¹Florens Max Un Bria, ²Aloysius E. Monteiro, ³Emanuel Inocentius D. Je’eMaly, ⁴Fransiskus Bustan

^1,2,3Lecturer of Higher Education Pastoral, Great Diocese of Kupang Indonesia
⁴Lecturer of Nusa Cendana University Kupang Indonesia

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v7-i04-04

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

This study explores features of Dawanese traditional house as a cultural identity marker of Dawanese people in terms of its forms, functions, and meanings in view of semiotics, a branch of science which is concerned with the study of signs. The study is descriptive. The procedures of research were field research and the library research. The data were analyzed by using inductive method as the analysis was started from the data to the local-ideograhic theory providing a written description regarding the features of Dawanese traditional house as a cultural identity marker of Dawanese people. The results of study show the traditional house of Dawanese people known as ume kubhu has unique and specific features in terms of its forms, functions, and meanings. The umme kbubu is designed in the form of a round shape without window, the roof is shaped like a hairstyle that is rounded and tapered at the top, and the door is short of about one meter in height so that adults entering the house must bow. The umme kbubu serves as a place for performing such activities as sleeping, gathering with their family, cooking, weaving, storing foodstuffs, receiving guests, and carrying out various rituals. Along with its practical and symbolic functions, the ume kbubu serves social, enonomic, historical, and religious meanings. The ume kbubu designates the ways Dawanese people view and make sense of the world as it is not simply defined as a house that anchors them to a place, divides them into visible groups, and expresses their continuity of relationships over generations but also as a cultural identity marker for them as a house based-community.

KEYWORDS:

feature, Dawanese traditional house, form, function, meaning, cultural identity marker

REFERENCES
1) Bungin, B. (2007). Penelitian Kualitatif: Komunikasi, Ekonomi, Kebijakan Publik, dan Ilmu Sosial Lainnya. Jakarta: Kencana.

2) Bustan, F. (2006). “Dari kemajemukan bangsa Indonesia menuju GENTANIA (GERAKAN CINTA PARIWISATA DAN SENI BUDAYA).” Makalah. Disajikan dalam diskusi panel: APA KATA MEREKA TENTANG KEPARIWISATAAN SONGSONG NTT GERBANG ASIA PASIFIK, yang diselenggarakan Kantor Dinas Pariwisata dan Seni Budaya Provinsi NTT di Kupang, 09-13 Oktober 2006.

3) Bustan, F. (2007). “NTT: “Permadani budaya nusantara yang terlupakan”. Makalah. Disajikan dalam Temu Budaya yang disenggarakan Kantor Dinas Pariwisata dan Seni Budaya Provinsi NTT di Kupang, 10 Desember 2007.

4) Bustan, F., Pous, H. (2009). “Bentuk, fungsi, dan makna mbaru gendang dalam realitas sosial budaya kelompok etnik Manggarai”. Hasil Penelitian. Jakarta: DP2M DIKTI DEPDIKNAS.

5) Dima, T. K., Antariksa, A., Nugroho, A. M. (2013). “Konsep Ruang Ume Kbubu Desa Kaenbaun Kabupaten Timor Tengah Utara. Jurnal RUAS, Jawa Timur, Vol. 11, Nomor. 1, pp. 28-36, 2013.

6) Hoed, B. H. (2008). Semiotik dan Dinamika Sosial Budaya. Jakarta: Fakultas Ilmu Pengetahuan Budaya (FIB) UI Depok.

7) Erb, M. (1999). The Manggaraians: A Guide to Traditional Lifestyles. Singapore: Times Edition.

8) Gana, F., Bustan, F. Bili Bora, D. (2022). “The features of Sumbanese traditional house as an icon of cultural tourism object in East Nusa Tenggara Province, Indonesia”. RES MILITARIS 12 (2), 2068-2075, 2022.

9) Koentjaraningrat. (1992). Beberapa Pokok Antropologi Sosial. Jakarta: DIAN Rakyat.

10) Koentjaraningrat. (1992). Kebudayaan Mentalitas dan Pembangunan. Jakarta: Gramedia.

11) Maria, S., Limbeng, J., Sunarto, A. (2006). Kepercayaan komunitas adat suku Dawan pada siklus ritus tani lahan kering di Kampung Maslete, Kecamatan Kefamenanu Kabupaten Timor Tengah Utara, Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur. Jakarta: Direktorat Kepercayaan terhadap Tuhan YME.

12) Muhadjir, N. (1995). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif: Telaah Positivistik, Rasionalistik, Phenomenologik, Realisme Metaphisik. Yogyakarta: Rake Sarasin.

13) Piliang, A. Y. (2005). Hipersemiotika, Tafsir Cultural Studies atas Matinya Makna. Yogyakarta: Jalasutra.

14) Piliang, A. Y. (2011). Dunia yang Dilipat: Tamasya Melampaui Batas-batas Kebudayaan. Bandung: Matahari.

15) Prasodjo, R. et al. (2015). “Advocate program for healthy traditional houses, Ume Kbubu, in a Timor Community: preserving traditional behavior and promoting improved health outcomes”. Journal of Health Communication, Philadelphia, Vol. 20, pp. 10-19, 2015. Suplemento 1.

16) Situmeang, V. S. N. (2013). “Ume Kbubu: household granary and food security in Timor Tengah Selatan”. 2013. Dissertação (Mestrado em International Studies) - University of Oregon, Eugene.

17) Sobur, A. (2004). Semiotika Komunikasi. Bandung: Humaniora Utama Press.

18) Spradley, J. P. (1997). Metode Etnografi. Diterjemahkan oleh Misbah Zulfa Elizabeth. Yogyakarta: Tiara Wacana Yogya.

19) Sudikan, S. Y. (2001). Metode Penelitian Kebudayaan. Surabaya: Unesa Unipress bekerjasama dengan Citra Wacana.

20) Windi, Y. K., Whittaker, A. (2012). “Indigenous round houses versus “healthy houses”: health, place and identity among the Dawan of West Timor, Indonesia. Health & Place, Exford, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 1153-1161, 2012.

21) Waterson, R. (1990). The Living House: An Anthropology of Architecture in South-East Asia. Singapura: Oxford University Press.

22) Zoest, A. (1993). Semiotika: Tentang Tanda, Cara Kerjanya dan Apa yang Kita Lakukan dengannya. Jakarta: Yayasan Sumber Agung.

23) Zoest, A. & Sudjiman. (1991). Serba-serbi Semiotika. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka.

Volume 07 Issue 04 April 2024