentary agriculture, health care, education, and religious activities16. Over the years 23 projects have been implemented affecting the lifes of more than 7000 people or about one third of the island’s population.

Though the programme for the isolated tribes is a Jakarta initiated

and financed programme, the provincial department plays a very crucial role. Basic decisions as to which people are classified as masyarakat terasing are taken at the provincial level in the first place. It is also the provincial department (of Social Affairs) which initiates the first activities like the field surveys. It is again the provincial department which determines the targets, and which implements its policies. Proposals for projects are forwarded to Jakarta for agreement and financing. Also the programme of implementation is run from the provincial office. And after termination of the project the settlement is officially handed over to the provincial administration. To some extent one could say that it the provincial and in this case Minangkabau version of the centrally designed development policies which is of crucial importance for the Mentawaians on Siberut.

---

Probably the best illustration of this provincial view is an official

evaluation on a particular project by the department itself. This evaluation provides a clear image of how one perceives the original situation and the ideal situation after termination of the projects. Though this evaluation is said to be based on field surveys I do not want to discuss the emperical evidence on which it is based. Here the evaluation is merely used to present the kind of images, contrasts and concepts that are employed in this context (see tabel 1).

The evaluation describes the initial situation stressing the

‘uncivilized’, ‘wild’ of ‘close to nature’ aspects of the traditional life of the Mentawaians. The project is considered to have brought an enormous change in almost all aspects of life within a period of five to seven years. To mention here just one example: with regard to the livelihood the villagers are said to have moved from forest products and hunting and uncultivated foods to sedentary agriculture and wet rice cultivation. The interventions are supposed to have led the Mentawaians away from wildness and wilderness to civilization, domestication and integration in the mainstream of Indonesian social and cultural life. It is the intention of the Department of Social Affairs to extend this programme until all people of Siberut have been reached and ‘educated’ (dibina)(Departmen Sosial 1996). Defining Wilderness: Forestry

Views regarding the value of the wilderness conditions on Siberut

have not been consistent over the years. They have moved from large scale logging operations in the early ’70s to the establishment of a National Park in 1993. But parallel and underneath this dominant development there have always been forces moving in opposite directions.

In the early ’70s almost the entire forest of Siberut was granted to a

number of logging companies based on the idea that all forest resources land belonged to the state. This new phase was announced as offering a new prospect for Mentawai. The traditional export products of sago and rattan were no longer in great demand: it was thought that sago was replaced by other products in the food industry and that plastic would replace rattan. The prospect of exporting large quantities of valuable wood, also called ‘the mining of the green gold’ (tambang emas hijau), was thought to lead Siberut and the other Mentawaian Islands out of their state of backwardness (Aneka

---

Minang 1972)(see map 2).

According to the local people however there is no empty land on the

island. The whole island, including also the primary forest, is divided among the umaF. The local people however were not able to resist the logging companies from moving in. The local administration backed up by the police force was avalaible to support the operations of the logging companies.

In 1976 a small reserve area of 6,500 was established in the middle

of the island, called Teitei Batti. Through the efforts of World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and heavily supported by the Minister for the Environment, Emil Salim, this reserve area was extended up to 132,900 in 1982 Through the international interest in Siberut, based on the endemic species and the unique population, Siberut was even officially declared a Man and Biosphere reserve in 1981 by UNESCO in Paris. However once the involvement in the field of international organisations like WWF and Survival International had come to an end in 1982, logging went on with little respect for the reserve boundaries. The Indonesian Department for Nature Conservation could not cope with the strenght of the companies.

There is a big difference between civil servants employed in

departments which are basically interested in stimulating or facilitating money generating activities, like agriculture, and forestry on the one hand and civil servants in the Department for Nature Conservation on the other. The latter are always forced into in a defensive role. They have to protect forest or biodiversity from encroaching farmers, companies or estates.

