Malay conventional sib-names
Geoffrey Hodgson’s 1967 article examines the Malay conventional sib-naming system (timang-timangan), arguing that the antonymic pairing of sibling names reflects the broader Indonesian principle of dualistic-monism as theorised by van Dijk. Writing as a tribute to Sir Richard Winstedt, Hodgson synthesises published listings with his own fieldwork across Perak, Negeri Sembilan, Penang, and among aboriginal groups to demonstrate that the system is not a single fixed sequence but a set of balancing pairs selected and reordered by locality.
Summary
Hodgson opens by addressing the confusion in the lexicographical record, where Wilkinson, Winstedt, Maxwell, and later dictionaries present contradictory or incomplete sequences of conventional names. Drawing on fourteen Peninsula listings (of which four are tabulated), he shows that the more collections are gathered, the greater the permutations. An aged Perak informant, Pa’ Sulong of Kampong Bota Kiri, attributes the variation to different lurah (districts) maintaining different systems, a claim Hodgson considers credible rather than mere rationalisation.
The core of the article is Hodgson’s demonstration that the ten conventional names form antonymic or complementary pairs: hitam (black)–puteh (white), panjang (long)–pandak (short), sulong (senior)–bongsu (junior), ‘ngah (middle)–alang (middling), and kechil (immature)–muda (young). This “balancing” is precisely what the root timang (to balance, to weigh up) denotes, and Hodgson argues that Wilkinson’s failure to include conventional names under that entry was an oversight. He then situates this pairing within van Dijk’s dualistic-monism framework, citing Duyvendak’s Ambonese clan distributions, Lubis’s Batak and Minangkabau analyses, and Javanese Kiri–Kanan divisions as parallel expressions of the same cosmological principle.
Hodgson extends the comparison beyond the Malay Peninsula to Island-Asia more broadly, tabulating systems among the Ibaloi, Balinese, Javanese, Batak, Murut, Kadazan, Iban, Bedayuh, Sundanese, and Deli Malay. He identifies five typological categories: ordinal, fixed repeated series, dualistic-monistic pairs, combinations, and the widespread pattern of naming only the eldest and youngest with a generalised term for intermediates. Among the Peninsula aborigines, the Temer and Senoi use the Malay timang-timangan system (with local variation), while the largely Islamised Jakun use only some of the names.
Key Findings
- The ten conventional names form five antonymic pairs (hitam/puteh, panjang/pandak, sulong/bongsu, ‘ngah/alang, kechil/muda), confirming the etymological logic of timang-timangan as “balancing names” (pp. 110–111).
- Zainal Abidin’s Singapore data show a dramatic decline in Malay-origin personal names: 13.3% (40 of 301) in 1872–83 versus 0.7% (5 of 535) in 1951–55, with conventional names appearing in only five and one cases respectively (p. 118).
- The system is attested in Johore, Negeri Sembilan, Perak, Penang, and Kedah, with Perak being the state where it is most frequently used in modern times; identity cards first issued in 1948 for those above age twelve, and older Perak residents still carry conventional names on their cards (pp. 118–119).
- The East Javanese system achieves balance through the Pendawa Lima (Five Heroes of the Mahabharata) for five siblings, inserting ordinals (Ketiga, Keempat) for even numbers to approximate balance (p. 116).
- The Balinese fixed series is caste-dependent for the first-born’s name, cycling through five names (Wayang/Putu/Gede, Made/Nengah, Nyoman, Ktut, then repeating) (p. 114).
- Both Temer groups (Sungai Plus and Ulu Kelantan) and a Central Perak Senoi group use the Malay timang-timangan sequence, though with local variation in order and with native words for some antonyms (e.g., Senoi s/ma/de for ‘middle’, bi/eq for ‘white’) (pp. 117–118).
Conclusion
Hodgson concludes that the timang-timangan system is a surviving indicator of dualistic-monism in Peninsula Malay culture, probably introduced by Sumateran immigrants (Minangkabau in Negeri Sembilan; Acehnese, Korinchi, Kampar, Rawa, and Mendeiling groups in central and lower Perak and northern Selangor) over at least the last half millennium. The system persists in practice even though its users are largely unaware of the balancing principle or the term timang-timangan itself, and its gradual erosion is evidenced by the near-disappearance of Malay-origin names in official records.
Context
- Hodgson’s fieldwork drew on informants in Perak (Kampong Bota Kiri, Kinta), Province Wellesley (Sabah), and Penang, supplemented by published sources from Wilkinson, Winstedt, Maxwell, Poerwadarminta, and Abdullah Hussain.
- The article contributes to the historiography of Malay kinship and naming by providing the first systematic comparative typology of conventional sib-naming across Island-Asia and by explicitly linking the Malay system to van Dijk’s dualistic-monism theory, a connection previously unmade in the Malay studies literature.