ANTHROPOS - Nomos eLibrary
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ANTHROPOS
109.2014: 149 – 160
Gugu
Evidence from Folk Zoological Nomenclature and Classification
for a Mystery Primate in Southern Sumatra
Gregory Forth
Abstract. – Gugu is one of several names applied to a mystery has become known to English and other European
primate from southern Sumatra, nowadays better known as orang readers mostly by the Malay name orang pendek
pendek, which was first identified in the European literature over
200 years ago. The article reviews western reports of gugu, pay-
(short man, person), a designation likely to recall
ing particular attention to linguistic evidence compiled by the “orangutan,” referring to the far better known Su-
missionary-ethnologist L. W. Jennissen and recorded in the Holle matran ape Pongo pygmaeus.1 Many Dutch com-
lists and, implicitly, in O. L. Helfrich’s published dictionary of mentators writing in the early twentieth century dis-
the Besemah language. It is thereby shown how the Besemah missed the orang pendek as a myth or false report
representation of gugu can be fully understood only as a compo-
nent of their folk classification of primates, and that, whatever the possibly based on exaggerated encounters with sun-
empirical referent of the name, for local Sumatrans this is a real bears, known primates, or forest-dwelling humans.
creature ontologically comparable to locally known and zoolog- This view has been developed by recent historians
ically recognized primates and not, for example, a spiritual be- (Gouda 1995; Cribb 2007) who have construed the
ing. A further conclusion is that gugu and comparable Sumatran
terms most likely denote an ape, and possibly a recently extant
creature as a projection of colonial or more recent
southern population of orang-utans (Pongo pygmaeus) – the in- Western values and interests. Such interpretations
terpretation evidently reached by both Jennissen and Helfrich. of course tend to ignore Sumatran views of the cat-
[Sumatra, Besemah language and culture, mystery primates, folk egory, including local convictions that the creatures
classification and nomenclature, ethnozoology, orang-utans] exist as an empirical animal. By contrast, prima-
tologist David Chivers and his associates, referring
Gregory Forth, Professor of Anthropology at the University of
Alberta and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, has for near- in part to claimed native sightings, have argued that
ly 40 years been conducting ethnographic fieldwork on the east- the name denotes a large undiscovered primate, pos-
ern Indonesian islands of Flores and Sumba. On this basis he has sibly a gibbon or relative of the orangutan whose
published several books and numerous articles dealing mostly appearance is more human than any ape so far de-
with kinship, religion, traditional narrative, and folk zoology. His scribed (Chivers 1995; Martyr et al. n. d.). In a sim-
most recent book is “Images of the Wildman in Southeast Asia.
An Anthropological Perspective” (London 2008), republished in ilar vein, other primate specialists have interpreted
paperback in 2012. – See also Ref. Cited. reports of orang pendek as reflecting an extreme-
ly rare southern variety of orangutan in several re-
spects distinct from the Sumatran population that
Introduction survives north of Lake Toba (Rijksen and Meijaard
For well over two centuries, Europeans have been 1 I use this binomial throughout in reference to the orang-utan.
Some taxonomists (e.g., Groves 2001) reserve this name for
recording local reports of a mystery hominoid, a the Bornean orangutan and classify the apes on Sumatra as a
sort of ape-man, inhabiting remote forests in south- separate species, Pongo abelii. Others, however, classify the
ern Sumatra. At least since the 1920s, the creature latter as a sub-species, P. pygmaeus abelii.
https://doi.org/10.5771/0257-9774-2014-1-149
Generiert durch IP '46.4.80.155', am 10.09.2021, 18:42:05.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.150 Gregory Forth
1999). The present article reviews linguistic and a Malay boatman, identified what they observed as
other evidence indicating that, even if the mystery “big monkeys” and as “orang hutan.” As the latter
creature does not substantially reflect an empiri- term is a form of the name that has entered English
cal primate, either known or unknown to modern and other languages as “orangutan,” it might simply
science, in the view of local Sumatrans it is a real be concluded that the Malay took these to be speci-
creature ontologically comparable to other locally mens of Pongo pygmaeus, and indeed this conclu-
known and recognized primate kinds and not, for sion accords with Gibson’s description of their size,
example, a spiritual or supernatural being. Other- form, and arboreal habit (Forth 2008: 119). But as
wise expressed, the aim is to show how the orang we shall later see, the matter is more complicated,
pendek can be properly understood only in the con- as local Sumatran usage suggests this may not be
text of a folk classification of primates. the only referent of “orang hutan,” or “man of the
woods.”
Twentieth-century sources confirm gugu as the
A Brief History of Names local name for the creature elsewhere known as
“orang pendek” in several dialects of southwestern
While “orang pendek” has become the best known Sumatra (see Hagen 1908, citing an unpublished
designation for the mystery hominoid, in the earli- report by the Dutch colonial administrator Saijers;
est European writings the creature was known by a Coomans de Ruiter 1929). Among these is the lan-
quite different name, in the International Phonetic guage of Besemah (in older writings written as “Pe-
Alphabet (IPA) best transcribed as “gugu.” In fact, semah,” “Pasemah,” “Passumah,” or “Passemah”).
it was under this name, rendered as “googoo,” that However, as a reference to some sort of apelike
the creature was introduced to Europeans by Wil- creature or primate, there is an earlier occurrence
liam Marsden in “The History of Sumatra,” first of “gugu” which has so far been overlooked. This
published in 1783. Taking the referent to be a “spe- appears in a list of Besemah names for primates in
cies of people,” the author further refers to these as the dialect of Besemah Ulu Manna, spoken by the
“orang gugu,” thus incorporating the Malay term for ethnic group of the same name. Ulu Manna denotes
“man, person, people.” Marsden’s report remains in- the headwaters of the river Manna that flows to the
teresting for several reasons. For one thing, he iden- coastal settlement of Manna, some 75 km south of
tified the gugu’s habitat as the vicinity of Bencoolen Bengkulu (Bencoolen), where Marsden was sta-
(more correctly Bengkulu), where he was stationed tioned in the late eighteenth century. Like the hin-
as an officer of the British East India Company. Sec- terland of Bengkulu, Besemah Ulu Manna forms
ondly, Marsden was sceptical about the creature’s part of the Barisan range, the main locus of reports
existence, although he judiciously allowed that it and reputed sightings of “orang pendek.” The list of
“probably has some foundation in truth, but is ex- names was compiled, apparently in the last decade
aggerated in the circumstances.” For present pur- of the nineteenth century, by the Jesuit missionary-
poses, a particular interest lies in a remark implying linguist Leonardus W. Jennissen (1852–1927), who
a link with the orangutan; for Marsden, reflecting was stationed in the Besemah highlands at Tanjong
on native reports of gugu, concludes that the crea- Sakti. Forming part of a folk zoological classifica-
tures differ “in little but the use of speech from the tion, it is the implications of Jennissen’s linguistic
orangutan of Borneo” (1783: 35; Forth 2008: 119). evidence for the ontological status of the creature
To this one must straightaway add that the large ma- called gugu (and by extension “orang pendek”) that
jority of subsequent accounts of the mystery homi- are the primary object of the present essay. After
noid do not in fact credit it with speech – a circum- evaluating Jennissen’s materials, I review more re-
stance that could of course imply the absence of any cent, complementary evidence relevant to the refer-
substantial difference between the creature and the ents of gugu which also have not been considered
known ape. so far.