The first group of people want to convert the forest in more

profitable and practical uses, like agriculture or estates for industrial crops. To them wilderness represents primarily a wealth of untapped resources waiting to be utilized or marketed. They look down on environmental concerns for wilderness protection and they are not easily impressed by arguments for biodiversity conservation or degrees of primate endemism. Moreover they feel that the local people should be uplifted from their state of backwardness and ignorance and large scale conversion of forest land and immigration of people with a superior culture were suggested to be proper ways to achieve this.

As a consequence of this a number of other initiatives have been

---

taken in the past two decades. Plans were designed for establishment of transmigration sites on Siberut, as well as oil palm plantations. Since the late sixties Siberut has been mentioned in the potential sites for transmigration sites within the province of West Sumatra. For a variety of reasons these were never materialised however18. In 1991 the plans to establish a 250,000 ha oil palm plantation on the island gave rise to a wide discussion in which foreign organisations actively participated. Because of lack of infrastructure for fresh water supply, adequate harbour facilities and a number of other reasons, these plans were cancelled however.

In 1992, and much to the surprise of many conservationists in

Indonesia as well as elsewhere, President Suharto announced the establisment of a National Park of the island and cancellation of all logging concessions. And so it happened. Logging equipment, chain saws, trucs and bulldozers were withdrawn from the island and the former logging camps were either gradually overgrown or they were occupied by local people, who had already cleared fields close to the camps. For a couple of years the threat of establishment of a large oil palm plantation was no longer there. On the contrary action was taken to implement the National Park on the island. Part of a large loan of the Asian Development Bank for biodiversity conservation in Indonesia was used for its implementation in addition to the allocation of funds from the government of Indonesia itself. The implementation of this project is on its way at this moment. It is based on a totally different conception of the value of ‘wild nature’ (Ministry of Forestry 1995; see also map 3).

However in the second half of 1996, while the National Park

Headquarters in Maileppet in the south of Siberut, were about to be finished, the decision of the provincial governor was announced that a local firm had obtained permission to clear forest land in order to establish an oil palm plantation. Prior to final permission the company has already started a process of buying land from individual uma. Warranted by this process a Padang-based NGO, called Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia (Foundation for Legal Help) informed the local people through the village heads not to accept any offer unless there is clarity regarding the real impact of this development.19

Early 1996 this transmigration issue was brought up again by the

Minister of Transmigration after meeting the President. ‘Jakarta’ wanted to

---

resume its programme to open up new settlement areas on Siberut ‘in an effort to bring the largely backward island into the modern civilization’. This project was said to be shelved in the 1980s because of strong objections from environmental groups who were concerned about the impact that the settlers would have on the islanders. But ‘recent studies20 found that these concerns were unfounded and that keeping the island isolated meant keeping them in a state of backwardness”. The minister also stated that: “Siberut Island is even more backward than most areas in eastern Indonesia, with inhabitants still living very much in a by gone era. Obviously we cannot leave them in that state.” (Jakarta Post 14 February, 1996).

At the moment it is unclear as to what kind of decisions will be taken

in the near future. The decision is up to the Minister of Forestry as he is officially the one who cancelled the logging concessions on the island, who established the National Park and it should also be him to change the status of the area adjacent to the National Park to be converted into the oil palm estate. In the meantime however it is being argued by the representative of the Asian Development Bank that you can not have a large National Park on the one hand and oil palm or other estastes adjacent to it. Migrant workers and local people will gradually put more pressure on the park’s resources. Maintaining a well protected area will almost be impossible. Based on this argument the Asian Development Bank is likely to withdraw its support for the project if the land is being released for this purpose. The Joint Definition of Wildness and Wilderness: Tourism

Based on the more or less spontaneous development of tourism since

the late ’80s, the Department of Tourism has also officially adopted its position with regard to Siberut as a tourist destination. The emphasis of the provincial tourist board has always been on the unique Minangkabau culture, its matrilineal character and on its material manifestations, like the extended houses with roofs shaped like the horns of a buffalo, the music and the dances in colourful customs. The scenic setting of the Minangkabau culture in the heartland with the two volcanos, two beautiful lakes and the rice terraces, added to the touristic value of the province. Since the success of the spontaneously developed backpack tourism to Siberut, the department is now echoing the slogans of the Bukittinggi-based tourist guides with catch words

like ‘primitive and traditional culture’, and ‘jungle-adventure’.

