Transition from Native Forest Rubbers to Hevea brasiliensis

Transition from Native Forest Rubbers to Hevea brasiliensis (Euphorbiaceae) among TribalSmallholders in BorneoAuthor(s): Michael R. DoveSource: Economic Botany, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1994), pp. 382-396Published by: Springer on behalf of New York Botanical Garden PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4255664 .Accessed: 14/09/2011 03:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

New York Botanical Garden Press and Springer are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Economic Botany.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nybg

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4255664?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

TRANSITION FROM NATIVE FOREST RUBBERS TO

HEVEA BRAsILIENSIS (EUPHORBIACEAE) AMONG

TRIBAL SMALLHOLDERS IN BORNEO'

MICHAEL R. DOVE

Dove, Michael R. (East- West Center, Honolulu, HA 96848). TRANSmON FROM NATIVE FOREsT RUBBERS TO HEVEA BRASILIENSIS AMONG TRIBAL SMALLHOLDERS IN BoRNEo. Economic Botany 48(4):382-396. 1994. This is a study of the historic transition in Southeast Asia, in particular Borneo, from the exploitation of native forest rubbers to Para rubber (Hevea brasiliensis, Eu- phorbiaceae). During the second half of the nineteenth century, booming international markets subjected forest rubbers to more intensive and competitive exploitation. At the same time, the settlement patterns of tribal rubber gatherers were becoming more sedentary and their agriculture more intensive. Hevea spp. was better suited to these changed circumstances than the native forest rubbers, largely because it was cultivated not naturally grown. The status of Hevea spp. in Southeast Asia as a cultigen, as opposed to a naturalforest product, and the political-economic implications of this helps to explain the contrasting histories of smallholder rubber producers in the New and Old Worlds. This study offers an historical perspective on current debates regarding relations between forest resources, forest peoples, and the state.

PERALiAN KARET HUTAN ALAw MENJADI PERKEBUNAN KARET RAKYAT OLEH/DALAM PETANI- PETANI SUKU DI KALIMANTAN. Penelitian ini mempelajari sejarah peralihan di Asia Tenggara, khususnya Kalimantan, dari eksploitasi karet hutan menjadi penanaman karet Para (Hevea brasiliensis, Euphorbiaceae). Selama pertengahan kedua abad ke sembilanbelas, melonjaknya pasar internasional menyebabkan karet hutan di eksploitasi lebih intensif dan kompetitif Pada saat yang sama, pola pemukiman pemulung-pemulung karet hutan menjadi lebih menetap dan sistem pertanian mereka menjadi lebih intensif Penanaman Hevea spp. lebih sesuai terhadap peralihan ini dibanding dengan karet hutan, terutama karena Hevea spp. tersebut ditanam bukan tumbuh secara alami. Status Hevea spp. di Asia Tenggara sebagai suatu tanaman yang diusahakan (kultigen) yang berlawanan dengan pohon hutan alam, dan akibat ekonomi-politik untuk ini, menerangkan perbandingan sejarah pengelolahan Hevea spp. di Asia dan Amerika Selatan. Penelitian ini juga memberikan suatu pandangan sejarah pada perdebatan saat ini tentang hubungan sumberdaya hutan, suku terasing yang hidup di dalam hutan, dan kebijak- sanaan pemerintah.

Key Words: rubber/latex; jelutong; non-timber forest products; Dayak; Kalimantan; Southeast Asia.

The adoption early in the twentieth century of Para rubber [Hevea brasiliensis (Willd. ex Adr. de Juss.) Muell.-Arg.] by the interior, tribal peoples of Indonesia is one of the century's signal examples of spontaneous diffusion and adoption of technological innovation in agriculture. It has been called "one of the most remarkable periods of development in the history of agriculture" (Al- len and Donnithorne 1957, cited in Geertz 1963: 1 13). Whereas estates held a commanding share of Indonesia's rubber production during the in-

' Received 7 May 1993; accepted 14 June 1994.

dustry's early years in the second decade of the twentieth century, smallholders have gained ground ever since and now-with 2.6 million hectares held by over 1 million households- they are responsible for three-fourths of total production (CPIS 1993:3; Government of In- donesia 1992:230-232). This success is all the more notable because it occurred among people who have been labeled as resistant to innovation and development by both colonial and post-colonial governments, and because these governments did nothing to support this adoption and a great deal to hinder it. Why was rubber adopted with such alacrity and against such odds? Part

Economic Botany 48(4) pp. 382-396. 1994 ? 1994, by The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458 U.S.A.

1994] DOVE: RUBBER AMONG BORNEO SMALLHOLDERS 383

of the answer involves the complementarity of rubber with swidden agriculture, which I have analyzed in a separate study (Dove 1993a); but the rest of the answer, and my concern here, lies in the historical antecedents of rubber and the political-economic context of the transition from them to rubber.

Most analysts of the development of smallholder cultivation of rubber (and other export crops) look to comparatively recent historical events for its explanation. For example, Booth (1988:205) attributed this development to the expansion of Indonesia's trade with Europe (before which, she concluded, the land and labor involved must have been "under-utilized"). Cramb (1988:107) suggested that the development of cash-cropping in Sarawak was stimulat- ed by the exhaustion of primary forest at the turn of the century, leading to inadequate swidden harvests. Dillon (1985:116) argued that the development of smallholder rubber cultivation in tandem with rice cultivation was due to the widespread abundance of land in Indonesia at the turn of the century. A shortcoming common to all of these analyses is that they assume commodity production was without precedent in the tribal and peasant economies that adopted it. In fact there was a precedent: the gathering of natural forest latexes, which was one element in a tra- dition of trade in non-timber forest products that is of great antiquity in Southeast Asia and was an important factor in the development of its societies.

I suggest that Hevea spp. was adopted so readi- ly in Indonesia because it filled a niche that pre- viously was filled by the native forest rubbers (Fig. 1). The forest rubbers were subjected to great pressure during the second half of the nineteenth century, when booming international markets brought new players and more intensive systems of exploitation to bear on them. At the same time, the gradual evolution of the tribal rubber gatherers toward more sedentary settlement patterns and more intensive agriculture was transforming the niche into which the forest rubbers had formerly fitted. Hevea spp. suited the transformed niche better than the forest rubbers, and it was protected against some of the pressures being applied to the forest rubber resource. Whereas the forest rubbers were associated with a mobile settlement pattern, Hevea spp. was better associated with a sedentary pattern; and, of great importance, whereas the forest rubbers grew

Species: Native II* Exotic Exploitation: Gathering ll* Planting

Control: European Il* Dayak Terminology: Gutta "'. Getah Fig. 1. The transition from native forest rubbers

to Hevea spp.

naturally, Hevea spp. (an exotic) had to be planted. The act of planting greatly strengthened the position of tribal rubber producers vis-a-vis the state, during a period when the focus of contest was shifting from inter-tribal to tribal-state. This study offers an historical perspective on current debates regarding the development of non-timber forest products, and relations between forest resources, forest peoples, and the state.

The data upon which this analysis is based were gathered during several periods of research in West and South Kalimantan, which included an extended stay with the Kantu', an Ibanic- speaking tribe of swidden agriculturalists. Hevea spp. is one of the Kantu's major sources of cash or tradable commodities.

HISTORY

TRIBAL TRADE

The once-widespread idea that monetary relations are foreign to traditional, tribal societies is increasingly questioned today, with the linkage of tribal peoples to broader capitalist relations of production and exchange increasingly seen as the rule rather than the exception (Parry and Bloch 1989). As Padoch and Vayda (1983:311) wrote some time ago, "A long-standing and ac- tive involvement in trade is not at all atypical among the supposedly isolated and self-sufficient groups of the world's humid tropics." In South- east Asia, as in most parts of the humid tropics, this involvement historically focused on non- timber forest products. Although merchants, local courts, and international trading powers all played key roles in trade of these products, the initial gathering was usually done by forest-dwelling tribesmen. This was a key role, with critical implications for the development of both the trade and the tribesmen themselves. As Cleary and Eaton (1992:59-60) wrote, "To conceptualize the important jungle trade as an unsophisticated and anachronistic part of the 'traditional' economy is both misleading and inaccurate ... the trade

384 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL. 48

was economically and socially sophisticated, as well as being ecologically balanced."

