Minangkabau people are descended from the Vietnamese

ANTHROPOS 107.2012: 407 - 426 abstract. - This article is an attempt to make a critical assessment of the cultural-anthropological value of some main texts of the early German explorer, naturalist, and ethnographer of Sumatra and Java, Franz Wilhelm Jung huhn (1812-1867). His ethnographical description of the Batak Lands, at a time when they were still independent in the 1840s, has been quite influential for the further course of the region’s history (especially in relation to Christianization). This evaluation shows that Jung huhn produced valuable ethnographic descriptions as well as contradictory and biased interpretations of culture. [Sumatra, Java, Batak, Javanese, colonization, Christianization, history of anthropology] Johann Angerler, Dr., studied history and ethnology at the University of Vienna and Indonesian languages ​​and cultures at the University of Leiden (Netherlands) and the University of Padjadjaran in Bandung (Indonesia). Doctorate at the University of Leiden on the cultural anthropology of North Sumatra. - Six years of field experience in Indonesia; z. Currently freelance researcher at LEAD program, Faculty of Science, National Herbarium of the Netherlands, Leiden University, with a focus on researching indigenous knowledge systems in Indonesia. For publications see cited literature. Younghuhn is best known as a naturalist and geographer of Java (the Humboldt of Java) and Sumatra and has achieved his most significant successes in this field.1 His extraordinary achievements as a naturalist and cartographer receive undiminished recognition, but one also often reads that in his Fonts hardly ever appear to people. Yes, he is attested to being “hostile to humans” as a trait. In Beekman's analysis, Junghuhn stands in contrast to Rumphius, his German predecessor in the Dutch service, who was much better linguistically well versed in working with the local population in his natural history investigations, and took them seriously insofar as he recorded their traditions and at least gave them a " Grain of truth ”. Young chicken, on the other hand, according to Beekman (1996: 175), did not even understand “such a fundamental concept as adat: Javanese mores”. He could only deal with people if he could transform them into aspects of nature (Beek man 1996: 177). I have had young chicken for years through his nearly four hundred page book “Die Battaländer auf Sumatra. Part 2: Ethnology ”(1847b) known. I dealt intensively with this book (together with the 1st volume “Chorographie” of his “Battaländer” [1847a]) in the context of my own research on the history of the Batak (cf. Angerler 2009); they have been a valuable source to me. I was only briefly informed about his biography. When I was invited to take part in the young chicken seminar in Bandung in October 2009, I began to study other aspects of his work and his biography. Basic questions soon arose: 1 This concerns above all his extensive description of the nature of Java, which he has given in various publications, but especially in his large work “Java, zijne gedaante, zijn plantentooi en inwendige bouw” (1853–1854; German edition 1852–1854) and in the production of the best and most detailed map of Java to date. Franz Wilhelm Junghuhn and the people of Indonesia About his cultural anthropological work, his spirituality and his relationship to colonialism Johann Angerler 408 Johann Angerler Anthropos 107.2012 How could such a misanthropic (if he was that) and linguistically untalented man even write the extensive “ethnology”? What is his cultural anthropological2 information actually worth? What access did young fowl have to the local population? In Indonesia he was an employee of the Dutch colonial government, dependent on it and subject to a corresponding code of conduct. But was he, who propagated colonial rule in many writings, also inwardly a staunch colonialist? Did a colonial attitude, possibly combined with the awareness of European superiority, guide his actions and influence his findings? In the same context, questions arise about his attitude towards the cornerstones of European ideology. In his late work “Licht- und Schattenbilder” he commented on this, initially anonymously, and, since this work was reprinted several times, posthumously using his name.3 In the foreword of the translator from Dutch into German - the one, as assumed today is, probably Junghuhn himself was - is described as the main concern of the anonymous author (Junghuhn) “to get to know the Javans and their mental and physical needs” (1858: v). With this writing there is also a cultural anthropological intention, even if the difference to his “ethnology” remains great. 2 In this work I consistently use the term “Kulturanthro po lo gie”, which is also used in the German-speaking area today, to denote Junghuhn's work and not the term “ethnology” that was used in Junghuhn's time. The term cultural anthropology encompasses both ethnographic description and comparative analysis of certain cultures and is therefore applicable to young chicken's activities. 3 The Dutch edition of this work was published anonymously in the first edition in 1853 and is officially considered the original. Today it is largely certain that Junghuhn himself could not have written the text in this language, since his knowledge of the Dutch language was insufficient (cf. fn. 31 and Beekman in KITLV 2004; < http://www.kitlv.nl/pdf_documents/174_kamp_="" junghuhn.pdf="">