In the long run however the tourist department would like to change

the kind of tourists coming to Siberut. They would like to attract somewhat wealthier tourists. For that purpose it has granted tourist concession rights to a Minangkabau who would like to invest a large sum of money in a luxureous tourist resort from which visitors can enjoy the various aspects of the island. In addition to the traditional culture and the rainforest visitors would also be able to ride the waves on surf boards, rest on white sandy beaches, or enjoy the coral reefs. This combination is supposed to turn Siberut into a new hot spot for tourist development (BAPPEDA 1996).

Finally I would like to mention an example of an interesting change

in the perception about the Mentawaians in relation to the Minangkabau. During official visits the Mentawaians are increasingly being asked to perform dances dressed in loincloth, whereas several years ago they would certainly have been forced to wear shorts. On a number of occasions Mentawaian dancers were even taken to Jakarta, to perform in the cultural centre Taman Ismail Marzuki (TIM). On a poster announcing their performance, the dansers were said to orginate ‘from the interior of Minangkabau’, (dari pedalaman Minangkabau), as if they represent something of Minangkabau origin. This positive association of Mentawaians with Minangkabau culture is remarkable. In earlier days, the Mentawaians were always considered ‘backward’ and they were kept at a distance. Mentawai was thought to be the ‘Irian Jaya’ of West Sumatra (Persoon and Heuveling van Beek 1997)21. Relations among the Minangkabau

The fact that the voluntary migrants and civil servants belong to the

same ethnic group does not imply that there no conflicts between the two groups or that they always act as a corporate unit. Taking Muara Siberut, the largest Minangkabau settlement on the island (about 1,000 people) as a focus it is clear that there are some sources of internal tension apart from common interests.

Spatially the two groups seperated from one another. The voluntary

migrants still live near the mouth of river in a relatively dense concentration. By now most of them have built concrete houses, annex little shops. None of

---

the houses are built in the traditional Minangkabau style.

The government has established a great number of offices a large

number of office buildings and staffed them. Along with the houses for the civil servants these offices are constructed along the path where the colonial offices and houses used to be. The area of the former penal settlement has been occupied by the mission station of the Italian Catholics, who entered Siberut in the ’50s. They have built a church, schools, houses and a polyclinic on this complex.

A common interest of both groups of Minangkabau is to make Muara

Siberut a pleasant place to stay. Being the centre of the subdistrict (kecamatan) South Siberut, Muara Siberut receives a substantial part of the development funds. Various kinds of facilities such as health care water supply, schools, electricity supply, (tele)communication and transport are disproportionately allocated to this settlement at the expense of other villages22.

In general, the Minangkabau may have similar interests and the

disctinction between voluntary migrants and civil servants may not be noticed at all in daily life. But there are some issues which in a way seperate these perantau cino who consider Siberut as they home area from the civil servants who have a formal job to do and superiors to please. They consider their presence on the island as only temporary and they do not consider their stay as a big challence. They feel themselves cut off from the mainstream of life in the province and long for the day that they can return to the mainland.

Faced with a task to implement various governmental regulations

and above all ‘to educate, civilize and develop the Mentawaians’, and to make them obey the official rules and regulations, the ideas and duties of the civil servants might not coincide with the interests of the other group. In some cases they might even oppose them. These cases refer to the intermediate position of the migrants as traders and middlemen. Local village cooperations, Koperasi Unit Desa (K.U.D.) for instance should be established in all villages in order to improve the economic situation and incorporate the Mentawaians into the market economy. This however undermines the position of the Minangkabau traders. Another example is the implementation of forest regulations by the field workers of the Department for Nature Conservation which limit or prohibit the extraction and trade of forest products such as

---

rattan from the National Park. These regulations interfere with the trading activities of the voluntary migrants.

