162
The Orang Asli population continued to increase in later years and by 1965, their
population was recorded at 45,895 people (Dunn 1975). This study provides the
following numerical breakdown of Orang Asli subgroups: Semang at 1447; Temiar
at 9326; Semai at approximately 12,748; other Senoi groups (Semoq Beri, Mah
Beri, Che Wong and Jah Hut) at 4791; Temuan with 7221; Jakun at 7331 and other
Proto-Malays (Semelai, Temoq, Orang Kanaq, Orang Seletar and Orang Kuala) at
approximately 3032. By 1994, their population had increased to 95,529 (Lim 1997)
with the greatest numbers located in Pahang (Nik Hussain 2007).
Theories and Models Relating to the Orang Asli
In 2012, well-known Malaysian anthropologist Hood Mohd Salleh gathered and
surveyed the existing literature on the Orang Asli. The writings were first produced
by non-Malaysians in the mid-nineteenth century, and Malaysian scholars only
began contributing to the subject almost a century later (Salleh 2012). The wider
literature covers general ethnographic studies and the natives’ belief, modernisation
and linguistics. Salleh stated that there has been broad specialisation among scholars, with the first two topics becoming the preserve of foreign scholars, while
Malaysians seemed to dominate the remaining two. Our brief review of the literature (see following) bears this observation in many respects. Salleh’s survey covered
all fields relating to the Orang Asli, namely history and historical change, linguistics, general ethnography, cultural ecology, religion and belief systems, kinship and
social organisation, psychological anthropology, economic anthropology, demography and development, assimilation and inter-ethnic relations.
On history and historical change, Salleh (2012) particularly cited the works of
G. Benjamin (1966, 1968) and his diachronic approach to discovering the internal
structures of a society without generating new theoretical principles. This is the first
of three major models proposed for understanding Orang Asli societies. Salleh
found that Benjamin’s work fell more or less entirely within the realm of historical
anthropology. He was not agreeable with Benjamin for advancing theories based on
speculation, but to be fair, this latter scholar did refer to linguistics and other evidences. There is nothing new in this approach as scholars, including the respected
historian O.W. Wolters (1982), have made similar attempts to unravel the nature of
state and society in Southeast Asia before the onset of Indian influence, using evidence drawn from various disciplines, including linguistics and art history. Recently,
archaeologists working in Southeast Asian historical sites have pointed to the
importance of developments that took place at the end of the Iron Age between the
early and mid-first millennium CE (Murphy and Stark 2016). In general, historians
do seem to be quite comfortable with Benjamin’s diachronic approach.
A second model is known as the development, assimilation, and interethnic
relations model. It has received much input from Malaysian researchers, with most
of them arguing for the integration of the Orang Asli into mainstream societal
development. This view is held despite the Orang Asli’s unhappiness with the
effects of proposed developments, notably due to encroachment on their native
A. T. Ahmad et al.
The Orang Asli population continued to increase in later years and by 1965, their
population was recorded at 45,895 people (Dunn 1975). This study provides the
following numerical breakdown of Orang Asli subgroups: Semang at 1447; Temiar
at 9326; Semai at approximately 12,748; other Senoi groups (Semoq Beri, Mah
Beri, Che Wong and Jah Hut) at 4791; Temuan with 7221; Jakun at 7331 and other
Proto-Malays (Semelai, Temoq, Orang Kanaq, Orang Seletar and Orang Kuala) at
approximately 3032. By 1994, their population had increased to 95,529 (Lim 1997)
with the greatest numbers located in Pahang (Nik Hussain 2007).
Theories and Models Relating to the Orang Asli
In 2012, well-known Malaysian anthropologist Hood Mohd Salleh gathered and
surveyed the existing literature on the Orang Asli. The writings were first produced
by non-Malaysians in the mid-nineteenth century, and Malaysian scholars only
began contributing to the subject almost a century later (Salleh 2012). The wider
literature covers general ethnographic studies and the natives’ belief, modernisation
and linguistics. Salleh stated that there has been broad specialisation among scholars, with the first two topics becoming the preserve of foreign scholars, while
Malaysians seemed to dominate the remaining two. Our brief review of the literature (see following) bears this observation in many respects. Salleh’s survey covered
all fields relating to the Orang Asli, namely history and historical change, linguistics, general ethnography, cultural ecology, religion and belief systems, kinship and
social organisation, psychological anthropology, economic anthropology, demography and development, assimilation and inter-ethnic relations.
On history and historical change, Salleh (2012) particularly cited the works of
G. Benjamin (1966, 1968) and his diachronic approach to discovering the internal
structures of a society without generating new theoretical principles. This is the first
of three major models proposed for understanding Orang Asli societies. Salleh
found that Benjamin’s work fell more or less entirely within the realm of historical
anthropology. He was not agreeable with Benjamin for advancing theories based on
speculation, but to be fair, this latter scholar did refer to linguistics and other evidences. There is nothing new in this approach as scholars, including the respected
historian O.W. Wolters (1982), have made similar attempts to unravel the nature of
state and society in Southeast Asia before the onset of Indian influence, using evidence drawn from various disciplines, including linguistics and art history. Recently,
archaeologists working in Southeast Asian historical sites have pointed to the
importance of developments that took place at the end of the Iron Age between the
early and mid-first millennium CE (Murphy and Stark 2016). In general, historians
do seem to be quite comfortable with Benjamin’s diachronic approach.
A second model is known as the development, assimilation, and interethnic
relations model. It has received much input from Malaysian researchers, with most
of them arguing for the integration of the Orang Asli into mainstream societal
development. This view is held despite the Orang Asli’s unhappiness with the
effects of proposed developments, notably due to encroachment on their native
A. T. Ahmad et al.