HENRI J.M. CLAESSEN AND MARTIN A. VAN BAKEL Theme and variations The development of differences in Polynesian socio-political organizations

Introduction

This article discusses the development of differences in the socio-politi- cal organization on the various Polynesian islands. Such differences were observed by early European visitors. Most of their descriptions date from the last quarter of the eighteenth century, but a few sources date back to the early seventeenth century, including the journals of the Dutch voyagers Schouten and Le Maire, Tasman, and somewhat later Roggeveen. The voyag- ers’ logs and journals often contain lengthy and detailed descriptions of the Polynesian peoples and cultures they encountered. And, though they often did not understand what they observed, they carefully described what they saw — or what they thought they saw. Usually the differences between the island cultures were emphasized, but several of the voyagers looked behind the differences and saw the more general pattern that lay at the basis of the varying cultures they encountered. These cultures were, so to say, variations on a general theme. The clearest notion of a general pattern is found in the journal of (1969:279, 354-5), who during his visit to (Rapa Nui) in 1774 observed:

In Colour, Features, and they [the Easter Islanders] bear such an affin- ity to the people of the more Western isles that no one will doubt but that they have the same Origin, it is extraordinary that the same Nation should have spread themselves over all the isles in this Vast Ocean from to this island

HENRI J.M. CLAESSEN is Emeritus Professor of Anthropology at Leiden University. His research interests are the anthropology of the Pacific and the evolution of socio-political systems. He is the author of Strutural change; Evolution and evolutionism in cultural anthropology, Leiden: CNWS, 2000, and ‘Chiefs and kings in ’, in: Declan Quigley (ed.), The character of kingship, Ox- ford: Berg, 2005, pp. 233-50. Dr Claessen may be contacted at [email protected]. MARTIN A. VAN BAKEL is retired Lecturer in Anthropology at Leiden University. Specializing in the evolution of society in Polynesia, he is the author of ‘Distance and contacts among kin in the Netherlands’, in: M.S. Laubscher and B. Turner (eds), Regionale Völkerkunde. Vol. 2, München: Akademischer Verlag München, 1998, pp. 285-95, and ‘Land and its uses in aboriginal ’, in: B. Haring and R. de Maaijer, Landless and hungry? Access to land in early and traditional societies, Leiden: CNWS, 1998, pp. 143-59. Dr Van Bakel may be contacted at Valkenburgseweg 31, 2331 AA Leiden, the Netherlands.

Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (BKI) 162-2/3 (2006):218-268 Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM © 2006 Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde via free access Theme and variations 219

which is almost a fourth part of the circumference of the Globe, many of them at this time have no other knowledge of each other than what is recorded in anti- quated tradition and have by length of time become as it were different Nations each having adopted some peculiar custom or habit &ca never the less a careful observer will soon see the Affinity each has to the other. During his visit to Easter Island in 1786, the French explorer Lapérouse (1987:60) confirmed Cook’s views. Also Johann Reinhold Forster (1996:153, 172, 183), the naturalist on Cook’s second voyage (1772-1775), points in many places of his Observations (see also his son, 1983:535) to similari- ties in the languages and cultures of the , and similar observations were made by Lieutenant King (1967:1392-3) on Cook’s third voyage. The view that Polynesians share a common culture and a common – be it with variations – is agreed on nowadays by the great majority of students of the . This article first presents data on the common origin of the Polynesians and the Ancient that developed in , their ‘home- land’; then we discuss where that homeland was located and how they went from there to their present habitats. Next we present a number of case stud- ies, demonstrating the great variation within Polynesian culture, and look for the factors that played a role in the development of these differences. We then relate variations in socio-political organization to levels of population density on arable land and the expected level of food production. To do so, a more encompassing approach to the cultures is necessary. An explanation in nomothetic terms (see Harris 1969) for the emergence of the differences in socio-political organization on the various islands is sought, and finally we present the results of our investigations.

The Polynesian homeland

The view that the Polynesians ‘were all descended from the same original stem’, as Johann Reinhold Forster (1996:185) formulated it, leads to the ques- tion where they came from. The missionary William Ellis devoted a lot of attention to this question in the early nineteenth century. After having care- fully weighed the evidence at his disposal (Ellis 1831, I:115-24), he concluded that ‘the evidences are certainly strongest in favour of their derivation from the Malayan tribes inhabiting the Asiatic Islands’. His views resemble those of Lapérouse (1987:282-4), who stated that the Polynesians had possibly come from or the Philippines and had emigrated to the via . There are no indications that Ellis knew of Lapérouse’s views. The notion of an Asiatic origin is also found with Peter Buck (1960:294) (also

 For example, Buck 1960; Sahlins 1958; Goldman 1970; Kirch 1984; Kirch and Green 1987, 2001; Van Bakel 1989.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Downloaded fromBrill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM

Illustration 1. Boats from and (Cook 1777, II:18) via freeaccess Theme and variations 221 known as Te Rangi Hiroa), who discussed this idea with some Samoan chiefs in the 1930s. The politely agreed that such an origin might indeed be the case for other Polynesians, but stated firmly that their forebears had certainly not come from so far away; they had originated in and not in . Shortly thereafter he learned that also in the view of the Tongans the first beings had been created locally (Buck 1960:299). Buck never knew how near the truth these stories were, for he died in 1951, long before the question of the Polynesian homeland had been settled. After the intermezzo of Heyerdahl’s defending (1952) an American home- land for the Polynesians, attention again focused on Southeast Asia (Heeren- Palm 1955). Serious nautical objections, however , spoke against this location. Especially the fact that seafarers would have had to cope with a strong head- wind and a strong counter-current, making west-to-east voyages difficult, seriously contradicted the possibility of Southeast Asian origins. Moreover, Andrew Sharp (1957, 1963), who pointed out further nautical objections, held that as far as such voyages were ever undertaken, they must have been ‘acci- dental’, not ‘deliberate’. These provoking statements stimulated intensive research into Polynesian seafaring (Golson 1962; Lewis 1972; Finney 1979, 1996; Irwin 1990, 1992). It soon became clear that Sharp had underestimated the quality of Polynesian seagoing vessels, and the ability of their navigators. This was evident in 1960, when the archaeologist Robert Suggs (1960, 1963) established the fact that the had been colonized about 2,000 ago by Polynesian coming from the Tonga-Samoa area. From then on, attention focused upon these islands as a possible region where the Polynesian culture had originated (Green 1967). The Tongan and Samoan chiefs who some thirty years ago contradicted Buck had been right after all, for they lived in the Polynesian homeland – where Buck (1960/1938:296) understandably found ‘no tales of long voyages’. Some years ago the Oceanists Patrick Kirch and Roger Green (2001) pre- sented what might become the definitive work on the Polynesian homeland: Hawaiki; Ancestral Polynesia (based on a 1987 article). In it they demonstrate that the Polynesian culture developed in the Tonga-Samoa area, to which the islands Uvea and Futuna also belong. This culture developed out of the earlier (known only archaeologically), which once flourished on the islands of eastern Melanesia (Green 1979; Kirch 1997). Members of this group reached the Tonga-Samoa area some 3,000 years ago, and once there, they became isolated from the other Lapita peoples. In their new surroundings they gradually developed the Ancestral Polynesian Culture (APC). Kirch and Green reconstruct this APC in great detail, making use of what they call the ‘triangulation method’, integrating data from archaeology, anthropology, and linguistics. In their opinion close travel between the Tonga and Samoa islands was very well possible. Though there certainly were

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 222 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel many contacts between the islands of these groups, such voyages were not without risks. There may have been more isolation here than suggested by Kirch and Green, which may have contributed to the development of minor linguistic and cultural differentiation between Tonga and Samoa. In the second part of the book they construct the content of the APC. The traits with archaeological referents were easiest to construct: house types, utensils, food, fishing gear, and other material goods could be indicated with great certainty. Their construction of the social and political organization, however, depended mainly on linguistic and anthropological evidence (Kirch and Green 2001:201). The social organization of the APC was based, accord- ing to Kirch and Green, on the concept of the ‘House’, not only an architec- tonic construction, but also a living group of people. The House owned land and other property (canoes, fishing nets), and claims to privileges and titles. Most importantly, Kirch and Green (2001:204) established that Houses were organized hierarchically. There are archaeological indications that, whereas the overall population increased, local social groups remained small. They distinguish two types of social groups, the *kainanga and the *kaainga. The *kainanga were large, and comprised several *kaainga . Kirch and Green (2001:214) suggest that ‘the leader or titular head of the *kainanga was the *qariki , the priest-chief’. To this they add that ‘A *kainanga consisted of several *kaainga , and these were ranked. The highest ranked among several *kaainga would have been that of the senior descent line tracing its origins directly back to the eponymous ancestor, and it was likely that from that ranking unit the leaders of the larger *kainanga were recruited’(Kirch and Green 2001:217). These are already the main features of the socio-political organization of the Polynesians, indicated in ethnographers’ reports as the ‘ramage’. Regarding the world of gods, ancestors and rituals, there is hardly any

 the Dutch voyagers Schouten and Le Maire encountered near Tongatapu in 1616 a large double whose crew were exhausted from prolonged lack of food and drink (Engelbrecht and Van Herwerden 1945, I:51-3, 178-80). The missionary West (1865:64, 76, 271) mentions a num- ber of voyages in this region in the mid-nineteenth century that ended in disaster. The same views are found in Sarah Farmer (1855:219, 233). Mariner (1819:276-85, 513) describes in detail the voyage of a Tongan chief who went from Vavau to Fiji to get sandalwood and needed several years to complete this voyage. There is no reason to suppose that voyages in this region were less risky in the past.  the concept of ‘House’ seems especially favoured by archaeologists, who with the help of this concept can construct the structure of settlements; see, for example, Kahn and Kirch 2004 (especially figure 13). Anthropologists, who are in a position to fill in the actual social relations, have made do for many years with the term ‘ramage’ as defined by Sahlins 1958; Firth 1957, 1963; and Davenport 1959. With the help of the ramage concept the properties of the Polynesian so- cio-political structure can be described fairly well – as can also be done with the House concept. Oliver (2002), in his recent overview of Polynesian culture, avoids choosing between these, and instead uses the term ‘clan’. Interestingly, Kirch and Green (2001) in their Hawaiki book regularly use the term ‘conical clan’ to describe Polynesian socio-political structures.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 223 archaeological data available. Certainly there are the remains of buildings that can be interpreted as temples () or graves, but the ideas behind such buildings are unknown. Kirch and Green therefore have to rely on ethno- graphic and linguistic data to construct the (probable) content of the ideologi- cal background of the APC. They argue plausibly that concepts such as mana, tapu and noa were already known. Regarding the concept of the god or gods in the APC, they state that ‘The only god of the Ancestral Polynesians was probably Tangaloa. The gods Tane, Ru and Rongo originated later in Eastern Polynesia’ (Kirch and Green 2001:242). They also found that ‘The deification and ritual supplication of ancestors was virtually universal’ in Polynesia. This led them to conclude that gods, as well as ancestors, were at the core of the ritual system. It was with this material and intellectual baggage that the Ancestral Polynesians left Hawaiki in their search for new land. This is not the place to go into the intricacies of Polynesian seafaring. We refer to our previous remarks, especially note 2, and to Irwin’s recent pub- lications (1990, 1992). In our presentation of the case studies we will have the opportunity to return incidentally to some aspects of seafaring. Suffice it to say that, though long-distance voyaging certainly lay within the realm of possibility, as was demonstrated recently by the voyages of the replica Hokule’a (Finney 1979, 1996; see Cachola-Abad 1993 and Weisler 1998 on contacts between Hawai’i and other Polynesian islands), by far the majority of Polynesian seafaring took place within smaller areas, such as the Tonga- Samoa-Fiji region, the , the Tokelaus, and the Hawai’ian chain, as stated by Andrew Sharp (1957), and repeated recently by Irwin (1990:92-3; see also Lewis 1972:277-309).

Some methodological remarks

To investigate the development of variations in the APC as found in the vari- ous islands, we use the Complex Interaction Model (CIM), initially generated to explain the formation of early states (Claessen, Smith and Van de Velde 1985; Claessen and Van de Velde 1987; Claessen 2000a). It is our contention that this model can be used to analyse the emergence of chiefdoms, head- ships, and similar socio-political formations (Earle 1997). In the model, three factors – or rather, sets of factors – are distinguished: ideology (domina- tion of the ideology), including not only ideas about religion, gods, spirits, and ancestors, but also kinship structures, concepts of law, and education (Claessen and Oosten 1996); economy (the dominance of economy), includ- ing means of subsistence, systems of exchange, trade, markets, organization of labour, management (Claessen and Van de Velde 1991), and the format of the society (societal format), which looks at the number of people in relation to the means of production, the area of land available, and the percentage of

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Illustration 2. Jacob Le Maire and Willem Cornelisz Schouten’s exploratory expedition from 1615-1617 (Engelbrecht and Van Herwerden 1945, I:55)

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 225 arable land. All these factors interact, creating the conditions under which socio-political organizations emerge and become more complex. The emerg- ing socio-political organization is the fourth factor in the model, interacting with the other three factors. This is the outline of the general model. If we want to apply the model to real-life situations, the factors given are insuf- ficiently specific, for socio-political developments do not take place ina vacuum, but at a certain time and a certain place. Therefore, data from the physical and social environment should be brought into the analysis – in the Polynesian case, the island environment, the surrounding ocean, and the climate (tropical/sub-tropical). Incidentally, the factors in our model show many similarities with the requirements of research as formulated by Kirch (1984:279-84) – a clear case of scientific convergence! Because in the Polynesian case the original settlers brought with them the APC – that is, the techniques, plants, customs, social and political ideas, and religion common in Hawaiki – it goes without saying that differences in the physical environment of the islands they colonized will have played a major role in the development of regional differences. Differences such as size of the island, topography, fertility, rainfall, accessibility, reefs, lagoons, and available resources deeply influenced the ensuing societal format and economy, and inevitably also influenced the ideology (Van Bakel 1989). And, though the new surroundings deeply influenced the colonizers, the coloniz- ers in their turn deeply influenced their new surroundings ‘through the extir- pation of some endemic species, predation of other species, introduction of new species, , and cultivation. One byproduct of slash and burn cultivation of ridge slopes, for example, has been accelerated slope erosion and lowland infilling.’ (Clark 1996:448.) And, though this quotation refers to Samoa, the effects mentioned were also found on the other islands. Two observations should be made here. In the first place, the model concentrates on the ‘how’ of the developments. It is not oriented towards the question of ‘why’ such developments took place. To answer the ‘why’ question, we can start with the fact that human beings, in order to survive, need food, drink, shelter, clothes, tools, sex, protection, and so on. To get these necessities of life they must undertake activities like hunting, fishing, building, and in doing so they create – unintentionally – a new environment. They have to coexist with neighbouring groups, and find the means to cope with their natural surroundings. When their numbers increase, some form of leadership must develop (see Johnson 1982 on the necessity of leader- ship; Claessen 2000a:163-7). All these developments require people to make choices. Choices as to relations with neighbouring groups, means of subsist- ence, and the location to build a new house. These decisions and choices may bring with them consequences which were never intended, nor foreseen. Van Parijs (1981:47-50), who deals with problems of this type, suggests that people,