This kind of issues raises conflicts between the two groups: the

voluntary migrants look upon the regulations as restrictive, they limit income generating opportunities while the civil servants feel themselves obliged to comply with the rules. In the end the civil servants could enforce the laws but because of the feeling of being among fellow Minangkabau (orang awak) within a small community, there is always an informal way out of these dilemmas by ‘mutual help’ (saling membantu) by means of which both parties can be satisfied. Traders, guides, policemen, captains, civil servants, harbourmasters, administrators and formerly also the loggers are involved in this type of interaction. There is of course individual variation in the performance of members of both groups. Some traders are more successful than other in persueing their interests and in finding their way through the bureaucratic structures while civil servants and policemen may also vary widely in interpreting the rules and in adjusting them to the needs of a particular situation. Relations with the Mentawaians

The Minangkabau on Siberut have established themselves on an

island inhabited by a culturally distinct and politically autonomous ethnic group, the Mentawaians. Under the protection of the Dutch colonial administration there were able to settle down on Siberut and try to earn a living either through trade with the local population or through exploiting the island’s natural resources as farmers or fishermen. Faced with a tribal population, both groups of Minangkabau migrants consider themselves culturally superior in all respects and there are not really prepared to adjust themselves to the new social environment. On the contrary: they have only limited contact with the local people. They have created cultural enclaves in the harbour villages amidst an unfamiliar context. This attitude has changed little over the years: they look upon the local people as ‘primitive, ignorant and backward’ (see Dinas Pertanian [1985] for an official statement of this attitude).

Some Minangkabau have raised Mentawaian children and sent them

to school in Padang. Numerous efforts have been undertaken both by

---

governmental agencies as well as through religious organisations to convert the local people to Islam. Material incentives (scholarships for students, clothing and replacement of pigs by goats) are used to stimulate this development. Especially among pupils and students who have studied in Padang these efforts have had some success (see e.g. Panji Masyarakat 1980).

So far few intermarriages have taken place, but if that happens it is

always between a Minangkabau man and a Mentawaian woman converted to Islam and according to Minangkabau wedding ceremonies. The future of the Mentawaians as seen by the Minangkabau is always to some extent defined in terms of the ‘Minang’ culture and way of life.

Incidental conflicts between individual Mentawaians and individual

Minangkabau might arise over prices of trade products and unpaid debts but they rarely reach a level of real violence between two ethnic groups. Neither of them acts as a corporate group in that respect. The Mentawaians do feel however that they are being exploited by the Minangkabau traders, a feeling they have had for a very long time. But in spite of that, they have not been able to get themselves organised in order to avoid the Minangkabau traders and shopkeepers. I feel that this is because of the general absence of specialization and the lack of socio-political organization above the level of the patrilineal groups among the Mentawaians. There is also a lack of experience, and willingness to gain such experience, in dealing with outside traders and in handling large sums of money. They are unfamiliar with dealing with fellow Mentawaians in pure economic terms. Besides the rules of reciprocity and distribution of material wealth within the patrilineal group structure, there are also strong feelings of jealousy (masisi bacha) between those groups. For all these reasons, they continue to make use of the Minangkabau in spite of this feeling of being exploited and unfair treatment. The Minangkabau civil servants are sometimes being accused by the Mentawaians of ‘eating money’ (mukom bulagat) meant for development activities in all villages on Siberut. Rightly or wrongly this is a favorite issue for discussion among Mentawaians in talking about Minangkabau officials.

The Mentawaians refer to all Minangkabau as sasareu, ‘those who

come from far’, but irrespective of its literal meaning this term is not used for just any ethnic stranger but only for Minangkabau. Other non-Mentawaians are referred to by the name of their ethnic group and the plural prefix tai, e.g. Taibatak, Taijawa, Taibolanda for Batak, Javanese and Dutch. Minangkabau

---

civil servants in particular stress time and time again that ‘we are no sasareu, we are all one, and we are all Indonesians’ and that the term sasareu creates a distinction which should no longer be there (...).

