**5. Supernatural enforcement mechanisms and its transition**

#### **5.1. Narratives concerning violations of** *seli kaitahu*

We now focus on the supernatural enforcement mechanism of *seli kaitahu*. Through narratives about *seli kaitahu* violation, we explore how the reality of supernatural agents and their power is socially constructed.

Judging from the results of informal interviews and field observations, most villagers seem to have a strong belief in the power of supernatural agent (ancestor spirits and natural spirits). They have complied with the regulation of *seli kaitahu*. As illustrated in the following case stories, however, these beliefs do not mean that the ban of *seli kaitahu* was never violated.

Case 1: One day in 2006, D. A. (initials of the informant) set *sohe* in a forest after lifting the ban of *seli kaitahu* on the forest. The forest was a collectively owned forest, owned by D. A. and his two cousins (sons of his father's brother). They closed the forest for about 5 years by imposing *seli kaitahu*. While setting *sohe*, D. A. found many new *totoi*—incisions made in a trunk of a tree used as steps to climb the tree—in several trees with a tree hollow or a lair made inside the accumulated moss on a branch used by the cuscus as a shelter and/or a nest. This apparently indicated that there was someone who conducted spear hunting, thus violating *seli kaitahu*. Half a year before lifting the ban of *seli kaitahu*, a male villager (D. A. declined to state his name) had engaged in hunting in a forest adjoining the forest. D. A. assumed that the man crossed the forest border and stole forest game animals in the forest. D. A. did not report the infringement to the head of the adat law organization (*tua tua adat*), responsible for the resolution of adat law infringement, with the reasons that no one can identify the poacher and if we try to find out the infringer, relationships among villagers will worsen. D. A. said that 'even though we don't know when it will happen, the time (when supernatural agencies bring about the infringer a misfortune) will surely come, so we should only wait for it'. About 6 months later, the wife of that man had extremely hard labour when she gave birth to a baby. D. A. thought of it as *akeake*, a sanction imposed by *mutuaila*, *awa* and *sira tana*. 6

This case illustrates that in Amanioho the agents expected to monitor forest use and punish the violators of *seli kaitahu* ban are not people but supernatural agents such as ancestor and forest spirits.

<sup>6</sup> Interview with D. A., a 33-year-old male, in February 2007.

I heard from the villagers other narratives about violations of *seli kaitahu* having a similar structure in which the violation of *seli kaitahu* was connected to misfortune experienced by the violator or his families. Among those narratives, the following story was frequently told by the villagers as an example of severe consequence of the violation of the ban.

As **Table 6** and **Figure 7** indicate, almost 80% of total forest lots (203 out of 257 lots) were closed by the prohibition of *seli kaitahu* at the time I collected the data. Forty forest lots were used as hunting and/or trapping grounds at that time. Among the forest lots under *seli kaitahu* ban, 34 lots had been closed entirely for more than 20 years. These areas appear to be functioning as de facto sanctuaries. In most cases, these long prohibitions were based on the belief that

We now focus on the supernatural enforcement mechanism of *seli kaitahu*. Through narratives about *seli kaitahu* violation, we explore how the reality of supernatural agents and their power

Judging from the results of informal interviews and field observations, most villagers seem to have a strong belief in the power of supernatural agent (ancestor spirits and natural spirits). They have complied with the regulation of *seli kaitahu*. As illustrated in the following case stories, however, these beliefs do not mean that the ban of *seli kaitahu* was never

Case 1: One day in 2006, D. A. (initials of the informant) set *sohe* in a forest after lifting the ban of *seli kaitahu* on the forest. The forest was a collectively owned forest, owned by D. A. and his two cousins (sons of his father's brother). They closed the forest for about 5 years by imposing *seli kaitahu*. While setting *sohe*, D. A. found many new *totoi*—incisions made in a trunk of a tree used as steps to climb the tree—in several trees with a tree hollow or a lair made inside the accumulated moss on a branch used by the cuscus as a shelter and/or a nest. This apparently indicated that there was someone who conducted spear hunting, thus violating *seli kaitahu*. Half a year before lifting the ban of *seli kaitahu*, a male villager (D. A. declined to state his name) had engaged in hunting in a forest adjoining the forest. D. A. assumed that the man crossed the forest border and stole forest game animals in the forest. D. A. did not report the infringement to the head of the adat law organization (*tua tua adat*), responsible for the resolution of adat law infringement, with the reasons that no one can identify the poacher and if we try to find out the infringer, relationships among villagers will worsen. D. A. said that 'even though we don't know when it will happen, the time (when supernatural agencies bring about the infringer a misfortune) will surely come, so we should only wait for it'. About 6 months later, the wife of that man had extremely hard labour when she gave birth to a baby. D. A. thought of it as *akeake*, a sanction imposed

This case illustrates that in Amanioho the agents expected to monitor forest use and punish the violators of *seli kaitahu* ban are not people but supernatural agents such as ancestor and

there are evil spirits who try to bring misfortune to hunters in the forest.

**5. Supernatural enforcement mechanisms and its transition**

**5.1. Narratives concerning violations of** *seli kaitahu*

is socially constructed.

by *mutuaila*, *awa* and *sira tana*.

Interview with D. A., a 33-year-old male, in February 2007.

forest spirits.

6

6

violated.

96 Indigenous People

Case 2: One day, in 1986, A. Li and Z. A. (a brother of A. Li's wife) went hunting together to Akalautotu, a forest collectively owned by the sub-clan of Amanukuany (Amanukuany Susataun) that Z. A. belonged to. After hunting in the forest, they entered Aimoto, another forest collectively owned by the Amanukuany Susataun, to spear hunt cuscus. However, *seli kaitahu* had been imposed on the forest. A. Li found cuscus hiding in a deep tree hollow. To catch the cuscus, he cut down the tree at the root. Since arboreal vines were twined around the trunk of the tree as well as the next tree, just as the tree was cut down, the next tree was pulled by the vines and fell to the ground. A. Li was crushed to death under it. Concerning this accident, the village head of Amanioho, Ym. A., and a village elder (a member of the adat council, tua tua adat), F. Li., said that if they had asked *maka kohoi seli* to remove *seli kaitahu* in Aimoto, he would have never met with such an accident.7

In the local interpretation of the causes of misfortune, the conducts of supernatural agents play a crucial role. Every time someone encountered a misfortune such as machete injuries, sickness, the sudden death of a young man, the villages constructed a narrative about the conduct of him/her or his/her families that would have incurred the displeasure or anger of supernatural agents. In this way, the reality of the supernatural agencies for the villagers appears to be socially constructed and reinforced.