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Downloaded fromBrill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM

Illustration 3. The twelfth-century trilithon Ha amonga-a-Maui, near the royal residence of Lapaha via freeaccess (Photo: Simon Kooijman, 1965) Theme and variations 227 when problems present themselves, strive to find a solution which seems to them likely to yield a ‘good’, ‘favourable’, or ‘positive’ result; Van Parijs pro- poses using the more general term ‘to optimize’. He then points out that, in search for solutions, people generally do not choose from the whole gamut of theoretically possible solutions, but are more likely to take refuge in familiar, tried, and trusted solutions – like those already developed in their own soci- ety or among their neighbours: generally people choose local optimization. Clearly, not all solutions will yield the expected or hoped for results. Some solutions will prove in time to be disastrous. Stated differently: only the better choices will survive the test of time. This is a social variant of Darwin’s idea of the survival of the fittest, as can be found in the views of Aswani and Graves (1998), who explain the success of some Tongan chiefs over others as the result of a good selection of opportunities and allies. Only those who selected the better options survived – a view less new than the authors suggest. The second observation is that in our case studies we emphasize the situ- ation as found by early Western visitors, which in most cases means the last quarter of the eighteenth century. These visitors saw and described (with errors, prejudices, and what not) the final stage of the indigenous evolution of Polynesian societies. Their arrival was destined to disturb and destroy this traditional culture. Fortunately their imperfect descriptions still exist and have been augmented in many cases by the results of later anthropological research, while archaeological findings offer data that help trace back the development of the various island cultures to a more distant past.

Case studies

A. Tonga Islands It is only appropriate to start our survey with the islands where the APC developed, Tonga and Samoa. As nature fixes the limits of what is humanly possible (Van der Grijp 1993:6), our analysis of Tonga will begin with a descrip- tion of the . The consists of 159 mainly small islands, with a total land area of 700 km². The largest islands are Tongatapu (256 km²) and Vava’u (90 km²). The islands are coral islands, formed by the build-up of reefs and atolls (Burley 1998). There is some volcanic activity. The climate (unlike that of Samoa) is subtropical rather than tropical; the average temperature lies between 21 and 27oC. Rain falls the round, but there is some difference between a drier and a wetter season (Koch 1955:11). The number of inhabitants at the time of initial European contact is estimated at 43,000. Arable land is estimated at 85% of the total land area, which means

 there is uncertainty about the number of inhabitants at that time. Lieutenant King (1967:1364), for example, noted in his journal: ‘In regard to their numbers I know of no criterion by which to make even a tolerable guess’. Mariner (1819:165) thinks that in the Ha’apai Islands about 5000

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 228 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel about 600 km². The average number of inhabitants per km² of arable land is therefore 72. The Tonga Islands are very fertile (Van der Grijp 1993:6; Kirch 1984:222; Burley 1998:340). Cook (1969:252, 261) highly praises the quality of Tongan agriculture: ‘I thought I was transported into one of the most fertile plains in , here was not an inch of waste ground’. The colonization of the Tonga Islands by Lapita people took place about 2800-2850 BP (Burley 1998:351), or about 900 BC. The Lapita phase in Tonga, ‘if characterized by the presence of decorated ceramics’, ended within two centuries (Burley 1998:352). The loss of decoration of pottery is not peculiar to Tonga, but occurred in other areas of Western Polynesia as well. Most of the Lapita settlements were small and can be interpreted as hamlets of no more than three or four family groups each. In many cases they have con- tinued to be inhabited up to the present. Agricultural activities were initially only of secondary importance, but gradually became more important (Kirch and Green 1987:451; Burley 1998:354-5). During the following centuries the production of earthenware declined, and was abandoned completely after 1550 BP (about 400 AD; Burley 1998:359). There are indications that by the end of the pottery period most, if not all, of Tongatapu had been settled (Spenneman, quoted in Burley 1998:363). In this same period the development of dry-land agriculture became a dominant fac- tor in the means of subsistence. It can be assumed that it was in this period that the foundations for the development of chiefdoms were laid. There are not many archaeological remains from this period. The most important finds are burial mounds, some of earth and others of stone slabs. The stone mounds suggest the use of corvée labour and stone-work specialists. They may also indicate the beginnings of social stratification. Kirch (1984:222) links these developments to an increasing population density, and thinks that all available land was already in use and brought under some form of territorial control.

Such a full-land situation provided a context for inter-group competition, leading ultimately to assimilation of weaker groups by stronger and larger ones. The proc- ess would have been more intense on the larger islands, such as Tongatapu and Vava’u, where early lineage segmentation had led to the development of several independent and subsequently competing chiefdoms. Assuming that this process of competition and the aggrandizement of local polity that accompanies it, was in full swing during the first millennium AD, it is not surprising that the archaeo- logical evidence for political hierarchization – in the form of large sites – first appears about AD 1000. (Kirch 1984:223.) fighting men lived. McArthur (1968:68) summarizes all known data, but does not draw a con- clusion. Claessen (1970:34) estimates between 50,000 and 60,000 inhabitants – a number which nowadays seems too high. The number of 43,000 suggested here is based on Green’s estimate of between 15,000 and 17,000 inhabitants for Tongatapu (quoted in Aswani and Graves 1998:142). Taking the average, or 16,000 inhabitants, we find that Tongatapu, with an area of 256 km², had at that time a population density of about 62 inhabitants per km². This implies about 43,000 people for the whole archipelago of 700 km² (mutatis mutandis).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 229

It seems that by the beginning of the second millennium AD one of the line- ages on Tongatapu gained hegemony over several formerly independent chiefdoms into which the island had been divided. The chief of the ascendant line assumed the title of tui tonga, Lord of Tonga. The history of his climb to power is shrouded in – though Aswani and Graves (1998:140) suggest that this development can be wholly explained by applying the Darwinian criterion of selection. Traditional history gives a different explanation, relat- ing that a beautiful Tongan girl gave birth to a son, Ahoéitu, conceived by the god Tangaloa (Gifford 1929:52; Campbell 1992:7; Douaire-Marsaudon 1998:246-52), who became the first tui tonga and because of his descent was considered a sacred ruler. In the course of the eleventh century the then tui tonga had erected the impressive Ha’amonga-a-Maui, the clearest physical evidence that he could command the large number of people necessary to erect such a monument. Also at this time several large tombs, called langi, were erected near the royal residence at Lapaha (Burley 1998:373). In the following centuries Tonga influences reached a number of islands in Western Polynesia. Some research- ers believe these influences justify speaking of a Tongan Maritime Empire (Aswani and Graves 1998; Sand 1993; Gunson 1987:151; 1990; Goldman 1970:245). That something like a Tongan maritime empire ever existed seems doubtful, however (Campbell 1992:13; Claessen 1988; Burley 1998:375). That Tongan influences reached a number of islands is undeniable; archaeological evidence of Tongan influence on ‘Uvea is clear (Sand 1993; see however Bott 1982:95), while many, mainly legendary, references are found about relations between Tonga and Samoa (Gunson 1990). A possible explanation for this spread of influence can be found in the custom of ‘strategic marriages’, that is, marriages occurring when younger sons or younger brothers of leading nota- bles at Tongatapu went, or were sent, to distant villages or islands, to marry the daughter(s) of local headmen. The son of the immigrant aristocrat and the chief’s daughter – being fahu to the local chief – usually succeeded to the lead- ership position. In this way Tongan influence was spread, without war, occu- pation, or defeat (Kirch 1984:235; Bott 1981:42; Claessen 1988). However, ‘the idea of direct government and supervision from afar, as the word “empire” implies, is implausible. Nor is it asserted in Tongan tradition, but rather has been inferred simply from the fact that Tongans were known elsewhere.’

 According to Campbell (1992) this elevation took place in the ninth century AD; Gifford (1929) and Douaire-Marsaudon (1998) say it happened in the tenth century. Burley (1998:368) links these differences to different estimates of the genealogical time depth.  Campbell 1992:13; see also Pollock 1996:435. Aswani and Graves (1998:149-150) in a table present their evidence for Tongan expansionism. Not all their cases are convincing. This holds especially for their references to Schouten and Le Maire, who are mentioned as having met with Tongan ‘viceroys’ in Niuatoputapu and Futuna. The wordings in the Dutch original (Engelbrecht

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 230 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel

Contacts between Tonga and Samoa were relatively close, though not always friendly (Ella 1899). When, however, the twenty-fourth tui tonga, Kau’ulufonuafekai, whose political activities caused great resistance, had to flee (or was exiled), he went to Samoa, where he and his immediate succes- sors remained for many years. His efforts to regain influence in Vava’u were repulsed and the ruler finally had to accept the loss of his political power to the very powerful Takalaua family, the descendants of his younger brother. The tui tonga was allowed to retain his sacral position, but political power came into the hands of the tui haa takalaua – who in his turn after some time lost his power to the head of another junior line, the tui kanokupolu (Campbell 1992:15-7). Complex marriage arrangements tied the three ruling families ever after that. There is one aspect of Tongan culture that seems to be rather unique in Polynesia, namely the custom that sisters had a higher social rank than broth- ers. This relative difference in rank has been continued in the families later founded by them, so that a sister’s children all have a higher social status than a brother’s children The eldest sister, the mehekitanga, even exercises some authority over the children of her brothers. Between mothers-brother, and sisters-children, exists the fahu relation, which means that these children are free to make decisions about their uncle’s belongings (Koch 1955:71; Kaeppler 1971:176; Bott 1981:217; Gailey 1987:60-2; Douaire-Marsaudon 1998:173-9). The fahu relation pervaded the whole of social life in Tonga, and it was problematic, especially in the case of the tui tonga, as he was socially lower than his sister and her children, while politically he was much higher (Cook 1967:136; Dentrecasteaux 1808, I:290; Labillardière 1800, II:123, 125-6). This problem was solved by marrying the royal sister to a Fijian notable (Bott 1981, 1982). The fahu system does not belong to the APC; it is found only in the Tonga Islands. Influence from Fiji cannot be excluded (Gifford 1929:22; Rogers 1977:166-8).

B. Samoa Islands The Samoa Islands are part of the original homeland of the Polynesians. The archipelago is situated between 13o and 15o South and 158o and 173o West, and consists of some nine islands. Though well into the tropics, only the island of ‘Upolu has an extensive barrier reef and a large lagoon (Turner 1884:2). The other islands have smaller local barrier reefs. The islands are volcanic in ori- gin, with mountains no higher than 1,000 m. Though the geographical axis of

and Van Herwerden 1945, I:57-75) do not support such a conclusion, while Kirch (1994:27-31), discussing Le Maire’s account of his visit to Futuna, does not mention such an interpretation. The same holds for their reference to Kotzebue, who is mentioned as having met with a Tongan high chief in Samoa. Kotzebue (1830, I:208-10), however, only mentions a Samoan chief who had vis- ited Tongatapu. How Gunson (1990:181) could interpret this statement as referring to a Tongan chief is unclear.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 231 the islands is more or less east-west, and the islands are situated in the region of the southeast trade winds, there are not marked differences between a dry and a wet side, nor between a dry and a wet season. Travel between the different parts of the islands is usually by sea, as the interior is not readily accessible on account of rainforests and mountain ridges. This is why most people on the larger islands live along the coast (Davidson 1969:50; Holmes 1974:3; Krämer 1902-03, I:63). Significant European contact began in 1830 with the visit of missionary John Williams (Clark 1996:447), though the exist- ence of the islands was known since ’s voyage (1838:186-95) of discovery in 1721-1722, the voyage of Bougainville (1966:240), who bap- tized them the Navigator Islands, and the disastrous meeting of Lapérouse (1987:268-73) with the inhabitants of Tutuila in 1788. According to Carter (1981:46) only 30% of the island consists of arable land, and, as the archipelago has a total land area of about 3,000 km², of which ‘Upolu and Savai’i comprise about 93% (Clark 1996:446), this means that about 900 km² is usable for agriculture (horticulture). This land is only partly in use (Pirie 1972). The islands were not densely populated; the number of inhabit- ants at the end of the eighteenth century is estimated at 50,000 (Van Bakel 1989:57-9). This means an average of 56 inhabitants per km² of arable land. It can be assumed that the Samoa Islands were inhabited more or less at the same time as the Tonga Islands. Archaeological research on the early prehistory of Samoa is seriously hampered by changes in the island’s coast- lines and landscapes (Clark 1996:448). The oldest site found thus far is the 3,000-year-old submerged site of Mulifanua, on the west coast of ‘Upolu, where some pottery sherds were found. The majority of early sites are likely to have been buried under colluvial/alluvial deposits (Clark 1996:449). The Mulifanua sherds have been assigned to the Lapita culture, which gave way after a few centuries to the Samoan variant of Polynesian plainware – as was the case in the Tonga Islands. This type of pottery was made well into the first half of the first millennium AD, but only after AD 1000 did pottery begin to disappear, which is somewhat later than in the Tonga archipelago. Given the characteristics of the APC, it can be assumed that the social organization of the Samoans will have been along the lines of the House con- cept. Clark (1996:451) hypothesizes houses, each lived in by a household, which with several other houses formed a nucleated village, or nu’u. It seems prob- able that the territory of such villages extended from the coast to the interior. Some of the villages are marked by large house mounds, star mounds (or tia áve), defensive sites, terraces, and raised ovens. The settlement of Samoa began on the coasts and from there only slowly reached the interior. Archaeological finds testify to inland settlements that were occupied approximately 2,000 years ago, while some settlements on ‘Upolu go back to about 700 AD. The occupation of the interior continued till after 1400 AD (Clark 1996:452).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 232 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel

‘Within the last 800 to 900 years, large mounds started to appear at the coast and up some of the valleys of ‘Upolu, though they are not abundant’ (Clark 1996:452). Such large mounds may reflect supra-local authority and high-status households. Ideologically speaking, there must have been some kind of a highest-ranking socio-political leader in Samoa, the tui manua, who from the island of Manua oversaw the whole of the Samoa Islands. According to Tcherkézoff (1997:316) he was considered to be the bearer of the highest genealogical title, and was, accordingly, the chief matai of the whole group. To what extent such a title bearer ever actually exerted such authority is not known; at the time of European contact no such person was identified. At that time only some important local chiefs were found, who fought end- less wars. This situation is discussed at some length by Herdrich and Clark (1993:60-1), who state that after AD 1000

warfare and conquest were relied upon more and more to acquire titles and power. Thus, power, which had previously been acquired more through divinely ordained hereditary lines, came to reside in titles that could be established through individual achievement. This shift also entailed a lessening of the power of specific high gods and an increased emphasis on personal and village gods.