Though it is without doubt that the Mentawaians look upon the

Minangkabau with mixed feelings, the Mentawaians do imitate them in some respects. It is largely the Minangkabau version of Indonesian development and progress that sets the standards for language, religion, housing, dress, food and luxury items, and that is imitated by some parts of the Mentawai population. The aspiration to become modern is almost equal to becoming like a Minangkabau23. A development programma like the PKK (Pembinaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga, Family Welfare Movement) strongly promotes this aspiration24. It is also a good example in which official views regarding family welfare and Minangkabau images of preferred culture and social life coincide. Through the PKK activities, in which the wifes of leading local administrators and teachers play a dominant role, the Mentawaian women are taught how they should cook food, take care of their children, sew their own clothing, and do numerous other things. Through these activities the Minangkabau show the Mentawaians the way into modern life. Future Perspectives

Once more in the history of Siberut, the future perspectives of the

island are unclear. There seem to be various options which vary from biodiversity conservation in a National Park in combination with eco- and ethnotourism and development activities based on agroforestry systems, to large scale development activities through land clearing and the establishment of big plantation for which additional workforce will be necessary. These two options are based on totally different views of what the value of wilderness is. In the second case the well being of the local people does not play an important role. It is more or less considered to be solved in the process of incorporation.

Over the years there has been an increased effort to incorporate

Siberut and the Mentawaians into the Minangkabau World, the Alam Minangkabau. Part of this process is stimulated by the Jakarta-based policies in the fields of forestry, social affairs and development activities in general. But another part has to be attributed to the goals set at the provincial level.

---

The direction of this movement is carried by a strong undercurrent of how the Minangkabau people, as members of a peasant society with a deeply felt cultural ‘mission’ to perform regarding these tribal people. On the other hand it can not be denied that over the years the Minangkabau voluntary migrants have greatly benefited from the fact that the Mentawaians did not rapidly turn into a kind of outward looking peasants. That is why the Minangkabau were able to continue to occupy an intermediate position between the people of Siberut and the outside world as traders in forest-based and agricultural products, and as the local administrators. The Minangkabau were also never bothered with strong territorial claims by the Mentawaians regarding the marine resources. These were basically free for all to take and this continues to be the case up to the present. The Minangkabau fishermen on the island are nowadays looked upon as ‘local people’.

But there is reason to believe that this benefitial position of the local

Minangkabau migrants will be threatened in the near future. More and more Jakarta- and Padang-based policies and interests will dominate the course of events on Siberut. The outcome of these processes will largely depend on what will be the most powerful force and its definition and plan of action regarding the value of the ‘wildness’ and ‘wilderness’ conditions on the island. Acknowledgements Many people have contributed to the research over the years. Especially I would like to mention Reimar Schefold, Arthur Mitchell, Asak and his family, Samuel Gultom, Tengatiti, and Syahruddin and his family for their support and hospitality. Notes 1 Centre of Environmental Science, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands. 2 In the literature the terms 'wildness' and 'wilderness' are sometimes used as synonymous to indicate nature in its pristine, uncultivated, untouched state (see e.g. Oelschlaeger 1991). Here however I would like to restrict wilderness for nature and use wildness as the term that is used for 'uncivilized', or 'primitive' man almost as it was used in the early days of anthropology in the

evolutio nairy tradition of the 19th century. This term however has retained its meaning in everyday and popular speech in Indonesia but also in some official governmental writings. '(Half) Wild people' or orang (setengah) liar, is a term often encountered in the writings about tribal people in the country. 3 Since 1979 I have worked on Siberut in various positions. From 1979 till 1982 I was in charge of the Survival International project on the island. In 1985 I went back for research purposes funded by the Programme for Indonesian Studies (PRIS, Leiden) and sponsored by LIPI and Andalas University in Padang. From 1994-1996 I was part-time involved in the preparation of the management plan of the MOF/ADB conservation project on the island. In addition I have made a number of shorter visits to the island on different occasions. 4 There are extensive ethnographic writings about Siberut; see Schefold (1988a) for the traditional situation and especially for the religion of the Mentawaians and Persoon (1994) for modern developments. 5 It is estimated that about half of the Minangkabau live outside the homeland area. There are large concentrations of Minangkabau in almost all urban areas in West Indonesia. 6 Until recently drying was the only way to conserve the fish to be exported to Padang. This was very laborious and especially during the raining season almost impossi ble. With several trips to Padang every week, import of ice and storage of fish are no longer a problem. 7 If the Mentawaians want to clear a new field for agriculture, they first clear the undergrowth, then they plant seeds and seelings and only after that they cut down the big trees. These are left to rot. Gradually the newly planted crops and fruit trees will find their way through the withering leaves, branches and trunks. This system has the big ecological advantage of its gradual release of nutrients while the top soil is never directly exposed the heavy rains and too much sunlight. This reduces susceptibility for erosion. But this technique can not be used for growing annual crops like rice or corn which need a clean soil to grow successfully. These crops are usually the first planted by the Minangkabau after opening new forest fields.