Failure to note the existence and importance of this trade has led to misunderstandings of the societies involved. For example, Kahn (1984: 317-318) has argued that the trade in forest products was so important to historic Minangkabau society in Sumatra that the threat to it-by forest closures under the colonial Dutch government- contributed to the communist uprising of 1927. Kahn suggested that ignorance of the importance of this trade has contributed to misinterpretation of the effects of the forest closures and the causes of the uprising. The same ignorance has led to misunderstanding of traditional Iban society and economy in Sarawak. Sahlins (1 972:224-226) argued that economic exchange in Iban society was "balanced" rather than "generalized" due to the need to accumulate rice for external trade. Sher- man (1990:287) critiqued this thesis based, in part, on the fact that Sahlins ignored the Iban trade in forest products, which may have even eclipsed in importance their trade in rice.

Ignorance of the historic trade in forest products has contributed, in particular, to misunderstanding regarding the nature of swidden agriculture. An example is the well-described semi- nomadic settlement pattern of the Iban (but see Padoch 1982), which has most often been ex- plained in terms of demand for new forest within the swidden system. However, the contemporary Kantu' (e.g.) say that their ancestors first explored and settled their present territory in West Kalimantan not in search of fresh swidden territory but in search of forest rubber for trade. Without knowledge of this trade, it is difficult to explain all the variation in the swidden system. This is especially true regarding the impact on it of intensified cultivation of commodities (such as Hevea spp.). Even the most astute analysts (e.g., Pelzer 1945:24-25; Wolf 1982:330) have suggested that production of export commodities (like rubber and tobacco) under colonial rule must have been inherently "disturbing" to the traditional swidden cycle. In fact, tribal communities in Borneo were involved in the production of commodities for the international market, through their gathering of forest products, well before the introduction of the more familiar colonial commodities of rubber, tobacco, coffee, and so on. Indeed, their traditional economies were structured not just to tolerate but profit from the combination of subsistence-oriented

swidden cultivation and trade-oriented commodity production. (Failure to appreciate the linkage between trade and swidden cultivation undermines analysis of Bornean societies to this day [also noted by Cramb 1993:213-214].)

FOREST PRODUCT TRADE

Recent work on non-timber forest products has suggested that their potential economic value is much greater than had been thought (e.g.: Dix- on, Roditi, and Silverman 199 1; Peters, Gentry, and Mendelsohn 1989), and that the importance and historical depth of their trade are corre- spondingly great. Trade in forest products has an especially long history in Southeast Asia, with early records of it (between western Indonesia and China) dating from the fifth century (Wolters 1967), if not considerably earlier (von Heine- Geldern 1945). A major category of forest products throughout this history has been plant "ex- udates," including gums, resins (intra-regional trade in which may date back to Neolithic times [Dunn 1975:120-137]), and latexes. The latexes gathered in Borneo have been divided, within the trade, into three categories.

The first is caoutchouc, "India rubber," or simply "rubber." The French term caoutchouc (in Spanish caucho) was derived from a native Pe- ruvian expression for "weeping wood"; whereas the term India rubber stemmed from the discovery in 1770 that the product could be used to "rub" out pencil marks, with "India" referring to its customary sale through London's East In- dian merchants (Coates 1987:7, 20-21; Corom- inas and Pascual 1980,1:927; Imbs 1977,5:130). Caoutchouc first referred to any New World forest rubber. Eventually it came to refer chiefly to rubber from Hevea spp. in South America and Ficus elastica Roxb. (Moraceae) in Southeast Asia and, in Borneo, Willughbeia spp. (Apocynaceae) (Burkill 1962,2:2300-2304; Purseglove 1968: 146-147). Caoutchouc has been known to Eu- rope since the mid-sixteenth century. Trade in it-which initially focused on erasers, clothing, footwear, medical syringes, and bottles-dates from the second half of the eighteenth century (Coates 1987).

The second category of forest rubber is gutta percha, which refers largely to latex from trees of the family Sapotaceae, especially the genera Palaquium (in particular P. gutta (Hook.) Burck), whose native habitat ranges from India to the Central Pacific, and Pavena, which ranges from


Burma to New Guinea (Burkill 1962,2: 1651,1708). Its use as an adhesive and as caulking for sailing vessels earned gutta percha a role in the region's ancient trade with China (Hoff- man 1988:108). It was known in Europe by the mid-seventeenth century, but large-scale trade in it dates from the 1840s and the discovery that its extreme nonconductivity of electricity suited it for use in insulating marine telegraph cables, among other purposes (Eaton 1952:53-54).

The final category is jelutong, or guttajelutong, referring largely to latex from trees of the genus Dyera (Apocynaceae), in particular D. costulata (Miq.) Hook.f., which are native to Malaysia and Indonesia (Burkill 1962,1:889-890; Eaton 1952: 63). Jelutong initially was considered an inferior variety of gutta percha (cf. Hose and McDougall 1912,1:151). It enjoyed a boom during the first decade of the twentieth century, following the discovery that it could be used in manufacturing fire-resistant plates and tiles. Jelutong became distinguished in its own right with the discovery in 1922 that it could be used as a substitute for Mexican chicle [from Manilkara achras (Mill.) Fosberg] in chewing gum, supplies of which fell short of demand during the prohibition era in the United States (Burkill 1962,1:891; Eaton 1952:62). (Gutta percha and jelutong are still traded today, although not in volumes approach- ing historic levels [de Beer and McDermott 1989: 40; Safran and Godoy 1993:296; West Kaliman- tan Provincial Planning Office, personal com- munication from director].)

The change in the market for jelutong, when it was gathered as a chicle substitute as opposed to an inferior gutta, demonstrates the contingent nature of the term "forest product": although the botanical sources remain the same, the trade products taken from them may vary considerably. Thus, the native sources of latex were not necessarily first valued for latex. Many latex-producing trees produce good timber, and timber, not latex, was the basis for the most widespread tree names (Burkill 1962,2:1654). Many of the latex-yielding trees and vines also produce valued edible fruits and other products (Bock 1881: 204; Roth 1896;2:244). (Hose and McDougall [1912,1:151] suggested that attraction to the fruit alone caused some Bornean tribesmen to con- tribute both intentionally and unintentionally to the spread of some of the native rubbers.) Burkill (1962,2:1655) suggested that the aboriginal Jak- un of peninsular Malaysia were familiar with the

biogeography of gutta percha trees because, before the gutta percha boom, they had exploited them for their fatty edible seeds. There was a minor trade in the oil from these seeds long before the market for the latex developed (Burkill 1962,2:166 1). All trade uses likely are predated by subsistence uses: the use of forest rubber for making handgrips for tools (Burkill 1962,2:1652) and for caulking and sealing (e.g., of canoes [cf. Jessup and Vayda 1988:16]) is of great antiquity in the region.

"DOMESTICATION" OF FOREST PRODUCTS

This history of gathering forest rubbers facilitated the adoption of Hevea spp. by the forest dwellers of the region (just as the historic trade in native rubbers in South and Southeast Asia helped to stimulate the initial decision by the colonial powers to try to transplant Hevea spp. to the region in the first place [cf. Wolf and Wolf 1936:152]). As Dunn (1975:86) wrote (cf. Gian- no 1986:3-4; Rambo 1982:282):

For centuries the ancestors of the modern Temuan presumably collected gums, oils, and resins from forest trees, using for at least some of these resources bark slicing techniques not unlike those employed in modern rubber tapping ... Hevea rubber, requiring similar techniques and simple technology, has therefore simply replaced traditional gum and resin collecting in the Temuan economy.

