Batak Kingdom

The Trans-Sumatra Trade and the Ethnicization of the 'Batak'
By: LEONARD Y. ANDAYA

Early visitors to Southeast Asia were fascinated by rumours of a cannibal tribe called the Batak in the interior of Sumatra. When John Anderson travelled along the east coast and its interior areas in the early part of the nineteenth century, he met a Batak who told him of having eaten human flesh seven times, even mentioning his preference for particular parts of the body. Two other Batak confirmed having also participated in this practice and 'expressed their anxiety to enjoy a similar feast upon some of the enemy, pointing to the other side of the river. This they said was their principal inducement for engaging in the service of the sultan.  Such reports simply reinforced myths and partial truths which had circulated about these people since Marco Polo's oft-quoted story of a Sumatran people (presumably  the Batak) who consumed their ill (Latham 1978:255). European perceptions were also influenced by stories commonly told in east coast Sumatra by 'downstream' (hilir) people that those 'upstream' {hulu), that is, in the interior, were hostile and grotesque. A Portuguese chronicler even repeated downriver stories of an inland group possessing tails 'like unto sheep' (B. Andaya 1995:542).


It has been suggested that lurid details of cannibalistic practices may have been provided by the Batak themselves in an effort to prevent outsiders from penetrating into their lands. From early times, therefore, cannibalism became associated with Batak identity and had the desired effect of limiting the intrusion of Europeans until the nineteenth century. But perhaps a more important reason for the late entry of Europeans in Batak lands was the fact that, from the beginning of sustained European involvement in the area in the sixteenth century until the establishment of plantation and other export industries in the nineteenth century, European orientation was toward the sea and the coastal polities.


With hindsight it is easy for historians to see that the Batak were fortunate in avoiding the Europeans in these early centuries. Yet European involvement often resulted in the keeping of records and the accumulation of written materials which have been crucial in the reconstruction of the history of many Southeast Asian societies.  The lack of a European presence in the Batak lands until the nineteenth century has meant that historians have had very limited or no access to any contemporary European accounts of the Batak in the pre-modern period.


The ethnonym 'Batak' is very likely an ancient name, but no one has been able to give a satisfactory meaning of the term. Perhaps the very first time that the name appears in written sources is in the Zhufan zhi, written by Zhao  Rugua, Inspector of Foreign Trade in Fujian, sometime in the mid-thirteenth century. It mentions a dependency of San-fo-tsi (Srivijaya) called Ba-ta, which may be a reference to 'Batak' (Hirth and Rockhill 1966:35,62,66). The next definite identification of Batak comes from Tome Pires' Suma Oriental, which was written in Melaka sometime between 1512 and 1515. It mentions the kingdom of Bata, bordered on one side by the kingdom of Pasai and the other by the kingdom of Aru (Cortesao 1990, 1:145). From the sixteenth century onward, references to the Batak as inhabitants of the interior of north Sumatra, and also  of certain kingdoms along the northeast coast, become more frequent.


Today, the Batak groups are listed as the Karo, the Simalungun, the Pakpak-Dairi, the Toba, and the  Angkola-Mandailing. It was the Europeans who first placed these clusters of communities in and around Lake Toba who spoke a similar dialect and shared customs under one rubric, the Toba. Following this usage, I will apply the term 'Toba' in this essay to the communities living on Samosir and the lands surrounding Lake Toba, including those of Silindung.


There is a growing tendency to use the word 'Batak' to refer solely to the Toba, since many of the other groups prefer to be regarded as non-Batak and as Mandailing, Karo, Simalungun, and so on, in the ongoing process of redefinition of ethnic groups. In the nineteenth century, however, the term 'Batak' appears to have been applied to all these different groups. In writing this essay, I have been very much aware of the uneven distribution of source materials. Any systematic study of the Batak began with the arrival of European missionaries in the nineteenth century. With the penetration of the area by the Dutch colonial administration later in the century, more studies were commissioned and travel reports published in governmental and scholarly journals. The continuing presence of German and Dutch missionaries and teachers in north Sumatra has assured an ongoing literature on various aspects of Batak society, particularly its religious beliefs. In addition, Indonesian government encouragement of local culture in the 1970s and ethnic chauvinism and pride since the 1990s have fostered Indonesian and local scholarship on Batak society.


For the period before the nineteenth century, there have been a few archaeological studies, particularly by E. Edwards McKinnon and John Miksic, which have considerably advanced our understanding of early settlements in the Batak areas. Nevertheless, much still needs to be done to gain a more comprehensive understanding of northern Sumatran communities for the first 1800 years AD.


With the unevenness of the sources in terms of both period and content, I was confronted with a historiographical problem. Would it be possible to reconstruct the history of an area on the basis of sources which pre- and post-date the events themselves? Should a historian undertake such a task as a legitimate historical enterprise? Both questions I have answered in the affirmative, but with certain reservations. In the following pages I attempt to provide a historical overview of economic and political events in the region of the Straits of Melaka as a basis for suggesting a Batak response to such events.


This reconstruction is based on archaeological findings, as well as nineteenth- and twentieth-century compilations of origin tales of the various Batak marga. I have also drawn on a knowledge of the better-documentedneighbouring communities of the Malayu (Malay), Minangkabau, and Acehnese, as well as groups in the region confronted with similar conditions as the Batak, in order to discuss the Batak situation. The result is a historical reconstruction that combines available documentary evidence, historical imagination, and thirty years' experience in researching and writing about societies in the region. I have tried to proceed with caution, and some of the reconstructed scenarios may eventually prove wrong. Nevertheless, I believe that this essay has advanced certain ideas that may be worth investigating further, if new materials come to light, or if historiographical methods become further refined in the future. In short, I hope that scholars will view this venture as a genuine attempt to advance the study of a society whose pre-modern history has been shrouded in mystery for far too long.


One of the analytical tools that I use is ethnicity. There has been a considerable amount of literature written on ethnicity, principally by sociologists and anthropologists. The aim of most of these studies has been to determine the factors which contribute to the formation of ethnic identity. In the past there were those who argued that each group recognized certain 'primordial' elements as the core of their identity, while others claimed that each ethnic community is the outcome of specific historical circumstances and situations. More and more, however, studies have taken the middle ground and acknowledged the importance of 'primordial' sentiments, but argue that such sentiments are in fact constantly undergoing change in response to specific circumstances.


A factor noted in the formation of ethnic identity is the desire to maximize the advantages of the group. Many have focused on the economic benefits to be gained from creating a particular ethnic unity. A view with less emphasis on the material and more on the psychological advantages is Horowitz's idea of 'group entitlement'. According to Horowitz, a group's enhancement of status and prestige in the eyes of others serves to bolster the individual's own sense of pride and self-worth (Horowitz 1985:185, 226-7). Basic to the notion of ethnic identity is the fact that ethnic consciousness arises through contact with others who are different. As Eriksen explains, 'ethnicity is essentially an aspect of a relationship, not a property of a group' (Eriksen 1993:11-2). Once difference is established, it is necessary to exploit this difference through the establishment of ethnic markers or boundaries. Barth suggests that one focus on 'boundaries', rather than the 'cultural elements' contained within such boundaries (Barth 1969:11). In other words, how a group defines and continues to maintain itself against another can be far more revealing of ethnic identity than obvious outward signs such as dress, food, or even language. An ethnic group then creates legitimacy and group loyalty through the process of 'inventing traditions' and 'imagining communities'. (to be continue, 370-10)

Edited by nainggolan - 21-Dec-2007 at 08:21