---

8 See Schefold (1988b) for a description of the Mentawaian perception of the forest. 9 Though the Orang Kubu are hunters and gatherers wandering around in the remaining forests of Central and South Sumatra, it is evident from their language, magical spells, and folk stories that there have been interactions between them and the Minangka bau and Orang Malayu since a very long time. 10 Jet Bakels, personal communication. 11 When the Minister of Education Daud Yusuf once visited the islands, he started off his meeting with local people by refering to this little novel; it was his first source of knowledge about the region and its people (Singga lang 1979). 12 Apart from the ethnographic facts there are also some remarks about the cruel activities of Dutch soldiers on the island which could not be verified either by historical evi den ce nor by the memory of the early Minang kabau settlers. The first edition of this novel, which appeared in 1943, differs in some respects from later editi ons. For instance the origi nal subtit le 'The cruelty of Dutch kills the Mentawaians' (Keboea san bangsa Belanda mem boe noeh bangsa Mentawai), has disappeared and also two pre fa ces by a Japanese and by the Minangkabau author Hamka have been removed in later editions (Arifin 1943 and 1950). 13 Some of the Minangkabau really belief that only radical plans like transmigration, or severe governmen tal interference will make the Mentawaians give up their traditional life style. According to them the past and present policies are simply too weak to change that. Moreover the time frame to implement these policies is always said to be too short and will allow the Mentawaians to fall back to the familiar ways of the past once outside pressure is released. 14 Just as in the colonial time a transfer to isolated place was looked upon as a kind of punishment, or strafoverplaatsing, as it was called in those days. Also among the Minangkabau the Mentawaian Islands were looked upon as a

---

place to 'dump useless people which gives rise to excesses, such as conflicts with the local people which is not good' (Aneka Minang 1972:4). To some extent this situation has not really changed. 15 However there is substantial frustration among the educated Mentawaians because they are rarely given the chance to occupy these positions in spite of their comparative advantage to function on the island. Their efforts to find their way through the provincial bureaucracy is often hindered by unclear obstacles. There is an obvious preference within the bureaucracy to appoint fellow Minangkabau to the available positions. 16 It is estimated that about 1.1 million people, divided over many different ethnic groups are classified as masyarakat terasing at this moment. See Departemen Sosial (1995) for a recent overview of this programme and Persoon (1994) for a discussion of this and related programmes. 17 It is estimated that there are about 300 uma on the island. Among themselves they recognise these property rights. Hunting and collection of forest products on the land of another uma can not be done without prior permission. In case people get caught while hunting or collecting rattan or honey they risc the payment of fines (tulou) to the land owning group. 18 One reason that is often given for leaving Siberut out of the final selection of transmigration sites was that preference for settlement of Javanese migrants that powerful provincial officials wanted to reserve Siberut and the other Mentawaian islands for the future overflow of Minangkabau people from the mainland. For that reason Javanese migrants were often located in newly openend up areas at the forest fringe and along the Trans Sumatra Highway. 19 In the second half of 1996 Padang- and Jakarta-based newspapers reported rather extensively about these plans which seem to contradict the National Park planning (Suara Pembaruan 1996 and Singgalang 1996). 20 No mention was made of the nature and authors of these reports. 21 This example is certainly not unique in Indonesia. At the mo ment there is