An indigenous perception of this historic linkage is reflected in language: the Kantu' and other Bornean tribesmen (as well as Malays) call Hevea spp. getah, instead of the Malay/Indonesian/ Javanese term karet (Home 1974:259; Richards 1981:105; Wilkinson 1959 1:363). Getah is the Malay/Indonesian term for tree sap (Wilkinson 1959,1:363-364). This was the source of the An- glo/Dutch trade term gutta percha (percha "strip" refers to the sheets of processed latex [Wilkinson 1959,2:885]), which was applied to some of the most important native rubbers. The Kantu' and other tribes did not, however, use the term gutta (or gutta percha) for the native rubbers: they used terms from their own languages (e.g., jangkang for Palaquium spp. among the Kantu' [cf. Rich- ards 1981:123]), as might be expected for goods of economic importance and long history. The lack of local economic history obliged them to use the trade term getah/gutta for the non-native IIevea spp.

The linkage between the cultivation of Hevea


spp. and the earlier gathering of wild rubbers is one of "domestication": a trade based on gathering wild (or at least mostly wild) rubber became a trade based on cultivating rubber (albeit not of the same species). A similar process of domestication took place with a number of other forest products. One salient example is the native tal- low-yielding illipe nut tree (Isoptera borneensis), which has now been planted in some parts of Borneo for at least 150 years (Sather 1990:27- 28). Another example is rattan, which grows naturally in the forests of Borneo and has been gathered and traded for centuries. During the second half of the nineteenth century and first half of the twentieth, rattan began to be planted in parts of Kalimantan (Godoy and Feaw 1989; Tsing 1984:247). Today it is cultivated (mostly in East and South Kalimantan) in swidden fallows, like rubber (Lindblad 1988:59-60; Peluso 1983; Weinstock 1983).

The involvement in commodity production that resulted from this process of domestication was one step in an evolutionary process; it was not a "clean break" with the past. Belief in a clean break (critiqued by Ellen [1985:559] with reference to timber exploitation) led to the false inference that the first rubber smallholders learned the trade from colonial planters. In fact, European planters were proceeding as much by trial-and-error as tribal smallholders in the initial years of rubber cultivation, and some of the most important lessons -such as the ill-effects of clean- weeding-passed from tribesman to colonial planter, not the reverse. Missen (1972:214) wrote:

To see the estates in this role [of teacher] underplays the commercial motivation and awareness of the indigenous cultivator . . . It seems far more appro- priate to view the late nineteenth and early twentieth century changes among Outer Island peasants as the continuation of a long-term process rather than as something motivationally new.

To understand this process of continuation, it is necessary to understand the forces that were at work in the system of natural rubber exploitation at the time that Hevea spp. first appeared.

HISTORIC SYSTEM OF LATEX-GATHERING

RESOURCE USE, ABUSE, AND GOVERNMENT POLICY

An important variable in exploitating the native forest latexes was the means by which latex was obtained: tapping the living tree versus fell-

ing it and, in the former case, tapping with a technique and level of intensity that was sustainable or not. Some variation in techniques is accounted for by variation in botanical charac- teristics from one latex source to another, but much is not. For example, Bock (1881:152) described the tapping of gutta percha trees in Bor- neo:

With two sharp strokes of a mandau a deep notch was cut in the bark, from which the juice slowly oozed, forming a milky-looking mucilage, which gradually hardened and became darker in colour as it ran down the tree. The native collectors of gutta- percha make a track through the forest, nicking the trees in two or three places as they go, and collect the hardened sap on their return a few days after- wards.

Hornaday (1885:433) described the felling ofgut- ta trees for the same purpose:

The native found a gutta tree, about ten inches in diameter, and after cutting it down, he ringed it neat- ly all the way along the stem, at intervals of a yard or less. Underneath each ring he put a calabash to catch the milk-white sap which slowly exuded.

Colonial observers charged native rubber gatherers with exploiting this discretionary element (viz., to tap vs. fell) to the disadvantage of the resource, by favoring less sustainable methods of exploitation for the sake of short-term gains (Brummeler 1883; Burbidge 1880:74-76; van Romburgh 1897; te Wechel 1911). The Nor- wegian naturalist Bock (1881:204), commis- sioned by the Dutch colonial government to sur- vey southeastern Borneo, wrote;

The Dyaks have not yet graduated in the science of forest conservation. Instead of making incisions at regular intervals in the bark of a tree, and extracting a portion of the juice at different periods, by which its further growth would not be prevented, they usually adopt the radical expedient of cutting the whole tree down.

Fyfe (1949:26) came to a similar conclusion regarding exploitation of gutta percha in the Malay Peninsula:

The tree has to be tapped at short intervals along the whole stem and even out on the branches, an operation of some difficulty requiring much effort by the tapper. As a result the gutta collector confined himself to the simplest method of obtaining the latex which is to fell the tree and bleed it at numerous points along the stem and main branches.


It was feared that such methods would lead to the extermination of the resource: Burbidge (1880:74) wrote (regarding Borneo), "The rubber- yielding willughbeias are gradually, but none the less surely, being exterminated by the collectors," while Bock (1881:204) wrote, "The con- sequence is that the material is becoming more and more difficult to procure, and will eventually become scarce, if not extinct, in the island." Such fears were the ostensible basis for government intervention, but close scrutiny suggests that other factors were involved.

The boom in jelutong (e.g.) in the first decade of the twentieth century triggered progressively tighter and more discriminating control of this resource by colonial authorities (Drijber 1912; Lindblad 1988:18-19; Potter 1988:130-134). By 1908 the Dutch colonial government in parts of Kalimantan required a license to tap the trees; in 1910 the government awarded all tapping rights to foreign concessionaires (as also was done in Sarawak [Reece 1988:28-29]); and in 1913 the government imposed export levies on native tappers. The government justified these measures in terms of the need to avoid overexploitation of the trees or to protect the smallholders against middlemen. But some observers argued that the regulatory measures would not solve the problem and might even exacerbate it (CAPD 1982:3540; te Wechel 1911); and others insisted that the real motivation for intervention was European profit at the expense of native rights. Van Vollenhoven called it an egregious example of the colonial government's abuse of its right to "wastelands" (Potter 1988:134).

Colonial efforts to control the exploitation of jelutong and other forest rubbers fit a recurring pattern (which subsequently applied to colonial- era Hevea spp. as well [Dove 1993b]). In colonial (and postcolonial) Borneo, whenever a natural resource experienced a commercial boom and attracted the attention of government and industry, steps were taken - ostensibly for the common good but often out of self-interest of the political-economic establishment-to restrict its exploitation by local smallholders. The result has typically been destructive of both the resource (Brookfield et al. 1990) and the socioeconomy in which it was traditionally exploited.

Government criticism of felling versus tapping was ironic: the colonial structure that critiqued the overexploitation of forest rubbers was itself responsible-through its stimulation of trade- for the increased pressure on rubber production.

This pressure did not necessitate unsustainable exploitation but it favored it. Gutta percha trees yielded 1-3 pounds of latex by tapping (viz., on one occasion) versus 10 pounds by felling (Bur- kill 1962,2:1664; cf. Eaton 1952:49). In the competitive environment of a colonial-era commodity boom, the motivation to tap a tree for a small yield and leave it standing, in the hope of en- joying more small tappings in the future, paled against the risk that someone else would fell the tree in the interim for a large, one-time yield. This risk was heightened when native rights to forest rubber trees were ignored during boom times when, as the example of jelutong illus- trates, colonial governments imposed on the resource progressively stricter and more biased proprietary systems of their own. This imposi- tion left the native tappers with increasingly little incentive for sustainable exploitation.

