H. Claessen Tongan traditions - On model-building and historical evidence In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 144 (1988), no: 4, Leiden, 433-444 This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 12:32:20AM via free access HENRI J. M. CLAESSEN TONGAN TRADITIONS - ON MODEL- BUILDING AND HISTORICAL EVIDENCE Introduction During the past several years various scholars have tried, with the help of models, to unravel the complex history of the leading families of the Tonga Islands. In 1978, Adrienne Kaeppler published a study in which she applied the model of the circulating connubium (an asymmetrical system of exchange of spouses) to the marriages of the leading families of Tonga, Samoa, and Fiji. Kaeppler tried to support her views by postula- ting the existence of a system of exchange of goods between the three islands. She acknowledged, however, that the evidence for such an exchange of goods between Samoa and Fiji was limited, and that the Samoans she had consulted 'had difficulty thinking of any Samoan/ Fijian marriages' (Kaeppler 1978:250). Notwithstanding the weaknesses of her argument, Kaeppler's views were accepted and elaborated on by Friedman (1981,1982). Friedman used the Kaeppler hypothesis as the cornerstone of a lengthy theoretical discussion. This led him to hypothesize not only about the existence of a circulating connubium, but also about that of a system of prestige goods in Western Polynesia. Friedman not only relied on Kaeppler's views, but also referred in several instances to a study by Hjarno on social repro- duction in aboriginal Samoa (Hjarno 1979/80). Friedman's views were reiterated - though in a more cautious way - by Kirch (1984:224-226). Recently, Gunson (1987) published a substantial article on the position of 'sacred women chiefs' and 'female "headmen"' in Polynesia in which he also tried to unravel the intricate matrimonial relations in the Tonga- Samoa-Fiji area through the use of models. -There are no objections to the use of models to explain intricate social systems. The problem is, however, how to connect the empirical data with the properties of the model. There will always be some discrepancy HENRI J. M. CLAESSEN is a professor of anthropology at the University of Leiden. Specialized in political anthropology and anthropology of the Pacific, he is co-editor with Peter Skalnfk of The Early State, The Hague: Mouton, 1978, and with Pieter van de Velde of Early State Dynamics, Leiden: Brill, 1987. Prof. Claessen may be reached at the Institute of Cultural Anthropology, Stationsplein 12, Leiden. Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 12:32:20AM via free access 434 Henri J.M.Claessen between model and reality. The main differences are usually that either the data do not fit the model exactly, or some of the data required by the model are lacking. The solution to the first problem is to restudy the data, and find out if mistakes, of whatever kind, have been made. In this respect Kobben's article, 'Why Exceptions?' (1967), although aimed at problems of comparison, can be applied equally well to problems in connection with models and data. The second problem may be solved by systematically restudying the sources for data that may have been previously overlooked. It often appears that missing data can be tracked once one knows where to look for them (cf. De Josselin de Jong 1977). If, after careful research, it becomes apparent that the data resist the requirements of the model, however, the model must be rejected as being inapplicable to the problem under study. The purpose of this article is to discover whether the models that have been applied to explain the relations between Tonga, Samoa, and Fiji are tenable in light of the data presented in both recent and earlier publica- tions on the area. As the above-mentioned publications focus mainly on the Tonga Islands, I will do the same and will concentrate on these islands, too. An additional limitation, within the confines of this article, will be that marriage systems will be the focus of most of my attention. The Exchange of Goods It is generally agreed that the Tonga-Samoa-Fiji area of Polynesia is one of the regions where extensive contacts already existed between the islands in prehistoric times. Sharp, who some thirty years ago introduced the distinction between regions where deliberate voyages were possible, and regions where accidental voyages were dominant (Sharp 1957), included the Tongan area among those where deliberate voyages were possible (cf. Kirch 1984:48 ff.). This means that people here could travel from island to island, with a reasonable chance of reaching the goal they had in mind. Yet, we should not overestimate the sailing conditions. There are indications in various sources that even here long-distance voyages