---

a strong tendency to a kind of 'folklori sation' of 'traditional' cultures. In particular the attracti ve visual and material elements of these cultures (such as traditional custums, dances, music, and handicrafts) are widely exposed in order to stimulate international and domes tic tou rism. This of course is different from maintaining the integri ty of these tribal cultu res, as a process folklorisation is highly selective and moreover it is dominated by external values. 22 An exception is however the exclusion of the two main harbour villages in relation to the socalled IDT programme (Inpres Desa Tertinggal), a special development program me issued in 1993 for assistance to the poorest villages in the country (Mubyarto 1995). Of the official twenty desa on the island only Muara Siberut and Muara Sikabaluan are were not classified as desa tertinggal, or backward villages. They do not receive a share of the yearly allocated development funds of this IDT programme. 23 There is a striking parallel here regarding the transition process of masuk Malayu as described for tribal people on the mainland of Sumatra (like the Kubu, Talang Mamak and Sakai) and on Kalimantan (Dayak) who take over more and more cultural elements of the Orang Melayu (see e.g. Thambun 1996). 24 See Soemardjan and Breazeale (1993) for a general dis cussion on this programme and its impact at the local level. References Arifin, H.N. Poelau Darah. Keboeasan Bangsa Belanda memboenoeh Bangsa Mentawai. Medan: Poestaka Antara, 1943. Arifin, H.N. Mentawai, Pulau Darah, 3rd Edition. Djakarta/Medan: Pustaka Timur, 1950. Aumeeruddy, Y. Local Representations and Management of Agroforests on the Periphery of the Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. People and Plants Working Paper no. 3. Paris: UNESCO, 1994.

---

Aumeeruddy, Y. and J. Bakels. “Management of a Sacred Forest in the Kerinci Valley, Central Sumatra: an Example of Conservation of Biological Diversity and its Cultural Basis”. Journal d’Agriculture Traditionel et de Botanie Appl. n.s., vol. 36(2) (1994): 39-65. Aneka Minang (Jakarta-based magazine). “Mentawai: Alah Taawai, Alun Tagemai” Aneka Minang, 4 (1972): 4/5, 15. Bakels, J. “Profane Village and Sacred Forest. On the Perception of the Forest in Indonesia, with special Attention to the Baduy and Kerinci Society”. In: Perceptions of Space in South-East Asia, edited by J. Bakels, vol. 1, pp. 15-26. Leiden: CNWS, (n.d.). BAPPEDA (Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah Sumatera Barat). “Perencanaan pembangunan dan pengembangan Sumatera Barat dalam rangka peningkatan pendapatan daerah.” Paper presented at the seminar on Pengembangan parawista menyongsong eraglobalisasi. Mimeographed. Padang, 9 October 1996. Damhoeri, A. Depok, Anak Pagai. Lamoenan Ombak dipantai Poelau-Poelau Mentawai. Medan: Indische Drukkerij, 1940. Damhoeri, A. Depok, Anak Pagai. Bukittinggi/Djakarta: N.V. Nusantara, 1965. Departemen Kehutanan. Kajian terhadap Pembangunan dan Pengembangan Pulau Siberut (Propinsi Sumatera Barat) di bidang Kehutanan. Jakarta, Departemen Kehutanan, 1992. Departemen Sosial. Memori Penyerahan Warga Bina Proyek PKMT kepada PEMDA TK I Prop. Sumbar. Padang: Departemen Sosial, 1987. Departemen Sosial. Data and Informasi Pembinaan Masyarakat Terasing. Jakarta: Depart-men Sosial, 1995. Departemen Sosial. Laporan Penelitian. Studi Kehudipan Sosial Budaya Masyarakat Terasing Mentawai. Padang: Departemen Sosial and IKIP, 1996. Dinas Pertanian. “Pembangunan Pertanian Tanaman Pangan di Pulau Siberut”. In: Pulau Siberut, edited by G. Persoon dan R. Schefold, pp. 161-165. Jakarta: Bhratara, 1985.