RESOURCE USE, MOBILITY, AND SECURITY

The emergence of a robust European market for forest rubbers, with its attendant emphasis on exploitation for short-term profit, had important implications for historic patterns of population movement and settlement. Exploitation of latex-producing trees in a nonsustainable manner, with the consequent need to always seek out new and unexploited stands, promoted a pioneering pattern of latex-related movement and exploitation. A pattern developed of mounting gathering expeditions that lasted months or even years and sometimes extended beyond Borneo to Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula (Burkill 1962,2:1656; Gomes 1911:234-235). The association of extended travel with gathering rubber and other forest products came to be so strong that such gathering was used as a pretext with colonial authorities to disguise migration into areas off-limits to settlement (Pringle 1970:281). A number of observers have suggested that gathering native rubbers and other forest products was the genesis of the renowned Iban custom of bejalai "expedition" (Lian 1988:118; Padoch 1982:25,109)-an intriguing material interpretation of this much-discussed cultural trait.

Rubber-gathering also had an impact on the relocation of populations. Richards (1981:106) suggested that (the above-mentioned pretext aside) expeditions to gather forest rubbers usually preceded migration. That is, if during an expedition a location was discovered that offered large stands of forest rubbers and also met the other requirements of settlement, the group would


relocate there. The contemporary Kantu' say that their ancestors first explored their present territory when searching for jangkang (Palaquium spp. [cf. Richards 1981:123]) and kubal (Wil- lughbeia spp. [cf. Howell and Bailey 1900:811). This is not to suggest that forest rubber-related movement necessarily dictated forest swidden- related movement-or the reverse. Just as the pattern of movement necessitated by unsustainable exploitation of forest rubbers favors a pioneering pattern of swidden agriculture, so does the latter favor-or, perhaps more correctly, per- mit-a pioneering and unsustainable pattern of rubber exploitation. (A linkage between swidden and gathering patterns also is suggested by the fact that the group most known for pioneering swidden cultivation in Borneo, the Iban, also was known for gathering forest products [Baring- Gould and Bampfylde 1909:25, 375; Hose and McDougall 1912,1:150; Pringle 1970:267]. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the other group known for collecting forest products, the Penan, were not agriculturalists at all but full- time hunters-and-gatherers [Hoffman 1988].)

The long-distance travel necessitated by rubber-gathering was associated with some physical risk, which is reflected in the attendant ritual. Lumholtz (1920,1:124-125), for example, described a remarkable /4 meter-high rubber statue from southeast Borneo representing a rhinoceros with a man on its back, which was offered to the spirits in return for a successful rubber-gathering expedition. The selection of the rhinoceros (Di- dermocerus sumatrensis) is apt, since it inhabited (due to hunting pressure, if not natural preference [Medway 1977:144-1451) the most remote and unfrequented parts of Borneo-the same sort of areas the rubber collectors had to penetrate to find unmolested trees. In the ceremony observed by Lumholtz (1920,1:124-125), a feast was held in honor of the statue and then the rhinoceros was "killed." This, again, is an apt symbol: as the largest and thus potentially most threatening animal in Borneo, the rhinoceros symbolized the hazards of travel in the uninhabited Bornean interior-although there were other hazards as well.

There was an historical association between gathering forest rubber and head-hunting. This is reflected in the contemporary Iban/Kantu' language, in which jangkang means gutta percha or a bunch of trophy heads (Richards 1981:123)- both of which are obtained on expeditions into

the forest. Some observers have interpreted this association to mean that there was competition for scarce forest products (Lian 1988:119; Vayda 196 1:354-355). Others have suggested that gathering rubber and other forest products was not per se the cause of warfare, but the travel and migration that it required was (e.g., Baring-Gould and Bampfylde 1909:376). Hose and McDougall (1912,1:150,185) wrote, "In the course of such excursions [to gather forest products] they [the Iban] not infrequently penetrate into the regions inhabited by other tribes, and many troubles have had their origin in the truculent behaviour of such parties." It is suggestive that the subject of Hose and McDougall's outrage, the Iban, whose reputation for gathering rubber and other forest products has been mentioned, also were renowned for their involvement in head-hunting. Pringle (1970:21) wrote, "Stories about head- hunting may have slandered other pagan groups . . ." but the Iban lived up to the reputation (cf. Vayda 1976:48).

In the case just cited by Hose and McDougall, the tribesmen who go on gathering expeditions take heads as opposed to losing them. Adult men go on such expeditions, while the young, the old, and the women remain behind. These age and gender differences favor the tribesmen on an expedition over the inhabitants of any community they chance across. This was not true, however, when the gathering was done by non-tribesmen. Bock (1881:118) described gathering by coastal Malays as follows:

When collecting gutta, the Malays take a two or three days' journey into the forest. For fear of being mur- dered by the Dayaks, they go in parties, from twenty to thirty, for mutual protection, and very often ac- companied or joined by friendly Dyaks.

This pattern is very different from that described for the Iban and other Dayak. In addition to being much briefer and (therefore) involving much shorter distances, it is associated with a defensive as opposed to offensive military posture.

RESOURCE USE, ETHNICITY, AND SUSTAINABILITY

There was no "generic" gatherer of forest rubbers or pattern of gathering. Rather, there were a variety of participants and patterns, varying in part as the role of the rubbers-and rubber col-


TABLE 1. DIFFERENT MODES OF FOREST PRODUCT GATHERING.

Impact on Collector Intensity Market condition resource

Tribal hunter-gatherer Low Normal Low (Hunter-gatherer/swidden agriculturalist) - - -

Tribal swidden agriculturalist Medium Normal/boom Medium Malay peasant High Boom High Corporate interests High Boom High

lectors-fluctuated in broader political-economic contexts. The earliest gatherers of forest rubber were forest-dwelling hunter-gatherers (who may have been familiar with the latex-yielding trees for products other than latex and for subsistence uses rather than trade): these are the Penan (or Punan) of Borneo and the orang asli "original people" of the Malay Peninsula. In the peninsula, mid-nineteenth century collection of gutta percha was carried out by at least one of these aboriginal groups, the Jakun (Burkill 1962,2:1655). At that time, the tribal agriculturalists of Borneo, the Dayak, were said to be ignorant of the product. Low (1848:5 1) wrote, ". . . Gutta percha has been found in Borneo, and ... the natives ... know at present nothing of the manner of collecting it, or of its uses. . ." This situation changed quickly as a result of the then-boom in the gutta percha trade. A quarter century after Low's ob- servations, Dayak tribesmen were being employed by merchants in the Malay peninsula spe- cifically for gathering gutta percha (Burkill 1962,2: 1656; Dunn 1975:109).

The Dayak offered something that the native tribesmen of the peninsula did not: an intensive, pioneering system of extraction (and a political economy that made this possible). (The peninsula had no equivalent-neither in its small population of hunters-and-gatherers nor in its large, peasantized Malay population-to the populous, often aggressive, agriculturally based tribal peoples of Borneo.) This suggestion is supported by the fact that within Borneo, colonial British authorities gave privileged status in collection to the most mobile and aggressive of all of the Day- ak groups, the Iban (Pringle 1970:267). In the later stages of market booms, however even the Dayak could not exploit the forest rubbers as intensively as the colonial markets demanded. At these times coastal Malays did most of the gathering, not the interior tribesmen (Potter 1988: 131-133; cf. Hudson 1967:66). The tribesmen

were not willing to wholly relinquish their swidden cultivation of food crops to concentrate on rubber-gathering; the more peasantized Malays were.

Some Dayak tribesmen managed to partici- pate in the forest product trade, while maintain- ing their sedentary agricultural lifestyle, by developing partnerships with the Penan (cf. Guerreiro 1988:30-31; Hoffman 1988:103-104), the forest product "specialists" of Borneo. Penan participation was probably central to the gathering of most forest products except when, as above, boom times made it economical for other groups to devote more time to gathering than they otherwise could afford.

Sustainability of forest rubber exploitation varied with these different modes of production (this variation is presented in simplified fashion in Table 1). It was probably most sustainable when carried out by any one of the native hunter- gatherers (cf. Dunn 1975:109), as just one among many activities, during normal market times. It might have become less sustainable with the participation of sedentary swidden agriculturalists, and it clearly became unsustainable with the participation of full-time peasant (and also corporate) collectors-who employed felling or slaughter tapping-during booin times.