After Marsden, gugu were first mentioned again Jennissen was not the first author to construe a
by the Anglo-American adventurer Walter Gibson, local name for a southern Sumatran mystery homi-
who incorrectly transcribed the name as “gugur” noid as a reference to an attested species of nonhu-
and who, circumstances suggest, may have derived man primate. In the first comprehensive scientific
part of his account from Marsden. The main interest description of the ape, Schlegel and Müller (1839–
of Gibson’s report is his claim actually to have seen 44) interpreted “orang panda” (an obvious variant of
a group of “gugur” moving through trees above a “orang pendek”) as a southwestern Sumatran name
creek off the Musi River, not far from Pulau Rimau for the orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus). Actually, the
on Sumatra’s southeast coast. Gibson’s companion, existence or survival of this ape in the southern re-
Anthropos 109.2014
https://doi.org/10.5771/0257-9774-2014-1-149
Generiert durch IP '46.4.80.155', am 10.09.2021, 18:42:05.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.Gugu 151
gions where names like “orang pendek” and “gugu” “kera” and “monyet” are further applied to apes
are in use is not confirmed for the twentieth cen- (e.g., gibbons and orangutans). Similarly, Dutch aap
tury, while for the nineteenth century the evidence equally covers what English speakers, or at least
is patchy and partial at best (see Forth 2008; also those knowledgeable of modern zoology, nowadays
Rijksen and Meijaard 1999). Nevertheless, Oscar distinguish as “apes” and “monkeys.” 3 For most In-
Helfrich, the accomplished linguist and colonial ad- donesian languages recorded in Holle, contributors
ministrator (later to become Governor of Curaçao) supply just one term for “monkey/ape,” a circum-
subsequently made the same identification. Thus, in stance partly reflecting the paucity of primate spe-
dictionaries published in 1904 and 1927(a), Helfrich cies in many parts of the archipelago. However, for
glossed Besemah “goegoe” (the Dutch transcription Besemah Ulu Manna Jennissen supplies as many as
of “gugu”) as “mayas,” and “mawas,” two forms of seven. Among these is “gogoh,” corresponding to
the Malay name for the ape known in English as the term phonetically transcribed as “gugu.”
orangutan. Table 1 lists all seven primate names in the order
In a recent book comparing the Sumatran fig- given by Jennissen, together with standard Malay or
ure with hominoids reported from other parts of In- national Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia) equivalents,
donesia (Forth 2008), I suggested that Helfrich’s English names, and scientific identifications. The
gloss “probably reflects no more than the suppo- Besemah terms invite several observations. Except
sition informing Schlegel and Müller’s interpreta- for “gugu” (which I hereafter write for Jennissen’s
tion [of ‘orang panda’]” (Forth 2008: 301; note 31). “gogoh”), there is no indication that the names refer
Since publishing this opinion it has become clear to anything other than scientifically attested species
that a far more likely source of the gloss is Jennis- of monkeys or apes. All moreover have recognizable
sen’s work, for as will be shown, Jennissen was a cognates in standard Malay that apply to species oc-
significant contributor to Helfrich’s lexicographical curring in southern Sumatra, while the primatologi-
project. By the same token, all indications are that, cal literature4 indicates that the six terms Jennissen
rather than a “supposition,” Helfrich’s identification lists in addition to gugu are comprehensive of the
of gugu with the orangutan (or with some species variety of monkey and ape taxa (families, genera,
of primate he took to be the orangutan) was almost species) occurring in the Besemah highlands. Other
certainly grounded in knowledge of Besamah usage, than Horsfield’s tarsier (Tarsius bancanus) and the
gained either directly or from Jennissen, which indi- Sunda slow loris (Nycticebus coucang) – lower pri-
cated that native speakers applied gugu to some sort mate kinds which can be left out of account here –
of ape or ape-like primate. there is thus every indication that the terms repre-
sent a complete folk primatological nomenclature
for Besemah and its associated folk zoology. Whit-
The Evidence of the Primate List ten et al. (2000; cf. Groves 2001) list 10 species
of apes and monkeys for Sumatra (excluding the
As I later show, there is every indication that when Mentawai Islands), counting the two gibbons Hylo-
he compiled his list of primate names, Jennissen had bates lar and Hylobates agilis as separate species.
a sound knowledge of the Besemah language, and Only Hylobates agilis – sometimes classified as a
that the lexicon reflects several years of linguistic subspecies of Hylobates lar – occurs south of Lake
and ethnographic experience in the region. Jennis-
sen’s data form part of the Holle lists, word regis- the earlier editions, as Stokhof remarks (1980/I: 17), “it was
ters from numerous Indonesian languages generat- planned that the lists would be completed by Dutch civil ser-
ed from target terms in Dutch and Malay compiled vants, officers, missionaries, and ‘intelligent natives’ (intelli-
gente Inlanders) such as village heads, merchants and teach-
by K. F. Holle (1829–1896), a member of a plan- ers, in practice all people with a reasonable knowledge of
tation family based in West Java (Stokhof 1980– Dutch.”
87). The lists were edited by W. A. L. Stokhof, and 3 All Old World monkeys compose a single family, the Cer-
published in several volumes during the 1980s (see copithecidae, which according to current primate taxonomy
Stokhof 1980–87). Jennissen’s list of primate names is the only family within the superfamily Cercopithecoidea.
Apes compose two families within the superfamily Hominoi-
was given in response to Holle’s Dutch target “aap” dea: the Hylobatidae, or gibbons, and the Hominidae, or great
which translates Malay/Bahasa Indonesian “monyet, apes. The latter then comprises two subfamilies: Ponginae, or
kera.” 2 Although usually referring to monkeys, both orangutans, and Homininae, which includes the African great
apes and members of the genus Homo (Groves 2001: 196,
287–309). Not least because apes, by contrast to the large
2 Malay terms were added only to the later 1931 edition of majority of monkeys, have no visible tails and are generally
Holle’s target lists, whereas Jennissen’s list was published larger, they more closely resemble humans than do monkeys.
in the 1904 edition, reissued without change in 1911. For 4 E.g., Wolfheim (1983); Whitten et al. (2000); Groves (2001).
