Chiefs, Fashion and Zeitgeist: Exclusion As an Expension Strategy in Kinship Based Groups in the Society Islands
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20 CHIEFS, FASHION AND ZEITGEIST: EXCLUSION AS AN EXPENSION STRATEGY IN KINSHIP BASED GROUPS IN THE SOCIETY ISLANDS Paul Wallin Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Campus Gotland, Sweden. [email protected] Abstract: In this paper I argue that chiefs created the contemporary fashion of ceremonial sites (marae) and that this was a phenomenon that we may call the zeitgeist (spirit of the time) of the Society Islands that extended far beyond the local sphere. This is based on the fact that memory based societies are driven by spontaneous subjective actions, which allow such changes, since only accepted ideas are remembered. A House Society model is explored to explain how certain chiefs successfully dominated larger areas and expressed power through domestic and ritual material remains. Their status position in society made it possible for the chiefs to exclude, as well as to include, others by help of such material expressions as well as by threats of war, through their war god missionaries, the arioi society. Intermarriages between powerful chiefly houses in different islands have been additional important factors to form alliances and create access to land e.g. to legitimize power relations. Ceremonial sites, generally called marae, were the important material expression of this power game. They were the focal points of important decisions in society, and the place where humans met with the gods. They were ritual sites, as well as memorial places tied to genealogies, mythologies and land titles. These monuments went through constant changes since re-building and additions were necessary to keep their functions alive. INTRODUCTION During the last ten years an intensification of the studies and excavations of ceremonial sites in the Society Islands has been undertaken. The monuments and their landscape and social contexts have been researched by different teams focusing in the Leeward and Windward Islands respectively (Wallin et al. 2003; Wallin and Solsvik 2010a; Kahn and Kirch 2003; Kahn 2011). These new efforts have inspired discussion, and new theoretical developments in the understanding of the monuments can be shaped based on these investigations. 297 Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20 The aim of this paper is to uncover how individual power, through exclusions (as well as by exclusive expressions) managed by tabu restrictions, was expanding in the Society Islands during the late prehistoric era and how this was achieved by high chiefs as creators of fashions, invented at the right moment, catching the zeitgeist or the spirit of the time (Vinken 2004). This should be understood in the light of the fact that some chiefs used their genealogical connections and links to the leading gods, which gave them advantages in this power struggle. They belonged to certain influential ‘houses’, and these chiefs were aware of their position and used it in the creation of monuments, as well as status symbols that were linked to divine status. The house society model (Levi-Strauss 1987) is useful for explaining how Polynesian chiefdoms were organized. The ceremonial monuments (marae mainly) as well as residential houses showed clear distinctions in their shapes (Wallin and Solsvik 2006a: 53). The marae was a sensitive tool used by the chiefly houses for fine grained distinctions, which are visible in a range of small variations in the architecture through time. The residential features on the other hand had one clear distinction, e.g. that the round ended houses were chiefly status houses (Green et al. 1967, fig. 10). The ‘trend setters’ of marae stylistic change seem to have been the traditional aristocracy at Opoa on the island of Raiatea, since they, according to local mythology in the Society Islands, had a closer connection to the gods than other chiefs of the Societies (Henry 1928: 119). This is especially evident when it comes to the establishment of the war (and fertility) god ‘Oro, which had his original seat at the marae Taputapuatea at Opoa. Henry mentions that according to traditional history ‘Oro created a mission school with the seat at Opoa, and the first master of this school was high chief Tamatoa of Opoa (Danielsson 1956: 166). The Taputapuatea structure was an expression of belonging to the worship of ‘Oro (Figure 1). This can be understood as a physical statement of belonging, and those that did not profess to ‘Oro were excluded from the ceremonial site. Not professing to ‘Oro could be seen as a provocation that could lead to war (Handy 1927: 265). These factors were powerful tools in expansion strategies that emerged from around AD 1600 and continued into the early European