This is a remarkable development, and an important deviation from the ances- tral pattern. Samoan society experienced increasing differentiation and decen- tralization, which in the end created a situation where authority was exercised at the village level, or rather at the level of the households of the village (Bargatzky 1988). At the head of each family stands a title holder, the matai . The status of such a matai is high, but his power is restricted: he can take a deci- sion only if he has the consent of all the members of the family (Tcherkézoff 1997:326-7; Bargatzky 1985). This situation is repeated at the village level. Here the leader of the most senior lineage is the village head, but in fact he is no more than the chairman of the village council, the fono. Only when a consensus has been reached can a decision be taken (Van Bakel 1986, 1989:69-76; Ember 1962; Yamamoto 1987). When a person does not agree with the decision he or she can leave the village, and seek refuge in another one where he or she has kinship connections. The newcomer will be received with open arms, for when all is said and done, there was a shortage of people in the eighteenth-century Samoa Islands. Village leaders therefore do what they can to prevent the loss of people, an attitude that does not contribute to effective government. Van Bakel (1989), as well as Bargatzky (1988), describe the Samoan develop- ments in terms of Gregory Johnson’s distinction (1982) between a simultaneous and a sequential hierarch. In the first case all levels of government function at the same time – a village council, a district council, and an island council. In Samoa, however, a sequential hierarchy seems dominant: the village council operates independently of the district council, which hardly ever meets, and the

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 233 same holds for the island council. This situation most probably originated in the sparseness of the population; there was always open land for dissatisfied villag- ers, and thus no chief could ever exert a strong hold over his underlings. Food production on Samoa was abundant. According to Holmes (1974:24) only six to eight hours of work per week were sufficient to produce food for a household for one week. Taro and breadfruit were the staple foods, to which were added bananas, yams, and (Turner 1874:107; Krämer 1902-03, II:136). Sometimes periods of shortage occurred, during which family mem- bers living elsewhere were expected to assist on a basis of reciprocity (Van Bakel 1989:66-7).

C. T ahiti, in Eastern Polynesia, is the largest of the Society Islands. At a latitude of 17o South, the island lies in the tropics. Eight islands of the chain are volcanic, two are atolls. Tahiti, the largest island, has a land area of 1,040 km², and its highest peak is 2,240 m. It is divided into a main island, Tahiti-Nui, connected by a narrow isthmus to the Taiarapu peninsula. The island is mountainous, and numerous narrow valleys are carved into the slopes of the volcanic cones (Finney 1966; Oliver 1974). The streams feed directly and rapidly into swamps, lagoons, or sea. The valleys are rarely more than a mile wide and their sides are steep. Around much of the island extends a belt of flat alluvial land, where the great majority of the population lived at the time of early European con- tact. Oliver (1974:26-34; see also McArthur 1968:240) estimates the number of inhabitants at that time at 35,000, which means an average of 35 per km². As, however, large parts of the mountainous interior were uninhabitable, the number of inhabitants per km² of arable land was much higher. There are no data available on the amount of arable land. Kirch’s estimate (1984:98) of 30% seems a bit low. We think that about 40% would be nearer the mark (in view of Finney’s favourable report (1966) on the agricultural potential of the valleys). If we accept this percentage, the average number of inhabitants per km² of arable land would have been about 84. To complicate matters, not all of the arable land was in use. People preferred to live near the coast, neglecting fertile land in the interior; they sometimes even preferred to live as a kind of tenants on estates of notables near the coast rather than till their own soil at a large distance from the sea. On the distribution of land, Oliver (1974:254) remarks that

 this view is based on the discussion by Queen Marau Taaroa (1971:85) of rights to land. She states that lower-class had rights to land in the interior. In the eyes of the people, such lands were unfavourably situated. The better lands, near the coast, were reserved for chiefs (Pan- off 1970:251). Oliver (1974:766) confirms these views. The missionaries tell us that lower- class Tahitians, to escape the heavy taxes, sometimes cultivated distant mountain lands, so that their gardens were difficult of access (Wilson 1799:194-6; see also Oliver 1974:255-6).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 234 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel

Every household had, through exercise of some claim, use of as much food-pro- ducing land as it required – not always of the type suited to growing all plants in the proportion desired, but probably enough to satisfy biological needs. In this respect at least, there was not only enough horticultural land to support the whole population, but also social-relational norms varied and [were] flexible enough to ensure practically everyone an adequate access to land.

Clearly, at the time of initial European contacts, Tahiti was a fertile, affluent island, where on behalf of the ari’i a considerable surplus of food and goods was produced – as is testified by reports of early visitors such as Bougainville, Cook, Banks, and Bligh. Tahiti was colonized by people of the APC. The time of their arrival is not clear. The oldest indication of human presence in the Society Islands is found on the nearby island of Mo’orea in the form of remains of cultivated coconuts, dating back to the beginning of the seventh century AD (Lepofsky, Harries and Kellum 1992). If we assume that these data hold for the whole of the Society Islands, the probability of colonization (from Tahiti) of the Hawai’ian Islands in the fourth century AD no longer seems tenable (Kirch 1994:251). Traditional history states that the first settlement of Tahiti took place in the Vaiari district in the south of the island – at least the seat of the oldest lineage is located here. The ari’i rahi of Vaiari are therefore considered to have had the highest status. The fertile island, with its large production of breadfruit, taro, yams, and coconuts (Oliver 1974), made population growth possible, and as a consequence human settlements spread over larger areas (Claessen 1978:444). Most probably it was junior sons of the senior line who, with their descendants and followers, left to settle elsewhere, and after some time became more or less independent. Between the leaders of the new groups some kind of hierarchical kinship relation remained, whereby the senior line in Vaiari was considered the highest in status. Ritually they remained con- nected by taking a stone of the ancestral marae and inserting this in the marae of the new settlement. In this way the new temple became a ‘child’ of the old one (Salmon 1910:43). In later times Vaiari, hemmed in between the powerful polities of Papara and Tautira (in the peninsula), lost its political influence and its ceremonial preeminence (Oliver 1974:1203). The settlers of the Society Islands, bringing with them the APC, were organized in House societies. Kahn and Kirch (2004:250) analysed (in Mo’orea) a settlement that, according to the excavators, clearly shows the properties of a House society, namely ‘un ensemble de structures domestiques et une propriété foncière ainsi que d‘autres biens tangibles et intangibles’ In the settlement they found the remains of a chiefly house, a number of smaller

 taimai 1964; Marau Taaroa 1971. Recently the works of Ari’i Taimai and Queen Marau have been subjected to critical evaluations. See Langdon 1969; Gunson 1975; Gossler 2005. Compare Danielsson and Danielsson 1964.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 235 houses, remains of a small marae, indications of the making of stone chisels, and some agricultural terraces and cultivation of plantains and breadfruit trees. It seems probable that in the course of time such settlements increased in size and population. The chief of the eldest lineage traced his descent line back to the first quasi-human deities, such that principal ancestors were linked directly with the first-born chiefly line and only indirectly with the rest of the society (Thomas 1990:28). As a consequence, the chief in the eldest descent line was considered sacred, and surrounded by numerous tapu(Thomas 1990:28-33; Claessen 2000b). As the groups grew bigger and bigger, the social distance between the descendants of the senior and junior lineages grew too (Oliver 1974:782, 1098, 1130). This occasioned a gradual lessening of the influence of kinship in favour of political – non-kinship – loyalties. The distance between the senior and junior lineages grew so large that in the end marriages between mem- bers of these groups were no longer considered possible. Groups belonging to the same genealogical group thus became endogamous. Tahitian social structure then comprised the following categories: – an upper group, or ari’i; the chiefs belonged to this category; – a middle group, or ra’atira; to this category belonged the small landhold- ers; – a lower category, or manahune; the commoners. They are often considered landless people. Their land rights, however, were often overruled by the claims of people of higher rank. So they either had land in the interior or worked as a kind of tenants on estates near the coast. In the lower category, knowledge of descent was no longer of any use. Only the notables retained their interest in matters of descent and heritage. Status rivalry, as Goldman (1970) terms this situation, dominated their social relations. Tensions between rival ari’i families reached a peak in the early eighteenth century when the Oro cult was imported from nearby Ra’iatea. Fierce battles were fought over the possession of the original Oro image and the feather girdles (maro) connected with the god which gave its possessor the right to conduct human sacrifices. Finally, the ruler of the northwestern polity, Te Porionu’u, succeeded in getting the upper hand – with the help, it is true, of some of the Bounty mutineers, and later of the Duff missionaries – which they maintained till the establishment of French colonial rule in 1842 (Oliver 1974, III; Davies 1961).

 On the relation between Oro, maro and human sacrifices, see Claessen 1995; Babadzan 1993. Eyewitnesses of human sacrifices were Cook 1967:198-204 and Bligh 1988:123. On the use of the feather girdle during royal inaugurations, see Ellis 1831, III:111; Moerenhout 1837, II:27; Mor- rison 1966:91.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 236 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel

D. Hawai’i The Hawai’ian archipelago, named after its largest island, covers over 16,600 km², and is situated between 18o and 28o North and between 154o and 178o West. All of the islands are high and volcanic, with mountains higher than 4,000 m. According to the data presented by Kirch (1994:251), the islands were colonized in the fourth century AD. This implies that the colonizers were not Tahitians, for the Society Islands were not colonized until about 600 AD. Colonization from the Marquesas Islands therefore seems more probable. The mountains form a central range in the archipelago along an axis approximately SE to NW. This range produces a difference between wet islands in the west and dry islands in the east (Kirch 1994:254). This difference has great consequences for food production: the dry islands in the east (Maui and Hawai’i) relied mainly on dry-land field systems with short-fallow shift- ing cultivation, producing (with the help of careful mulching) , yams, dry-land taro, bananas, sugar cane, and gourds (Ladefoged, Graves and McCoy 2003:924). The islands in the west (Kaua’i, O’ahu, Moloka’i, and west- ern Maui) based their food production mainly on irrigated taro fields (Kirch 1994:253). One of the consequences of these differences was that food produc- tion in the eastern islands demanded much labour, while expansion of pro- duction was difficult. Intensification led to an ever-diminishing size of fields (Ladefoged, Graves and McCoy 2003:932-3; Kirch 1994:259) and demanded an ever-growing labour input, while expansion of the agricultural area was only possible if land of poor quality was cultivated. The western islands, on the contrary, could relatively easily expand irrigated areas, and intensify produc- tion (Spriggs and Kirch 1992:118-64). These differences in production between the two parts of the archipelago lay at the root of many political tensions, wars of conquest, and plunder, during which rulers of the poorer eastern societies repeatedly tried to subjugate the richer neighbouring islands (for an overview see Kirch 1994; Sahlins 1972:141-8). At the time of contact, the population of the archipelago is estimated at 300,000 (Sahlins 1992:4; Van Bakel 1989:87). Estimates of the amount of arable land vary. Kirch (1984:98) estimates 10%, other scholars suggest higher figures. The percentage of 20% given by Carter (1981:205) seems reasonable in view of the sizeable population that produced not only sufficient food for themselves, but also considerable surpluses to maintain the large superstructure of chiefs, priests, temples, armies, and fleets. This would mean about 3,200 km² of arable land, and an average of 94 persons per km². The arable land was care- fully planted and many of the early visitors testify to the intensity and quality of Hawai’ian agriculture. Cook (1967:269) describes wet taro production, King (1967:521, 608) describes irrigated terraces enclosed by dikes on which taro was planted, and, interestingly, Samwell (1967:1166), Cook’s surgeon’s mate, wrote that taro was planted on dry soil. Vancouver (1801, I:240), who arrived

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 237 in the Hawai’ian archipelago in 1792, gives detailed descriptions of irrigated taro fields at Oahu. Campbell (1818:95, 106), who resided in Oahu for several years, praises the well-kept taro fields, and the Russian navigator Kotzebue (1821, II:29) describes in almost lyrical words the irrigated taro fields of Oahu. Though agricultural production was high, there are indications that at the time of contact some pressure on production existed, as appears from the fact that on the eastern islands soil of rather poor quality was in use (Ladefoged, Graves and McCoy 2003:937; Kirch 1984:191). The increasing number of arti- ficial fish ponds along the coast (Tuggle 1979:172, 175; Ellis 1831, IV:18; Kirch 1994:253, 264) also suggests food scarcity. The basic unit of production was the household, which had at its disposal a narrow strip of land covering the ecological diversity of the region as it reached in principle from the coast till deep inland, where the formed its border (Sahlins 1992:17-20). Such a strip was called ahupua’a and ‘included within its boundaries a wide range of natural resources and agricultural opportunities’ (Sahlins 1992:19). The staple food, apart from fish and shellfish, was taro, mainly from the irrigated terraces, along with sweet potatoes and yams from dry fields (Campbell 1818:106; Malo 1971:42-7). At the head of the extensive administrative hierarchy stood the ali’i nui, the sacred ruler. He was ‘considered the personal representative, as well as a direct descendant, of the gods on earth’ and ‘it was natural that he owned all the land with all living things upon it’ (Wichman 2003:54). He was assisted by the kalai moku, a sort of prime minister, and a host of lower-ranking ali’i. The kalai moku divided up the island into districts, moku, which were admin- istered by lower-ranking ali’i. Below these stood a number of supervisors, or konohiki, who were in charge of smaller areas, and finally there were the fami- lies, controlled by family heads. An extensive body of rules and regulations prescribed the unequal distribution of food and goods, so that notables could live in luxury (Campbell 1818:126-33; Sahlins 1972:145-7; Kirch 1994:265, 1984:191; Van Bakel 1991:265-75). All land was considered the property of the paramount, the ali’i nui, even if he was a usurper. All land was redistributed after a new ruler came to power (Van Bakel 1994). The followers of the ruler, even if they were of ali’i rank, had only usufructuary rights to land. When the follower lost his position he also lost the land, for this was connected with the position. The commoners, the maka’ainana, had no rights to land at all; they just worked it. In return they were entitled to one third of the produce. The remainder was collected as taxes. Apart from the levies of food and goods, commoners also had to contribute labour for the chiefs, the priests, or the temples (Handy 1965:38; Malo 1971:63-7; Kolb 1994). As everywhere in Polynesia, the social and political system was based on a kinship ideology in which primogeniture, distance to the oldest line of descent, and seniority determined everybody’s place in society – the structure

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 238 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel formerly called ramage (Davenport 1969) or conical clan (Kirch 1984:31-6) – and according to Kirch and Green (2001:201-5) nowadays called a House society. Though initially encompassing all inhabitants, in practice every island had its own branch of the family, and, when population increased, this unit split into a number of sub-Houses. Though formerly there were kinship con- nections between the notables and the commoners, these ties were broken – as was the case in Tonga and Tahiti. The repeated replacement of the original notables by followers of a new paramount severed all connections between the two categories. Considerations of rank and status were no longer of inter- est to the common people; only ari’i families retained an interest in calculating their place in the status hierarchy (Van Bakel 1989:97; Malo 1971:52-62).

