Raja Itam was an Achehnese chief, the son of a deceased Teuku Ne of Ulee Lheue (Olehheh), the fishing-village and landing-place nearest to Banda Acheh. He is mentioned by Snouck Hurgronje in Vol. I of The Achehnese in connection with the system of exactions practised by the territorial chiefs upon the pawangs — the fishermen who worked the pukat or beach-seine at Ulee Lheue.
Snouck Hurgronje’s notice occurs in his description of the oppressive taxes levied on the fishermen of Acheh. “How oppressive this tax may be to the pawang,” he writes, “may be seen, for instance, at Ulee Lheue (Olehheh), where the pukat-fishermen have to deal with at least three chiefs, the uleebalang Teuku Ne, his banta Teuku Sandang and Raja Itam, a son of a deceased Teuku Ne. These three always enforce their demands for fish and punish defaulters with the ban.” The three chiefs — the ruling uleebalang, his deputy (the banta), and the son of the former uleebalang — divide among themselves the fish-taxes of the landing-place, and act in concert to punish any fisherman who fails to supply them with what is considered his due.
The mention of Raja Itam is illustrative of a recurring feature of Achehnese political life: the manner in which the members of an uleebalang’s family, even after his death, retained a share of his authority and continued to levy, in their own right, the perquisites that had belonged to him. Raja Itam’s position alongside the reigning uleebalang of his house — himself a Teuku Ne, presumably of the same lineage — is one of the clearest examples in The Achehnese of the hereditary and quasi-feudal character of Achehnese chieftainship. The uleebalang’s son, even when not his formal successor, remained a person of substance in the territory, and could enforce his own demands upon the dependants of the house.
The “ban” (langgéh) by which defaulting fishermen were punished is described by Snouck Hurgronje in the same passage. A fisherman who incurred the displeasure of the uleebalang — by failing to set apart for the chief’s household a gift of fish suitable to its rank, or by some other shortcoming — might find his sampan (boat) and pukat (seine) placed under the ban for a month, or even for an unlimited period. Deprived of his livelihood, he could obtain the removal of the ban only by appeasing the uleebalang with a money present, “which may in fact be called a fine.” Where the offence was trifling, the punishment was indirect: a couple of rakans (followers of the chief) would go down to the market and take from the buyer in charge of the fish of the defaulting pawang “so much as they consider ‘fair.’”
The system of exactions exemplified at Ulee Lheue is one of the clearest pictures in Vol. I of the practical working of Achehnese chieftainship in the last generation before the Dutch intervention of 1873. The pawangs, who belonged as a rule to the dependent population, were at the mercy of a plurality of chiefs — the ruling uleebalang, his deputy, and the heirs of former uleebalangs — and could maintain themselves only by satisfying the demands of all. Raja Itam’s share in this system places him, with his kinsman the reigning Teuku Ne, among the small maritime chiefs whose power rested on the control of the fishing-industry of the most important landing-place of Great Acheh.
See Also
Source
The Achehnese, Vol. I, by Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje, translated by A.W.S. O’Sullivan, indexed by R.J. Wilkinson. Leyden: E.J. Brill, 1906.
Raja Itam was an Achehnese chief, the son of a deceased Teuku Ne of Ulee Lheue (Olehheh), the fishing-village and landing-place nearest to Banda Acheh. He is mentioned by Snouck Hurgronje in Vol. I of The Achehnese in connection with the system of exactions practised by the territorial chiefs upon the pawangs — the fishermen who worked the pukat or beach-seine at Ulee Lheue.
Snouck Hurgronje’s notice occurs in his description of the oppressive taxes levied on the fishermen of Acheh. “How oppressive this tax may be to the pawang,” he writes, “may be seen, for instance, at Ulee Lheue (Olehheh), where the pukat-fishermen have to deal with at least three chiefs, the uleebalang Teuku Ne, his banta Teuku Sandang and Raja Itam, a son of a deceased Teuku Ne. These three always enforce their demands for fish and punish defaulters with the ban.” The three chiefs — the ruling uleebalang, his deputy (the banta), and the son of the former uleebalang — divide among themselves the fish-taxes of the landing-place, and act in concert to punish any fisherman who fails to supply them with what is considered his due.
The mention of Raja Itam is illustrative of a recurring feature of Achehnese political life: the manner in which the members of an uleebalang’s family, even after his death, retained a share of his authority and continued to levy, in their own right, the perquisites that had belonged to him. Raja Itam’s position alongside the reigning uleebalang of his house — himself a Teuku Ne, presumably of the same lineage — is one of the clearest examples in The Achehnese of the hereditary and quasi-feudal character of Achehnese chieftainship. The uleebalang’s son, even when not his formal successor, remained a person of substance in the territory, and could enforce his own demands upon the dependants of the house.
The “ban” (langgéh) by which defaulting fishermen were punished is described by Snouck Hurgronje in the same passage. A fisherman who incurred the displeasure of the uleebalang — by failing to set apart for the chief’s household a gift of fish suitable to its rank, or by some other shortcoming — might find his sampan (boat) and pukat (seine) placed under the ban for a month, or even for an unlimited period. Deprived of his livelihood, he could obtain the removal of the ban only by appeasing the uleebalang with a money present, “which may in fact be called a fine.” Where the offence was trifling, the punishment was indirect: a couple of rakans (followers of the chief) would go down to the market and take from the buyer in charge of the fish of the defaulting pawang “so much as they consider ‘fair.’”
The system of exactions exemplified at Ulee Lheue is one of the clearest pictures in Vol. I of the practical working of Achehnese chieftainship in the last generation before the Dutch intervention of 1873. The pawangs, who belonged as a rule to the dependent population, were at the mercy of a plurality of chiefs — the ruling uleebalang, his deputy, and the heirs of former uleebalangs — and could maintain themselves only by satisfying the demands of all. Raja Itam’s share in this system places him, with his kinsman the reigning Teuku Ne, among the small maritime chiefs whose power rested on the control of the fishing-industry of the most important landing-place of Great Acheh.
See Also
Source
The Achehnese, Vol. I, by Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje, translated by A.W.S. O’Sullivan, indexed by R.J. Wilkinson. Leyden: E.J. Brill, 1906.