THE TRANSITION

DETERMINANTS: TECHNOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC, ECOLOGICAL, TENURIAL

The historic exploitation of indigenous latex- producing trees and vines resembled in many respects the subsequently introduced system of rubber cultivation. For example, the labor requirements of both systems are relatively low (Cramb 1988:112). In addition, there are relatively few constraints in either case on the timing of labor inputs. Forest rubbers can be gathered at short notice in response to fluctuation in either


market prices or subsistence crop harvests, with minimal capital investment or risk-taking-as is also the case with tapping Hevea spp. (The op- posite conclusion is sometimes reached [cf. Lind- blad 1988:115] by incorrectly focusing on the time that it takes to grow a rubber tree-8-10 years-instead of the time that it takes to bring a dormant tree back into production- 2-4 days.) The Iban of Sarawak in recent history still gathered forest rubbers (and other products) to make up for crop failures (Freeman 1970:264). These similarities facilitated the adoption of rubber, but this would not have occurred with the speed and magnitude it did if there were not also sig- nificant differences.

The most obvious difference lies in the pro- ductive capacity of the plants involved, for example in the concentration of marketable latex in the tree exudate. The balance between latex and resins is 80/20 in Hevea spp., but it is the reverse, just 20/80, in the Dyera spp. sources of jelutong (Burkill 1962,1:891). Assuming that production costs are approximately equal, the economic return of Hevea spp. would be four times as great as with jelutong (Burkill 1962,1: 896). The advantage of Hevea spp. is even greater when differences in frequency of tapping are taken into account: though Hevea spp. should be tapped just once every two days to achieve maximum latex flows (Barlow 1978:146), the comparable rule-of-thumb for standing, wild gutta percha trees was just once every two years (Fyfe 1949: 27)-a difference in incidence of 365: 1!

Other differences between Hevea spp. and the native forest latexes involve complementarity with swidden cultivation, in particular the central act of the swidden cycle, clearing the forest. Whereas the native rubbers are at risk whenever the natural forest is cleared, it is cleared forest in which Hevea spp. is planted (its seedlings are planted in newly-cleared swiddens). As the habitat of the native rubbers is destroyed, therefore, the "habitat" of Hevea spp. is created. (This habitat is not natural forest but it does "mimic" a forest succession [Geertz 1963:113; Gouyon, de Foresta, and Levang 1993].) The creation of this habitat also was promoted by changes in patterns of agriculture and settlement over the past century. As a result of demographic and political constraints, both swidden agriculture and settlement patterns have become more sedentary, which favors Hevea spp. Whereas the supply of forest rubber close to a given settlement is po-

tentially exhaustible (especially if the trees are felled or slaughter-tapped), the productivity of a Hevea spp. grove is potentially open-ended (since naturally grown saplings can succeed trees that pass their maturity). The sustainability of Hevea spp. cultivation permits sedentariness, the un- sustainability of forest rubber exploitation does not; and although sedentariness is inimical to the continued exploitation of natural forest rubbers, it is essential to the exploitation of Hevea spp. (The causal direction here is two-way: patterns of settlement both affect and are affected by patterns of resource exploitation.)

This past century has seen not only the seden- tarization but also the intensification of swidden cultivation, which again favors Hevea spp. over the forest rubbers. Swidden cultivation has been increasingly concentrated in secondary forest and swampland, which-with the added requirement of weeding and (in swampland) transplanting- requires higher and more frequent labor inputs (Dove 1985:377-381). This labor schedule is better complemented by the timing of economic inputs and returns in the exploitation of Hevea spp. than the native forest rubbers. Whereas gathering in the forest necessitates the absence of the tribesmen from the village and thus swiddens for weeks and months at a time, Hevea spp. can be tapped while they remain in the village and continue to work in the swiddens.

A final difference between Hevea spp. and the native rubbers involves tenure. The native forest rubbers were subsumed under a traditional system of tree tenure. Under traditional Kantu' law, the first person to tap a tree has the exclusive right to further tapping (cf. Lian [1988:118] on the Kenyah). This right lapsed if the person ceased tapping long enough for the tapping scars to heal or moved out of the area. This tenurial principle is tailored to a sedentary, sustainable system of exploitation. It was not suited to boom markets and state intervention, as the progressive loss of local rights during the boom in jelutong showed. Even today, individually claimed forest rubber trees are cut down with impunity by outsiders, as is evident from this December 1989 newspaper report of the destruction of jelutong and other trees (cited in Down to Earth 1990:10):

A logging company identified only as PT SBK with a concession in Kotawaringin Timur district, Cen- tral Kalimantan is suspected of cutting down thousands of tengkawang [Isoptera spp. and Shorea


spp.], pantung [Dyera spp.] and maja [unidentified] trees which had provided local people with a source of income.

The publication of this incident in an Indo- nesian newspaper, with a tone sympathetic to the local rights-holders, suggests that the wider world is more observant of these traditional rights than it used to be; but recognition of proprietary rights generally is, and was, reserved for planted trees. The planting of commercially valued perennials like rubber is recognized under both national and tribal law as establishing rights both to the trees and the land under them (Weinstock and Vergara 1987:318-319). Although planting rubber (or other economic trees) enhances tenurial security, it does not completely guarantee it. This is il- lustrated by another, not-atypical story in the Indonesian press, which tells of the clearing of 100 hectares of rubber smallholdings to make way for a government estate project (cited in Down to Earth 1990:3). Even in the way that the state destroys rubber trees, however, their su- perior tenurial character is evident: whereas the colonial state could simply take forest rubber trees from local claimants, the contemporary state must fell a Hevea spp. tree and plants its own rubber tree (or other perennial) in its stead, to overcome local proprietary rights.

It is notable that the Dayak did not attempt the obverse of the state's strategem, namely, clearing the forest rubber trees and then re-planting the same species. That is, the Dayak did not choose to reforest their fallowed swiddens with native rubbers instead of Hevea spp. This decision was not a function of botanical constraints: a colonial observer noted that the Bornean source of caoutchouc ( Willughbeia spp.) "may be easily and rapidly increased by vegetative as well as seminal modes of propagation" (Burbidge 1880: 74); and there are records of estate plantings of both gutta percha (Fyfe 1949:26) and jelutong (cf. van Wijk [ 1941 ] cited in CAPD [ 1982:1344]). The Dayak did some planting-the Kantu' (e.g.) say that their ancestors planted some of the native rubber trees, in particular Palaquium spp., the major source of gutta percha-but these efforts pale by comparison with the effort eventually devoted to Hevea spp. Although there may be other reasons for this (e.g., differences in productivity), one of the principal reasons involves the implications for domestication and, accord- ingly, tenure in the eyes of the state. In Borneo,

a standing Hevea spp. tree is undeniable evi- dence of planting and thus tenure, but a standing native rubber tree is not: any claim that one of the latter was planted can be countered with the claim that it was naturally grown. This is one of the principal reasons why the tribesmen who exploited the native forest rubbers "domesticated" not them but an exotic rubber, Hevea spp., instead.

CONSEQUENCES: RITUAL, POLITICAL

The shift from forest rubbers to Hevea spp. represented the replacement not just of one tree with another, but of one mode-of-production with another. Some of the attendant, wide-ranging consequences are reflected in the changes in ritual that occurred as a result. Thus, although bird augury is associated with both gathering native rubbers and producing Hevea spp., there is a difference: as the earlier-described "rubber rhinoceros" indicated, ritual in forest rubber production focused on the hazards of traveling to gather the rubber (Gomes 1911:234-235), whereas ritual in Hevea spp. production focuses on the hazards of trading the product (Sandin 1980: 107,112,113,1 15,122). (Market prices for rubber are volatile and represent the greatest source of uncertainty in rubber cultivation.) The focus in the first case is on the physical dangers of the tribal world, whereas the focus in the second case is on the economic dangers of the outside world. This shift from "physical" to "fiscal" hazards reflects the consequences of a transition from a mode-of-production based on collection to one based on cultivation.