E. Marquesas Islands This archipelago is situated in the southern half of the Pacific Ocean, between 7o50’ and 10o35’ South and between 138o25’ and 149o50’ West. The group consists of ten larger volcanic islands and some smaller ones. The biggest island is , covering about 330 km². Well known is Tahuata, mentioned by Cook and the Duff missionaries as Cristina Island, where they anchored in Resolution Bay. The total land area of the islands is estimated at 1,000 km² (Carter 1981:165; Rolett 1998:22). ‘The Marquesas are characterized by steeply sloping valleys, separated by sharp ridges, with no coastal plain and very little level ground’ (Rolett 1998:40). The lack of offshore coral reefs leaves the windward coastline exposed to constant heavy surf, making social contact by sea difficult. Annual rainfall is highly variable, leading regularly to periods of prolonged drought. The islands are thus fairly inaccessible, and the high mountain ridges seriously hamper contact between the inhabitants of the separated valleys, a situation described in lively detail by Herman Melville (1959) and Edward Robarts (1974). There are various estimates of the number of inhabitants at the time of Cook’s visit in 1774. It is said that Cook estimated 100,000 people, but this state- ment is not traceable in Cook’s journal; the estimate, however, is mentioned in passing by Johann Reinhold Forster (1996:151) in his Observations. Many schol- ars take this unsubstantiated estimate as a point of departure in discussing the demographic aspects of the Marquesas (Suggs 1963:53; Kirch 1991:124; Rolett 1998:19). Nowadays a moderate estimate of 35,000 people is accepted (Kirch 1984:98; Van Bakel 1989:114-8), but recently a higher number of people has been defended (Kirch 1991:124). In our discussion we use the number 35,000, which means an average population density (in 1774) of 35 per km². As, however, ara- ble land is estimated by Vincendon-Dumoulin and Desgraz (1843:198) at about 25%, this implies that the average number of inhabitants per km² of arable land was about 140, a rather high figure. On the basis of archaeological research, Robert Suggs (1960:112) states that the Ancestral Polynesians arrived here from Hawaiki in one long leap

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 239 some 2,000 years ago. This started the Settlement Period, which ended about 100 AD. Rolett (1998:250), who recently conducted archaeological fieldwork in Hanamiai on Tahuata, near Resolution Bay, suggests a slightly different periodization, and questions Suggs’s data. The tables presented by Rolett (1998:51, 54, 56) make clear, however, that the early date of colonization pro- posed by Suggs falls within the range of probability. There is thus no objec- tion to hypothesizing an early occupation. In this case the Marquesas Islands ‘are a plausible source of Hawaiian settlement’ (Irwin 1992:75). Interesting data are presented by Rolett on changes in the original flora and fauna of the islands after the arrival of human predators. The deforesta- tion of the island landscapes exposed the hillside to rainsplash erosion (Rolett 1998:8). The existing environment was changed considerably by the introduction of the breadfruit tree and other trees, while increasing farming in the form of shifting cultivation entailed repeated burning of secondary growth, leading to extensive erosion (Rolett 1998:9). The fauna was heavily damaged too; turtles became nearly extinct and many shared their fate (Rolett 1998:11). Such changes made an increase in food production necessary, and this contributed further to the devastation of the original environment. All early visitors agree that the Marquesans were diligent agriculturalists, who made intensive use of all available land. Taro cultivation was limited, and according to the missionary Thomson (1980:17) it ‘grows large, but is eaten only in seasons of ’). Robarts, who describes several meals on festive occasions, only once mentions taro being included. The main food was provided by the breadfruit tree. Most of the fruit is stored in pits where it ferments. The fermented breadfruit can be preserved for several years. Robarts (1974:246) also mentions the cultivation of yams, plantains, coconuts, and sweet potatoes (see also Kirch 1991:128). One problem is that cultivation of the breadfruit tree cannot be intensified, for each tree requires a large area of vegetation-free soil, which was relatively scarce. Moreover, the cleared area around each tree made serious erosion inevitable. Breadfruit trees are vulnerable to extended periods of drought, and during wars enemies tried to destroy the trees by ringing the bark. All in all, the food situation in the Marquesas Islands was precarious: arable land was limited, droughts occurred repeatedly, and the damaging of breadfruit trees by enemies all contributed to periods of scarcity, and even hunger. This situation had seri- ous consequences for the socio-political structure. Initially, leadership in the islands was in the hands of hereditary chiefs, who occupied this position on account of their place in the descent system: first-born sons of first-born sons. In contrast to other Polynesian societies, ‘the ritual prerogatives of the chiefs had been usurped by the inspirational and shamanistic priests, the tau’a ’ (Kirch 1991:125). Thomas (1990:108) suggests that stronger shamans were found with weaker chiefs and vice versa. Van

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 240 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel

Bakel (1989:202-4) links the decline and loss of power of chiefs to the difficul- ties of producing a surplus; the chief was not in a position to hand out much food or other valuables, certainly no more so than other notables in the area. The development of the institution of the ‘secondary husband’ or pekio is perhaps connected with this situation. In exchange for sexual services of the wife of the landholder, additional manpower could be added to the chiefly household (Thomas 1990:79-82; compare Robarts 1974:269-71). There is more, however. It is clear that the chief was not able to fulfil the cosmic obligations he had inherited as a descendant of a deified ancestor (Thomas 1990:29-31; Claessen 2000b). In that capacity his obligation was to use his sacred powers to ensure fertility, abundance, and safety. Where the chief inevitably failed – must fail, given the Marquesan situation – to fulfil the expectations of his followers, the ambitious shaman stepped in and, as time went on, the chiefs lost their ritual status to the shamans or tau’a (Kirch 1991; Thomas 1990:121). It seems, moreover, that the chief also lost his role of war leader to militant, experienced fighters, or toa (Kirch 1991:126). And so the Marquesas Islands became the impoverished archipelago with endemic warfare that was found and described by early European voyagers.

F. Atolls Atolls are small, low-lying coral islands. Most atolls in the Pacific are situated in , but Polynesia has some as well. The largest concentrations of atolls here are the Tuamotu Islands, discovered by Schouten and Le Maire in 1616,10 and the , which were successively discovered by vari- ous voyagers. The Cook atolls form two distinct groups, a northern and a southern one (Kennedy 1968:26). We will concentrate here on Pukapuka in the Northern Cook Islands, which was discovered by the Spanish voyager Mendaña in 1595 (Beaglehole 1966:68). Pukapuka consists of three small islands, having a total area of 5.06 km², situated around a large lagoon. The islands are highly productive, due in part to rainfall of more than 250 cm per year. The season from May to September is relatively dry, but severe droughts are uncommon (Alkire 1978:86). For food, inhabitants depended on several types of taro, coconuts, and fish. On occasions when taro was scarce, they relied on coconuts and fish only (Alkire 1978:88; Barrau 1971). Population was concentrated in three villages. The land was held by descent groups (Houses) and administered by the head of the family. The usual land parcel was a strip extending from the lagoon all the way to the ocean side of an , so that each family had access to all the available soil types. Additionally there were a number of communal

10 they mention, among others, Honden Eylandt ( Island) and Vlieghen Island (Rangiroa) (Engelbrecht and Van Herwerden 1945, I:47, 50, 173, 177). Roggeveen (1838:138) passed by here too, in 1722. The Kon Expedition ended on the reefs of Raroia (Danielsson 1956).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 241 taro gardens, which were carefully marked off and well guarded. As taro needs moist soil, it was usually planted on atolls in sunken taro pits, filled with plant material and fertilized with leaves and ferns (Barrau 1971:21, 26, 28; Alkire 1978:26-31). The number of inhabitants varied considerably over the course of time. Sometimes severe tropical storms or tidal waves swept the islands, during which great numbers of people lost their lives. Under ‘normal’ circumstances the atoll was densely populated. Estimates vary from more than 1,000 in the seventeenth century to 760 in 1974 by Alkire (1978:86-8) and 800 in 1964 by Kennedy (1968:26). Taking a conservative estimate of 750 people, this means an average of 150 per km². Pukapuka was thus densely populated, more so than many other atolls.11 According to Sahlins (1958:92-6, 230-4, based on the 1938 by Ernest and Pearl Beaglehole), the system of social stratification of Pukapuka consisted of two levels: the chiefs and the subchiefs, who were the heads and subheads of the lineages or kainga, divided into patrilocal extended families and households, and on the lower level the commoners. The upper level did not have control over economic and regulatory processes. Much influence rested with the elders (tupele). Admission to this group was open to all men of advanced years. In practice all adult men participated in the regulation of village affairs (Sahlins 1958:92). Most of the production was undertaken by, and regulated within, households. Certain activities were carried out on a village-wide or island-wide scale, or by age groups within the community (Sahlins 1958:93). It is interesting that the chiefs were not supported by the rest of the population in the form of taxes or tribute. This did not prevent them from receiving gifts from other households, but they had to live largely on their private means (Lambert 1966). According to Goldman (1970:382-90) the Pukapukan status system shows similarities with Western Polynesian systems, which in view of the spread of the Polynesians from west to east seems not too far-fetched an idea. Chiefship was inherited in the male line. Primogeniture played an important role in all matters of inheritance. There was no formal ranking of descent lines, although only certain patrilineages held claims to aliki titles (Goldman 1970:383). The aliki of one of the lineages was considered chief of the island, but, according to Sahlins (1958:233), this system seems to have developed only after a tidal

11 To give some examples: Manihiki (also in the Cook Islands) had 550 residents or 95 per km²; Rakahanga (also in the Cook Islands) had 330 persons on 3.9 km², or 85 per km². Tongareva had 15 km² and 610 inhabitants, an average of 40 per km² (data based on Alkire 1978). Elsewhere the popu- lation numbers were different. Raroia (Tuamotu’s) in 1950 had 109 residents on 21 km² of which only half could be used, averaging 11 persons per km² (Danielsson 1956). The Islands consisted of three atolls, (4 km²), Atafu (3.5 km²), and Nukunonu (4.7 km²). For the early nineteenth century, the population is estimated at 1,000, an average of 82 per km², while in 1971 the population was about 1,600, an average of 131 per km² (Huntsman and Hooper 1996:19-20, 36-9).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 242 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel wave had decimated other lineages. After assuming the title of aliki, the chief acquired some power and became associated with the ensuring of prosperity and long life. Several tapu were connected with his person. All in all, the Pukapukan socio-economic system shows many similarities with the APC as developed in the Tonga-Samoa area. In Pukapuka, however, many of these traits were found on a more modest scale, mainly due to the limitations of the atoll environment.

G. This small archipelago consists of the main island Mangareva and some smaller ones surrounding it. The archipelago is situated at 23o28’ South and 134o35’ West, on the fringes of the tropics. Only the four larger islands are permanently inhabited and cultivated, and surrounded by a wide lagoon. The archipelago was first seen and described by the Duff missionaries, who named the group the .12 In their opinion the islands were extremely deforested and poor. The origin of the colonizers, who arrived in the ninth century AD, has not been archaeologically documented. Some scholars (Buck 1938) consider the Tuamotu Islands a probability. There are reasons to assume that Mangareva was part of an ‘external communication network for hundreds of years after their colonization’ (Weisler 1996:627). To this network belonged the , but contacts came to an end when Pitcairn lost its population (Irwin 1990:93). Isolation and poverty seem to be suitable terms to characterize the Mangarevan situation. The first European to land at Mangareva was Captain Beechy in1825 (Van Bakel 1989:25). Some years later, in 1834, French missionaries arrived, who after that time dominated life on Mangareva. The missionary Honoré Laval (1938), who lived here for more than 35 years, wrote after his banish- ment to Tahiti an extensive ethnography of Mangareva and a history of the mission there. His ethnography is the basis of Buck’s well-known Ethnology of Mangareva, which also appeared in 1938. After a careful comparison, Van Bakel concludes that the two works are similar in essence, and the same holds for the ethnography said to have been written in 1935 by V.F. Janeau, who in fact merely translated the Mangarevan translation of Laval’s work into French.13 There is thus no reason to consider Buck’s book as a kind of salvage ethnography, or Janeau’s as an original work (Van Bakel 1987). After a serious epidemic, Laval in 1835 counted about 2,100 inhabitants. Taking this number as a point of departure, a population of 2,500 in the early nineteenth century seems a reasonable estimate (Van Bakel 1989:28, 30). The

