anthropos 
103.2008: 343-353 
The Power of Strangers in Flores and Timor 
R. H. Barnes 
SaCf ed h ~ Pitt - Rivers notes that the stranger is dangerous and 
be ‘- s ° eca use he belongs to an extraordinary world and must 
Sarjjy . la ise d, that is to say secularized, a process which neces- 
histon lnv °^ Ves inversion.” A striking feature of the traditional 
is ^ s °f several local state structures in eastern Indonesia 
of p e ° lten they maintained ruling authority is in the hands 
bec arr) ^ >ns whose ancestors came as strangers and successfully 
Just ^¡ e a hsorbed into the local communities, often by means of 
o Utsi(le S r Sort of inversion. Another recurring pattern is that of the 
r bai ns r ta king active leadership, while indigenous authority re- 
Ti rela tiv e ly immobile. This essay looks at several examples 
°f sta tu ° r ancl Flores of attempts to cope with the disjunction 
With the 8 3n< ^ P ower ’ suc h as Dumont attributed to India, and 
a Uth 0r - c ° ns tructive dilemma of how to combine legitimacy of 
^ w hh the prestige of the stranger. [Indonesia, Flores, 
a ' Timor, stranger king, authority, power] 
*.*. B 
°f Qxf arnes ’ Professor of Social Anthropology, University 
conciu'^' bellow of St. Antony’s College, Oxford. - He has 
^ r r0und ed ex tensive research on Lembata and Adonara and 
ir * c lud e . islands in eastern Indonesia. - His publications 
^stem T ^ dclan g- A Study of the Collective Thought of an 
^httoh' ndones ian People” (Oxford 1974); “Lamakera, Solor. 
(^ 1S F >r y of a Muslim Whaling Village of Eastern Indone- 
011 a U tr °Pos 1975); “Lamakera, Solor. Ethnographic Notes 
Po s ^ " 
j^uslim Whaling Village of Eastern Indonesia” (Anthro- 
<"6) ; “Ba Naruq. An Eastern Indonesian Narrative” {An- 
2002 ); “A Ritual Resurgence in Eastern Indonesia” 
r °Pos 2005). - See also References Cited. 
S tran 
^hey^ ers a ^ Wa ys pose an at least implicit challenge, 
be ^ re P re sent danger or potential gain and must 
lhe Co w ith hostility or hospitality, brought into 
how mmu nity or expelled from it. The problem of 
lo° ea ^ strangers Julian Pitt-Rivers (1977) 
ca Hed the law of hospitality. Under this 
ihg ^ e discusses a variety of responses, includ- 
S f e 0rc ^ ea ^ rules governing sanctuary, obliga- 
a sting, tests of cultural competence, and in 
vestigations of identity and intention. The law of 
hospitality, Pitt-Rivers says, is founded on ambiva 
lence. The stranger is dangerous and sacred be 
cause he belongs to an extraordinary world. “If his 
danger is to be avoided, he must either be denied 
admittance, chased, or enticed away like evil spir 
its or vampires, or, if granted admittance, he must 
be socialised, that is to say secularised, a process 
which necessarily involves inversion” (Pitt-Rivers 
1977: 101). 
Themes 
How cultures deal with these ambiguities varies 
of course, although the problem is universal. In 
eastern Indonesia, strangers who arrive without ob 
viously hostile intent are generally accorded high 
status, but not inevitably. What is striking about 
traditional histories of several local state structures 
prior to the twentieth century is how often they 
maintain that ruling authority is in the hands of 
persons whose ancestors came as strangers and suc 
cessfully became absorbed into the local commu 
nities, often by means of just the sort of inversion 
that Pitt-Rivers refers to. 1 This circumstance relates 
to another pattern, which has often been described 
and has been the subject of a comparative survey by 
1 Sahlins (1981) has compared traditions concerning “strang 
er-kings” in Indo-European and Polynesian societies, and 
Oosten (1988) has criticized some of his formulations. Nei 
ther, however, has anything directly to say about these issues 
in so far as they relate to eastern Indonesia. Some further 
relevant comments may be found in Bellwood (1996).