Murut basketwork
G.C. Woolley’s 1932 article “Murut Basketwork” is a descriptive ethnographic survey of Murut woven articles in everyday use across the Borneo highlands, published in the Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (Vol. 10, No. 1). Building on a preliminary 1929 article in the same journal that had illustrated typical patterns, Woolley here documents actual functional objects—sitting mats, carrying baskets, tobacco pouches, and hats—photographed in situ, with emphasis on regional variation in form, material, and pattern nomenclature across the Pensiangan, Keningau, Tenom, Upper Padas, and Bokan districts.
Summary
The article is organized by object type rather than by tribe or district, though Woolley consistently notes which groups use which forms. The sitting mat (Tabir) is described first: a triangular piece of woven rotan fastened at the waist and hanging behind the wearer, used by the Tagals of Province Clarke, the Semambu, Peluan, and Pensiangan tribes, but no longer by the Muruts of Keningau or the Tenom plain. Woolley distinguishes two weaving techniques—the alternating black-and-white strand method and a method in which short white strips are inserted over a black ground with neatly trimmed ends—and identifies the “Kinuai” (whetstone) pattern as a variant in which the black and white strands run in opposite directions. Edges are bound with imported coloured cloth and sometimes buttons or beads.
The bulk of the article is devoted to carrying baskets, which Woolley catalogues by shape and function: flat satchel-type baskets (Tekiding, Balait, Barait, Kapa) carried on the back with bark-cloth straps; small flat tobacco pouches (Tikapan, Bundusan); round-backed baskets (Lawongan) restricted to parts of Pensiangan and the Bulongan border; and bottle-shaped rice carriers (Sesaab, Tinatubong) found only in Pensiangan. The most common type, the Boyong or Sesaging (called Beyung in Dal’it), is a square-based open basket with cross-braced uprights. Woolley documents the pattern vocabulary in considerable detail, recording multiple names for the same motif across dialects—for instance, the “hook” pattern is called Pinansit in Pensiangan, Nongkoitan or Linokuitan in Kwijau, and Pinangko in another variant.
The final section covers hats (Seraung, Sirong, Jurok, Tadong), noting that the Kwijau type with three broad patterned bands is also worn by coast Dusuns, and that a hexagonal form is specific to the Peluan tribe of Tenom. Woolley observes that Murut weavers do not strictly confine patterns to the available space, and that some patterns are painted on after weaving rather than worked into the weave itself.
Key Findings
- The Tabir sitting mat is no longer used by Keningau or Tenom plain Muruts, indicating a documented decline in a once-widespread practice (p. 23).
- The Lawongan round basket is restricted to parts of Pensiangan district and the Bulongan border area, making it a useful tribal-geographic marker (p. 24).
- The finest example of Murut basketwork described is a Lawongan made of rotan sega so thin the basket is “almost as soft as a Panama hat,” with a full Senampang check pattern (p. 24).
- The Sesaab or Tinatubong bottle-shaped rice basket is found only in Pensiangan district, and its pattern Sinulaiau represents a swarm of small fish with heads pointing the same way (pp. 24, 26).
- The Kwijau carrying basket (Sabat or Kapi) is fastened to a wooden back board and sometimes lined with sago palm leaf for weatherproofing, a construction distinct from all other types described (p. 26).
- Pattern names show significant dialectal variation: the “hook” motif is Pinansit (Pensiangan), Nongkoitan or Linokuitan (Kwijau), and Pinangko (another variant); the “mad” pattern is Nomboyunan in one district and Inarus, Kinawat, or Sinalari in Pensiangan (pp. 24–25).
Conclusion
Woolley’s article serves as a systematic typological record of Murut basketwork at a moment when several traditional forms were already in decline. Its principal contribution is the cross-referencing of pattern names across dialects and the documentation of which object types are geographically or tribally restricted, providing a baseline against which later loss of knowledge could be measured.
Context
- The article draws on Woolley’s own fieldwork and photography in the Borneo highlands during the late 1920s and early 1930s, supplemented by a prior 1929 publication in the same journal (p. 23).
- As a colonial-era administrative ethnographer, Woolley writes from the perspective of a British official documenting indigenous material culture; the article is descriptive rather than analytical, and contains no discussion of economic or social change beyond the incidental note that certain mats are “not used now.”