The consequences of this transition were reflected in the extraordinary panic that swept Bor- neo in the 1 930s, based on a rumor that the spirit of the Hevea spp. was "eating" the spirit of the swidden rice, and resulting in mass fellings of rubber trees (Dove n.d.; Freeman 1970:268; Geddes 1954:97). This panic reflected anxiety about the impact that Hevea spp. cultivation might have on the traditional cultivation of swidden rice. It can be interpreted as a caution against overinvolvement in commodity production. Hudson wrote (1 967:31 1):

Most villagers feel that the rubber market is a chancy thing. World demand varies and prices fluctuate. No one of them wants to be totally dependent on factors over which they have no control. Thus ... rubber cultivation will continue in the foreseeable future as an activity ancillary to swidden farming.


Most Bornean tribesmen did not overcommit to rubber cultivation but maintained it as an "ancillary" activity, which has enabled them to sur- vive historic market cycles of boom and bust far better than the estate sector.

Rubber posed a threat not just to the rice spirits. The shift from mobile gathering to sedentary tapping entailed a shift from a more aggressive, military posture to a more vulnerable, defensive one. Since its introduction, Hevea spp. has been associated with the disengagement from tribal warfare. A civil servant in Sarawak wrote that the 1911-1912 rubber boom "banished all thoughts of tribal warfare and head-hunting" (Ward 1966:145), a change summed up by a colonial poet as follows (Anonymous 1925):

Now all is changed great peace and quiet The sharp-edged sword becomes the tapper's knife. The carved shield becomes a swing Wherein is wrapped in clothes the babe whose future

lies In the price of rubber tapped in a ring.

Hevea spp. became associated with a decline in warfare because involvement in its cultivation is inimical to waging war. The permanence of rubber gardens impedes the tactical mobility of the tribe, and the solitariness of the rubber tapper makes defense impossible. Moreover, although men did most of the historic gathering of forest rubbers, women today do most of the tapping of Hevea spp. Down to the present day, rubber-tapping is the activity that suffers most (viz., that is aban- doned) when rumors of marauding penyamun "head-hunters" sweep through the interior of Borneo.

Contemporary, sedentary tappers of Hevea spp. are vulnerable to roving bandits and rebels (and the rumor of them), just as local communities were formerly vulnerable to roving gatherers of forest rubber. This transition reflects a move away from the type of political-economic formation in which tribal warfare had a role to play. Head- hunting was the quintessential tribal activity, and its abandonment-occasioned, in part, by the adoption of Hevea spp. - reflects a re-orientation of the primary axis of contest from inter-tribal to tribal-state.

The developing contest with the state was reflected in how quickly the colonial governments' initial support for smallholder rubber cultivation turned to rabid opposition. The international rubber regulation agreements of the 1920s and 1 930s, ostensibly designed to stabilize prices, in

fact were used to protect the inefficient European estates from the highly competitive smallholders, by means of fixed estate/smallholder ratios, planting restrictions, and special export taxes (ranging up to, and beyond, 2000 percent) on smallholder production alone (Bauer 1948:1 42n; Thee 1977:27-28). Until the past decade the only attention that smallholders in Indonesia have received from the government has been punitive in nature; all technical, material, and regulatory support has been directed to the estate sector. By the 1 980s, a scant 8 percent of Indonesian smallholders were participating in government programs to improve productivity (Booth 1988:217), despite which the smallholders have still managed to dominate production.

The relative success of the smallholders in this unequal contest is attested to by the name they use for Hevea spp.: getah, the source of the colonial term gutta for forest rubbers. The adoption of this term reflects a changing of roles between native rubbers and Hevea spp., and between Eu- ropean planters and native smallholders (Fig. 1). It signifies that what the native rubbers were for the Europeans, Hevea spp. became for the tribesmen. A fundamental transformation of the political economy of rubber production in South- east Asia took place, based on critical differences between the native rubbers and Hevea spp. Al- though tribal collectors could not control exploitation of native forest rubbers, tribal tappers could control exploitation of Hevea spp. The colonial planters' use of "forest rubber" as a term of disparagement for tribal Hevea spp. (Gouyon, de Foresta, and Levang 1993:182; Lindblad 1988: 66) is, from this perspective, doubly ironic. First, it unwittingly points to the historic basis for the smallholders' successful adoption of Hevea spp. Second, it invokes as a term of disparagement the commodity that the colonial establishment successfully controlled (forest rubber), in reference to the commodity that it failed to control (Hevea spp.).

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of Hevea spp. in Borneo represented not the adoption of trade but rather the adaptation of a long-standing trade-in forest products-to a changing political-economic context. The course of agricultural development here was not just a contest between society and nature, nor between society and its own problems (e.g., population/resource pressure), but between different sectors of society (viz., a state and its com-


mercial elite on the one hand, and tribesmen living at the state's periphery on the other).

This contest was, in part, a conceptual one: its object was to model the resource landscape in a manner favorable to one's own rights, categories, and interests (cf. Dove 1992). Domestication proved to be a powerful tool in this contest. It gave local communities greater leverage vis-a- vis broader political-economic structures by shifting their activities, along the publicly per- ceived nature-culture continuum, further from nature and closer to culture. This shift enabled the tribesmen to fend off external appropriation of the imported Hevea spp. more effectively than with their own native rubbers.

This history shows that development of trade in non-timber forest products does not, by itself, guarantee an increased flow of benefits to local communities (and it may even threaten extant flows [Corry 1993; Hanson 1992]), contra current belief that such development is an absolute good. It took a long-term indigenous effort, which benefitted from a colonial planning process (the importation of Hevea spp.) in effect gone awry, to establish local, native control of rubber production in Borneo.

The differing outcome of competition over the native rubbers and Hevea spp. shows that the intensification of relations between local communities and the global economic system is com- plex, takes many possible shapes, and has many possible outcomes. The current tendency to view histories of "incorporation" into the world economy as unvarying does an injustice to the varying dynamics of local systems, as well as the global system itself.

Dutch development of the forest product trade in what is today the Indonesian portion of Bor- neo has been characterized as follows:

On the one hand, the Dutch were releasing them [the interior Dayak tribesmen] from some of their old insecurities, but, on the other, the Dutch were open- ing up their country to new traders in jungle produce, and pressing them to become involved with them. The enticement of working regularly for the new trader organizations, and their seductively reliable credit, was not easy to resist. A colonial role was being worked out even for them ... (Black 1985: 291)

Although it is important to link rubber gatherers and tappers to the wider, global processes of which they are part (cf. Kahn 1982:15), it also is important to recognize that the linkage involved

more than the global system impacting on the local system. The latter half of the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries saw not just more involvement in the world economy by the tribal communities in Borneo, but involvement of a different order. In response to the broader political-economic structures exerting increasing control over commodity production, the tribesmen developed new production systems, like Hevea spp. cultivation, that maxi- mized the strengths of the local system-e.g., a subsistence agricultural base-and exploited the weaknesses of the global system-e.g., greater recognition of proprietary rights to planted trees. There was much more to this process, therefore, than the "working out of a colonial role" for the native producers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I initially carried out research in Borneo for two years (1974-1976) with support from the National Science Foundation (Grant #GS-42605). I gathered additional data during six years of subsequent work based in Indonesia (1979-1985), with support from the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and the Program on Environment of the East-West Center. The current analysis was written with the assistance of fellowships from the East-West Center's Programs on Environment and Population and a grant from the John P. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. An earlier version of the paper was read at the XVII Pacific Science Congress in Honolulu, May 1991. The author is grateful to Helen Takeuchi and Daniel Bauer for assistance with editing and graphics, to Phyllis Tabusa and Marilyn M. Li for assistance with literature searches, to Marlinus Pandutama for assistance with Indonesian translation, and to two anonymous reviewers for Economic Botany for very useful comments on an earlier draft. None of the afore-mentioned people or organizations necessarily agrees with the analysis presented here, for which the author alone is responsible.

LITERATURE CITED

Allen, G. C., and A. G. Donnithorne. 1957. Western enterprise in Indonesia and Malaysia. Macmillan, New York.

