Rejoinder brief comments on: Iban Art: Sexual Selection and Severed Heads--Weaving, Sculpture, Tattooing and Other Arts of the Iban of Borneo.

Rejoinder brief comments on: Iban Art: Sexual Selection and Severed Heads--Weaving, Sculpture, Tattooing and Other Arts of the Iban of Borneo. Iban Art: Sexual Selection and Severed Heads--Weaving, Sculpture,Tattooing and Other Arts of the Iban of Borneo, by Michael Heppell,Limbang anak Melaka, and Enyan anak Usen (2005). Leiden/ Amsterdam: C.Zwartenkot-Art Books/KIT Publishers and Women's War: An Update of the Literature on Iban Textiles, byMichael Heppell. Borneo Research Bulletin, 2006, vol. 37, pp. 182-92. Heppell's book Iban Art contains numerous, extensive footnotesthat remark critically on my doctoral thesis Iban Ritual Textiles,published by KITLV in 2003. Heppell extracted these notes and with a fewalterations and additions published them separately inthe BRB as an"update" of the recent literature on Iban weaving, includingsome references to Linggi (2001) and Ong (n.d.), minimally amended froman earlier version published in Moussons in 2005. The disparaging toneof many of Heppell's remarks is quite out of place in a scholarlydebate. Bur more importantly, in many instances Heppell'sstatements leave one wondering as to what extent be has actually read mybook. Three examples should suffice to demonstrate my point. Freeman's notes For example, Heppell writes: "The Freemans' drawings andnotes are freely accessible in the Tun Jugah Foundation in Kuching,Sarawak. Gavin accessed these notes and one of the mysteries of her bookis that she barely used them" (2006a: 185); and "She largelyignores the field notes of the acknowledged authority on the Iban,Freeman" (2006a: 190). Yet, in fact, at the time of writing my thesis, the Freemans'unpublished notes and drawings were still at their home in Canberra andI traveled there in order to study them, which is clearly stated in thepreface (p. viii) and acknowledgments (p. x), I refer to these notes invirtually every chapter on a wide range of topics from dreams, charms,ritual prohibitions and pattern names to individual weavers the Freemansand I had known and so on. In chapter 3 alone, there are over fifty suchreferences. In addition, fourteen of Monica Freeman's drawings areincluded in the illustrations and clearly marked as such in the list offigures. By contrast, Heppell's chapter 5 on weaving has fourreferences to Freeman's notes; chapter 6 on plaitwork has seven;and the remainder of the book has another five, sixteen in total. I restmy case. Rang jugah Furthermore Heppell's remark regarding the rangjugah patternagain makes one wonder to what degree he has read my book. He writes:"Gavin's [Baleh] informants told her that there is nopraise-name for rangjugah or, perhaps, that they did not know it"(2006a: 188); he adds in a footnote on the same page: "There is ajulok for rangjugah in the Batang Ai--rangjugah, nyawa ngempuau, bausinang [...], leading one to speculate that the Baleh Iban might havetaken the design with them, but not the julok." Actually, in my book (p. 139) I quote this very same fragment of ajulok, which was recited to Heppell and me by a Baleh weaver on 14thSeptember 1988, on the occasion of an international weaving seminar inKuching. I remember the incident well because Heppell and I consideredit very important information as neither of us had so far recorded apraise name for the rang jugah pattern. The informant also happened tobe my host at the Baleh longhouse where I conducted much of my fieldresearch. First, it is unfortunate that Heppell should not haveremembered the occasion, or have recorded it in his field notes. Second,it is most peculiar that he should not have taken note of the quotedjulok and discussion in my book. Again, the question is: to what extenthas he actually read and properly studied it? Ngar In my book (pp. 56-64), I provide a detailed analysis of the ngarto show conclusively that all of us (myself included, as well as theFreemans) were mistaken in referring to the ngar as the'application