12 Wilson 1799:118. There are unfounded rumours that the Spanish voyager De Quiros saw Mangareva in 1606. De Quiros, however, was never near this island (Van Bakel 1989:24). 13 V.F. Janeau, ‘Archipel des Gambiers’, 1935, in: Archives of Congregatio Sanctorum Cordium Jesu et Mariae (SSCC), Rome.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 243 land area of the archipelago is estimated at 28 km². Only 10 km² is cultivable, however. These figures yield a very high population density of 250 people per km² of arable land. Small wonder that poverty dominated life on Mangareva. ‘The island of Mangareva exhibits an extreme degree of human-induced deforestation, with the entire interior covered in savannah.’ (Kirch 1984:141, 1994:226.) The most important food crop was breadfruit. The pro- duction of breadfruit cannot be intensified, however. The breadfruit tree needs a lot of open space around its trunk, such that the soil under the trees cannot be used for growing other plants. Breadfruits are mostly stored in large pits, during which a process of fermentation takes place. The resulting paste can be kept for years. The whole process was supervised by the chiefs, who also distributed some of the stored food in times of hunger (Kirch 1984:134). Kirch (1984:171) mentions taro here as being of minor importance, but there are indications of small irrigated taro fields in the alluvial basins of the valley bot- toms (Kirch 1994:309). As the staple food, breadfruit was mainly in the hands of the notables; commoners had to bargain for breadfruit, which they got in exchange for fish. Additionally there were coconuts, which grew abundantly in the valleys. were relatively rare on Mangareva, and there were no pigs, though in the past pigs had lived here; pigs appear to have disappeared or been eliminated at some point from the subsistence system. Like all other Polynesian societies, that of Mangareva was organized in Houses, which were ideologically patrilineal. The chiefs of the Houses, the togo’iti, formed a hereditary from which the commoners, the urumanu, were strictly separated, though originally no strict separation had existed. Among togo’iti the competition for power was fierce, leading Goldman (1970) to classify Mangareva among his ‘open societies’ (Kirch 1994:309 uses this category, too), in which status rivalry was the main charac- teristic. All headmen competed to gain the high title of akariki. Till the mid- sixteenth century the bearer of this title was a kind of primus inter pares, but then Apeiti, the headman of , succeeded in uniting the whole archi- pelago under his rule. From then on there was only one akariki, who ruled all togo’iti (Laval 1938:138). Notwithstanding this ‘overlordship’, the position of togo’iti was rather independent, especially towards their urumanu, who were heavily exploited by them. Because of the mountainous terrrain of the islands, with only small nar- row valleys and no permanent water streams, residence and cultivation were mainly around the little bays along the coast (Laval 1938:285). This mode of living created isolation, for the members of the various groups could not eas- ily contact each other. The togo’iti were the owners of the land, though occa- sionally a deserving functionary, a priest, a fighter, or an artisan did receive a small piece of land as a remuneration (Laval 1938:121). For commoners without rights to land there existed only obligations towards their lord. They

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 244 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel produced his food and caught his fish. In practice they could barter with him for food in exchange for their surplus fish. According to Sahlins (1958:268), ‘Fish abound, especially in the inner lagoon. The coral were used as camps for easy access to fishing grounds. The reefs provide shellfish.’

H. Rapa This small island, together with some small uninhabited rocks, is situated at 27o37’ South and 144o20’ West, just outside the tropics. The dimensions are about 6.5 by 9 km, and the land area is 39 km² (Hanson 1970:6). The island consists of a volcanic crater of which the eastern side has broken down, leaving a central bay as a sheltered harbour. The highest peak of the central mountain range is the Perahu, at 633 m. From this centre many ridges fan out, ending at the ocean coast, sometimes in cliffs several hundreds of metres high. In between these ridges lie small valleys with steep sides, watered by perma- nent streams. According to Hanson (1970:16) about 5 to 8 km² is relatively flat land suitable for taro cultivation. As, however, the number of inhabitants at the time of discovery is estimated by Oliver (2002:33) to have been 1,500, and Hanson (1970:661) emphasizes a relatively good food situation, it seems prob- able that the actual amount of arable land must then have been larger, and may have been something approaching half the area of the island, let us say 15 km². In that case the average number of people per km² of arable land would have been about 100. The cultivation of taro in ‘pond fields’ was the main farming activity, and every suitable spot was in use. The villages were built on the mountain ridges so that no arable land would be lost. An important contribution to the food supply was made by fishery, while birds’ eggs found on the cliffs formed an important supplement to the diet (Hanson 1970:80-1). The island was discovered in 1791 by Vancouver, who gave a short descrip- tion but did not land here (Van Bakel 1989:141). Apart from a number of brief visits by missionaries and traders, there were no visitors who stayed for a longer period of time. Our knowledge of Rapa is therefore rather fragmen- tary, until the visits of the missionary Caillot in the early twentieth century, the anthropologists Stokes (in 1921) and Hanson (in 1964), and the archaeolo- gists of the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition (in 1956), who studied the forts (Hanson 1970). About the early colonization of the island not much is known; guesses vary from AD 850 to AD 1300 (Van Bakel 1989:148). The socio-political structure of Rapa was based on the House (called ramage by Hanson 1970, and by Stokes 1930). A distinction was made between ‘tribe’, ‘clan,’ and ‘family’. The term ‘tribe’ was used for the population of one bay or valley. This was also the political unit, encompassing no more than one village in a hill fort high on a mountain range (see drawing by Kirch 1984:214). The Rapan forts number about twenty-five, and are distributed over the island, occupying elevated points along the central mountain crest (Kirch 1984:212; Hanson 1970:23-

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 245

6). The ‘tribe’ was divided into a number of lineages, local groups living on the land of the founder of the lineage (Hanson 1970:21). Ideologically they were all descendants of this founder, but in practice everybody who was accepted in the group was considered to be a member. The lineage was divided into a number of families (households or extended families). The lineage was agamous: its members could marry within as well as outside the lineage (Hanson 1970:19). Genealogical seniority formed the basis of status and leadership. Socially the people of Rapa were divided into three tiers: the , or chiefly families, thehui ragatira, the landholders, and the kio, who were landless – a division resembling the Tahitian structure. The social difference between the tiers was mainly a mat- ter of status; differences in power were small. The kio were the youths who did not yet own taro terraces. They were certainly not slaves, but did have to work hard for the household to which they belonged. Though there are indications of increasing political centralization in pre- historic times, at the time of discovery (and long afterwards) the villages in the hill forts were independent units. Tensions between the villages were high, and there were frequent wars between them. These wars were never very successful, for none of the villages was able to conquer the strong forts of other villages. The damage incurred by such wars was usually limited to destruction of the taro fields of the other party, making prisoners of war, or just taking food. All this was connected to the scarcity of suitable land. In 1887 Rapa became a French protectorate (Van Bakel 1989:150-1).

I. Easter Island Easter Island, or Rapa Nui, lies at the furthest possible distance from the original Polynesian homeland, a tiny speck in an immense ocean at 27o South and 109o25’ West. The earliest settlers arrived here well before AD 1000. Kirch (1984:267) suggests some time after 600, and Van Tilburg (1994:43) thinks ‘before 800 AD’. The date of discovery by Europeans is well established: Easter, 5 April 1722 (Roggeveen 1838:101). The impressive statues notwithstanding, the Dutch visitors considered the islanders poor. They identified one of them as a kind of ‘king’ or ‘headman’ (Roggeveen 1838:109, 118). Cook (1969:339-45), visiting Easter Island some fifty years later, confirmed that the people were very poorly equipped. The king or headman had lost the remnants of his sta- tus, and the majority of the statues had been toppled. Lapérouse (1987:49-64) in 1786, however, painted a slightly more favourable picture of the inhabitants. The island has an area of about 160 km², with rolling hills and higher vol- canic cones. There are no permanent streams, and most rainfall sinks directly into the porous volcanic soil (Kirch 1984:264; McCall 1994:36). Raising of taro, sweet potato, yams, bananas, and sugar cane was possible. The breadfruit tree is not found here because of climatic conditions, the island lying just outside the tropics. The lack of a fringe reef seriously limited fishery. Estimates of the

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Illustration 4. Engraving representing inhabitants of Easter Island, stone statues, and French visitors (by an unknown artist) (De Lapérouse 1987:54-5)

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Illustration 4. Engraving representing inhabitants of Easter Island, stone statues, and French visitors (by an unknown artist) (De Lapérouse 1987:54-5)

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 248 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel number of inhabitants about AD 1500 vary between 10,000 (McCall 1994:17) and 7,000 and 9,000 (Van Tilburg 1994:52). An average of 8,000 thus seems reasonable. With such a population it would have been a struggle to feed and house all the people. It is estimated that before 1500 more than half of the island, or about 100 km², was in use for agriculture, which would mean an average of 80 people per km² of arable land (data from Oliver 2002:32, slightly adapted). According to the archaeologists McCoy (1979), Van Tilburg (1994), and McCall (1994), there was a serious decline in amount of arable land after 1500, connected with overexploitation and worsening of the climate, resulting in a serious decrease in number of inhabitants. According to McCoy (1979:142) the population at the time of Roggeveen’s arrival probably did not exceed 3,000, and may even have been less. In the words of Thomas (2003:222), sum- marizing the situation found by Cook: ‘The land appeared barren, the people were relatively few, their gardens small, their houses rudimentary and the place generally destitute of provisions’. It is difficult to guess the area of arable land at that time. In 1786 Lapérouse (1987:58) estimated that only 10% of the land (16 km²) was in use, the remainder being too poor to till. If this is correct, it would mean no less than 187 persons per km². Given the poor quality of the soil, this number seems too high. Perhaps more of the land was in use than Lapérouse thought, or the number of inhabitants was lower. Initially the social organization of Rapa Nui was rather complex. The French anthropologist Métraux (1965) published the first reliable data, based on inter- views, and an analysis of the traditions. In his view there were two large con- federations of descent groups (clans? ramages? houses?), each occupying one of the extremities of the island (Métraux 1965:132-3). These views form the basis of many recent publications. According to McCall (1994:33) the two groups, Tu’uaro and Hotuiti, were competitors, but also marriage partners. ‘A man’s wife was his opponent’s sister, and his sister kept house for his enemy.’ This del- icate relationship was characterized by war as well as by trade and cooperation, and especially joint ceremonies, the most important being the erection of a large statue on its platform or ahu( Esen-Bauer 1989:87-108). Considering the size of the island and of the population, the number of these statues is staggering. In a survey Van Tilburg (1993:89) arrives at a total of 886 monolithic statues, no less than 269 of which were successfully transported to their ahu locations. The creation of these was ruinous for the environment. Increasingly the original forests and scrub vegetation were cleared, exposing the land to erosion and loss of the precious soil mantle. At the same time soil moisture was reduced, the evaporation rate increased, and existing taro fields were subjected to strong winds. Loss of forests also meant a shortage of wood; canoes no longer could be built, resulting in decreased fishing opportunities. As a consequence of the deteriorating demographic and economic situa- tion, people lost faith in their sacred leaders, who, because of their supposed

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 249 relationship with the gods and forefathers, were expected to ensure fertility and prosperity (Thomas 1990:28-33; compare the situation of the Marquesas Islands). After some time they were replaced bymatatoa , or war leaders, who, as a kind of big men, took over government (Van Tilburg 1994:87-90). ‘Intertribal conflict, the seizure of land and property by stronger groups from the weaker, and the enslavement of conquered groups were the outcome of this situation of an over-populated, deteriorating ecosystem.’14 In this way the poverty-ridden Easter Island, as seen and described by eighteenth-century visitors, came into being. It is not clear, however, who the leaders were that Roggeveen, Cook, and Lapérouse met. They may have been impoverished descendants of the former paramount rulers, or perhaps some of the big men.

Discussion

It is now possible to look for answers to the question of how the Ancestral Polynesian Culture (APC) developed into the variety of forms described in the case studies. It seems reasonable to assume that the original settlers brought with them the culture of their island(s) of departure. Here a caveat is in order. The settlers who left from Tonga or Samoa a long time ago certainly took with them the APC in its original form. However, those who departed in later years from colonized islands (such as the Marquesas or Tahiti) most probably took with them a culture that had already been modified by new surroundings, though it is not possible to say precisely what those changes were. The fact that a distinction can be made between the cultures of Western and Eastern Polynesia indicates that changes had taken place. Burrows (1940:325 ) was one of the first scholars to distinguish between a Central and a Western culture area in Polynesia. This distinction has been accepted and elaborated on by many scholars (Goldman 1970:581-4; Kirch 1984:25-8). Some of the differences will be mentioned here. In Eastern Polynesia traditions tell of a certain distant home- land, Hawaiki, from where their forefathers had come. These traditions are not found in the Tonga-Samoa area (see pp. 227-32; see also Buck 1960:296). Priests were well organized in groups and played a great role in Eastern Polynesia, while in Western Polynesia their influence and organization were far less developed (Kirch 1984:64; Valeri 1985; Claessen 1995; Douaire-Marsaudon 1998). In Hawai’i and Tahiti large temple complexes were erected, the marae (Oliver 1974; Kirch 1984; Kolb 1994), while in Tonga the malae was only a green, a lawn, where meetings were held (Gifford 1929; Douaire-Marsaudon 1998). On the other hand, everywhere in Polynesia large stone structures are found, such as the langi and faitoka , and the Ha’amonga-a-Maui in the Tonga Islands (Burley 1998), the stone forts and platforms in Tonga and Samoa (Mariner

14 Kirch 1984:274, 1994:278; McCoy 1979:159-61; see, however, McCall 1994:43, who holds that ‘severe feuding was rare’.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Downloaded fromBrill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM

Illustration 5. The Afiatookas of Futtafaihe at Mooa in Tongataboo. These are memorial stones for the tui tonga, via freeaccess near the residence of Lapaha on Tongatapu. Nowadays they are called faitoka. (Wilson 1799:284-5.) Theme and variations 251