Anthropos 109.2014
https://doi.org/10.5771/0257-9774-2014-1-149
Generiert durch IP '46.4.80.155', am 10.09.2021, 18:42:05.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.152 Gregory Forth
Table 1: Primate Terms in Besemah.
Jennissen’s IPA Tran- Standard Ma- English Name Scientific Name Helfrich’s (1904,
Term scription lay/Indonesian 1939) Gloss (in Eng-
lish Translation)*
begrŏ bəɣoʔ beruk pig-tailed ma- Macaca nemestrina “Lampong ape,” **
caque “a large, very train-
able monkey”
kegrě kəɣə kera long-tailed ma- Macaca fascicularis “monkey, especially
caque (also gen- the long-tailed mon-
eral term for key”
“monkey”)
siamang sijamaŋ siamang siamang gibbon Hylobates syn- “black gibbon”,
dactylus also desig- “black ape with long
nated Symphalangus arms”
syndactylus
sinpaj simpaj simpai banded (or mi- Presbytis melalophos “langur” (another
tred) leaf monkey general term for “leaf
monkey”)
oewewě wəwə wauwau or wak- agile or black- Hylobates agilis, al- wěwě, also oewěwě,
wak handed gibbon ternatively Hylobates “grey-coloured gib-
lar agilis bon”
sjinkok ʧɪŋkʊk céngkok silvered leaf Presbytis cristatus, tjingkoq, “a kind of
monkey also Trachy-pithecus monkey”
cristatus
gogoh ɡuɡu no equivalent none Unidentified. Pongo **goegoh, also
other than “orang pygmaeus? goegoq, “orangutan”
pendek”
* Translations from Helfrich’s Dutch glosses are by Gregory Forth. The IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) transcriptions were
supplied by Bradley McDonnell (pers. comm. April 2010). The /j/ in the IPA system (see, e.g., “sijamang”) represents the palatal
glide (in English usually written as /y/), the same sound as represented by /j/ in Jennissen’s and Helfrich’s Dutch transcriptions.
The terminal /e/ in Jennissen’s “kegrě” (cf. IPA “kəɣə”) corresponds to the schwa, as does the /e/ in the first syllable. Jennissen’s
/gr/ (written with an upper case /g/ in Helfrich’s transcription) represents a voiced velar fricative, nowadays sometimes written
as /gh/ (see Kasmansyah et al. 1999) and other times as /r/. It corresponds to the /r/ in standard Malay (see “kera”).
** “Lampong ape” (or more accurately, “Lampong monkey”) is an old name for the pig-tailed macaque, a monkey that can grow to
a fairly large size and in Sumatra and Java is commonly trained to pick coconuts, hence the further designation “coconut mon-
key” (see Gudger 1923: 274, citing Weber-van Bosse 1905). Lampong is the district that includes Sumatra’s southernmost tip.
Toba; hence Hylobates agilis is evidently the gibbon ever, the two gibbons are separated, as are the two
kind denoted by Besemah “oewewě.” The siamang, leaf monkeys (or “langurs”), and there is otherwise
a much larger, sympatric gibbon species is then des- little suggestion that the listing follows any particu-
ignated with a Besemah variant of the Malay term lar classificatory principle or pattern, for example in
which has been adopted as the English name for terms of size, perceptual similarity, or even rarity.
Hylobates syndactylus, nowadays often assigned That gugu (gogoh) is recorded last could reflect its
its own genus as Symphalangus syndactylus. Of the peripherality in relation to some conceptual group-
four Sumatran leaf monkeys (genus Presbytis), only ing of primates in general. Certainly, this or some
two are found in the Besemah highlands: Presbytis other distinctive placement would be expectable if
cristata and Presbytis melalophos. Excluding the the category were identified with the orangutan or a
orangutan, currently recorded only for northern Su- similarly large primate.
matra, this of course leaves just six primate species Like equivalents in other Malayic languages, two
in the region occupied by Besemah speakers. of the six Besemah terms are probable onomatopes.
What significance may attach to the order in “Keghe” (Malay “kera”) imitates the scream of the
which Jennissen lists the Besemah categories is un- long-tailed macaque (see Zorc 1994: 579 who re-
clear. The two macaques are mentioned first. How- constructs “provisional PMP” *keraq, “scream of a
Anthropos 109.2014
https://doi.org/10.5771/0257-9774-2014-1-149
Generiert durch IP '46.4.80.155', am 10.09.2021, 18:42:05.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.Gugu 153
monkey”), while “oewewě” (cf. Helfrich’s “wewe”; alents of single Dutch and Malay terms in different
standard Malay “wawa, wakwak”) resembles the Indonesian languages, and where a source provided
call of a gibbon. Gugu may be similarly onomato- more than one in a given language, these are often
poeic; thus Barendregt (2005: 271) describes the not distinguished. Owing to the absence of glosses,
“guguh” (or “seguguh”), which he takes to be an we cannot know what Jennissen himself understood
imaginary creature, as being named after a noctur- by “gugu,” but since all seven terms are left unde-
nal “screaming sound guh, guh.” Native accounts of fined, it cannot be assumed that he did not equate
the southern Sumatran mystery hominoid associate it with a particular local primate any more than this
this with several vocalizations, among which is a assumption can be made of any of the other six
two-toned “u-u” (Anonymous 1924), and a possi- terms. In addition, it is very probable that Jennis-
bly identical call reproduced as “hu-hu-hu” (Coom- sen was the source of Helfrich’s identification of
ans de Ruiter 1929: 20). Yet similar sounds have the term with Malay “mayas,” or “mawas,” that is,
been attributed to siamangs (Bakels 2000: 123 f.), the orangutan, or at any rate that the two authorities
other gibbons, and orangutans (Forth 2008: 124). concurred in this identification.
The similarity of “gugu” to Florenese “gogo” in The extent of Jennissen’s influence on Helfrich
“ebu gogo,” the name of a locally recognized ex- is easily judged from the lexicographer’s remarks in
tinct hominoid that has been linked with the recently the preface to his 1904 dictionary, dated December
discovered subfossil Homo floresiensis (Forth 2005, 1899. Here Helfrich (1904: iv) states:
2008), is almost certainly coincidental. The Floren-
I would like to express my thanks to Pastor L. W. Jen-
ese, or more specifically Nage, name is not consid-
nissen for his kindness in always assisting me in tracing
ered onomatopoeic but is explained with reference the meaning of various words, and for verifying whether
to the hominoid’s reputed voraciousness. meanings I had provided were correct or incorrect.