Anonymous. 1925. A Dyak house. Sarawak Gazette 859 (1 April).

Baring-Gould, S., and C. A. Bampfylde. 1909. A history of Sarawak under its two white rajahs, 1839- 1908. H. Sotheran and Co., London.

Barlow, C. 1978. The natural rubber industry: its development, technology, and economy in Malay- sia. Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur.

Bauer, P. T. 1948. The rubber industry: a study in competition and monopoly. Longmans, Green and Co., London.

de Beer, J. H., and M. J. McDermott. 1989. The economic value of non-timber forest products in Southeast Asia: with emphasis on Indonesia, Ma- laysia and Thailand. Netherlands Committee for IUCN, Amsterdam.

Black, I. 1985. The "Lastposten": Eastern Kaliman- tan and the Dutch in the nineteenth and early twen-


tieth centuries. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 16:28 1-29 1.

Bock, C. 1881. The head-hunters of Borneo: a nar- rative of travel up the Mahakam and down the Barito; also journeyings in Sumatra. Sampson Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington, London.

Booth, A. 1988. Agricultural development in Indo- nesia. Asian Studies Association of Australia, Southeast Asia Publications Series No. 16. Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Brookfield, H., F. J. Lian, L. Kwai-Sim, and L. Potter. 1990. Borneo and the Malay Peninsula. Pages 495- 512 in B. L. Turner, W. C. Clark, R. W. Kates, J. F. Richards, J. T. Mathews, and W. B. Meyer, eds., The earth as transformed by human action. Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Brummeler, T. 1883. Getah pertjah en caoutchouc. Tijdschrift voor Nijverheid & Landbouw in Ned- erlandsch-Indie 28:1 1-46.

Burbidge, F. W. 1880. The gardens of the sun: a naturalist's journal of Borneo and the Sulu Archi- pelago. John Murray, London.

Burkill, I. H. 1962. A dictionary of the economic products of the Malay Peninsula. 2 vols. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation, Kuala Lumpur.

CAPD (Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Docu- mentation). 1982. Indonesian forestry abstracts: Dutch literature until about 1960. CAPD, Wag- eningen.

Cleary, M., and P. Eaton. 1992. Borneo: change and development. Oxford University Press, Singapore.

Coates, A. 1987. The commerce in rubber: the first 250 years. Oxford University Press, Singapore.

Corominas, J., and J. A. Pascual. 1980. Diccionario critico etimologico Castellano e Hispanico. 5 vols. Editorial Gredos, Madrid.

Corry, S. 1993. The rainforest harvest: who reaps the benefit? The Ecologist 23(4):148-153.

CPIS (Center for Policy and Implementation Studies). 1993. Towards a planting materials policy for In- donesian rubber smallholdings: lessons from past projects. Agriculture Group Working Paper No. 14. CPIS, Jakarta.

Cramb, R. A. 1988. The commercialization of Iban agriculture. Pages 105-134 in R. A. Cramb and R. H. W. Reece, eds., Development in Sarawak: historical and contemporary perspectives. Monash Pa- per on Southeast Asia No. 17, Center of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University.

1993. Shifting cultivation and sustainable agriculture in East Malaysia: a longitudinal case study. Agricultural Systems 42:209-226.

Dillon, H. S. 1985. Development of rubber smallholders in north Sumatra. Pages 1 6-126 in Small- holder rubber production and policies: proceedings of an international workshop held at the University of Adelaide. ACIAR, Canberra.

Dixon, A., H. Roditi, and L. Silverman. 1991. From forest to market: a feasibility study of the devel-

opment of selected non-timber forest products from Borneo for the U.S. market. 2 vols. Project Borneo, Cambridge.

Dove, M. R. 1985. Swidden agriculture in Indonesia: the subsistence strategies of the Kalimantan Kantu'. Mouton, Berlin.

1992. The dialectical history of "jungle" in the subcontinent. Journal of Anthropological Re- search 48:231-253.

. 1993a. Para rubber and swidden agriculture in Borneo: an exemplary adaptation to the ecology and economy of the tropical forest. Economic Bot- any 47:136-147.

* 1993b. A revisionist view of tropical defor- estation and development. Environmental Conser- vation 20:17-24, 56.

. n.d. Rice-eating rubber and people-eating governments: peasant versus state critiques of rubber development in colonial Indonesia. Ethnohistory.

Down to Earth. 1990. Farmer shot in plantation dis- pute, No. 7 (March) 3; Loggers destroy local forest product supplies, No. 7 (March): 10.

Drijber, B. H. 1912. Djeloetoeng concessie op Bor- neo. De Indische Gids 34:1444-1469.

Dunn, F. L. 1975. Rain-forest collectors and traders: a study of resource utilization in modern and ancient Malaya. Monographs ofthe Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, No. 5.

Eaton, B. J. 1952. Wild and plantation rubber plants: gutta-percha and balata. Pages 49-63 in P. Schid- rowitz and T. R. Dawson, eds., History of the rubber industry. W. Heffer and Sons for the Institution of the Rubber Industry, Cambridge.

Ellen, R. F. 1985. Patterns of indigenous timber extraction from Moluccan forest fringes. Journal of Biogeography 12:559-587.

Freeman, J. D. 1970. Report on the Iban. The Ath- lone Press, London.

Fyfe, A. J. 1949. Gutta percha. Malayan Forester 12: 25-27.

Geddes, W. R. 1954. The Land Dayaks of Sarawak. Colonial Research Study no. 14. H.M.S.O., Lon- don.

Geertz, C. 1963. Agricultural involution: the processes of ecological change in Indonesia. For the Association of Asian Studies, by the University of California Press, Berkeley.

Gianno, R. 1986. The exploitation of resinous products in a lowland Malayan Forest. Wallaceana 43: 3-6.

Godoy, R., and T. C. Feaw. 1989. The profitability of smallholder rattan cultivation in Central Borneo. Human Ecology 16(4):397-420.

Gomes, E. H. 1911. Seventeen years among the Sea Dyaks of Borneo: a record of intimate association with the natives of the Bornean jungles. Seeley and Co., London.

Gouyon, A., H. de Foresta, and P. Levang. 1993. Does 'jungle rubber' deserve its name? An analysis of


rubber agroforestry systems in southeast Sumatra. Agroforestry Systems 22:181-206.

Government of Indonesia. 1992. Statistik Indonesia: statistical yearbook of Indonesia. Central Bureau of Statistics, Jakarta.

Guerreiro, A. 1988. Cash crops and subsistence strategies. Sarawak Museum Journal 39(60):15-52.

Hanson, J. H. 1992. Extractive economies in a historical perspective: gum arabic in West Africa. Ad- vances in Economic Botany 9:107-114.

von Heine-Geldern, R. 1945. Prehistoric research in the Netherlands Indies. Southeast Asia Institute, New York.

Hoffman, C. 1988. The "wild Punan" of Borneo: a matter of economics. Pages 89-118 in M. R. Dove, ed., The real and imagined role of culture in development: case studies from Indonesia. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Hornaday, W. T. 1885. Two years in the jungle: the experiences of a hunter and naturalist in India, Cey- lon, the Malay Peninsula and Borneo. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.

Horne, E. C. 1974. Javanese-English dictionary. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Hose, C., and W. McDougall. 1912. The pagan tribes of Borneo. 2 vols. Macmillan and Co., Ltd., Lon- don.

Howell, W., and D. J. S. Bailey. 1900. A Sea Dyak dictionary. American Mission Press, Singapore.

Hudson, A. B. 1967. Padju Epat: the ethnography and social structure of a Ma'anyan Dajak group in Southeastern Borneo. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.

Imbs, P. 1977. Tresor de la langue Francaise. 15 vols. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.

Jessup, T. C., and A. P. Vayda. 1988. Dayaks and forests of interior Borneo. Expedition 30(1):5-17.

Kahn, J. S. 1982. From peasants to petty commodity production in Southeast Asia. Bulletin of Con- cerned Asian Scholars 14(l):3-1 5.

