Papua’s Tribal Conflict Culture: Indigenous Practice or Colonial Legacy?


By Patrick Valdano Sarwom.          


Abstract:

The portrayal of tribal clashes in Papua has sparked ongoing discourse in both local and international media. This article explores whether inter-tribal conflict in Papua reflects an authentic aspect of indigenous culture or if it stems from colonial narrative constructions intended to undermine indigenous solidarity. Drawing on a literature review and a historical-anthropological lens, the article examines the cultural and social dynamics surrounding tribal conflict within Papuan society.

Introduction:

Papua is renowned for its rich tapestry of cultural and customary traditions. However, one aspect that frequently emerges in external portrayals is the culture of inter-tribal clashes. This raises a crucial question: is this culture an inherent part of Papuan tradition, or the result of colonial interference and contemporary conflict dynamics?

Discussion:

1.      Colonial Narrative and Stigmatization of “Barbarism”:

Much of the literature produced by colonial writers—rather than by indigenous Papuan voices—portrays Papua as having a long-standing history of organized inter-group conflict. Through these narratives, colonial authors systematically constructed the image of Papuan society as wild, aggressive, and inherently prone to violence. This form of social stigmatization was designed to instill a lasting negative perception, both within public discourse and among the Papuans themselves.

Both the Dutch colonial and Indonesian governments—as well as Christian missionary groups—frequently characterized Papuan society as “wild” and “primitive,” reinforcing the perception of tribal conflict as inherently brutal and uncivilized. This portrayal served as a moral and ideological justification for colonial intervention. Through visual media and written records, colonial powers deliberately constructed a narrative in which warfare and violence were presented as central to Papuan life, thereby legitimizing external control under the guise of civilizing efforts.

The culture of tribal clashes is not an inherent tradition of Papuan society. Historically, many regions in Papua practiced peaceful conflict resolution through customary deliberation forums, such as “speaking in the honai” or “speaking on the para-para.” In such forums, disputes—including those involving relationships across tribal lines—were settled through negotiation and respectful dialogue. For instance, if a woman from one tribe was taken by another, the situation was addressed diplomatically: the man would formally submit a request to the woman's family, and discussions would be guided by customary law and a shared respect for social harmony.

Since the onset of colonial intervention, the image of Papuan society has been shaped by negative portrayals—suggesting that Papuans are inherently prone to violence. This constructed narrative served as a tool of colonial propaganda, used to justify territorial control and present colonialism as a civilizing force that would bring peace to the region. Ironically, however, conflict persists to this day, casting doubt on that claim and revealing a far more complex reality—one deeply rooted in historical manipulation, structural marginalization, and cultural misrepresentation.

Papuan society is characterized by a well-organized and functioning social structure. The chieftain holds a central role in guiding community life, upholding customary norms, and enforcing traditional laws passed down through generations. Under this leadership, the community thrives in order, togetherness, and harmonious relationships among its members. > > Historically, the Papuan people have sustained themselves through an independent agricultural system, living in harmony with nature’s abundance. The forests provide game through hunting, rivers and seas offer a steady supply of fish, and fields yield vegetables and sweet potatoes. Traditional knowledge also guides practices in education and healthcare, reflecting the wisdom embedded in local customs. The collective management of natural resources forms the foundation of the community's economy.

The arrival of colonialism introduced a narrative of modernization that obscured the richness of Papuan society’s traditional life systems. Colonial discourse often depicted Papua as poor and underdeveloped, overlooking the fact that the community’s basic needs were naturally fulfilled. While urban populations rely on markets to buy meat and vegetables, Papuans have long sourced their sustenance directly from abundant forests, rivers, and fields. Yet, because they do not conform to modern consumption patterns—such as the regular purchase of clothing or other commodities—they have been wrongly labeled as poor. This perception stems from a colonial worldview rooted in capitalist and modernist values, which fundamentally clashes with the Papuan people’s sustainable, nature-based way of life and deep local wisdom.

Papua is home to seven major customary regions, often portrayed as tribal groups prone to conflict. However, this portrayal is not entirely accurate and largely stems from colonial-era propaganda that sought to stigmatize and divide indigenous Papuan communities. These narratives oversimplify and distort the rich cultural dynamics of each region, masking traditions of dialogue, cooperation, and social order.

You could now list the seven customary areas like this:

1.      Mamta (Mamberamo – Tami)

-          Location: northern Papua (including Jayapura City, Jayapura Regency, Keerom, Sarmi, and Mamberamo Raya)

-          Main tribes: Sentani, Tobati, Skouw, Tami, and others

2.      Saereri

-          Location: north-central coastal Papua (Biak, Yapen, Waropen, Supiori)

-          Main tribes: Biak, Numfor, Yapen, Waropen

3.      Domberai

-          Location: West Papua (Manokwari, Bintuni, Arfak Mountains, Tambrauw)

-          Main tribes: Arfak, Meyah, Moskona, Hatam

4.      Bomberai

-          Location: Southwest Papua (Fakfak, Kaimana)

-          Main tribes: Irarutu, Mbaham Matta, Kuri

5.      Ha Anim

-          Location: Southern Papua (Merauke, Boven Digoel, Mappi, Asmat)

-          Main tribes: Marind, Asmat, Auyu, Wambon

6.      La Pago

-          Location: Eastern central mountains (Wamena, Tolikara, Yahukimo, Yalimo, Lanny Jaya)

-          Main tribes: Dani, Lani, Yali, Nduga

7.      Mee Pago

-          Location: Western central mountains (Paniai, Nabire, Dogiyai, Deiyai)

-          Main tribes: Mee, Moni, Ekari, Wolani

2.      The Influence of Modernization and Horizontal Conflict:

In the last few decades, the conflicts that occurred in Papua have often been rooted in political, economic, and external intervention issues. Several modern conflicts categorized as ‘tribal clashes’ are actually manifestations of marginalization, resource struggles, and identity politics—not merely traditional cultural heritage.

3.      Anthropological Reflection:

Anthropologists such as Jared Diamond and Karl Heider have observed the practice of clash in the context of the Dani, Biak, Mee, and Asmat tribes, concluding that the clash was not an expression of hatred, but rather part of the social system, even though it was propaganda by the colonials to control the land of Papua. However, its meaning and practice have changed in the contemporary context.

Conclusion:

The narrative of a so-called “clash culture” in Papua is largely a colonial construct rather than a genuine reflection of indigenous Papuan social realities. While historical instances of inter-tribal conflict did exist in some communities, these were governed by strict customary norms and were understood as mechanisms of dispute resolution—not as expressions of inherent violence. The portrayal of Papua as a wild, war-like land is part of a colonial propaganda strategy aimed at undermining indigenous identity and solidarity. This stigmatization served to legitimize external intervention and consolidate control over Papuan territory.

The facts show that Papuan society has an orderly social system, a sustainable nature-based economy, and traditional mechanisms to maintain social harmony. The accusations of poverty and backwardness attached to Papuans are only narrow frames based on capitalist and modernization standards, which ignore the independence and wealth of local resources owned by the Papuan people. The seven customary areas in Papua that are often portrayed as conflict areas have strong customary structures and peaceful living values that have been carried out for generations. Therefore, it is important to deconstruct the erroneous colonial narrative and replace it with a fair and contextual understanding of the socio-cultural realities of the Papuan people.

Bibliography:

Heider, Karl. The Dugum Dani: A Papuan Culture in the Highlands of West New Guinea.

Diamond, Jared. The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies?

Kamma, Freerk C. Koreri: Messianic Movements in the Biak-Numfor Culture Area


Sumber gambar: Jurlislam.com 

Comments