Y RURAL and URBAN VILLAGERS: a BI-LOCAL SOCIAL SYSTEM IN
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
y UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII U IIA IV RURAL AND URBAN VILLAGERS: A BI-LOCAL SOCIAL SYSTEM IN PAPUA A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ANTHROPOLOGY AUGUST 1970 By Dawn Ryan Dissertation Committee: Douglas L. Oliver, Chairman Murray Chapman David B. Eyde Takie Sugiyama Lebra Henry T. Lewis We certify that we have read this dissertation and that in our opinion it is satisfactory in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE / / ¿H-ctr Ü. L O // / I Chairman O é ï t r J ? Ô . ù l ^ PREFACE The final form of this dissertation owes a great deal to many people and reflects the development of my theoret ical interests over a period of more than ten years, I received my training at the University of Sydney and to my teachers there is due most of the credit for any merit in this work. During my time at the University of Hawaii discussion and argument with faculty members and fellow students have helped to build upon my early training and to sharpen my assessment of concepts and theories. There are too many people to name individually and it would be invidious to select a few for special acknowledgement, so I shall say a general thanks to them all. The field work on which the dissertation is based was carried out in two parts. The first was a village study in Uritai made during 20 months between March, 1960 and March, 1962, while I held a Commonwealth Post-Graduate Scholarship in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Sydney. A grant from the University's Research Committee enabled me to travel to the field to carry out my investiga tions. The second portion of the study, in Port Moresby, was done during 15 months in 1963-64, while I was a Research Assistant with the New Guinea Research Unit of the Australian National University. For most of my time in the Department of Anthropology in this University I have been supported by a grant from the Institute for Student Interchange, East West Center. I should like to express my thanks to all those institutions for their support. While I was in the field my work was greatly facilitated by the generous cooperation of officers of various Depart ments in the Administration of the Territory of Papua-New Guinea. In addition, members of both the London Missionary Society and of the Sacred Heart Mission were kind enough to extend me hospitality at various times during my stay in the Papuan Gulf area. Without the help of these people my work would have been much more difficult. My deepest gratitude, however, goes to the Toaripi people. Only through their kindness, patience and good humoured cooperation over a period of some years was it possible for me to carry out my investigations. I hope that I have understood the things they told me and that I have recorded accurately the way of life they so generously permitted me to share. Lest any of my many friends be embarrassed by their appearance in case histories, I have changed the names of all people except those who lived in the remote past. Place names have been retained, and incidents cited in the text have reported as accurately as possible, so that the analysis is on a firm empirical base. ABSTRACT RURAL AND URBAN VILLAGERS: A BI-LOCAL SOCIAL SYSTEM IN PAPUA The Toaripi of Papua have for the past 2S years or so been migrating in large numbers from their home villages and settling in towns all over the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. It is common to discuss a situation like this in terms of 'detribalization' or 'urbanization,1 but I have not found concepts such as these very helpful. What is striking about the Toaripi situation is amount of continuity in the arrangement of social life, despite the fact that they have been in contact with Europeans for 90 years and this has resulted in many obvious changes in the culture. Toaripi who live in Port Moresby and those who are in the home villages are constantly exchanging goods and news, and there is a great deal of movement between the two areas. This interaction has prompted me to describe the situation as a bi-local social system, with town-dwellers and village- dwellers equally members. In order to analyze the material, I have avoided discussion in terms of enduring groups and have instead concentrated on activities. This approach draws heavily on the work of Raymond Firth, who has for many years suggested that structural theory needs to be supplemented by analysis of the organization of activities within a structural framework. Beginning with networks of interaction, I have shown OWVERSITY OF HAWAII LIBRARY V the ways in which choices among possible courses of action are made according to the various social and environmental pressures felt by the individuals concerned. Choices are not made randomly, and I have argued that within a relatively enduring framework of rules and expectations Toaripi make choices according to their long- and short term interests and plans. The fact that there are two foci of activities has enabled me to set out very clearly the ways in which choices are made according to prevailing circumstances, because the town and village present many different problems for a person to cope v/ith. Despite the variations in the two areas, however, there is a lot of interaction between those in the village and those in the town. Actions in the one V locality affect events in the other. The result is that the Toaripi situation shows something of the complex inter relationships between continuity and change, stability and variation which are features of all social systems. TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE.................................................. ii ABSTRACT ................................................ iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.................................... viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................ 1 Plan of A r g u m e n t ........................ 7 CHAPTER II. POST-CONTACT HISTORY AND THE GROWTH OF MIGRATION ...................... 9 Migration to Port M o r e s b y............... 18 CHAPTER III. SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND THE ORGANIZATION OF ACTIVITIES AMONG URITAI VILLAGERS ........................ 26 Men's Houses and Their Associated Groups and Activities ................... 27 Toruipiipi, heatao and elavoapeape . 37 Decline and Disappearance of elavo and elavoapeape ..... ............... 41 Persistence of heatao ................... 53 Frameworks of Social Action ............. 56 Land-holding and local Grouping ......... 61 Vabukori Migrant Settlement ............. 74 Summary................................... 84 CHAPTER IV. SOCIAL INTERACTION BETWEEN URITAI VILLAGERS IN THE VILLAGE AND IN PORT M O R E S B Y ............................ 86 Age-Mates and Kinsmen ................... 86 Work Parties and Age-Groups ........... 94 Cognates, Affines and Neighbours .... 100 Village and Town L i n k s ................... 110 vii Marriage and Marriage Payments ......... 114 Mortuary Feasts ........................ 130 Summary................................. 136 CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION .............................. 138 Toaripi and Other Pacific Societies . 138 Toaripi in a Comparative Framework . 140 Choice, Organization and Change....... 144 APPENDIX: Gl o s s a r y .......................... 148 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................... 149 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE 1 PAPUA, TERRITORY OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA .... 2 FIGURE 2 THE TOARIPI AND THEIR NEIGHBOURS ........... 10 FIGURE 3 URITAI VILLAGE, 1962 ........................ 28 FIGURE 4 PORT M O R E S B Y .................................... 75 FIGURE 5 VABUKORI SETTLEMENT, 1964... ................. 78 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Toaripi, part of the culture group known as the Elema (Williams 1940; Brown 1954), live in the Kukipi Sub- District, Territory of Papua-New Guinea (Fig. 1). They were first contacted by a missionary named James Chalmers in 1881, but few Europeans have since settled in the area because the swampy terrain is not suitable for economic exploitation. Toaripi contacts have been with missionaries, Government officials and occasional traders. Despite the long history of contact, there had by the early 1960s been no development of cash cropping, and the people’s main economic activities were still sago collection and fishing. Copra making was the only local source of cash.* Labour migration from the Toaripi area began in 1920, but until the outbreak of the Second World War nearly all those who went away to work signed up as indentured labourers and returned home at the end of their contract period. After the Second World War, however, this pattern changed: men who went away to work were no longer indentured labourers and large numbers of them stayed in towns throughout Papua-New Guinea for long periods of time. Many brought their families to join them and stable settlements of migrants grew up. 1 Since 1964 several local economic enterprises have begun: some men are now commercial crocodile hunters; others have job opportunities in a local sawmill. 2 FIGURE 1. PAPUA, TERRITORY OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA 3 labourers and large numbers of them stayed in towns through out Papua-New Guinea for long periods of time. Many brought their families to join them and stable settlements of migrants grew up. There are communities of Toaripi migrants throughout the Territory of Papua-New Guinea, but the greatest number lives in Port Moresby which is not only the closest town to the Toaripi home area but also the largest town in the Territory. Communication between Toaripi in the villages and those in Port Moresby is frequent: goods, people, gossip and letters pass back and forth constantly. Many activities are carried out co-operatively by those in the village and in the town. Of course, those who live in the village also carry out some activities not shared by those in the town, and those in the town carry out some activities not shared by those in the village.