---

Errington, F.K. Manners and Meaning in West Sumatra. The Social Context of Consciousness. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1984. Hinlopen, P.A.M. en P. Severijn. “Verslag van een Onderzoek der Poggi- Eilanden”. Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde vol. 3 (1855): 319-337. Jakarta Post (Jakarta-based newspaper) “Siberut Island likely to have New Settlement Areas”. Jakarta Post, 2 February 1996. Kato, T. “Rantau Pariaman: the World of Minangkabau Merchants in the nineteenth Century”. Journal of Asian Studies 39 no.4 (1980): 729-752. Kato, T. Matriliny and migration. Evolving Minangkabau Traditions in Indonesia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982. Kato, T. “Opportunities missed: a Social History of a Minangkabau Village in Kuantan, Riau”. In: Social-cultural Impacts of Development: Voice from the Field, edited by A. Aziz Saleh and D.F. van Giffen, pp. 56-79. Padang: Andalas University, 1990. Ministry of Forestry “Siberut National Park Integrated Conservation and Development Management Plan, ADB Biodiversity Conservation Project”. Mimeographed. Three Volumes. Jakarta: Ministry of Forestry RI, 1995. Mubyarto (ed.). Program IDT dan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat. Jakarta: Aditya Media, 1995. Naim, M. Merantau: Pola Migrasi Suku Minangkabau. Yogyakarta: Gadja Mada University Press, 1979. Oelschlaeger, M. The Idea of Wilderness. From the Prehistory to the Age of Ecology. New Haven/London, Yale University Press, 1991. Osseweijer, M. De Bewoners van het Bos: een Visie op de Natuur van de Minangkabau, West Sumatra. Leiden, ms., 1994. Panji Masyarakat. “Laporan khusus: Mentawai, Keluhan dari Samudera Indonesia”. 294 (1980): 46-63.

Persoon, G.A. “Minangkabau migrants on Siberut”. In: Het Kweekbed Ontkiemd: Opstellen aangeboden aan Els Postel, edited by H.J.M. Claessen, M. van den Engel and D. Plantenga, 197-210. Delft: Eburon, 1991. Persoon, G.A. Vluchten of Veranderen. Processen van Verandering en Ontwikkeling bij Tribale Groepen in Indonesië. PhD. dissertation, Leiden, 1994. Persoon, G.A. and H. Heuveling van Beek. “Uninvited Guests: Tourists and Environment on Siberut”. In: Environmental Challenges in Southeast Asia, edited by V. King. London: Curzon, 1997. Schefold, R. Lia, das grosse Ritual auf den Mentawai-Inseln (Indonesian). Berlin: Diet- rich Reimer Verlag, 1988a. Schefold, R. “De Wildernis als Cultuur van Gene zijde: Tribale Concepten van ‘natuur’ in Indonesië”. Antropologische Verkenningen, vol. 7 no. 4 (1988b): 5- 22. Sinar Harapan (Jakarta-based newspaper). “Bertamu ke Suku Terasing Mentawai: memang untung berdagang disini”. Sinar Harapan, 9 September 1976. Sinclair, A. The Savage: a History of Misunderstanding. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1977. Singgalang (Padang-based newspaper). “Menteri P dan K sudah kenal Mentawai sejakmembaca Depok Anak Pagai”. Singgalang, 26 Mei 1979. Singgalang (Padang-based newspaper) “NDC segara buka 40 ribu ha Kebun Sawit di Mentawai”. Singgalang, 6 September 1996. Soemardjan, S. and K. Breazeale. Cultural Change in Rural Indonesia. Impact of Village Development. Kentingan: Sebelas Maret University Press, 1993. Suara Pembaruan. “Wahli minta Gubernor Sumbar cabut kembali Izin Perkebunan di Siberut”. Suara Pembaruan, 6 October 1996.

---

Thambun Anyang, Y.C. “Daya Taman Kalimantan. Suatu Studi Etnografis Organisasi sosial dan Kekerabatan dengan Pendekatan Antropologi Hukum”. PhD. dissertation, Nijmegen, 1996. World Wildlife Fund [WWF]. Saving Siberut: a Conservation Master Plan. Bogor: WWF, 1980.