Papuan language groups are divided into ten phyla: The Trans New Guinea Phylum, West Papuan Phylum, Sepik-Ramu Phylum, Torricelli Phylum, Sko Phylum, Kwomtari Phylum, Arai (Left May) Phylum, Amto-Musian Phylum, Geelvink Bay Phylum, and East Bird’s Head (Vogelkop) Phylum. These phyla are further split into language families. Hence, one phylum consists of several language families, each containing several local languages or dialects. This language classification was initiated by Voorhoeve and McElhanon. The high linguistic diversity on Papua provides a unique opportunity for the study of languages and language evolution.
The diversity of languages in Papua poses a challenge to development efforts in this area, since mutual understanding and communication is difficult when so many different languages are spoken in one province. However, the diversity of languages in Papua has led in recent decades to the widespread adoption of Bahasa Indonesia (and Melayu languages in the past), which serves as an intermediary language that is used among different ethnic groups within Papua and with people from other parts of Indonesia. Therefore, despite the high linguistic diversity in Papua, most Papuans speak and understand Bahasa Indonesia. Indeed a higher proportion of Papuans are fluent in this language than people in most other Indonesian provinces. This common language helps to offset some of the challenges inherent to the high linguistic diversity in Papua, and should aid development efforts in Papua in the future.
Social Structure
In this context, social structure refers to the patterns of social relationships that maintain group cohesion and social unity. Typically, these patterns of social relationships are organized around kinship, and can be characterized by the terminology used to refer to family members and their inheritance systems. Kinship terminology is extremely useful in understanding social structure because kinship terms frequently convey details about the roles of family members and the interactions among them, and about social rights and responsibilities, all of which may differ greatly among groups.
Pouwer (1966) suggests that the people of Papua can be divided into at least four groups based on their systems of kinship terminology. The first group uses a kinship terminology system similar to the Iroquois, a Native American nation (Iroquois type). The Iroquois system classifies cousins in parallel with siblings, and uses a different expression for cross-cousins. Another characteristic is the use of the same expression for father and all male brothers from both maternal and paternal sides (uncles). The languages of Biak, Iha, Waropen, Senggi, and Marind-Anim, Humboldt (Yos Sudarso) Bay, and Me are included within this group.
The second group uses kinship terminology similar to those used by native peoples in Hawai’i (Hawai’ian type). In this system, the same expression is used for siblings and all parallel and cross-cousins. Ethnic groups using this kinship terminology include Mairasi, Mimika, Hattam-Manikion, Asmat, Kimam, and Pantai Timur Sarmi people.
The third group uses the Omaha type kinship system. Omaha type is a system that uses different terms for matrilineal and patrilineal cross-cousins and incorporates information about generations into their kinship terminology in an asymmetric way. On the maternal side, cross-cousins are raised a generation while those on the paternal side are lowered a generation. Hence, the expression for mother’s brother’s son is the same as mother’s brother and the expression for father’s sister’s son is the same as sister’s son. Included in this group are the people of Auwyu, Dani, Meybrat, Mek in the Star Mountains, and Muyu.
The fourth group contains people that use the Iroquois-Hawai’ian type of kinship terminology. Included in this system are people of Bintuni, Tor, and West Coast of Sarmi (Pouwer 1966).
Papuan peoples can also be classified according to which of two major inheritance systems they recognize. The first inheritance system used in Papua is patrilineal, where inheritance is from father to son or among other male kin. This system is used by the people of Meybrat, Me, Dani, Biak, Waropen, Wandammen, Sentani, Marind-Anim, and Nimboran. The second major inheritance system used in Papua is the matrilineal system, in which inheritance is passed through the female kin. Some Papuan people use a system that is intermediate between these two major types. In such bilateral systems, inheritance is either through the father’s or the mother’s kin. This type is used by remote communities in Sarmi. Similarly, some communities practice ambilateral or ambilineal structure, for example in the communities of Mimika, Mappi, and Manikion, inheritance is sometimes through the maternal line (Mappi and Mimika) and sometimes through the paternal line (Manikion) according to individual choice (Bruijn 1959; Pouwer 1966).
One additional notable characteristic differs among social structures found in Papua. Some peoples group the community into a phratry (a group of clans tracing descent to a common ancestor) while others practice moiety (dividing the group into two halves for ritual purposes). Among Papuan people who use moiety groups are Asmat (aipmu and aipem), Dani (waita and waya), and Waropen (buriworai and buriferai). However, there are also ethnic groups that do not recognize this principle, for example the people Muyu and Biak (Heider 1979; Held 1947; Kamma 1972).
Land Tenure Systems
Two major types of property rights and land use practices are common among Papuan peoples: communal ownership systems and individual ownership systems. In communal ownership systems the land that provides the main resources necessary for livelihood are owned communally. Two types of communal ownership systems are found in Papua, those based on small clans or lineages and those based on large clans or villages (kampung).
In the communal ownership system based on clans, all members of the clan (marga, keret), including unmarried women, have equal rights to use the clan lands for their livelihood. Although all members have the same rights in principle, individuals do not have the freedom to decide where they want to conduct their economic activities (e.g., to open new agricultural land or collect certain forest products). The clan head (kepala marga) regulates and monitors the clan’s land use, but often makes decisions about land usage in conjunction with other clan members. Importantly, no member of the clan (including the head) has the authority to cede ownership of the land to an outside party (e.g., the government or a private company). Such decisions must be made communally, and any proceeds from the sale or lease of such land are shared equally among all clan members. Clan-based communal ownership system can be found in the following ethnic groups: Dani, Meybrat (Ayamaru), Muyu, Marind-Anim, Auwyu, Wandammen, Simuri, Irarutu, Biak, and Waropen.
In large clan (kampung) based communal ownership systems, land ownership rights are held by the community head, who has the authority to make land-use decisions in conjunction with clan leaders (e.g., in Sentani the authority to manage the land is jointly held by community heads (yo-ondoafi) and clan heads (khoselo). Neither clan nor community leaders can make decisions alone, and plans for community development, land use, and ownership must be made jointly. Any proceeds from land sale are distributed within the village according to the internally recognized differences in land rights and authority of different members. Frequently, individuals deliberately "forget" the relative authority or rights of a particular individual, which can lead to conflict within the community.
Political Systems
Political systems are also highly variable in Papua. To understand the traditional political systems used by the Papua people, Mansoben (1985) applied the continuum model suggested by Sahlins (1963) to available ethnographic data and identified four political systems in Papua. These four systems are big man (or powerful man) systems, kingdom systems, ondoafi systems, and mixed systems.
Sahlins (1963) suggested that political systems could be analyzed along a continuum. On one end of the continuum the political system is characterized by ascription or inheritance; while on the other end the political system is characterized by achievement. On the ascription end of the continuum are chief (head of ethnic group) systems, while on the achievement end are the big man systems. Applying this continuum to the political systems in Papua, Mansoben (1985) found that in addition to the two systems at the extremes of the continuum, some Papuan political systems contain