In two sources, the name of the southern Su-
matran creature is written as “segugu [segoegoe]” As Helfrich further explains, he places the let-
(Coomans de Ruiter 1929: 3) or “seguguh” (Ba- ter “J” after numerous entries in order to indicate
rendregt 2005; 2002: 304). In Malay and other Ma- that Jennissen was the source of a particular gloss.
layic languages, the prefix “se-” means “one” (as in This does not mean, however, that the missionary
“sebuah,” “one fruit”) and further expresses ideas assisted Helfrich only in these instances, for the pre-
of similarity, identity, and unity, but its function in vious quote indicates that Jennissen’s contribution
this context is unclear.5 It may be significant, how- was much more extensive. There is indeed no “J”
ever, that another southern Sumatran name for the after Helfrich’s entry for “gugu.” Still, the latter’s
mystery hominoid, “sedapa,” apparently incorpo- prefatory remarks strongly suggest that, if not the
rates the same prefix followed by a root that has source, then Jennissen would at least have con-
sometimes been compared to Malay “depa” (cf. firmed “majas” (denoting the orangutan) as the ref-
Besemah “děpě”), “fathom” (the width of the out- erent of the Besemah term. Chronology is important
stretched arms).6 here. Curiously, the Holle lists (Stokhof 1980–87/
X.2: 87) record the “year of investigation” for Jen-
nissen’s Besemah lexicon as 1904, thus the same
Jennissen’s Knowledge of Besemah year as Helfrich’s dictionary appeared. However,
and of Primates at the bottom of the same page (p. 87), it is not-
ed that Jennissen’s list “has been handed in already
Jennissen himself provides no translation for any of 6 ⟨ 8? ⟩ years ago.” This indicates that compilation
the seven terms he listed for Holle. This is not sur- was completed six or eight years before 1904, thus
prising: Holle’s minimal aim was to provide equiv- either in 1896 or 1898, and that Jennissen compiled
the list in response to the first edition of Holle’s reg-
5 Bradley McDonnell (pers. comm. 18 October 2011) suggests ister of Dutch terms issued in 1894.7 A date 1896
that the prefix in “segugu” may have become lexicalized, so
that the word does not differ in meaning from “gugu.” On the
other hand, it is just possible that this form conveys the sense 7 The uncertainty regarding the numerals most likely reflects
of “the gugu,” thus using the singular to denote an entire spe- the fact that the original note was handwritten (Stokhof states
cies. that pointed brackets serve to indicate, among other things,
6 After his description of the Siamang gibbon as a “black ape “doubts” on his own part). Who made the notation is not en-
with long arms,” Helfrich (1904) refers the reader to Be- tirely clear. It falls under a section labelled “Other details”
semah “děpě” (fathom). Although the lexicographer’s inten- comprising inter alia “more general remarks” supplied by
tion is opaque, the reference does rather recall “sedapa” as a “the researcher” (Stokhof 1980/I: 18), which in this case pre-
local name for a mystery hominoid that more recent writers sumably refers to Jennissen himself. The note goes on to state
have compared to a large gibbon. that “a very useful work for consultation is: O. L. Stelfrich
Anthropos 109.2014
https://doi.org/10.5771/0257-9774-2014-1-149
Generiert durch IP '46.4.80.155', am 10.09.2021, 18:42:05.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.154 Gregory Forth
or 1898 makes sense, as Jennissen worked in Tan- Jennissen’s detailed knowledge of Besemah spirit
jong Sakti, in the Besemah highlands, from 22 July categories has a particular significance for his un-
1891 to 12 November 1898, although he visited his derstanding of their folk primatological categories.
old station regularly from his subsequent posting in If “gugu” does not refer to an empirical animal, then
Padang, and worked there again from 5 December there would appear to be just two other possibilities.
1901 until 25 May 1912 (Van Aernsbergen 1934). The first is a category of human beings, an inter-
The earlier dates also explain why it was Jennissen, pretation I have discussed elsewhere (Forth 2008)
rather than Helfrich, who was requested to com- and which can be dismissed as the primary source
plete the Holle list for Besemah. Indeed, the extent of the image denoted by the term. The second pos-
to which Helfrich relied on Jennissen’s assistance sibility is that “gugu” denotes a largely or entirely
leaves little doubt that, at the time Helfrich was imaginary being, and more specifically a spirit. It is
compiling his dictionary, Jennissen was the more a point of considerable import, then, that nowhere in
knowledgeable of the Besemah language. his discussion of categories of spirits does Jennissen
The significance of Jennissen’s folk primato- mention “gugu” or anything that suggests the mys-
logical lexicon for the identification of the creature tery hominoid to which this and the synonymous
named “gugu” obviously depends on the extent of “orang pendek” refer. It is similarly significant that
his familiarity not only with the Besemah language Helfrich, in a lengthy unpublished manuscript on
but also with the people, their country, and culture. the Besemah region, culture, and language (1939)
As noted, Jennissen spent over seven years in Tan also makes no reference to gugu, particularly in his
jong Sakti and subsequently maintained contact chapter 3 on indigenous religion where he too de-
with the region for another eleven years. Jennissen’s scribes a variety of spiritual entities; nor are gugu
knowledge of Besemah culture and society can be mentioned in Helfrich’s monograph on South Su-
judged from a series of articles he published on Be- matran folklore (1927b). Since by all indications
semah folk religion, shamanism, and magic (1893, Jennissen had a solid knowledge of local religion,
1895, 1901, 1904). His 1904 article deals with local if Besemah had ever represented gugu as spiritual
marriage practice, focusing on suicide among brides beings it is highly likely that he would have men-
in arranged marriages, a topic also mentioned brief- tioned the category in this context, and equally un-
ly by his predecessor in Tanjong Sakti, Van Meurs likely that he would have listed the term, simply, as
(1891: 67). Jennissen’s translations of ritual ad- the name of a kind of primate. It is, therefore, rea-
dresses in his 1893 article suggest that he already sonable to infer that local people never described
possessed a good knowledge of the Besemah lan- gugu to him as anything other than an empirical
guage by this time. His writings also contain an ex- animal – some kind of an ape – or, otherwise ex-
tensive catalogue of indigenous spiritual beings and pressed, that gugu was only ever represented to the
other spiritual concepts recognized by the Besemah missionary in a thoroughly naturalistic manner and
despite their partial conversion to Islam, while addi- in a way that led him to conclude that the referent
tional spirit categories are included in the word list was a nonhuman primate.