historical contact period. This is based on genealogies (Henry 1928), and has more recently been demonstrated by archaeological investigations and dating of late marae structures of 298 Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20 monumental size (Wallin and Solsvik 2010a, 2010b; Kirch and Kahn 2010). Figure 1. Images of the war god ‘Oro (After Kooijman 1964). THE HOUSE SOCIETY MODEL AND FASHION AS FOUNDATIONS FOR STATUS EXPRESSIONS AND EXPANSION The house society model described by Levi-Strauss (1987) reached far beyond the household as such since it included a metaphor of larger societal groups including not just the residential group of the house, but all groups tied to this unit (Fox 1993: 1). Levi-Strauss’s model was derived from his understanding of how Medieval ‘Noble houses’ were constituted. Fox writes based on Levi-Strauss 1987 that: The characteristics of such ‘houses’ were critically defined by: possession of a ‘domain’ consisting of material and immaterial wealth or honours; the extensive use of fictive kinship in alliance and adoption; and the transmission of the ‘domain’ — titles, prerogatives, and wealth — via women as well as men. These characteristics serve to undermine a 299 Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20 simple reliance on principles of descent and exogamy for the perpetuation of social groups. As Lévi-Strauss (1987) remarks, one purpose in introducing the concept of ‘house’ was to address the weakness afflicting theoretical debates that are ‘haunted by the idea of descent’ (p.165). The ‘house’ can be seen as a forum in which a tension between conflicting principles of descent and alliance, property and residence, exogamy and endogamy are expressed and seemingly resolved (Fox 1993:7). Using these ideas Levi-Strauss (1987) made a comparative anthropological study of house societies of the Pacific including the American North-West Coast, Indonesia, Polynesia, New Zealand, Melanesia, Micronesia and Madagascar. His purpose was to indicate a type of social structure in between elementary and complex societies that he had described earlier (Levi-Strauss 1969). The house society concept may therefore be used when interpreting stratified chiefdoms, where ideas on differentiated groups and expressions of power are visible in the constructions of houses, ceremonial sites and other material remains. The house society concept has been used in different ways in Pacific research, for example by Fox (1993), with an anthropological linguistic view in his edited volume Inside the Austronesian House and in archaeology by Kirch (2000), Kirch and Green (2001), Kahn (2005), and Kahn and Kirch (2003, 2013). The concept of fashion may not have a good reputation, since it often is tied to flamboyance and the superficial. However, fashion has for a long time been of importance in sociological studies, albeit investigated in relation to what fashion appears to represent, which usually has been tied to issues concerning class and gender (Barthes 1990; Bourdieu 1989; Vebelen 1899). However, fashion may not just be seen as a representation of such expressions but is also a way to communicate ideas as well as to execute power (Vinken 2005: 4). It is in this sense that I will use the fashion concept. Fashion (as haute couture) in its classical meaning stands for exclusivity and originality and in some senses it expresses the disguised or a mixture of desirable features seen in certain relations, for example; female and male, fertility and war, life and death etc. In such relations fashion represents a transcendence or exotic difference that also reduces these disguised relations into pure identity attractive for those 300 Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20 in power. When such expressions are normalized it is not about identity anymore, but instead expresses difference or social/individual distinctions within a (local) group (Vinken 2005: 28). Fashion in itself is about the actual moment, and can only survive through its own destruction, and living in a constant eternal promise of new inventions and expectations (Vinken 2005: 42). It exists in a subjective, self- evident, uncritical eternal present, within the frames of a living memory (Norá 1996). Expressed in oral traditions, certain fashions are acted out, on the marae, their materialized memorial places, and there directed by the high chiefs and their priests. The material expression of ‘haute couture’ fashion, as defined above could develop in certain high status lineages (houses). Changes may happen when traditional monuments became common expressions (or when falling into oblivion) within the existing network. At such ‘vulnerable’ moments, the network participants were susceptible for new strong expressions, and when this occurred, fashion can be described as the “art of the perfect