Po s 
1q 2.2007 
As 
Oc iohistorical Transition 
475 
^002; 191), the exchange of rights for objects 
r ms a real payment, even though the husband 
d his relatives actually do not buy the individual 
§hts of his wife, but only certain rights on her per- 
^ n - The wife is not herself a good to be exchanged 
a merchandise or a slave: some of her rights, 
^h as her belonging to a lineage, remain inalien- 
j. ® (Testart et al. 2002). The Punan draw a paral- 
Jtetween the exchanges between forest products 
Manufacturing goods, and the very functioning 
Marriage payments, especially the exchanges of 
. ds between kins and allies before and after mar- 
A'e h case8, f am 'hes set transfers, which, as 
hor Ve seen > have to be continuously negotiated. 
^, r f* u nan families, values are brought into play 
e X K ade w hh downstream people through a set of 
^ Ganges, whereas the marriage goes through the 
of rights in order to build up an alliance. 
Sec °nd similarity is material and refers to the 
H 0t re °f those transfers. A matrimonial payment is 
of a commercial transaction. However, the origin 
l 0ngs e things involved in marriage payments be- 
ass, to 
economic exchanges. The Punan directly 
l^ate marriage payments to the goods obtained 
o r haders. Whether in commercial exchanges 
re Pre 111 t ^ le P a y ment °f rights, prestige objects 
d*** the price of a transfer. As Charles Mac- 
je cts d points out regarding grain and precious ob- 
among the Palawan, despite the fact that they 
fcj* to unconnected trade relations, that forest 
that CtS anc ^ P rest ige goods are, most of all, things 
cir Cu ? e °P^ e buy and sell, which create wealth and 
Al ^ e (Macdonald 2004: 333). 
V_? u §h the trade supplies objects that are ex- 
H 
^dged as marriage payments, families do not con- 
a s r str aightaway the payments to their in-laws 
Purchase. For Punan families, the transferring 
Payment, between families, especially counter 
parts, distinguishes them from gifts or mere 
4a] s erit s. Faced with the misunderstanding of offi- 
of th unawareness of certain representatives 
s Vste Church . the Punan tend to justify their social 
^ hy laying stress on the fact that they do 
^heir wife but rather a long-lasting alliance 
l he two families. These families acknowledge 
Pot g '•hat the nonrespect of the transfers can- 
S\v s ara utee the balance of the exchanges. It also 
Mfi] e an tmfaithful picture of their culture. Today, 
^^age payments remain high, the link be- 
a^Coff. ° rest products and matrimonial payments 
' Jr °duct S ' Gss ev itient because of the lack of forest 
Sr o S ^ e § a rding the current situation, one could 
, Ar JUn Appadurai’s assumption (1986: 20; 
ll >at ail Munn !983: 283) and be tempted to say 
ftou gh the Punan still establish the value 
of their jars, they could hardly define their own 
value without these objects. This would be show 
ing pessimism. Although it is true that the Punan 
adapt their rules more slowly than they take in the 
new economic values, the ideological pragmatism 
of their culture, which shows up in the switching to 
complex marriage payments, continuously makes 
adjustments to the advantage of the families. Of 
course, these changes are done to the detriment of 
older arrangements. 
This article has been presented at the Borneo Research 
Council Conference in Kuching, Sarawak, in August 
2006. Thirteen months of fieldwork were conducted in 
the years 2002-2005 mainly among the Punan of the 
upper Tubu River and the Punan of Respen Tubu in the 
Malinau District of northern East Kalimantan. Fieldwork 
was carried out under the auspices of the IRD, the Forest 
and Fivelihoods Programme of the Center for Interna 
tional Forestry Research (CIFOR), and the Indonesian 
Institute of Sciences (FIPI). The periods of fieldwork 
were funded by the IRD, the CIFOR, the EHESS, and the 
French Ministry of Education and Research. I would like 
to thank Patrice Fevang, Bernard Sellato, Antonio Gue- 
rreiro, Alban Bensa, and Patrick Menget, who provided 
valuable information and comments on this article; a spe 
cial mention to Sarah Bitoun and Ann McGrath-Soulas 
for reviewing the English translation. 
References Cited 
Adhyatman, Sumarah, and A, Ridho 
1984 Tempayan di Indonesia. Jakarta: The Ceramic Society in 
Indonesia. 
Appadurai, Arjun (ed.) 
1986 The Social Life of Things. Commodities in Cultural 
Perspective. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. 
Appell, George N. 
n. d. Notes on the Punan Inhabiting the Coastal Punan High 
lands of East Kalimantan. [Unpubl. Manuscript] 
1983 Ethnic Groups in the Northeast Region of Indonesia 
Borneo and Their Social Organisation. Borneo Research 
Bulletin 15: 38-45. 
Beer, Jenne H. de, and Melanie J. McDermott 
1989 The Economic Value of Non-Timber Forest Products in 
Southeast Asia. Amsterdam: Netherlands Committee for 
IUCN. 
Black,Ian 
1985 The “Lastposten.” Eastern Kalimantan and the Dutch in 
the Nineteenth and Early Twenties Centuries. Journal of 
Southeast Asian Studies 16: 281-291. 
Brosius, J. P. 
1995 Borneo Forest Trade in Historical and Regional Per 
spective. The Case of the Penan Hunter-Gatherers of 
Sarawak. In; J. Fox (ed.); pp. 13-26.