1819; Herdrich and Clark 1993; Clark 1996), raised platforms for houses in the Marquesas Islands (Thomas 1990), the hill forts at Rapa (Hanson 1970), and the platforms and statues of Easter Island (Esen-Baur 1989; Van Tilburg 1993, 1994). Another difference between west and east is that secret societies such as the Tahitian areoi and the kaeoi in the Marquesas Islands are found only in Eastern Polynesia, and the same holds for the ceremonial role played by the feather girdles in Hawai’i and the Society Islands (Rose 1978; Claessen 1995). Neither feather girdles nor secret societies played a role in Western Polynesia. These differences may have been occasioned by minor differences between groups of early migrants that were further developed in their new surround- ings, from which they were exported to newly discovered islands. For quite some time regular contacts existed between the islands, though these seem to have been limited to certain areas (Claessen 1988; Sand 1993; Burley 1998; Cachola-Abad 1993). These contacts had diminished considerably by the time of the arrival of Europeans (Sharp 1957; Irwin 1992). The case studies show that the culture of the Polynesians did not change fundamentally after having colonized distant islands. It is true that, certainly in the first years after their arrival in new surroundings, settlers mercilessly exploited the new environments. Archaeological finds demonstrate that the local flora and fauna were destroyed to such an extent that settlers soon had to fall back on the traditional food they had brought with them from Hawaiki: taro, , , and breadfruit, supplemented with fish, shellfish, chick- ens, and pigs. Another caveat is in order. Not everywhere was it possible to use the traditional plants. For example, in some places the breadfruit tree was lacking because of unfavourable climatic conditions, such as on Easter Island. Elsewhere, taro growth was hampered by lack of suitable water (Marquesas Islands). On the atolls, taro was planted in sunken pits, which demanded a lot of labour. In the Hawai’ian Islands irrigation works enlarged the area for wet taro considerably, while elsewhere in this archipelago the area for dry-land taro was extended greatly (Kirch 1994; Ladefoged, Graves and McCoy 2003). Fishing and collecting shellfish were found everywhere, though in Easter Island these activities were limited by lack of a lagoon and suitable canoes. Broadly speak- ing, one cannot but conclude that – with local adaptations – the economic situa- tion of Polynesians in their new homes was fairly similar to that in Hawaiki. Crucial ideological notions remained the same. Gods were found every- where, though in Western Polynesia it was mainly the god Tangaloa who was revered, while in Eastern Polynesia a score of other gods emerged in addi- tion, such as Kane, Lono, and Ku (in the Hawai’ian orthography), who were revered on many islands, be it in varying characterizations (Kirch and Green 2001:213-5; Valeri 1985; Oliver 1974; compare Douaire-Marsaudon 1998). The latest of the gods to emerge was possibly the Ra’iatean god Oro, who migrated to Tahiti in the early eighteenth century, where efforts to secure the ‘original’

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 252 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel image and the feather girdles connected with his ritual led to fierce wars (Claessen 1995). The notions of mana, tapu and noa were – though in slightly varying form – found everywhere in Polynesia. The same holds for the socio- political organization. In all case studies the social structure was based on the House, a concept implying a kinship system characterized by primogeniture and seniority. The distance of an individual from the senior line of descent was the criterion for stratification. This notion was found in the APC (Kirch and Green 2001:213-5). The descent of the eldest line was traced back to the first quasi-human deities, and via these to the gods. This linked the chief of the eldest descent group to the world of the gods, and the access of commoners to the deities was mediated by him (Thomas 1990:28-33). In the course of time the kinship structure, especially in the larger, more populous islands, became adapted to the new situation. The former kinship ties between the higher and lower branches of the group became severed, and moreover a non-unilin- ear principle developed by which persons could try to elevate their status by making use of either their father’s or their mother’s line of descent (Goldman 1970:420-8). In some cases the paramount chiefs – the Tongan tui tonga, the Tahitian ari’i rahi, and the Hawai’ian ali’i nui – came near to being considered gods, whereas elsewhere, in the Marquesas Islands and on Easter Island, the sacred chiefs lost their exalted positions, for not being able to live up to the expectations of the people to ensure fertility and prosperity. The deterioration of the environment, combined with too large a population, made it impossible to meet such obligations, and as a consequence the chiefs lost their legitimacy. The position of the chiefs was thus closely connected with fertility and prosperity. Some abundance was needed for a chiefly system to function (as is the case everywhere on earth). Fertile islands, such as Tonga, Tahiti or Hawai’i, could boast of rich, impressive paramount chiefdoms. There are even good reasons to consider these polities as early states (Claessen and Skalník 1978; Van Bakel 1989, 1996; Claessen 2005). There were courts, festivities, ceremoni- als, beautiful costumes, complex retinues, and, of course, a large population of commoners whose hard work made all the luxury possible. To ensure that a large proportion of their production reached government centres, a complex system of lower-ranking functionaries came into being and a police force eventually assisted the tax authorities in fulfilling their lofty duty. Inevitably, smaller islands, with smaller populations and a limited production of food and goods, could not support similar styles of leadership. Developments in the Marquesas Islands and Easter Island where the chiefs lost their position because of a shortage of food and goods speaks volumes. In Mangareva, where the economic situation was also poor, it was only with utmost difficulty that a small number of notables were able to retain some status. Rapa offers the picture of a poor economy and a divided population. None of the ambi- tious war chiefs or headmen could gain the upper hand, as the hill forts of the

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 253 adversaries were impregnable. A status quo thus resulted. That no complex socio-political organization could develop on the atolls is understandable. A small population, limited resources, and tiny islets prevented any serious bid for status and power. Only traces of the traditional kinship structure remained. This leaves us finally with the somewhat enigmatic situation of rich, fertile, and prosperous Samoa. No complex socio-political structure was found here, even though traces of such a structure in the past are recognizable (Clark 1996; Tcherkézoff 1997). In practice, all power lay in the hands of the family matai. This unique situation most probably found its origin in the relatively low population density of the archipelago, and the fact that every Samoan could claim kinship relations with a number of families. When decisions were taken contrary to the wishes of an individual, he or she could leave for another vil- lage and another family to associate with. His or her welcome was assured, for each village had a shortage of people. This possibility of escape prevented the development (or the maintenance) of strong leadership, even though the ideological justifications for a hierarchical structure were available. Population increase also contributed to the destruction of traditional kin- ship ties. The social distance between the higher and the lower members of the descent group in some islands became so large that the once-common marriage relations between them were no longer considered desirable. In Tahiti in this way a distinction developed into ari’i, ra’atira, and manahune. For the ari’i, maintenance of the descent ideology was essential, for it was the properties of this system that decided rank, status, and power. It is possible that higher-ranking ra’atira also retained some interest in these rules, for they were offspring of lower ari’i. For the manahune there was no reason at all to retain ideas of rank and status. This class had neither rank nor status nor power (Claessen 1978). A similar situation developed in the Tonga Islands, where the original ties between the commoners and the chiefs were lost, since again and again favourites of the high chiefs were appointed as village heads, nobles without the least obligation towards villagers (Decktor Korn 1978). Similar developments took place in the Hawai’ian Islands. To explain the developments in Polynesia in evolutionary terms we will use the Complex Interaction Model (explained on pp. 231-3). With respect to the three factors in this model – Ideology, Economy, and Societal Format – the following points can be made: 1. The ideology of the Polynesians in their homeland and in the new set- tlements remained remarkably similar. Some minor changes and adaptations occurred, such as the emergence of additional gods, and the development of temple structures in Eastern Polynesia with the concomitant development of priesthoods. Notions of tapu, mana, and noa were found everywhere. The same holds for the descent system, expressed in the concept of the House. Though in this respect some changes occurred, most of these were related to

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 254 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel adaptations to new circumstances, such as the loss of interest in matters of status among commoners where the descent groups were very large, and the reduced form of the structure on the atolls. 2. The economy remained basically the same as in Hawaiki. After a period during which the new surroundings were seriously damaged (deforestation, slaughter of new species), the settlers had to fall back on traditional food production (taro, yam, breadfruit, coconuts, pigs, chickens, fish). In some cases the environment was too poor (atolls), or unfavourable (outside the tropics) to retain all traditional crops. Broadly speaking, however, there were no essential changes in the Polynesian economy – till the arrival of Europeans (which falls outside the scope of this article). 3. It seems, therefore, that variations in Polynesian culture – and especially in its socio-political aspects – were related mainly to differences in societal format. This factor stands for the number of people in relation to the means of produc- tion and the area of arable land available. The relevant data of the nine cases is summarized here in order of increasing number of people per km² of arable land. Easter Island appears here twice, because of the great differences in the local situation in 1500 and 1800. It should be emphasized that the number of inhabitants per km² of arable land per island is crucial to our argument.

Samoa 3,000 km² arable 900 km², pop. 50,000, pop. per km² arable: 56

Tonga 700 km² arable 600 km², pop. 43,000, pop. per km² arable: 72 Easter I 160 km² arable 100 km², pop. 8,000, pop. per km² arable: 80 Tahiti 1,040 km² arable 416 km², pop. 35,000, pop. per km² arable: 84 Hawai’i 16,600 km² arable 3,200 km², pop. 300,000, pop. per km² arable: 94

Rapa 39 km² arable 15 km², pop. 1,500, pop. per km² arable: 100 Marquesas 1,000 km² arable 250 km², pop. 35,000, pop. per km² arable: 140 Pukapuka 5 km² arable 5 km², pop. 750, pop. per km² arable: 150 Easter II 160 km² arable 16 km², pop. 3,000, pop. per km² arable: 187 Mangareva 28 km² arable 10 km², pop. 2,500, pop. per km² arable: 250

From the data summarized above it appears that Samoa has the lowest average number of people per km² of arable land. This enabled people to escape oppression. The corollary of this was a weakly developed socio- political organization. In the next four cases (Tonga, Easter Island I, Tahiti, Hawai’i) the number of inhabitants per km² of arable land is larger. There was less chance here of finding free land to settle, finding a more hospitable village chief, or other forms of escape. In the Hawai’ian Islands some form of population pressure was felt, but the islands’ resources were sufficiently developed to cover the expenses of the extensive hierarchy. All the islands of this category were ruled by powerful chiefs, and the existence of early states

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 255 here can be established. The average number of people remained well below 100 per km² of arable land. The islands in the next category show great dif- ferences in socio-political organization. Pukapuka has but a small area and a limited number of inhabitants, which makes a more complex socio-political structure impossible to develop. On Rapa no complex socio-political struc- ture emerged because of the division of the population into small independ- ent groups, and none of the headmen succeeded in getting the upper hand over the others. The number of people per km² of arable land is rather high, so that no significant surplus could be produced. The societal format was not favourable to further development. The Marquesas Islands, as well as the later situation on Easter Island, show that too large a number of inhabitants per km² of arable land (far more than 100 per km²) led to exhaustion of the economy and to collapse of the existing socio-political organization. The car- rying capacity of the islands, given the available agricultural techniques, was not sufficient to produce the surplus of food and goods needed to maintain a complex socio-political system. It would thus seem that there are limits connected with the societal format. Below a certain number of people per km² of arable land, the development of strong political leadership seems not to work, as was the case in Samoa. We may call this the lower limit for socio-political development. There seems to also be an upper limit: when the number of people per km² of arable land goes well above this limit, the socio-political organization declines or collapses. Only under exceptional circumstances can this rule be broken, as was the case in Mangareva. Here a well-organized system of terror kept the people in check.15 That the earlier socio-political organization played a large role in develop- ments on the various islands comes clearly to the fore in the case studies. On the one hand the influence of leaders (whether chiefs or priests) was some- times ‘positive’. They stimulated production, defended the people, inter- ceded with the gods for them, and so on. On the other hand their influence was sometimes ‘negative‘, because of the many devastating wars they fought over heredity, status, honour, ideology, and because of their suppression and exploitation of commoners. The application of the Complex Interaction Model thus makes it possible to establish that the evolution of the Polynesian culture in its many variations was occasioned mainly by differences in societal format. One could argue that the differences in socio-political systems were occasioned by economic differences, the production in some islands being too low to develop and maintain a complex socio-political organization. This observation in itself is

15 Outside the Pacific can be found several cases of (early) states that survived well, notwith- standing a limited economic production. In these cases activities such as trade, barter, plunder or conquest were the means for making ends meet, as was the case for instance with the Vikings, the Aztecs, and the realm of Charlemagne (Claessen 2000a).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 256 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel true. The question then is: under what circumstances is an island not able to feed its population or produce a surplus? The above analysis shows that behind the economic shortages lurked the true culprit, namely the equi- librium or disequilibrium between number of people and available square kilometres of arable land (given existing agricultural techniques) – or, as it is called here, the societal format. The view that the Polynesian cultures are variations on a theme is cor- roborated by the findings in this article. They confirm the views formulated some two hundred years ago by Cook, Forster, and Lapérouse (see Thomas 2003:224-8).

References

Unpublished sources

Archives of Congregatio Sanctorum Cordium Jesu et Mariae (SSCC), Rome V.F. Janeau, ‘Archipel des Gambiers’, 1935.

Published sources

Alkire, William H. 1978 Coral islanders. Arlington Heights, Ill.: AHM Publishing. [Worlds of Man, Studies in Cultural Ecology.] Aswani, Shankar and Michael W. Graves 1998 ‘The Tongan maritime expansion; A case in the evolutionary ecology of social complexity’, Asian Perspectives 37:135-64. Babadzan, Alain 1993 Les dépouilles des dieux; Essai sur la religion tahitienne à l’époque de la décou- verte. Paris: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. Bakel, Martin A. van 1986 ‘Early Samoan leadership between ascribed and achieved’, in: Martin A. van Bakel, Renée R. Hagesteijn and Pieter van de Velde (eds), Private politics; A multi-disciplinary approach to ‘big-man’systems, pp. 96-104. - den: Brill. 1987 ‘L’État c’est moi; Vive le roi! De beschikbaarheid van bronnen in de antropologie’, in: H.J.M. Claessen and J.G. Oosten (eds), Bronnen van macht; Over het gebruik van bronnen in het onderzoek naar de vroege staat, pp. 105-22. Leiden: Instituut voor Culturele Antropologie en Sociologie der Niet-Westerse Volken. [ICA Publicatie 78.] 1989 Samen leven in gebondenheid en vrijheid; Evolutie en ontwikkeling in Poly- nesië. PhD thesis, Leiden University. 1991 ‘The political economy of an early state; Hawaii and Samoa com- pared’, in: Henri J.M. Claessen and Pieter van de Velde (eds), Early state economics, pp. 265-90. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. [Political and Legal Anthropology Series 8.]