were not without risks. Schouten and Le Maire mention having encountered near Tongatapu, in 1616, a large double canoe whose crew was practically exhausted from prolonged lack of food or drink (Engel- brecht and Van Herwerden 1945,1:51,179). The missionary West, who lived in Tongatapu in the mid-nineteenth century, relates several voyages that ended in disaster. He mentions others which unintention- ally ended in other islands (West 1865:64, 76, 271; also Farmer 1855:219, 233). The story, cited by Mariner (1819:276-285), about a Tongan chief who went from Vavau to Fiji for sandalwood, 'dass in Tonga ungemein hoch geschatzt wird' (Mariner 1819:277), is also well known. The voyager lost everything in Futuna, where he was ship- wrecked, and returned to Fiji to get another load of sandalwood. In Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 12:32:20AM via free access Tbngan Traditions - Model Building and Historical Evidence 435 order to obtain this he had to visit several of the Fijian islands, and was obliged to take part in one of the many wars there. After a voyage of several years, he at last reached Vavau again. Such risks notwith- standing, voyages within the Tonga-Samoa-Fiji area were not regarded as being particularly dangerous, and many people participated in them. James Cook, during his visit to the Tonga Islands in 1777, was told about the islands of 'Hammoah (= Samoa), Vaughwaugh (= Vavau) and Fidgee (= Fiji), each larger than Tongatabu' (Cook 1967:162). With respect to Samoa and Fiji, he received the following information: 'Hammoah which is also under the domination of Tongatabu lies two days sail to the North or NW of Vaughwaugh, it is described as being the largest of all the islands, with harbours and every other necessary. Fidgee lays three days sail from Tongatabu in the direction of NWBW, they describe it as a high but very fruitful island abounding with Hogs, Dogs, Fowls and all the kind of fruit and roots that are found on any of the others. It is not subject to Tongatabu, on the Contrary they frequently make war on each other and it appeard from several circumstances that these people stand in much fear from those of Fidgee.' (Cook 1967:163.) Beaglehole, Cook's editor, points out in footnotes to this passage that Samoa was not dominated by Tongatapu at that time, and that there is no record of a war between Tonga and Fiji. These data demonstrate suffi- ciently that the distance between the islands did not prevent contacts between Tongans, Fijians and Samoans — or rather, between Tongans and Samoans, and between Tongans and Fijians. Data that would enable us to conclude that contacts also existed between Fiji and Samoa are very scant, to say the least (Kaeppler 1978:249; Hjarno 1979/80:117). Schoeffel (1987:180) mentions a certain tui samoa, a Samoan chief, who was said to have originally come from Fiji and whose successors took part in fights with the Tongans. This person, however, remains rather inconspicuous in other sources. Kirch (1984:241), therefore, makes the Tonga Islands the hub of a complex system of exchange, consisting of numerous dyadic relations. The Fijian goods that reached Samoa came there via Tonga, and conversely, Samoan goods in the Fiji Islands arrived there by way of the Tongan connection. One of the most import- ant goods to go from Fiji, via Tonga, to Samoa were red feathers (Hjarno 1979/80:117). Kaeppler (1978:250) suggests that wooden vessels and kava bowls may have gone from Samoa, via Tonga (?), to Fiji. Hjarno (1979/80:107,113-115) tries to explain the way in which red feathers were circulated in Samoa in terms of a system of distribution of prestige goods. This concept is elaborated by Kasja Ekholm, who defines prestige goods as 'products which are not necessary for material subsis- tence, but which are absolutely indispensable for the maintenance of Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 12:32:20AM via free access 436 Henri J. M. Claessen social relations' (Ekholm 1977:119). Those who possessed such goods could easily convert them into women and slaves - two categories of people given in exchange for prestige goods by lower-ranking lineage leaders. From this situation, which Ekholm found to be characteristic of the Early State of Kongo, she deduced that 'women tend to move up in the lineage hierarchy, wife-takers ranking higher than wife-givers' (Ekholm 1977:120). It was in this way that a conversion of 'money into human beings' was established (Ekholm 1977:120). The Samoan situa- tion conforms to Ekholm's model in many respects. Hjarno describes in detail how Samoan notables succeeded in importing red feathers from Tonga in exchange for their daughters. They then handed these out to lower-ranking chiefs in exchange for 'brides and toga [= mats, C.]' (Hjarno 1979/80:107,113-115).