FEATURE 134 particular to certain ethnic groups and even emblematic of certain regions. Names given to plaitwork motifs and patterns derive from a number of sources: most commonly from surrounding nature (“flower,” “scorpion”) or manufactured articles (“hook”), and sometimes from the name of the person who first invented or imported a motif (“Mrs. X’s motif”), a neighboring ethnic group from which the motif originated (“Penan motif”), a mythical or heavenly character supposedly depicted in or by the pattern, or even from momentous historical events. Scholars have long disagreed on the importance of the name of a motif to an understanding of its meaning and symbolic value (Bléhaut 2012). This has been debated since colonial times, and while the subject of that discussion has largely been textiles, it certainly holds true for decorative plaitwork as well. In any case, as many have tifs continue, it therefore seems that the relation between a motif and the name by which it is called is often neither relevant nor consistent. Several scholars who have developed inventories of motifs (Klausen 2012; Klokke 2012; Lenjau, Sirait, and Sellato 2012; Tillema 2012; Van der Hoop 1949) stress the difficulty of interpreting motifs through names. Sources vary considerably as to the meaning and interpretation of motifs and patterns. Describing the Iban, Heidi Munan and Janet Rata Noel (2012) note “Each craftswoman names the completed mat as she sees fit.” A new pattern may be revealed to her in a dream and only she can “tell the whole story” behind a mat’s pattern. Arnoud H. Klokke conducted an interview with Ngaju master plaitress Mirentje Bahoei in 1951 about an elaborate narrative mat she had woven that same year (fig. 6). The story that she revealed in detail revolves around the mihing origin myth (Klokke 2012). Conversely, Mashman, regarding the Kelabit, concludes that the motif or pattern “does not represent the object after which it is named,” as “Kelabit weavers themselves are saying that ‘the motifs have no meaning’” and we should “consider the name given to a motif as a simple aide-mémoire” (Mashman 2012). A similar discrepancy of interpretation exists with pua’ cloths. However, as Bléhaut (2010) notes, such a “label” as a mnemonic aid is precisely what would remain after everything else about a pattern has been forgotten. In some cases, a more or less elaborate story behind a pattern is forthcoming. The namboyunan (“mad”) pattern of the Murut is said to represent the track of a woman who was lost in the jungle and wandered about until she went mad (Woolley 2012). Although this may be a post facto explanation, the critical point here is that a pattern is correlated with a narrative beyond its name. Certain mats—as well as other basketry items such as baskets and hats—may carry or refer to entire pictorial narratives. They tell about mythical heroes, spirits, and gods and have profound social and ritual significance. Among the Iban, certain patterned mats are infused with spiritual power associated with motifs, such as the dragon, that they carry. Made by famous plaitresses, these powerful mats are given “praise names” (julok), and sleeping on such a mat, covered in a powerful patterned pua’ blanket, is said to produce important dreams (Heppell 2009, Couderc 2012). Like weaving pua’, the plaiting of such powerful motifs and patterns in mats entails grave spiritual risk. Swayne (2012) reports that among the Rajang, three plaited patterns— the dog, elephant, and crocodile—are taboo, and that anyone making them is thought to be in danger of noted, names of motifs vary widely from one ethnic group to the next, and within the same group, “even experts will differ” (Haddon and Start 1982, quoting Hose and Mc- Dougall 1966). Apart from certain simple motifs that are widely shared, as noted above, others, just as basic, appear under varying names. To cite but one example, the triangle motif is called “bamboo shoot” by the Iban, as elsewhere in the Malay world (Bléhaut 1997); “bud of the areca palm” by the Ngaju (Klokke 2012); “blade point” by the Kenyah Badeng (Davy Ball 2009); and either “durian thorn” or “bat’s elbow” by the Aoheng. Figurative motifs are equally subject to variation in names. For example, the torso motif, figuring the upper body or a human figure with arms akimbo and usually called “person,” is called “blades” by the Kenyah (Davy Ball 2009) and “kite” by the Ngaju. Among certain communities, “many motifs have lost their names completely” (Davy Ball 2009). Since the mo- FIG. 22 (below): Mat with three central diamonds and rows of bamboo shoot motifs at both ends. Melawi groups, West Kalimantan. Rattan. J. B. Spurr Collection. Photo: D. Bonstrom. FIG. 23 (opposite): Mat with three rows of motifs and alternate black and white corners. Punan of Belayan or Apo Kayan, East Kalimantan. Rattan. 183 x 123 cm. Collection and photo: John Barker.
XVII-4 Cover FR final_Cover
To see the actual publication please follow the link above