of mordants', but rather that the ngar is a'pretreatment' that does not involve a mordant at all. It istherefore puzzling that Heppell in his "update" (2006a: 183)continues to refer to the ngar as including a mordant. Surely it is thevery purpose of an update to point out new information, especially if itchallenges the established understanding of a process as important asthe ngar, which is specifically linked to headhunting (kayau indu).Again, it seems that Heppell has not actually read my book, or at leastnot to the degree that is customary before writing an "update"that makes sweeping critical allegations. Heppell's Book In the following remarks on Heppell's book (2005) I want tofocus on the factual evidence on which this densely illustratedpublication is based. Or, to repeat Reed Wadley's question(2006:260), are the standards that of a scholarly treatise or of acoffee-table book? The first fact is that there is no list of plates or figures. It isonly in the acknowledgments that we learn that the photographs are of"pieces in Australian collections, which comprise all the plateswhich are not attributed to others" (pp. 5-6). Regarding thetextiles, there are only three plates attributed to others (plates 49,50, 62), and a further three that were woven by Enyan, the co-author(plates 60, 70, 74). What this means is that the remaining 63 textiles(or roughly 91%) are part of one or several undocumented privatecollections, which, according to Heppell (p. 6), were "collectedafter 1960" by a person or persons whose identity is not disclosed.This does not pose a problem as such, as it is not unknown forcollectors to prefer to remain anonymous. However, given thecollection's apparent lack of provenance, it is surprising thatmany cloths are given a precise place or river of origin, such as Pantu,Krian, Skrang, Layar, Undup and so on. In order for this to be acceptedas valid documentation we really need to know on whose authority it isbased. Another major concern for undocumented private collections is thereliability of pattern identifications. As I wrote in my introduction(2003:21), a reliable identification of a given pattern can only beobtained from the weaver who made it, or from her descendants orimmediate family. This is perhaps the only statement of mine with whichHeppell seems to agree. He writes that, "Gavin is quite right forrepeating that you need to talk to the woman who conceived the design tounderstand it" (2006a:188). In his book he compares pattern namesto the memory boards used by the bards, where each mark or sign standsfor a whole segment of the ritual chants. He states that,"'The only people who can interpret a particular board arethose who have been joined to it through instruction," and adds,"The same is true of cloths" (p. 69); and, "Like thedesign of a cloth, it requires the person who has designed it tointerpret it" (p. 70). It is therefore puzzling indeed that Heppell consistently appliespraise names provided by Enyan for cloths she has not woven herself; norwere these cloths woven by members of her family, or her longhousecommunity in the Delok, or for that matter in longhouses elsewhere inthe Batang Ai. Instead (according to Heppell's own captions), theyoriginate from the Baleh, and other regions that are known to have asignificantly different tradition of pattern names, such as the Saribas,and more specifically the Layar, Undup, Pantu, and Lingga (Balau) (1).And yet, Heppell offers no explanation for this obvious contradiction. To be fair, Heppell does state in bis acknowledgments (p. 6) that,"Much of the information about weaving was obtained fromEnyan." In other words, here he acknowledges the fact that hisinformation is mainly derived from one informant. However, this fact isnot carried over into the main text where be routinely presentsEnyan's interpretations of other weavers' cloth patterns asbeing generally valid. Heppell's reliance on these interpretationsis particularly disconcerting when they are applied to ancient sungkitpatterns (plates 18, 57, 83) for which we are in dire need