he compiled for Holle. As this is not the place for a Historically, it is also important that both Jen-
detailed review of these materials, it may be suffi- nissen and Helfrich recorded “gugu” as a primate
cient to note that Jennissen’s corpus, both his pub- name well before the colonial controversy initiat-
lished articles and his Holle list, contains descrip- ed largely by Jacobson’s report of human-like foot-
tions of over a dozen categories of spiritual beings, prints ascribed by Sumatran trackers to the “sedapa”
nearly all of which are named, as well as four terms or “orang pendek” (Jacobson 1917, 1918). In part,
referring to souls, or aspects of the human soul. One the ensuing debate was shaped by Dubois’ discov-
category of spirits, the “mountain spirits” (orang gu- ery in 1893 of the fossil “ape-man” Pithecanthro-
nung [goenoeng]), even receives mention in his ar- pus (now classified as Homo erectus). Neither Jen-
ticle on marital suicide (1904), as entities Besemah nissen (who as noted recorded “gugu” in the 1890s,
blame for luring new brides to their deaths. thus before Dubois’ discovery had become widely
known) nor Helfrich could, therefore, have had any
[sic],” and then lists an article by O. L. Helfrich (1904). The interest in advancing any particular interpretation
mistake in Helfrich’s name also suggests a misinterpretation of the nature of the mystery creature. Indeed, when
of handwriting, possibly made by the typist, A. E. Almanar, the two linguists wrote, the gugu was, by all indica-
who assisted Stokhof in editing the lists (1980/I: 145). While tions, not a mystery at all.
it is surprising that Stokhof did not correct this, it is incon-
ceivable that Jennissen would have misspelled Helfrich’s
The extent of Jennissen’s knowledge of Besemah
name. A comparable mistake concerns Jennissen’s own language and culture is further illuminated by the
name, the initials of which are given as W. L. rather than L. W. fact that he was preceded in the Besemah region by
Anthropos 109.2014
https://doi.org/10.5771/0257-9774-2014-1-149
Generiert durch IP '46.4.80.155', am 10.09.2021, 18:42:05.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.Gugu 155
J. P. N. van Meurs (1838–1891), another Dutch mis- one Dutch missionary-linguist would apply equal-
sionary whose help also receives prefatory acknowl- ly to the other, particularly in regard to a late-nine-
edgement from Helfrich (1904: iv). Stationed in teenth-century Western understanding of the catego-
Tanjong Sakti from 1887 until 1891, when he died ry “gugu.” In his 1891 article, van Meurs includes
in Sukabumi, van Meurs was in fact the first Jesuit a brief description of local fauna (1891: 451 f.), but
missionary to receive permission from the colonial in this he makes no mention of primates of any sort.
government to work in the Besemah highlands. The
permit, however, did not extend to “proper mission-
ary work” but allowed only “socio-linguistic explo- Other Sources on Gugu
rations” (Aritonang and Steenbrink 2008: 627), a
required concentration which suggests van Meurs Complementing Jennissen’s folk primatological no-
would have possessed considerable knowledge of menclature are two other sources of information on
Besemah language and culture by the time Jennis- “gugu,” both of which provide further illumination
sen succeeded him in 1891. And, as there is no in- of the ontological status of the category for southern
dication that the terms of the permit changed during Sumatrans. In a doctoral thesis entitled “Besemah
his successor’s tenure, the point would apply in at Concepts,” anthropologist William Collins (1979)
least equal measure to Jennissen. recounts a myth concerning the Besemah hero Se-
Van Meurs composed a grammar and dictionary runting, also known as “Bitter Tongue.” The story
of Besemah and published several articles, includ- includes Serunting’s encounter with “a group of
ing a report of nearly 100 pages on the Besemah creatures called gugu or orang hutan (literally jun-
region and culture (1891). He never completed his gle man or the ape orang-utan)” which is said to
Besemah dictionary, and what he did complete ap- have taken place upriver from Bintuhan, a coastal
pears not to have survived.8 Nevertheless, in a let- settlement about 100 miles to the south of Beng-
ter written in 1889 to his superior, Father Provin- kulu (1979: 33). After the gugu invite Serunting to
cial Frederik Heynen S. J., van Meurs (1888–1891) share wild fruits they are eating, the hero, impressed
mentions that the list of words he had so far com- by their generosity, declares “these creatures are not
piled was sufficient for his own purposes and for gugu (apes), rather they are orang hutan (humans
that of his successor. Whether van Meurs recorded who live in the jungle).” Following this declara-
Besemah names for primates, or indeed the term tion “the gugu became humans, but of short stature
“gugu,” we shall probably never know. But what- and with a large chin and a little forehead” (Collins
ever specific knowledge of Besemah Jennissen may 1979: 33 f.).
have derived from van Meurs’ writings, it is evi- Although specifying the referent as a type of hu-
dent that he was able to build upon the linguistic ef- man, Collins’s gloss of “orang hutan” in fact ac-
forts of his predecessor. Jennissen’s knowledge of cords with Sumatran descriptions of gugu and orang
the language was, therefore, greater when he com- pendek (see Forth 2008: 118–127), particularly in
piled the Holle list (in 1896 or 1898) than it would regard to their short stature and the “little” (presum-
have been had he started from scratch on his arrival ably meaning “low”) forehead. The “large chin” is
in Tanjong Sakti in 1891. The point equally applies not a usual attribute, but it is a reasonable specu-
to Jennissen’s knowledge of the Besemah people lation that the phrase may actually refer to a large
and culture, including their indigenous religion. In jaw. Collins’s account is further curious insofar as,
his 1891 report, van Meurs devoted 35 pages (1891: in the first instance, “gugu” and “orang hutan” are
253–287) to local religious beliefs and practices, presented as synonyms, whereas in the mythical he-
including descriptions of spiritual beings – and as ro’s subsequent declaration, the first term is glossed
with his successor’s work on the same topics, no- as referring specifically to “apes” (or orang-utans)
where in this context does the author refer to the while the second designates a separate category of
gugu or anything similar. human beings (albeit ones who live in jungle and
It is possible that Jennissen’s knowledge of Be- have a distinctive physical appearance) into which
semah folk primatological nomenclature derived the apes are subsequently transformed. The par-
largely or even entirely from van Meurs’s research- tial conflation is reminiscent of earlier accounts by
es. But in that case, what applies to the work of Marsden and Gibson, in which nonhuman creatures
called “gugu” are partly identified with “Kubu,” the
8 At least, the dictionary is not to be found in the Jesuit Ar- name given to groups of forest hunter-gatherers in-
chive (Archivum Neerlandicum Societatis Iesu) in Nijme-
gen, where other writings and materials relating to van Meurs
habiting parts of southern Sumatra (Forth 2008:
career are kept (Marie-Antoinette Willemsen, pers. comm. 118 f., 127 f.). The matter is somewhat resolved by
13 June 2011). the fact that the creatures Besemah call “gugu” are
Anthropos 109.2014
https://doi.org/10.5771/0257-9774-2014-1-149
Generiert durch IP '46.4.80.155', am 10.09.2021, 18:42:05.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.156 Gregory Forth
called “orang hutan” – literally “forest people” – in Westerners have similarly considered great apes as
other parts of the Barisan range (see Rintjema 2001, being identically capable. One famous case in the
writing on the Kerinci village of Lempur; also Forth United States even motivated testing by American
2008: 135). What is more, especially in the twen- geneticists of a performing chimpanzee named “Oli-
tieth century, speakers of the Indonesian national ver,” whose reputation as half-human was disproved
language have come to apply “orang hutan” (a term only when it was thus discovered that he was fully
lexically identical to English “orangutan”) to the Pan troglodytes (Ely et al. 1998; Forth 2008: 225).