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 257

1994 ‘Hawaii; Legitimation and elite formation in an early state’, in: Martin A. van Bakel, Renée R. Hagesteijn and Pieter van de Velde (eds), Pivot politics; Changing cultural identities in early state formation processes, pp. 235-46. Amsterdam: Spinhuis. [Festschrift for Henri J.M. Claessen.] 1996 ‘Ideological perspectives of the development of kingship in the early states of Hawaii’, in: Henri J.M. Claessen and Jarich G. Oosten (eds), Ideology and the formation of early states, pp. 321-38. Leiden: Brill. [Studies in Human Society 11.] Bargatzky, Thomas 1985 ‘Wörter, Frauen und Familien; Über einige Probleme bei der Rekon- struktion des traditionellen samoanischen Geselschaftsystems’, Soziolo- gus 35:97-119. 1988 ‘Evolution, sequential hierarchy, and areal integration: the case of tradi- tional Samoan society’, in: John Gledhill, Barbara Bender and Mogens Trolle Larsen (eds), State and society; The emergence and development of social hierarchy and political centralization, pp. 43-56. London: Unwin Hyman. [One World Archaeology 4.] Barrau, Jaques 1971 Subsistence agriculture in Polynesia and Micronesia. New York: Klaus. [Bishop Museum, Bulletin 223.] Beaglehole, John C. 1966 The exploration of the Pacific. Third edition. London: Black. [First edition 1934.] Bligh, William 1988 ‘Journal of his second Voyage’, in: Douglas Oliver (ed.), Return to Tahiti; Bligh’s second breadfruit voyage, pp. 10-271. : University of Hawaii Press. Bott, Elizabeth 1981 ‘Power and rank in the kingdom of Tonga’, The Journal of the 90:7-83. 1982 Tongan society at the time of Captain Cook’s visits; Discussions with Her Maj- esty Queen Salote Tupou. : Polynesian Society. [Memoir 44.] Bougainville, Louis-Antoine de 1966 Voyage autour du monde par la frégate la Boudeuse et la flûte l’Étoile. Présenté par Michel Hérubel. Paris: Union Générale d’Éditions. [First published 1773.] Buck, Peter Henry 1938 Ethnology of Mangareva. Honolulu: Museum. [Bernice P. Bishop Muse- um, Bulletin 157.] 1960 Vikings of the Pacific. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Phoenix Books.] [Originally published as Vikings of the sunrise. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1938.] Burley, David V. 1998 ‘Tongan archaeology and the Tongan past, 2850-150 B.P.’, Journal of World Prehistory 12:337-92. Burrows, Edwin G. 1940 ‘Culture areas in Polynesia’, The Journal of the Polynesian Society 49:349- 63.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 258 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel

Cachola-Abad, C. Kehaunani 1993 ‘Evaluating the orthodox dual settlement model for the ; An analysis of artifact distribution and Hawaiian oral tradi- tions’, in: Michael W. Graves and Roger C. Green (eds), The evolution and organization of prehistoric society in Polynesia, pp. 13-33. Auckland: New Zealand Archaeological Association. Campbell, Archibald 1818 Reize om de wereld in de jaren 1806-12. Amsterdam: Van Kesteren. [Origi- nally published as A voyage around the world from 1806 to 1812. Edin- burgh: Constable, 1816.] Campbell, I.C. 1992 Island kingdom; Tonga ancient and modern. Christchurch: University of Canterbury Press. Carter, J. (ed.) 1981 Pacific Islands yearbook. Fourteenth edition. Sydney/New York: Pacific Publications. Claessen, Henri J.M. 1970 Van vorsten en volken. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam. 1978 ‘Early state in Tahiti’, in: Henri J.M. Claessen and Peter Skalník (eds), The early state, pp. 441-68. The Hague: Mouton. [New Babylon, Studies in the Social Sciences 32.] 1988 ‘Tongan traditions; On model building and historical evidence’, Bijdra- gen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 144:433-44. 1995 ‘The Oro-maro- connection’, in: Dirk A.M. Smidt, Pieter ter Keurs, and Albert Trouwborst (eds), Pacific material culture; Essays in honour of Dr. Simon Kooijman on the occasion of his 80th birthday, pp. 282-92. Leiden: Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde. [Mededelingen 28.] 2000a Structural change; Evolution and evolutionism in cultural anthropology. Leiden: Onderzoekschool voor Aziatische, Afrikaanse en Amerindische Studies (CNWS), Universiteit Leiden. 2000b ‘Ideology, leadership and fertility; Evaluating a model of Polynesian chiefship’, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 156:707-35. 2005 ‘Chiefs and kings in Polynesia’, in: Declan Quigley (ed.), The character of kingship, pp. 233-50. Oxford: Berg. Claessen, Henri J.M. and Jarich G. Oosten (eds) 1996 Ideology and the formation of early states. Leiden: Brill. [Studies in Human Society 11.] Claessen, Henri J.M. and Peter Skalník (eds) 1978 The early state. The Hague: Mouton. [New Babylon, Studies in Social Sciences 32.] Claessen, Henri J.M., M. Estellie Smith and Pieter van de Velde (eds) 1985 Development and decline; The evolution of sociopolitical organization. South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin and Garvey. Claessen, Henri J.M. and Pieter van de Velde (eds) 1987 Early state dynamics. Leiden: Brill. [Studies in Human Society 2.] 1991 Early state economics. New Brunswick: Transaction. [Political and Legal Anthropology Series 8.]

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 259

Clark, Jeffrey T. 1996 ‘Samoan prehistory in review’, in: Janet Davidson, Geoffrey Irwin, , Andrew Pawley and Dorothy Brown (eds), Oceanic culture his- tory; Essays in honour of Roger Green, pp. 445-60. Dunedin: New Zealand Journal of Archaeology. [Special Publication.] Cook, James 1777 A voyage towards the South Pole, and round the world; Performed in His Majesty’s ships the Resolution and Adventure, in the years 1772, 1773, 1774, and 1775. In which is included, Captain Furneaux’s narrative of his proceed- ings in the Adventure during the separation of the ships. Ill. by Hodges, and engraved by the most eminent masters. London: Strahan. Two vols. 1967 ‘Journal’, in: J.C. Beaglehole (ed), The journals of Captain James Cook; The voyage of the Resolution and Discovery, 1776-1780, pp. 1-491. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Hakluyt Society. [Extra Series 36.] 1969 ‘Journal on board of His Majesty’s bark Resolution’, in: J.C. Beaglehole (ed.), The journals of Captain James Cook; The voyage of the Resolution and Adventure, 1772-1775, pp. 1-682. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Hakluyt Society. [Extra Series 35.] Danielsson, Bengt 1956 Work and life on Raroia; An acculturation study from the Tuamotu group, French . London: Allen and Unwin. Danielsson, Bengt and Marie-Thérèse Danielsson 1964 ‘Introduction’, in: Henry Adams, Mémoires d’Arii Taimai. Traduit de l’Anglais par Suzanne et André Lebois, pp. vi-xxiv. Paris: Musée de l’Homme. [Pubications de la Société des Océanistes 2.] Davenport, William 1959 ‘Non-unilineair descent and descent groups’, American Anthropologist 61:557-72. 1969 ‘The “Hawaiian cultural revolution”; Some political and economic con- siderations’, American Anthropologist 71:1-20. Davidson, Janet 1969 ‘Settlement patterns in Samoa before 1840’, The Journal of the Polynesian Society 78:44-82. Davidson, Janet, Geoffrey Irwin, Foss Leach, Andrew Pawley and Dorothy Brown (eds) 1996 Oceanic culture history; Essays in honour of Roger Green. Dunedin: New Zealand Journal of Archaeology. [Special Publication.] Davies, John 1961 The history of the Tahitian mission, 1799-1830. Edited by C.W. Newbury. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Hakluyt Society. [Sec- ond Series 116.] Decktor Korn, Shulamit R. 1978 ‘Hunting the ramage; Kinship and the organization of political author- ity in aboriginal Tonga’, The Journal of Pacific History 13:107-12.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 260 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel

Dentrecasteaux, J.A.B. 1808 Voyage de Dentrecasteaux, envoyé à la recherche de La Pérouse. Publié par ordre de sa Majesté L’Empereur et Roi, sous le Ministère de S.E. le vice-amiral Decrès, comte de l’Empire; rédigé par M. de Rossel, ancien capitaine de vaisseau. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale. Two vols. Douaire-Marsaudon, Françoise 1998 Les premiers fruits; Parenté, identité et pouvoirs en Polynésie occidentale (Tonga, Wallis et Futuna). Paris: Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. [Chemins de l’Ethnologie.] Earle, Timothy 1997 How chiefs come to power; The political economy in prehistory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Ella, S. 1899 ‘The war of Tonga and Samoa and origin of the name Malietoa’, The Journal of the Polynesian Society 8:231-4. Ellis, William 1831 Polynesian researches, during a residence of nearly eight years in the Society and Sandwich Islands. London: Fisher, Son and Jackson. Four vols. Ember, Melvin 1962 ‘Political authority and the structure of kinship in aboriginal Samoa’, American Anthropologist 64:964-71. Engelbrecht, W.A. and P.J. van Herwerden (eds) 1945 De ontdekkingsreis van Jacob Le Maire en Willem Cornelisz. Schouten in de jaren 1615-1617. The Hague: Nijhoff. Two vols. [Werken uitgegeven door de Linschoten-Vereeniging 49.] Esen-Bauer, Heide-Margaret 1989 ‘Megalithische Steinplastiken und monumentale Architektur’, in: H. Esen-Bauer (ed.), 1500 Jahre Kultur der Osterinsel; Schätze aus dem Land des Hotu Matua, pp. 87-108. Mainz: Von Zabern. Farmer, Sarah S. 1855 Tonga and the Friendly Islands; With a sketch of their mission history. Lon- don: London Missionary Society. Finney, Ben 1966 ‘Resource distribution and social structure in Tahiti’, Ethnology 5:80-6. 1979 ‘Voyaging’, in: Jesse D. Jennings (ed.), The prehistory of Polynesia, pp. 323-51. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1996 ‘Putting voyaging back into Polynesian prehistory’, in: Janet Davidson, Geoffrey Irwin, Foss Leach, Andrew Pawley and Dorothy Brown (eds), Oceanic culture history; Essays in honour of Roger Green, pp. 365-76. Dun- edin: New Zealand Journal of Archaeology. [Special Publication.] Firth, Raymond 1957 ‘A note on descent groups in Polynesia’, Man 57:4-8. 1963 We, the ; A sociological study of kinship in primitive Polynesia. Abridged by the author. Boston: Beacon Press. Forster, Georg 1983 Reise um die Welt. Herausgegeben und mit einem Nachwort von Ger- hard Steiner. Frankfurt am Main: Insel. [Insel Taschenbücher 757.] [First published 1771.]

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 261

Forster, Johann Reinhold 1996 Observations made during a voyage around the world. Edited by Nicholas Thomas, Harriet Guest and Michael Dettelbach. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. [First published 1778] Gailey, Christine Ward 1987 Kinship to kingship; Gender, hierarchy and state formation in the Tongan Islands. Austin: University of Texas Press. [Sourcebooks in Anthropol- ogy 14.] Gifford, Edward Winslow 1929 Tongan society. Honolulu: Museum. [Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 61.] Goldman, Irving 1970 Ancient Polynesian society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Golson, Jack (ed.) 1962 ; A symposium on Andrew Sharp’s theory of accidental voyages. Wellington: Polynesian Society. [Polynesian Society Memoir 34.] Gossler, Claus 2005 ‘The social and economic fall of the Salmon/Brander clan of Tahiti’, The Journal of Pacific History 40:193-212. Graves, Michael W. and Roger C. Green (eds) 1993 The evolution and organization of prehistoric society in Polynesia. Auckland: New Zealand Archaeological Association. Green, Roger C. 1967 ‘The immediate origins of the Polynesians’, in: Genevieve A. Highland, Roland W. Force, Alan Howard, Marion Kelly and Yosihiko H. Sinoto (eds), Polynesian culture history; Essays in honor of Kenneth P. Emory, pp. 215-40. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press [Special Publication 56.] 1979 ‘Lapita’, in: Jesse D. Jennings (ed), The prehistory of Polynesia, pp. 27-60. Cambridge, Mass/London: Harvard University Press. Grijp, Paul van der 1993 Islanders of the South; Production, kinship and ideology in the Polynesian kingdom of Tonga. Leiden: KITLV Press [Verhandelingen 154.] Gunson, W. Niels 1975 ‘Tahiti’s traditional history – without Adams?’, The Journal of Pacific His- tory 10:112-7. 1987 ‘Sacred women chiefs and female ‘headman’ in Polynesia’, The Journal of Pacific History 22:139-71. 1990 ‘The Tonga-Samoa connection 1777-1845’, The Journal of Pacific History 25:176-87. Handy, E.S. Craighill 1965 ‘Government and society’, in: E.S. Craighill Handy, Kenneth P. Emory, Edwin H. Bryan, Peter H. Buck, John Wise and others (eds), Ancient Hawaiian ; A series of lectures delivered at the Kamehameha schools. Revised edition, pp. 35-46. Rutland, Vermont/Tokyo: Tuttle. [First edition 1933.]

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 262 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel

Hanson, F. Allan 1970 Rapan lifeways; Society and history on a Polynesian Island. Boston: Little, Brown. [The Little, Brown Series in Anthropology.] Harris, Marvin 1969 The rise of anthropological theory; A history of theories of culture. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Heeren-Palm, Clementine H.M. 1955 Polynesische migraties. Meppel: Boom. [PhD thesis, University of Amster- dam.] Herdrich, David J. and Jeffrey T. Clark 1993 ‘Samoan tia ‘ave and social structure; Methodological and theoretical considerations’, in: Michael W. Graves and Roger C. Green (eds), The evolution and organization of prehistoric society in Polynesia, pp. 52-63. Auckland: New Zealand Archaeological Association. Heyerdahl, Thor 1952 American Indians in the Pacific; The theory behind the Kon-Tiki expedition. London: Allen and Unwin. Holmes, Lowell 1974 Samoan village. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. [Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology.] Huntsman, Judith and Antony Hooper 1996 Tokelau; A historical ethnography. Auckland: Auckland University Press. Irwin, Geoffrey 1990 ‘Human colonization and change in the remote Pacific’, Current Anthro- pology 31:90-4. 1992 The prehistoric exploration and colonisation of the Pacific. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. Jennings, Jesse D. (ed.) 1979 The prehistory of Polynesia. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Johnson, Gregory A. 1982 ‘Organizational structure and scalar stress’, in: Colin Renfrew, Michael J. Rowlands and Barbara Abbott Seagraves (eds), Theory and explanation in archaeology; The Southampton Conference, pp. 389-421. New York/Lon- don: Academic Press. Kaeppler, Adrienne 1971 ‘Rank in Tonga’, Ethnology 10:174-93. Kahn, J.G. and P.V. Kirch 2004 ‘Ethnographie préhistorique d’une ‘société à maisons’ dans la vallée de ‘Opunoku Mo’orea, Iles de la Société)’, Journal de la Société des Océanistes 119:229-56. Kennedy, T.F. 1968 A descriptive atlas of the Pacific Islands; New Zealand, , Polynesia, Melanesia, Micronesia, Philippines. Maps by Julius Petro and Lionel For- sdyke. New York: Praeger. [Books that Matter.]