of reliabledata (see Gavin and Barnes 1999:88). In an earlier publication(1996:73), I both repeated and questioned some of Enyan'sinterpretations of sungkit motifs, but I always assumed that whenHeppell eventually published his book on Iban weaving he would provideevidence that would place these interpretations firmly within a widerBatang Ai tradition. This he most emphatically has not done andEnyan's interpretations remain those of one single informant, whichcertainly is not a basis on which to construct as assertive an accountas Heppell has presented here. Regarding Heppell's main thesis of great weavers marryinggreat headhunters, I agree with Reed Wadley (2006:263) that this thesisfalls apart due to the simple fact that young unmarried women have notyet proven themselves as great weavers because only older women dare toweave powerful patterns. Heppell's counterargument that one doesnot need to have woven a powerful pattern "to demonstratetalent" (2006b:266) does not stand up to scrutiny, as manytechnically accomplished weavers never advanced to weaving powerfulpatterns as these required dream invitations, the bestowal of charms byhelping spirits and so on, especially in past headhunting days whichafter all is the period Heppell claims to be writing about. We all arefamiliar with the saying that women were not considered fit for marriageunless they had woven a pua, and men unless they had taken a head. Butit is puzzling why Heppell would want to take this maxim to such anextreme position and what, if any, advancement this would mean for ourunderstanding of Iban cultural practice. Heppell's ungraciousresponse to Wadley's measured and well-researched review largelyignores the factual criticism brought forward, and instead counters withyet more anecdotal "evidence," or "just-so stories,"of which, as Wadley rightly says, "we have plenty already"(2006:263). References cited Gavin, Traude 1996 The Women's Warpath: Iban Ritual Fabricsfrom Borneo. Los Angeles: UCLA Fowler Museum of Cultural History. 2003 Iban Ritual Textiles. Leiden: KITLV Press, Verhandelingen 205. Gavin, Traude and Ruth Barnes 1999 Iban Prestige Textiles and theTrade in Indian Cloth; Inspiration and Perception, Textile History30:81-7. Heppell, Michael 2005 Women's War: An Update of the Literatureon Iban Textiles. Moussons 8: 143-53. 2006a Women's War: An Update of the Literature on IbanTextiles. Borneo Research Bulletin, 37:182-92. 2006b Response to Reed Wadley's Review of Iban Art. BorneoResearch Bulletin, 37: 264-6. Heppell, Michael and Limbang anak Melaka, Enyan anak Usen 2005 IbanArt: Sexual Selection and Severed Heads--Weaving, Sculpture, Tattooingand Other Arts of the Iban of Borneo. Leiden/Amsterdam: C.Zwartenkot-Art Books/KIT Publishers. Linggi, Margaret 2001 Ties that bind: Iban Ikat Weaving. Kuching:The Tun Jugah Foundation & The Borneo Research Council. Ong, Edric n.d. Woven Dreams: Ikat Textiles of Sarawak. Kuching:Society Atelier Sarawak. Wadley, Reed 2006 Review of M. Heppell, Iban Art: Sexual Selectionand Severed Heads--Weaving, Sculpture, Tattooing and Other Arts of theIban of Borneo. Leiden/Amsterdam: C. Zwartenkot-Art Books/KITPublishers; Borneo Research Bulletin, 37: 260-4. Endnotes (1) Details of cloths for which Enyan provided praise names: Plates 13 Saribas pua kumbu; text p.32; compare plate 67; 19 Pantupuapilih; text p.43, note 16; p.78, note 56; 52 Baleh pua kumbu; text p.66, note 28; 53 Saribas pua kumbu; text p.66, note 28; 54 Balau pua pilih; text p.66, note 28; 55 Saribas pua kumbu; text p.66, note 28; 56 Undup baju buri; text p.53, note 43; 57 Baleh pua sungkit; text p.43, note 18; p.71, note 36; 63 Baleh pua sungkit; text p.78, note 58; 67 Balau pua pilih; text p.80, note 61 ; 68 Saribas pzza kumbu; text p.80, note 62; 71 Krian pua kumbu; text p.83, note 67; 83 Baleh kelambi sungkit; text p.81, note 65; p.87; 85 Saribas kelambi sungkit; text p. 88, note 84; 96 Baleh pua sungkit; text p.94, note 7; 97 Layarpua kumbu (erroneously referred to as plate 98 in thetext); text p.94, note 7 Traude Gavin Much Marcle HR8 2NX U.K.