ape Pongo pygmaeus (see Stevens and Schmidgall- Obviously, such ideas do not entail the nonexistence
Tellings 2004, s. v. “orang”), otherwise known in of the nonhuman species in question. They merely
Indonesian and Malay as “mawas.” 9 attest to the manifest physical similarity of apes and
Food collectors like Kubu are “forest people” al- humans – a similarity which, according to some re-
most by definition, but as just noted, according to ports, could be even greater in the case of the gugu,
a particular dialectal usage, so are the nonhuman or orang pendek.
hominoids otherwise known as gugu. The onto- For the most part, Besemah “jeme” (as in Ba-
logical ambiguity of “gugu” is also evidenced by rendregt’s “jeme guguh”) translates English “hu-
Marsden’s alternative designation of the creature as man, human being,” a sense consistent with the
“orang googoo,” and “orang guguk,” the name re- myth recounted by Collins in which gugu, speci-
ported by Hagen (1908: 33, who cites an unpub- fied initially as apes, are eventually transformed into
lished report by Saijers). Suggesting a similar dual- humans. But there is more to say about the term,
ism, Barendregt (2002: 304; 2005: 270 f.) gives the and it is here that Jennissen’s lexicon again becomes
creature’s name variously as “guguh,” “seguguh,” relevant. In his Holle list, Jennissen gives “jeme”
and “jeme guguh,” a compound which appears not (transcribed “jemě”) both for “mankind in general”
to have been recorded by others writing on the mys- and “man, human” in the sense of a member of a
tery hominoid, but which by all indications is syn- particular group. The term thus evidently combines
onymous with “orang gugu.” Barendregt, who has the partly distinguishable senses of Malay or Indo-
conducted ethnographic research in the Besemah re- nesian “manusia” and “orang” respectively, and in-
gion, is (apart from the present author) the only an- deed, according to Jennissen’s listings – replicated,
thropologist to have commented on the gugu. By moreover, in Helfrich’s dictionary (1904: 40, 11) –
reference to “jeme” (or “jeme hutan”; “hutan” is Besemah distinguishes the two senses with the cog-
forest) and consistent with his further description nates “manoesiě” and “ograng.” In other words, as
of the hominoids as “guguh-men” (2005: 271), Ba- “member” of a group, “jeme” is synonymous with
rendregt construes the creatures – unconvincingly, “ograng.” It cannot, therefore, be inferred that “jeme
in my view – as nothing more than an imaginary guguh” refers exclusively to human beings anymore
social construction cultivators employ to stigmatize than one can make the same inference from the oc-
human forest-dwellers, like the Kubu, by identify- currence of “orang” in “orang pendek” – or indeed
ing them with these “human-like animals” (2002: “orang hutan” as nowadays applied by Indonesian
304). The adjective “human-like” can only denote speakers to the orangutan, since Indonesians do not
something that is not fully human but, like a great regard these apes as human anymore than do West-
ape, resembles a human. On the other hand, Ba- erners. Basically the same point applies, although
rendregt also interprets gugu as “forest-dwelling hu- obviously with different qualifications, to Ma-
mans” (2002: 304; 2005: 270; emphasis supplied), lay “orang halus” (“halus”: fine, refined, delicate,
in which respect his explanation of the category as small), a reference to spiritual beings, and indeed
a derogatory representation of hunter-gathers, who to “orang gunung,” a term Jennissen (1893) gives
are equally forest-dwelling humans, reveals a cer- for mountain spirits.10 Like English terms such as
tain circularity. “snow man,” “straw man,” and perhaps even “Java
Support for the ambiguously human status of the man,” we are dealing with metaphor.
gugu might be found in the idea, first recorded by In regard to Jennissen’s listing of “gugu” as one
Marsden (1783) but also mentioned by Barendregt of seven Besemah terms for monkeys and apes, an-
(2002: 304), that gugu can interbreed with humans. other interest of Collins’s remarks is the close con-
As recently as the late twentieth century, however, ceptual connection they imply between gugu and
the ape Pongo pygmaeus. Information more recent-
9 It has been suggested that “orang hutan,” the source of
“orangutan,” derives not from a Malay designation of the ape 10 See Stevens and Schmidgall-Tellings (2004) s. v. “orang,”
but from a European misunderstanding (see Yule and Burnell who also give “orang hutan” as: “forest dweller,” “aborigine
1968: 643 f.). This issue has yet to be fully resolved. of East Sumatra;” and “orangutan Pongo pygmaeus.”
Anthropos 109.2014
https://doi.org/10.5771/0257-9774-2014-1-149
Generiert durch IP '46.4.80.155', am 10.09.2021, 18:42:05.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.Gugu 157
ly provided by linguist Bradley McDonnell (pers. the lizards turn their feet to the side in locomotion
comm. March–April 2010) further attests to a large- (Forth 2013). But whatever the explanation, such
ly naturalistic representation of gugu as an ape or a an attribution clearly does not prove that the subject
creature associated with apes. Referring to the pri- is imaginary, and it is equally noteworthy that two
mates identified with the seven terms listed by Jen- authorities on Sumatran orangutans have described
nissen, McDonnell states that all are encountered by these apes as walking in a way that similarly gives
Besemah speakers, except for the “we-we” (cf. Jen- the impression of an inverted print (Rijksen and Me-
nissen’s “oewewe”), which he identifies as a gibbon ijaard 1999: 62 f.). As regards gibbons, it should be
species, and the gugu. McDonnell further reports noted that one authority has characterized Suma-
that, while no one he spoke to claimed to have seen trans as regarding these apes “not as an animal but
these two creatures, other people are said sometimes as a visible forest spirit” (Bakels 1995: 16). Hence
to do so. Occasionally, people hear the we-we mak- it is by no means clear that these attested primates
ing a characteristic cry like a child weeping, a vocal- are conceived any less fantastically than the uniden-
ization they ascribe to the ape’s mythical derivation tified gugu.
