Year: 1939
Type: article
Abstract: U NTIL the last few years, Polynesian social organization was dimly .described at best, except for brief accounts of the New Zealand Maori.But now a series of regional monographs, nearly all published within a decade, seems to justify a search, by compa!ison, for some conclusions applicable to Polynesia as a whole.This article is an attempt of.that kind, toward it.strictly limited objective.In some parts of• Polynesia the tracts governed as political units were• populated by groups also regarded as kinsfolk, ~ther by blood, marriage, adoption, or rationalization .In other parts the llig:herchiefs did not regard all their subjects as kinsfolk, nor .were the common people in a territorial-poli tical unit necessarily related among themselves.The object here is to account for this difference in terms of past process.Although some of the customs to be mentioned are still practised, the past tense will be used throughout because European influence is disregarded.. Throu~~ll variations in detail, Polynesian social organization retained a broadly uniform character.Polynesians reckoned kinship by means of genealogies that were tnainly patrilineal.But even in remote generations matrilinealt~~¢ 'koning might c(J:me in as a stop-gap or a means of gaining status.And vtithin recent geJi'&.tions-especially among living personskinship was counted through the mother as well as the father.As a rule, marriage was forbidden between close relatives in either line.A woman .did not lose by marriage her claim on the usufruct of her ancestors' land.Her children, too, might inherit a share.But unless the children were brought up by maternal relatives, and so taken into that line, matrilineal' claims tended to lapse after about two'"generati~n s.In short, living and recently dead kinsfolk were grouped bilaterally; but the larger, more permanent kinship groups were almost invariably based on common descent from an ancestor in the male line.These groups were not, as a rule, exogamous, iucest barriers followiug rather the closer bilateral grouping.In the literature on Polynesia the typical patrilineal group is variously called family, joint family, clan, descent group, ramage, lineage, and kindred.Political authority, too, was generally similar throughout Polynesia. 1 1 Raym ond Firth, We, the Tikop ia (Lond on and New York, 1936). 2 Marga ret.Me ad, Social Organ ization of M anua (Bulletin, B. P. Bishop Museu m, ~o.76, 1930).3 Ernes t and Pearl Beagle hole, Ethnol ogy of Pukap uka (Bulle tin, B. P. Bisho p Museu m, No. 150, 1938).Chief s ruled with the aid of counc ils.They succe eded to powe r, in the main , by virtu e of prim ogen iture .How ever, perso nal quali ties or influe nce migh t outw eigh senio rity.Almo st every wher e in Polyn esia rank.was reinfor ced by sanct ity.A chief was repu ted to share more of the powe r of a divin e ances tor than did his untit led relati ves.Align ment of hreed and bord er was only one of many varia bles withi n this gene ral'p atter n.Anot her that may prov e relat ed to it is numb ers, espec ially in relati on to avail able food supp ly.Now numb ers can not be comp ared at all accur ately , for estim ates of early popu lation , wher e they are avail able, vary fanta stica lly.Food suppl y, too, depe nds on so many facto rs-ar ea, topog raphy , soil, clima te, histo ry (as in the matt er of introduce d food plant s and anim als)-that close comp ariso n is impo ssible with the data at hand .How ever, certa in broad contr asts can be made out.Atoll s, little rings or cresc ents of coral and sand that yield hardl y any food but cocon uts, could supp ort only a few hund red inhab itants ) or a few thous and at the utmo st.The large r volca nic islan ds, groov ed by strea ms that bring down rich silt and keep it wate red, could supp ort throu gh Poly nesia n horti cultu re tens of thous ands; the large st archi pelag oes more than a hundred thous and.A varia ble of a diffe rent kind is the degre e to whic h chief s were separ ated from their subje cts by class distin ction s and tabus of subse rvien ce.Here) too) there can be no preci se meas urem ent; but broad contr asts are perce ptible.Still anoth er varia ble that may bear on the prob lem in hand is complexi ty of kinsb ip group ing.A hous ehold group , defin ed by use of a common cooki ng fire) was unive rsal in Polyn e~~,a ) and so can be disre garde d in this study of regio nal differ ence.:But the>'l iarger group s were organ ized in quite diffe rent ways .The bilat eral coun ting of kinsh ip took form in some regio ns as an expli cit grou p; for exam ple, the kana a paito of Tiko pia. 1 Elsew here, relati ves in the male and fema le lines were group ed separ ately , as the tama tane and tama fafine of Samo a. 2 Puka puka made use of all the possi ble kinds of group ing;• bilate ral) matri linea l, and patril inea1 .3 Even more striki ng is the fact that the large r patri linea l group s differ ed in numb er from one regio n to anoth er.In some regio ns they were multi ple; from a genea logic al poin t of view , ramif ied.That is, the smal ler group s
Source: American Anthropologist
Author: EDWIN G. BURROWS
Language: English
Subfield: Geography, Planning and Development
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W1969469430