108
FIG. 4 (below): Map of
the major river systems
of Sarawak.
After an unattributed map of
Sarawak showing changing
boundaries from 1840–1906
published in William George
Maxwell and William Sumner
Gibson (eds.), Treaties and
Engagements Affecting the
Malay States and Borneo,
London: Jas. Truscott & Son,
Ltd., 1924.
FIG. 5 (right):
Lepu Pohuns
(Klemantans) of the
Tinjar River, before
1912.
From Hose and Haddon 1912:
pl. 70.
The various fi gures in this
image together wear most of
the clothing and adornment
that appears on the fi gure of
Imun Ajo’, save for the hornbill
headdress.
of as being the twelfth generation of the “fi rst
men,” possibly the proto-Kayans, who are associated
with the introduction of metal. Following
Imun Ajo’ at some undetermined point in time,
this genealogy includes Aki Dian, the forebear
of the aristocratic Kayans. The genealogical sequence
is quite clear, but the mythology is complex,
shifting, and dreamlike. In some versions,
Imun Ajo’ is turned into bronze by his mother in
a propitious fi t of anger, thus associating him directly
with this fi gure, which was considered an
effective intermediary between humans and ancestors
and between the realms of the living and
the dead. Others hold that Imum Ajo’ does not
return to the realm of the living but instead left
this fi gure to use in his place in adat kian (Harrisson
1964: 157–159). Key here is that there is
little or no differentiation between the copper
alloy fi gure, the notion of the primal ancestor
Imun Ajo’, and any historical fi gure of the same
name, a situation that underlines the importance
of the sculpture.
Harrisson presents a remarkably detailed description
of this object. He was clearly struck
by its apparent age and by its unique qualities
as an example of Dayak sculpture. Key among
these is the headdress, which clearly represents a
hornbill beak. He correctly identifi es this as the
rhinoceros hornbill (Buceros rhinoceros). Examples
of such headdresses occur in most Dayak
cultures, and the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam
holds examples from the Kayan (fi g. 6) as well
as from the Ot Danum, Ngaju, and the Kenyah.
Most contemporary examples seem to be Iban.
As such, the headdress is not diagnostic of a
specifi c cultural origin. It is interesting to note
that most, though not all, of these headdresses
include hornbill feathers in addition to the beak
and casque. The context in which the Imun Ajo’
fi gure was made may not have used feathers in
this way, or the artist who created it may have
left them off for ease of casting. The back of the
headdress bears two sets of double spirals, a
motif that Harrisson associates with early Dong
Son objects (Harrisson 1964: 165), but which
could be a stylization of woven or beaded motifs
or possibly boar tusks, which sometimes are attached
to these headdresses.
The bracelets, armbands, and garters that
the fi gure wears are also typical of most Dayak
groups. Harrisson spends some time in his text
analyzing the loincloth as being a non-Dayak
type, instead associating it with the Huon Peninsula
of New Guinea (Harrisson 1964: 169). He
may be overthinking this, since the plaiting of
which the garment is composed exactly match-
OBJECT HISTORY