from a human child left behind in the jungle.11 The
resemblance of gibbon calls to the human voice is
elaborated in the mythology of other Southeast Asia Discussion and Conclusions
peoples. For example, a Malaysian aboriginal myth
recounting the origin of the white-handed gibbon, Jennissen’s primate lexicon does not prove that
explains “loud hooting noises” made by the ape as “gugu” actually denotes a category of primate, nor
the cries of a woman crying out for her lost husband that the entity so named exists as an extant, empiri-
(Karim 1981: 223). “White-handed gibbon” is an cal animal. What it does indicate is that the mis-
alternative name for the Lar gibbon (Hylobates lar), sionary-linguist understood the term as referring
an ape closely related to the agile gibbon (Hyloba- to a primate of some kind (as more explicitly did
tes agilis), the species to which Besemah “oewewe” Schlegel and Müller before him and Helfrich after-
refers. It is also of interest that a sound like human wards). It can hardly be doubted that Jennissen in-
crying or weeping is one kind of vocalization at- cluded “gugu” in his list of primate names because
tributed to “sedapak,” another regional name for the Besemah described the referent in a way that in-
mystery hominoid elsewhere known as “gugu” or dicated a monkey or ape, that is, in a completely
“orang pendek” (De Santy 1925). naturalistic manner suggesting an empirical ani-
While gibbons are conceived as resembling hu- mal rather than a supernatural or otherwise imagi-
mans vocally, the gugu, according to McDonnell, nary being. And it is equally likely that this is how
are described as imitating humans in other ways. If Besemah themselves understood the gugu – not as
someone leaves behind an axe in the jungle, “gugu” spirit or some group of human beings but, funda-
will use it to fell a tree. Similarly, if clothing is left, mentally, as some sort of ape (Dutch aap) and as
a gugu will take it and put it on. This report is es- an animal ontologically equivalent to scientifically
pecially interesting, as such behavior has elsewhere attested species of monkeys and apes, the referents
been attributed to orangutans (Forth 2008: 192). of the other six terms recorded in Table 1. There is
Echoing a detail commonly found in descriptions no evidence that Jennissen himself ever saw a gugu,
of the orang pendek, McDonnell also notes that Be- which is to say, a creature he heard native speakers
semah describe gugu as possessing inverted feet, so designate with this term, or which matched descrip-
their tracks give the impression they are travelling tions he had recorded from Besemah people. Given
in the opposite direction. The attribution may sug- the reputed rarity of the “gugu,” it is indeed most
gest a more fantastic or supernatural representation likely that he did not. But this probability only un-
than that which applies to the gibbon, particularly derscores the generally naturalistic character of the
as, in various parts of the world, inverted feet are as- Besemah representation.
cribed to spiritual beings. On the eastern Indonesian As shown, the six other terms for primates Jen-
island of Flores, however, inverted feet are locally nissen recorded in addition to gugu cover the entire
attributed to the water monitor (Varanus salvator), range of scientifically recorded species of monkeys
a large lizard whose tracks are considered similar- and apes occurring in the Besemah region. From
ly deceptive. The notion probably reflects the way this it seems improbable that “gugu” would label
a recognized species of gibbon or monkey, since
11 Barendregt similarly mentions “a wuwe monkey” deriving
these are all named by the other six terms. Focus-
from a child lost by its mother in the forest and “making a ing on different percepts (for example, visible form
sobbing sound” (2005: 270). and vocalizations), local folk zoologists will some-
Anthropos 109.2014
https://doi.org/10.5771/0257-9774-2014-1-149
Generiert durch IP '46.4.80.155', am 10.09.2021, 18:42:05.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.158 Gregory Forth
times develop two different names for what is sci- aural encounters with other primates (most notably
entifically classified as a single species (see, e.g., gibbons), sunbears, or forest-dwelling humans. This
Forth 2004: 32). “Gugu” could, therefore, be a syn- basically was the interpretation of orang pendek
onym of another term, and as indicated, the possi- proposed by the Dutch colonial zoologist K. W.
bly onomatopoeic name could even reflect the cries Dammerman (1924: 182), some 20 to 30 years af-
of a gibbon. But this cannot of course simply be as- ter Jennissen and Helfrich wrote. In that case, gugu,
sumed, and in fact, as described by Sumatrans, the as a refracted image of extinct orangutans, could
gugu is a very much larger animal than any known be comparable to extinct Tasmanian thylacines and
gibbon. Zanzibar leopards (Walsh and Goldman n. d.) – of
As also shown, other evidence suggests “gugu” which sightings are still reported, and which some
may refer to the orangutan, or may have done so consider to be extant animals.
in the nineteenth century. Since Jennissen was not If, on the other hand, “gugu” does not ultimate-
clearly the source of Helfrich’s subsequent identifi- ly refer to the orangutan – and if the creature is not
cation of the term with Pongo pygmaeus, Helfrich fully fictitious or imaginary – then in view of Jen-
may have made this independently of the mission- nissen’s and Helfrich’s implicit conclusion that it
ary, although Jennissen would likely have concurred denotes a primate or something sufficiently like a
in the determination. As Jennissen did not gloss any primate to have given them this impression, it can
of the primate terms he compiled for Holle, we shall reasonably be considered that the category reflects
probably never know what animal he identified with an animal, most likely an ape, hitherto unrecorded
“gugu”; nevertheless, it could very well have been by modern science. Speculation linking the recent-
Pongo, and Helfrich’s dictionary, compiled with ly discovered subfossil hominin Homo floresiensis
the missionary’s assistance, suggests that it most with local Flores images – most notably the one la-
likely was. It is possible that, in making this iden- beled “ebu gogo” (whose name, as noted, cannot
tification, Helfrich, and even Jennissen, were influ- plausibly be linked with “gugu”) – has raised the
enced by Schlegel and Müller’s earlier identifica- question of whether the “orang pendek” (or “gugu”)
tion of “orang panda” with Pongo pygmaeus (the might be a creature of the same sort, that is, a relict
ape they called Simia satyrus). It is also possible hominoid and a non-sapiens member of the genus
that Helfrich at least was familiar with the English Homo. However, in view of the existence of several
writings of Marsden and Gibson. However that may known ape species on Sumatra but not on Flores,
be, what is far more certain is that neither Jennis- and because of differences in the way local Floren-
sen nor Helfrich would have supported the identifi- ese and local Sumatrans respectively represent the
cation if Besemah speakers had described the gugu two creatures, this would appear, if for no other rea-
not as an empirical creature but in a patently super- son, highly unlikely (Forth 2008: 151 f.).
