Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:47:16.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rivals and Rituals in Jambi, South Sumatra (1858–1901)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Elsbeth Locher-Scholten
Elsbeth Locher-Scholten
Affiliation:
University of Utrecht
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Political rituals can be seen as non-verbal expressions of an existing or desired political reality. Whether ritual is defined with the emphasis on the cremonial aspect (Tennekens), with attention to emotional meaning (Lukes) or with regard to repetitions (Kertzer), all definitions stress this symbolic function. Rituals are about the expression of a wish or a fact in symbolic form, in other words they refer to another reality behind the directly observable. Rituals are a form of communication about deeper values, norms and relationships. Political rituals thus convery messages about political relationships and the configurations and exercise of power.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , July 1993 , pp. 573 - 591
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I am grateful to Dr Robert Ross for the translation of this article.

1 See Tennekens, J., Symbolen en hun boodschap (Assen, 1982), 89;Google Scholar here rituals are defined as: ‘behaviour complexes which are constructed around ceremonial symbolic actions and/or a ceremonial association with symbols with the proverbs and formulas which belong to it’; Lukes, S., ‘Political Ritual and Social Integration’, Sociology 9 (1975) 291:CrossRefGoogle Scholar ‘rule governed activity of a symbolic character, which draws the attention of the participants to objects of thought and feeling, which they hold to be of special significance’; Kertzer, D. I., Ritual, Politics and Power (New Haven and London, 1988), 9: ‘symbolic behaviour that is standardized and repetitive and wrapped in a web of symbolism’.Google Scholar

2 van Asbeck, F. M., ‘Indische herinneringen’, I, 10, Collectie Van Asbeck no. 66, Algemeen Rijksarchief (ARA) (General State Archive, The Hague).Google Scholar

3 Contract Jambi 1858 art. 26; 1882 art. 28; 1888 art. 21 in verbaal (vb.). 21 January 1860, no. 16, Colonial Archives (Col. ARA); Handelingen Staten Generaal. 1883–1884, Bijlagen 133.4; idem, 1889–1890, Bijlagen 76.7, respectively.

4 Politiek beleid en bestuurszorg II-B (Batavia, 1909), 22–3.Google Scholar

5 Those few rituals which related exclusively to the internal Jambi situation, such as the use of religious means to acquire followers, are left out of consideration.

6 B. Watson Andaya, ‘Cash cropping and upstream-downstream tensions: the case of Jambi in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries’ in Reid, A., Southeast Asia in the Early Modern Era: Transitions in Maritime Commerce, Power and Belief Systems.Google Scholar

7 For the reports of these visits, see vb. 2 Nov. 1878 no. 7, Col. ARA.Google Scholar

8 Resident of Palembang to Governor-General, 31 March 1875, mail report (mr.) 1875 241, in vb. 2 November 1878, no. 7, Col. ARA.Google Scholar

9 See idem to idem, 27 May 1882, mr. 1882/903, Col. ARA.

10 c.f. the text in Politiek beleid II-B.Google Scholar

11 See his report, 27 May 1882, mr. 1882/903, Col. ARA.Google Scholar

12 As a parsimonious Dutchman, Laging Tobias informed the Governor-General that, including the building of the marquee and the lighting, this had all cost the Dutch government f1373.25, but that he had managed to sell the wood for the marquee to the military commander of Jambi, so that the final cost was f100 less. (ibid).

13 Boers, J. W., ‘Oud Volksgebruik in het Rijk van Jambi’, Tijdschrift voor Nederland-sch-Indië 3 (1840), 1, 372–84.Google Scholar He belived that this custom went back to a privilege granted to a claimant to the throne who abandoned his claim to the sultanate in favour of his brother. In ‘De adel van Benkoelen en Jambi’, Adatrechtbundel XXII (1923), 46, 309–40Google Scholar, this rural is described as follows: the chief of the Jebus assumed the dignity of sultan for a day and transferred it to the new ruler at five in the afternoon. At that moment the new sultan was presented to the people, the head of one of the noble families fired a small brass cannon, the head of another family struck a gong and announced to the multitude: ‘ This is our new ruler.’ The one-day sultan then put the sultan's kris in the sultan's belt and did him homage, followed by the various noble families, the officials and the others present. Then the ceremony was completed.

14 For the procedure and the report of the installation, see Resident of Palembang to Governor-general, 18 Oct. 1886, mr. 1886/686, Col. ARA.Google Scholar

15 Information on this is to be found in Koloniale Verslag, Handelingen 1889–1890, Bijlage C. 11. The reports of this ceremony are among the few which cannot be located in the Colonial Archives (ARA) in The Hague.Google Scholar

16 ‘Vertaling: Over het rijkssieraad van Djambi, genaamd Si Gendjé's, Tijdshrift voor Indische Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde XLVIII (1906), 142–60.Google Scholar

17 Handelingen 1889–1890, Bijlage C, 11.Google Scholar For a description of both krissen, which are still to be seen in the Museum Pusat in Jakarta, see van den Hamer, C., ‘Beschrijving van de twee krissen, als rijkssieraad verbonden aan het Sultansgezag over Djambi and het Pangeran Ratoeschap aldaar’, Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde XLVIII (1906), 106–12.Google Scholar

18 Political Agent to Resident of Palembang, 21 Feb. 1894, mr. 1884/225, Col. ARA.Google Scholar

19 Ibid.

20 Resident of Palembang to Governor-General, 29 Feb. 1896, mr. 1896/174; vb. 2 Nov. 1896 no. 2, Col. ARA.Google Scholar