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 263

King, James 1967 ‘Log and proceedings’, in: J.C. Beaglehole (ed), The journals of Captain James Cook; The voyage of the Resolution and Discovery 1776-1780, pp. 495- 531, 549-69, 603-32, 1361-454. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Hakluyt Society. [Extra Series 36.] Kirch, Patrick Vinton 1984 The evolution of the Polynesian chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. [New Studies in Archaeology.] 1991 ‘Chiefship and competitive involution; The Marquesas Islands of East- ern Polynesia’, in: Timothy Earle (ed.), Chiefdoms; Power, economy, and ideology, pp. 119-45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series.] 1994 The wet and the dry; Irrigation and agricultural intensification in Polynesia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1997 The Lapita peoples; Ancestors of the Oceanic world. Oxford: Blackwell. [The Peoples of South-East Asia and the Pacific.] Kirch, Patrick Vinton and Roger C. Green 1987 ‘History, phylogeny, and evolution in Polynesia’, Current Anthropology 28:431-57. 2001 Hawaiki, ancestral Polynesia; An essay in historical anthropology. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Koch, Gerd 1955 Südsee gestern und heute; Der Kulturwandel bei den Tonganern und ein Versuch einer Deutung dieser Entwicklung. Braunsweich: Limbach. [Kul- turgeschichtliche Forschungen 7.] Kolb, Michael J. 1994 ‘Monumentality and the rise of religious authority in precontact Hawai’i’, Current Anthropology 35:521-48. Kotzebue, Otto von 1821 Entdeckungsreise in die Süd-See und nach der Bering-Straße zur Erfor­ schung einer nordöstlichen Durchfahrt. Unternommen in den Jahren 1815, 1816, 1817 und 1818, auf Kosten Sr. Erlaucht Herrn Reichs-Kanzlers Grafen Rumanzoff auf dem Schiffe Rurick unter dem Befehle des Lieutenants der Rus- sisch-Kaiserlichen Marine. Weimar: Hoffmann. 1830 Nieuwe ontdekkingsreize rondom de wereld in de jaren 1823, 24, 25 en 26 ondernomen door den ridder Otto von Kotzebue. Haarlem: Loosjes. Two vols. Krämer, Augustin 1902-03 Die Samoa Inseln; Entwurf einer Monographie mit besonderer Berücksichti- gung Deutsch-. Stuttgart: Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhand- lung. Two vols. Labillardière, Jaques H.J. de 1800 Relation du voyage à la recherche de La Pérouse, fait par ordre de l’Assemblée Constituante, pendant les années 1791 et 1792, et pendant la 1ère et 2e année de la République française. Paris: Jansen. Two vols.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 264 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel

Ladefoged, Thegn N., Michael W. Graves and Mark D. McCoy 2003 ‘Archaeological evidence for agricultural development in Kohala, Island of Hawai’i’, Journal of Archaeological Science 30:923-40. Lambert, B. 1966 ‘The economic activities of a Gilbertese chief’, in: Marc J. Swartz, Victor W. Turner and Arthur Tuden (eds), Political anthropology, pp. 155-72. Chicago: Aldine. Langdon, Robert 1969 ‘A view on Ari’i Taimai’s memoirs’, The Journal of Pacific History 4:162-6. Lapérouse, Jean-François de 1987 Zu den Klippen von Vanikoro; Weltreise im Auftrag Ludwigs XVI. 1785-1788. Nach Lapérouses Tagebüchern aufgezeichnet von M.L.-A. Milet-Mureau. Übersetzt, bearbeitet und herausgegeben von Klaus Fischer. Stuttgart: Erdmann. [Alte abenteuerliche Reiseberichte.] [First published 1788.] Laval, Honoré 1938 Mangareva; L’histoire ancienne d’un people polynésien. Mémoires ethno- graphiques conservés aux Archives de la Congrégation des Sacrés- Coeurs de Picpu s. Édités et annotés par le Dr Alfred Métraux, et en collaboration avec le R.P. Maurice Desmedt. Préface du Dr. P.H. Buck, Directeur du Bishop Museum d’Honolulu. Braine-le-Comte: Maison des Pères des Sacrés-Coeurs, Paris: Librairie Orientale Paul Geuthner. Lepofsky, D.H., H.C. Harries and M.M. Kellum 1992 ‘Early coconuts on Mo’orea Island, ’, The Journal of the Polynesian Society 101:299-308. Lewis, David 1972 We, the navigators; The ancient art of landfinding in the Pacific. : Australian National University Press. McArthur, Norma 1968 Island populations of the Pacific. Canberra: Australian National Univer- sity Press. McCall, Grant 1994 Rapanui; Tradition and survival on Easter Island. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. McCoy, Patrick C. 1979 ‘Easter Island’, in: Jesse D. Jennings (ed.), The prehistory of Polynesia, pp. 135-66. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Malo, David 1971 Hawaiian antiquities (Moolelo Hawaii). Edited by N.B. Emerson. Hono- lulu: Bishop Museum Press. [Special Publication 2.] Marau Taaroa 1971 Mémoires de Marau Taaroa, dernière reine de Tahiti. Traduits par sa fille la princesse Ariimanihinihi Takau Pomare. Paris: Musée de l’Homme. [Publications de la Société des Océanistes 27.]

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 265

Mariner, William 1819 Nachrichten über die Freundschaftlichen, oder die Tonga-Inseln. Aus den Mitteilungen desselben zusammengetragen und herausgegeben von J. Martin. Weimar: Landes Industrie Comptoir. [Neue Bibliothek der wichtigsten Reisebeschreibungen zur Erweiterung der Erd- und Völkerkunde 20.] Melville, Herman 1959 Typee; A peep at Polynesian life during a four months residence in a valley of the Marquesas. London: Oxford University Press. [The World’s Classics.] [First published 1846.] Métraux, Alfred 1965 L’Ile de Pâques. Paris: Gallimard. Moerenhout, J.A. 1837 Voyages aux îles du Grand Océan; Contenant des documents nouveaux sur la géographie physique et politique, la langue, la littérature, la religion, les moeurs, les usages et les coutumes de leurs habitants: Et des considérations générales sur leur commerce, leur histoire et leur gouvernement, depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu’à nos jours. Paris: Bertrand. Two vols. Morrison, James 1966 Journal de James Morrison; Second maître à bord de la Bounty. Traduit de l’anglais par Bertrand Jaunez. Paris: Musée de l’Homme [Publications de la Société des Océanistes 16.] [First published 1792.] Oliver, Douglas L. 1974 Ancient Tahitian society. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Three vols. 2002 Polynesia in early historic times. Honolulu: Bess Press. Panoff, Michel 1970 La terre et l’organisation sociale en Polynésie. Paris: Payot. Pirie, P. 1972 ‘Population growth in the Pacific islands; The example of West Samoa’, in: R. Gerard Ward (ed.), Man in the Pacific islands; Essays on geographical change in the Pacific islands, pp. 189-218. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pollock, Nancy J. 1996 ‘Rethinking Western Polynesia; ‘Uvea in the early Tongan empire’, in: Janet Davidson, Geoffrey Irwin, Foss Leach, Andrew Pawley and Dor- othy Brown (eds), Oceanic culture history; Essays in honour of Roger Green, pp. 433-44. Dunedin: New Zealand Journal of Archaeology. [Special Publication.] Robarts, Edward 1974 The Marquesan journal, 1797-1824. Edited, with an introduction by Greg Denning. Canberra: Australian National University Press. [Pacific His- tory Series 6.] Rogers, Garth 1977 ‘The father’s sister is black; A consideration of female rank and power in Tonga’, The Journal of the Polynesian Society 86:157-82.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 266 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel

Roggeveen, Jacob 1838 Dagverhaal der ontdekkingsreis van Mr. Jacob Roggeveen met de schepen Den Arend, Tienhoven en de Afrikaensche Galei in de jaren 1721 en 1722. Mid- delburg: Abrahams [Zeeuwsch Genootschap der Wetenschappen.] Rolett, Barry Vladimir 1998 Hanamiai; Prehistoric colonization and cultural change in the Marquesas Islands (East Polynesia). New Haven: Department of Anthropology and the Pea- body Museum, Yale University. [Publications in Anthropology 81.] Rose, Roger G. 1978 Symbols of sovereignty; Feather girdles of Tahiti and Hawai’i. Honolulu: Department of Anthropology, Bishop Museum. [Pacific Anthropologi- cal Records 28.] Sahlins, Marshall D. 1958 Social stratification in Polynesia. Seattle: University of Washington Press. [American Ethnological Society.] 1972 Stone age economics. Chicago: Aldine. 1992 Historical ethnography. With the assistance of Dorothy B. Barrère. Chi- cago/London: University of Chicago Press. [Volume one of Anahulu; The anthropology of history in the kingdom of Hawaii. Historical ethnography, by Patrick V. Kirch and Marshall Sahlins.] Salmon, Tati 1910 ‘On ari’i’s in Tahiti’. The Journal of the Polynesian Society 19:39-46. Samwell, David 1967 ‘Some account of a voyage to South Sea’s in 1776-1777-1778’, in: The journals of Captain James Cook on his voyages of discovery. The voyage of the Resolution and Discovery. Edited from the original manuscripts by J.C. Beaglehole, pp. 989-1300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Hakluyt Society, Extra Series 36.] Sand, Christophe 1993 ‘A preliminary study of the impact of the Tongan maritime chiefdom on the late prehistoric society of ‘Uvea, Western Polynesia’, in: Michael W. Graves and Roger C. Green (eds), The evolution and organization of prehistoric society in Polynesia, pp. 43-51. Auckland: New Zealand Archaeological Association. Sharp, Andrew 1957 Ancient voyagers in the Pacific. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 1963 Ancient voyagers in Polynesia. London: Angus and Robertson. Spriggs, Matthew and Patrick V. Kirch 1992 ‘Auwai, Kanawai, and Waiwai: Irrigation in Kawailoa-Uka’, in: Patrick V. Kirch and Marshall Sahlins, Anahulu; The anthropology of history in the kingdom of Hawaii. Vol 2: The archaeology of history. With the assistance of Marshall Sahlins, Marshall Weisler, and Matthew Spriggs, pp. 118-64. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Stokes, John F.G. 1930 Ethnology of Rapa Island. Honolulu: B.P. Bishop Museum.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access Theme and variations 267

Suggs, Robert C. 1960 The island of Polynesia. New York: New American Library. [Mentor Books 304.] 1963 The hidden worlds of Polynesia; The chronicle of an archaeological expedition to Nuku Hiva in the Marquesas Islands. London: Cresset. Taimai, Arii 1964 Mémoires d’Arii Taimai. Traduit de l’anglais par Suzanne Lebois et André Lebois. Paris: Musée de l’Homme. [Publications de la Société des Océanistes 12.] [Originally published as Memoires of Arii Taimai. Paris: Henry Adams, 1901.] Tcherkézoff, Serge 1997 ‘Culture, nation, société: Changements secondaires et bouleversements fondamenteaux au Samoa occidental. Vers un modèle pour l’étude des dynamiques culturelles’, in: Serge Tcherkézoff and Françoise Douaire- Marsaudon (eds), Le Pacifique-Sud aujourd’hui; Identités et transformations culturelles, pp. 309-74. Paris: CNRS Éditions. Thomas, Nicholas 1990 Marquesan societies; Inequality and political transformation in Eastern Poly- nesia. Oxford: Clarendon. 2003 Discoveries; The voyages of Captain Cook. London: Allen Lane. Thomson, Robert 1980 The Marquesas Islands; Their description and early history by the Reverend Robert Thomson (1816-1851). Edited by Robert D. Craig. Second edition. Laie, Hawaii: Institute for Polynesian Studies. [Monograph Series 2.] [First edition 1978.] Tilburg, Jo Anne van 1993 ‘The use of photogrammetry, laser scan and computer-assisted drafting in the analysis of Easter Island statuary’, in: Michael W. Graves and Roger C. Green (eds), The evolution and organization of prehistoric society in Polynesia, pp. 87-102. Auckland: New Zealand Archaeological Asso- ciation. 1994 Easter Island; Archaeology, ecology and culture. London: Press. Tuggle, H. David 1979 ‘Hawai’i’, in: Jesse D. Jennings (ed.), The prehistory of Polynesia, pp. 167- 99. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Turner, George 1884 Samoa; A hundred years ago and long before: Together with notes on the cults and customs of twenty-three other islands in the Pacific. London: MacMil- lan. Valeri, Valerio 1985 Kingship and sacrifice; Ritual and society in ancient Hawaii. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press. Van Parijs, Philippe 1981 Evolutionary explanation in the social sciences; An emerging paradigm. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield. [Philosopy and Society.]

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access 268 Henri J.M. Claessen and Martin A. van Bakel

Vancouver, George 1801 Voyage de découvertes à l’océan Pacifique du Nord, et autour du monde; Entrepris par ordre de sa Majesté Britannique: Exécute en 1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794 et 1795 par le Capitaine George Vancouver. Traduit de l’anglais par P.F. Henry. Paris: Didot Jeune. Six vols. Vincendon-Dumoulin and C. Desgraz 1843 Iles Marquises ou Nouka-Hiva; Histoire, géographie, mœurs et considérations générales: D’après les relations des navigateurs et les documents receuillis sur les lieux. Paris: Bertrand. Weisler, Marshall I. 1996 ‘Taking the mystery out of the Polynesian ‘mystery island’; A case study from Mangareva and the Pitcairn group’, in: Janet Davidson, Geoffrey Irwin, Foss Leach, Andrew Pawley and Dorothy Brown (eds), Oceanic culture history; Essays in honour of Roger Green, pp. 615-29. Dun- edin: New Zealand Journal of Archaeology. [Special Publication.] 1998 ‘Hard evidence for prehistoric interaction in Polynesia’, Current Anthro- pology 39:521-31. West, Thomas 1865 Ten years in South-Central Polynesia; Being reminiscences of a personal mis- sion to the Friendly Islands and their dependencies. London: Nisbet. Wichman, Frederick B. 2003 Nā pua ali’i o Kaua’i; Ruling chiefs of Kaua’i. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Wilson, James 1799 A missionary voyage to the Southern Pacific Ocean; Performed in the years 1796, 1797 and 1798 in the ship Duff commanded by Captain : Compiled from journals of the officers and the missionaires: With a prelimi- nary discourse on the geography and history of the South Sea Islands and an appendix, including details never before published of the natural and civil state of Otaheite. London: Chapman. Yamamoto, Matori 1987 ‘The territorial organization of Faleata; A case study of the title system in Samoan society’, in: Iwao Ushijima and Ken-ichi Sudo (eds), Cul- tural uniformity and diversity in Micronesia, pp. 205-37. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. [Senri Ethnological Studies 21.]

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:23:08AM via free access