naturalistic manner. Categories like gugu or orang pendek have typi-
The most obvious factor weighing against an cally been viewed in one of two ways. Cryptozool-
identification of gugu with the orangutan is the pau- ogists (or at least the more popular variety thereof)
city of evidence for the presence of this species in have tended to accept them uncritically as undis-
southern Sumatra, either in the early twentieth or covered hominins or relict hominoids. By contrast,
nineteenth centuries. Nevertheless, as Rijksen and sceptics, whose most informed and therefore more
Meijaard (1999) have shown, evidence is not en- authoritative members include both natural scien-
tirely lacking, even for the twentieth century.12 It is tists and social scientists, tend to regard them as
also possible that “gugu,” and synonymous terms empirically ungrounded. In this case, the images
and the associated representation, could reflect a are often dismissed as superstitious nonsense; and
species – either Pongo pygmaeus or another large there are indeed many reasons why academic re-
primate – that had become locally extinct a century searchers would not be inclined to investigate. In
or more previously and had survived only as a trace a variant of this view, many social or cultural an-
or “shadow” in local culture and in the nomencla- thropologists tend to consider “cryptids,” or mys-
ture of folk zoology, perhaps reinforced by visual or tery animals, as imaginary constructs serving some
social function or cultural purpose; but even when
12 Another primatologist, and general sceptic of claims crypto- this view is articulated (which it rarely is), it mostly
zoological, gives what could be interpreted as guarded sup- remains a general position not followed by focused
port to Rijksen and Meijaard when, citing these authorities, investigation or analysis. Ethnozoology, and espe-
he says: “… it has recently been argued that there is convinc-
ing evidence of [the orangutan’s] former, and perhaps con-
cially the study of folk categories, offers an alterna-
tinuing, occurrence well down the west coast [of Sumatra]” tive to both positions. As the present discussion has
(Groves 2001: 300). shown, several European authorities – missionaries,
Anthropos 109.2014
https://doi.org/10.5771/0257-9774-2014-1-149
Generiert durch IP '46.4.80.155', am 10.09.2021, 18:42:05.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.Gugu 159
linguists, and zoologists – have explicitly or implic- Chivers, David J.
itly understood “gugu” and synonymous terms as 1995 A Giant Step-of-a-Kind for Primate Kind. BBC Wildlife
designating an empirical primate. On the evidence 13/2: 23.
of Jennissen’s lexicon, and later Helfrich’s, so do Collins, William A.
Besemah speakers themselves, and for this reason 1979 Besemah Concepts. A Study of the Culture of a People
of South Sumatra. Ann Arbor: UMI. [PhD Thesis, Uni-
alone – and in the absence of a coherent anthropo- versity of California, Berkeley]
logical explanation of why Besemah would recog-
nize a creature with no or little grounding in em- Coomans de Ruiter, L.
1929 De stand van het orang pendek vraagstuk. Collectie L. C.
pirical reality – it would be imprudent to dismiss Westenenk, nummer toegang 2.21.205.71. The Hague:
the gugu as zoologically nonexistent. In the absence Nationaal Archief.
of field research into local species, studies of folk
Cribb, Robert
zoological nomenclature cannot of course indepen- 2007 Conservation in Colonial Indonesia. Interventions: Inter-
dently confirm the existence of empirical species national Journal of Postcolonial Studies 9/1: 49–61.
corresponding to their component categories. But,
Dammerman, K. W.
as in this case, they can contribute to a reframing 1924 De orang pandak van Sumatra. De Tropische Natuur 13:
of problems and thus to prospective resolutions. In 177–182.
this way, they may facilitate not only an anthropo- De Santy, H. W. Th.
logical understanding of categories whose referents 1925 Bijdragen over het voorkomen van de orang pandak op
are uncertain but, indirectly, contribute to scientific Sumatra VI. De Sedapak op Sumatra. Het Koloniaal
zoology as well. Weekblad 25/2: 3–5.
Ely, John J., M. Leland, M. Martino, W. Swett, and C. M.
Moore
I wish to express my thanks to two people who have pro- 1998 Technical Note. Chromosomal and mtDNA Analysis
vided exceptional assistance in the writing of this article. of Oliver. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Bradley McDonnell, a doctoral student at the University 105/3: 395–403.
of California, Santa Barbara, kindly provided IPA tran- Forth, Gregory
scriptions of Jennissen’s Besemah terms as well as infor- 2004 Nage Birds. Classification and Symbolism among an
mation on the their primate referents and the language in Eastern Indonesian People. London and New York: Rout-
general. Assistance with locating information on the ca- ledge.
reers of Jennissen and van Meurs, in the Jesuit Archive in 2005 Hominids, Hairy Hominoids, and the Science of Human-
Nijmegen (Archivum Neerlandicum Societatis Iesu), was ity. Anthropology Today 21/3: 13–17.
2008 Images of the Wildman in Southeast Asia. An Anthropo-
generously provided by Dr. Marie-Antoinette Willemsen logical Perspective. London and New York: Routledge.
of the University of Nijmegen. Dr. Willemsen was assist- 2013 Symbolic Lizards. Forms of Special Purpose Classifica-
ed in turn by Drs. Joep van Gennip, archivist at the Jesuit tion of Animals among the Nage of Eastern Indonesia.
Archive, to whom our thanks are also due. Anthrozoös 26 (3): 357–372.
Gibson, Walter M.
1856 The Prison of Weltevreden; and a Glance at the East Indi-
References Cited an Archipelago. London: Sampson Low; New York: J. C.
Riker.
Anonymous Gouda, Frances
1924 De orang pendek op Sumatra. De Locomotief (1 August). 1995 Dutch Culture Overseas. Colonial Practice in the Neth-
Aritonang, Jan S., and Karel A. Steenbrink (eds.) erlands Indies, 1900–1942. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Uni-
2008 A History of Christianity in Indonesia. Leiden: Brill. versity Press.
(Studies in Christian Mission, 35) Groves, Colin P.
Bakels, Jet 2001 Primate Taxonomy. Washington: Smithsonian Institution
1995 Zo onmenselijk, zo aan een mens gelijk. Cryptozoölo- Press.
gie: de mogelijkheid van levende missing links en andere Gudger, E. W.
monsters. NRC Handelsblad (18 January): 16. 1923 Monkeys Trained as Harvesters. Instances of a Practice
2000 Het verbond met de tijger. Visies op mensenetende dieren Extending from Remote Times to the Present. Natural
in Kerinci, Sumatra. Leiden: Research School of Asian, History 23/3: 272–279.
African, and Amerindian Studies; Universiteit Leiden.
(CNWS Publications, 93) Hagen, Bernhard
1908 Die Orang Kubu auf Sumatra. Frankfurt: Joseph Baer.
Barendregt, Bart A.
2002 Representing the Ancient Other. Indonesia and the Malay Helfrich, Oscar L.
World 30/88: 277–308. 1904 Bijdragen tot de kennis van het Midden Maleisch, Pas-
2005 From the Realm of Many Rivers. Memory, Places, and semasch en Serawasch dialect. Verhandelingen van het
Notions of Home in the Southern Sumatran Highlands. Koninklijk Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en We-
[PhD Thesis, Universiteit Leiden] tenschappen 53/1: 1–284.
Anthropos 109.2014
https://doi.org/10.5771/0257-9774-2014-1-149
Generiert durch IP '46.4.80.155', am 10.09.2021, 18:42:05.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.You can also read
