The Pagan Tribes of Borneo / A Description of Their Physical Moral and Intellectual Condition, with Some Discussion of Their Ethnic Relations

by Charles Hose; William McDougall

The Klemantan tribes are on the whole far less warlike than Kayans, Kenyahs, and Ibans. Their offensive warfare is usually on a small scale, and is undertaken primarily for revenge. Their warlike ambition is easily satisfied by the taking of a single head, or even by a mere hostile demonstration against the enemy's house. Nevertheless, like all the other tribes, except the Punans, the Klemantans need a human head to terminate a period of mourning.

We venture to append to this chapter a few speculations on the origin and history of head-hunting. From what we have said above it is clear that the Ibans are the only tribe to which one can apply the epithet head-hunters with the usual connotation of the word, namely, that head-hunting is pursued as a form of sport. But although the Ibans are the most inveterate head-hunters, it is probable that they adopted the practice some few generations ago only (perhaps a century and a half or even less) in imitation of Kayans or other tribes among whom it had been established for a longer period. The rapid growth of the practice among the Ibans was no doubt largely due to the influence of the Malays, who had been taught by Arabs and others the arts of piracy, and with whom the Ibans were associated in the piratical enterprises that gave the waters around Borneo a sinister notoriety during the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries. Until the middle of the nineteenth century, the settlements of Ibans were practically confined to the rivers of the southern part of Sarawak; and there the Malays of Bruni and of other coast settlements enlisted them as crews for their pirate ships. In these piratical expeditions the Malays assigned the heads of their victims as the booty of their Iban allies, while they kept for themselves the forms of property of greater cash value. The Malays were thus interested in encouraging in the Ibans the passion for head-hunting which, since the suppression of piracy, has found vent in the irregular warfare and treacherous acts described above. It was through their association with the Malays in these piratical expeditions that the Ibans became known to Europeans as the Sea Dayaks.

It seems not impossible that the practice of taking the heads of fallen enemies arose by extension of the custom of taking the hair for the ornamentation of the shield and sword-hilt. It seems possible that human hair was first applied to shields in order to complete the representation of a terrible human face, which, as we have seen, is commonly painted on the shield, and which is said to be valued as an aid to confusing and terrifying the foe. It is perhaps a difficulty in the way of this view that the use of human hair to ornament the shield is peculiar to the Kenyahs and some of the Klemantans (the latter probably having imitated the former in this), and does not occur among the Kayans. The Kenyahs themselves preserve the tradition of the origin of the taking of heads; and the suggestion is further borne out by the legend of TOKONG, which is widely known, but is probably of Kenyah origin (see Chapter XVII.), according to which the frog admonished a great Kenyah chief that he should cease to take only the hair of the fallen foe, but should take their heads also.

A second plausible view of the origin of head-taking is that it arose out of the custom of slaying slaves on the death of a chief, in order that they might accompany and serve him on his journey to the other world. We have pointed out several reasons for believing that this practice was formerly general, and that it has fallen into desuetude, but is hardly yet quite extinct. It is obvious that since the soul of the dead man is regarded as hovering in the neighbourhood of the body for some little time after its death, it would be felt that the despatch of a companion soul was not a matter of immediate urgency; and considerations of economy might well lead the mourners to prefer capturing and killing members of some hostile community to slaying one or more of their slaves, highly valued and sometimes affectionately regarded as they are. It would then be felt that the relatives of the deceased should continue to display signs of mourning until they should have discharged this last duty to their departed friend. The next step would be to supplant the practice of capturing a member of a hostile community, and bringing him home to be slain, by the simpler, less troublesome, and more merciful one of slaying the enemy on the field of combat and bringing home only his head. In this way we may, with some plausibility, seek to account for the origin of the practice of taking heads, and of the tradition that the taking of a head is necessary for the termination of a period of mourning. This second suggestion is strongly supported by the fact that Kayans, Kenyahs, and Klemantans occasionally, on returning home from a successful raid, will carry one of the newly taken heads to the tomb of the chief for whom they are mourning, and will hang it upon, or deposit it within, the tomb beside the coffin. The head used for this purpose is thickly covered with leaves (DAUN ISANG) tied tightly about it. It is possible that this thick covering was first applied in order to disguise the fact that the head is that of an enemy, and that the sacrifice of the life of a domestic slave, originally demanded by custom and piety, has been avoided by this process of substitution.

We have suggested above two different origins of the custom of taking the heads of enemies. These two possibilities are by no means mutually exclusive, and we are inclined to think that both substitutive processes may have co-operated in bringing about this custom.

It seems probable that the taking of heads was introduced to Borneo by Kayans when they entered the island, probably some few centuries ago, and that the Klemantans and other tribes, like the Ibans, have adopted the custom from their example.

We will conclude this chapter by questioning yet another of the stories, the frequent repetition of which has given the tribes of the interior the reputation of being savages of the worst type, namely, the story that it is the practice of Kayans to torture the captives taken in battle. This evil repute is, we have no doubt, largely due to the fact that very few Europeans have acquired any intimate first-hand acquaintance with the Kayans or Kenyahs; and that too often the stories told by Sea Dayaks have been uncritically accepted; for the Sea Dayaks have been bitterly hostile to the Kayans ever since the tribes have been in contact; and the Iban is a great romancer. It will be found that many of the alleged instances of torture by Kayans have been described by Sea Dayaks; and we think there is good reason for hesitating to accept any of these. But we would point out that, if some of these accounts have been founded on fact, the Sea Dayak victims, or their companions, have in all probability provoked the Kayans to severe, reprisals by their atrocious behaviour, and may be fairly said to have deserved their fate.

It is true that Kayans have been guilty of leaving a slave or captive bound upon a tomb until he has died from exposure to the sun. We know also of one instance in which a Murut slave, having treacherously murdered the only son of a great Kayan chief in the Baram, at the instigation of Bruni Malays, was killed by a multitude of small stabs by the infuriated Kayan women, on being brought captive to the house.

But such occurrences as these by no means justify the statement that it is the practice of Kayans to torture their captives; and we have heard of no well-attested instances that give any colour to it. As we have said above, Kayans commonly treat their captives so kindly that they soon become content to remain in the households of their captors. The Kayan feeling about torture is well illustrated by the fact that the Kayan village responsible for the exposure of the slave mentioned above was looked at askance by other Kayans. The spot was regarded with horror by them, and they regard as a consequence of this act the failure of the line of the chief of that village to perpetuate itself.

We have to admit that some of the Klemantans cannot be so whole-heartedly defended against the charge of torturing their captives. But we believe that it is not regularly practised by any Klemantan tribe, but rather only on occasions which in some way evoke an exceptional degree of emotional excitement. Thus, in one instance known to us, the Orang Bukit of the Bruni territory, having lost the most highly respected of their chiefs, purchased a slave in Bruni to serve as the funereal victim, and, having shut him in a wicker cage, killed him with a multitude of stabs, some eight hundred persons taking part in the act. But even this act was, it must be observed, of the nature of a pious and religious rite rather than an act of wanton cruelty.