1984. Peasant political consciousness in West Sumatra: a reanalysis of the communist uprising of 1927. Senri Ethnological Studies 13:293-325.

Lian, F. J. 1988. The economics and ecology of the production of the tropical rainforest resources by tribal groups of Sarawak, Borneo. Pages 113-125 in J. Dargavel, K. Dixon, and N. Semple, eds., Changing tropical forests: historical perspectives on today's challenges in Asia, Australasia and Oceania. Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Canberra.

Lindblad, J. T. 1988. Between Dayak and Dutch: the economic history of Southeast Kalimantan, 1880- 1942. Verhandelingen No. 134. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.

Low, H. 1848. Sarawak, its inhabitants and produc- tions: being notes during a residence in that country with his excellency Mr. Brooke. R. Bentley, Lon- don.

Lumholtz, C. 1920. Through central Borneo: an account of two years' travel in the land of the head- hunters between the years 1913 and 1917. 2 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.

Medway, Lord. 1977. Mammals of Borneo. Mono- graph No. 7. The Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Kuala Lumpur.

Missen, G. J. 1972. Viewpoint on Indonesia: a geo- graphical study. Thomas Nelson, Melbourne.

Padoch, C. 1982. Migration and its alternatives among the Iban of Sarawak. Verhandelingen No. 98. Mar- tinus Nijhoff, The Hague.

, and A. P. Vayda. 1983. Patterns of resource use and human settlement in tropical forests. Pages 301-313 in F. B. Golley, ed., Tropical rain forests: structure and function. Elsevier Scientific, Amster- dam.

Parry, J., and M. Bloch, eds. 1989. Money and the mortality ofexchange. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Peluso, N. P. 1983. Networking in the commons: a tragedy for rattan? Indonesia 35:95-108.

Pelzer, K. 1945. Pioneer settlement in the Asiatic tropics: studies in land utilization and agricultural colonization in Southeast Asia. American Geo- graphical Society (Special Publication No. 29), New York.

Peters, C. M., A. H. Gentry, and R. 0. Mendelsohn. 1989. Valuation of an Amazonian rainforest. Na- ture 339:655-656.

Potter, L. 1988. Indigenes and colonisers: Dutch forest policy in South and East Borneo (Kalimantan), 1900 to 1950. Pages 127-149 in J. Dargavel, K. Dixon, and N. Semple, eds., Changing tropical forests: historical perspectives on today's challenges in Asia, Australasia and Oceania. Centre for Re- source and Environmental Studies, Canberra.

Pringle, R. 1970. Rajahs and rebels: the Ibans of Sarawak under Brooke rule, 1841-1941. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Purseglove, J. W. 1968. Tropical crops: dicotyledons. Longman, Harlow (U.K.).

Rambo, A. T. 1982. Orang Asli adaptive strategies: implications for Malaysian natural resource development planning. Pages 251-299 in C. Mac- Andrews and L. S. Chin, eds., Too rapid rural development. Ohio University Press, Athens.

Reece, R. H. W. 1988. Economic development under the Brookes. Pages 21-34 in R. A. Cramb and R. H. W. Reece, eds., Development in Sarawak: historical and contemporary perspectives. Monash Pa- per on Southeast Asia No. 17, Center of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University.

Richards, A. 1981. An Iban-English dictionary. Clar- endon Press, Oxford.

van Romburgh, P. 1897. Getah Pertja, hare eigen- schappen, haar voorkomen en de wijze, waarop zij gewonnen wordt. Teysmannia 7:37-44, 134-142.

Roth, H. L. 1896. The natives of Sarawak and British


North Borneo. 2 vols. Truslove and Hanson, Lon- don.

Safran, E. A., and R. A. Godoy. 1993. Effects of government policies on smaliholder palm cultivation: an example from Borneo. Human Organization 52: 294-298.

Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone Age economics. Aldine, Chi- cago.

Sandin, B. 1980. Iban adat and augury. Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.

Sather, C. 1990. Trees and tree tenure in Paku Iban society. Borneo Review 1(1): 16-40.

Sherman, D. G. 1990. Rice, rupees, and ritual: economy and society among the Samosir Batak of Su- matra. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Thee, Kian-wie. 1977. Plantation agriculture and export growth: an economic history of East Sumatra, 1863-1942. LEKNAS-LIPI, Jakarta.

Tsing, A. L. 1984. Politics and culture in the Meratus mountains. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford Universi- ty. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Vayda, A. P. 1961. Expansion and warfare among swidden agriculturalists. American Anthropologist 63(2):346-358.

1976. War in ecological perspective: persis-

tence, change, and adaptive processes in three Ocean societies. Plenum Press, New York.

Ward, A. B. 1966. Rajah's servant. Cornell Southeast Asia Program Data Paper 61. Cornell University, Department of Asian Studies, Ithaca.

te Wechel, P. 1911. lets over z.g.n. Djeloetoeng. Teysmannia 22:588-597.

Weinstock, J. A. 1983. Rattan: ecological balance in a Borneo rainforest swidden. Economic Botany 37: 58-68.

, and N. T. Vergara. 1987. Land or plants: agricultural tenure in agroforestry systems. Eco- nomic Botany 41:312-322.

van Wijk, C. L. 1941. Enkele aantekeningen over de verjonging van de Pantoeng (Dyera lowii en D. borneensis). (Notes on the regeneration of the pantung (Dyera lowii and D. borneensis).) Unpublished.

Wilkinson, R. J. 1959. A Malay-English dictionary, 2 vols. Macmillan, New York.

Wolf, E. R. 1982. Europe and the people without history. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Wolf, H., and R. Wolf. 1936. Rubber: a story of glory and greed. Covici Friede, New York.

Wolters, 0. 1967. Early Indonesian commerce. Cor- nell University Press, Ithaca.

BOOK REVIEW

Remarkable Agaves and Cacti. Park S. Nobel. Oxford University Press, 200 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016. 24 February 1994. x (unnumbered) + 166 pp. (cloth) ISBN 0- 19-508414-4, $39.95; (pa- perback) ISBN 0-19-508415-2, $19.95.

Park S. Nobel is co-author of The Cactus Primer (1986), a book which deserves a place on every botan- ist's shelf. His new book, whose title might imply it is a coffee-table volume, will deservedly take its place beside The Cactus Primer.

"Remarkable means worthy of notice, uncommon, even extraordinary," says the author, with respect to the cacti and agaves he treats. He aptly describes his book as well, whose coverage ranges from the history of the margarita (with tequila, of course, made from Agave tequilana) to the efficiency of crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) versus C3 and C4 plants.

There are ethnobotanical data; horticultural tips; pleas for conservation; essays on natural history; food uses; primers on the physiology of roots, stems, and leaves (the author is after all a plant physiologist); even a bit of plant anatomy. Nobel is a teacher, who leads the reader gently from the surface to the interior, meta- phorically as well as literally. I didn't know that cattle

in some places are fed chopped-up Opuntiaficus-indica mixed with approximately equal amounts of alfalfa and chicken manure! This fact, togetherwith thousands more, makes the book worth every minute it takes to read it.

As one expects from this press, the book is entirely free of typos, the photographs are sharply reproduced, and the Latin names are correctly given-I thought I had caught him out in an error on Agave cerulata (looks like a misprint for serrulata), but no, it is correct, from cerula, a little piece of wax.

The book is fully referenced, the references given at the end of each chapter, with all titles (including serials) unabbreviated. Those who wish to delve more deeply will get smiles from librarians and useful responses from computerized card catalogs.

Professor Nobel (know-bell) is pictured on page 157. He appears to be a very open, frank, accessible kind of fellow-just like his book.

NEIL A. HARRIMAN BIoLoGY DEPARTMENT

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-OSHKOSH

OSHKOSH, WI 54901

Transition from Native Forest Rubbers to Hevea brasiliensis

Documents

Transcript of Transition from Native Forest Rubbers to Hevea brasiliensis