Food and Gender in Fiji: Ethnoarchaeological Explorations

FOOD AND GENDER IN FIJI Ethnoarchaeological Explorations

SHARYN JONES

Food and Gender in Fiji

Food and Gender in Fiji Ethnoarchaeological Explorations Sharyn Jones

LEXINGTON BOOKS A division of ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC.

Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK

Published by Lexington Books A division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 http://www.lexingtonbooks.com Estover Road, Plymouth PL6 7PY, United Kingdom Copyright © 2009 by Lexington Books All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jones, Sharyn, 1974– Food and gender in Fiji : ethnoarchaeological explorations / Sharyn Jones. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7391-3480-1 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-7391-3482-5 (electronic) 1. Food habits—Fiji—Lau Province. 2. Food consumption—Fiji—Lau Province. 3. Women—Fiji—Lau Province—Social conditions. 4. Sex role—Fiji—Lau Province. 5. Ethnoarchaeology—Fiji—Lau Province. 6. Plant remains (Archaeology)—Fiji—Lau Province. 7. Fish remains (Archaeology)—Fiji—Lau Province. 8. Lau Province (Fiji)—Antiquities. 9. Lau Province (Fiji)—Social life and customs. I. Title. GT2853.F3J66 2009 394.1'2099611—dc22 2009017860

⬁™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Printed in the United States of America

Contents

Preface

vii

Acknowledgments

xv

1 Fieldwork: Motivations, Plans, and Realities

1

2 The Environmental and Social Landscape: The Lau Islands, Fiji

16

3 Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

45

4 Food Consumption Patterns and Refuse Disposal

102

5 Lauan Fishing

116

6 Food in the Lau Islands and Its Implications for Ethnoarchaeology and Archaeology

137

Appendix A: Archaeological Methods

151

Appendix B: Structured Ethnographic Interviews Conducted on Nayau, October and November 2003

155

Bibliography

191

Index

201

About the Author

205

v

Preface

S

itting on the torn linoleum-covered dirt floor in the dark kitchen (vale ni kuro), I worked to hack up a freshly killed chicken on a slab of local hard wood with the same sharp machete I use to clear archaeological sites in the jungle. I watched Rusila, my principal collaborator, who leaned over the hearth, tending a large pot of boiling taro. She smiled and stoked the fire by blowing and fanning the wood, rocks, and ash with coconut fronds. The cramped warm space was smoky and full of life. Chickens, who had not yet met their fate, were running around as laughing children habitually chased them out of the house again and again. “Sheee toa! Sheee!” they yelled. Later in the afternoon the children ran down one of those chickens and presented it to their mother for dinner. I hoped that they had caught the one that left its small footprint in my fresh baked pie that morning. Rusila barked orders at me about how to prepare the bird properly, “Don’t cut its head that way, we want it all in one piece. That is the best part!” I appreciated her straightforward manner and was pleased to finally be ordered around like a true member of the family. It had taken three years of hard work to get to this point in our relationship. Neighbors and relatives drop by throughout the day to gossip and exchange stories about happenings in the village and beyond. The background conversation included, for example, the following snippets: “The village store has run out of flour again!” “How is the fishing?” “A storm is on the horizon.” “The village headman is acting shamefully again.” “Osama is still in hiding. When will the Americans catch him?” The vale ni kuro is the central social area of domestic space and the locus of food production. This is where Rusila taught me to make bread and vii

viii

Preface

filet a large tuna the “proper way.” This is where her daughters assist their mother with the tasks of food preparation, learning the Lauan way to do things. In the kitchen Rusila transformed raw or natural items (such as reef fish, coconut, and sweet potatoes) into desirable edible foods. She instructed me how to peel cooked taro and other tubers; for formal meals these items were never served with the skins on. Social interactions in the vale ni kuro are more informal than in other domestic spaces as well as public places. Rusila, her husband Sepesa, and their children sometimes share informal lunches or snacks in the kitchen where there is less focus on high and low space and seating patterns oriented by the rules of hierarchy. As a female anthropologist conducting research in the isolated Lau Group of Fiji, I was privy to the rich Lauan social life associated with the kitchen and other domestic interaction spheres. Being trained as an archaeologist, my studies began with a focus on the interpretation of patterns revealed in fragmentary pieces of the past, such as sherds of pottery and ancient food rubbish. My first field season in Lau was eye-opening, leading me to turn to ethnoarchaeology because I simply could not focus solely on the past in this life-filled environment. Within the village every human action was dripping with meaning, and the intensity of the community’s life seemed fertile ground to explore Lauan lifeways in the present and the past. After a short time I was admitted into the primarily female spaces and allowed to observe and eventually participate in female activities. With economics, kinship, behavior, subsistence, and politics before me in such rich textured detail, it became impossible to imagine and interpret the past without recognizing and documenting the present. Some will argue that this is a crutch or an impediment to the scientific objective analysis of prehistory. I suggest that this close historical association between past and present makes for stronger inferences and an explicit base of comparison. Furthermore, the analogies I derive from the contemporary peoples of Lau have a historical continuity that is rarely possible in modern archaeology. For this reason, the Lau Group is an excellent place to conduct ethnoarchaeological research. Moreover, the oceanoriented subsistence system of Lauans and the great natural marine biological diversity make this an ideal locale to study the female associations with fishing and foodways, a study that is relevant to a wide range of Island and coastal contexts. I first came to Fiji in 2001, following the recommendation of a colleague, David Steadman, who conducted biogeographic research in the Lau Group in 2000. Steadman was interested in avian paleontology and finding early archaeological sites in Lau in order to reconstruct the prehistoric distribution and local impacts on bird species. He recommended that I survey and conduct test excavations on Nayau and the small nearby is-

Preface

ix

lands of Aiwa Levu and Aiwa Lailai, located in central Lau. I planned to focus on prehistoric settlement and subsistence, especially marine resource exploitation. My previous archaeological research experience was in Hawai’i and Micronesia, therefore Fiji seemed an appropriate and intriguing area to examine the questions I was interested in. The first night I arrived on Nayau I was encouraged to “hang back in the house” with the women and kids while my male colleagues went off with the men to drink kava, or yaqona, a traditional narcotic ritually prepared into a drink that is consumed by groups of men. I joined the men, but the obvious discomfort my presence caused the males made me reevaluate my decision. In the “grog house,” a small one-room thatch structure on the beach, I was totally ignored while the Lauan men joked with my male colleagues, eagerly asked them questions, and encouraged them to drink more yaqona. On the occasions that I would ask or answer questions, the men would look away and address my colleagues, attempting to ignore me or speak to my inquiries indirectly. Despite years of studying Pacific Island cultures and working in a variety of Pacific field settings, nothing prepared me for the stark division between men and women in Fijian public life. Moreover, my Western upbringing made it difficult not to be offended when blatantly ignored. The men avoided me as a sign of respect, which is typical in Fiji and in many cultures. I slowly became more comfortable with this Lauan tradition and the inherent overt separation between women and men in Fijian society. In this context, I was naturally allowed access to female aspects of society. While I was permitted to observe some of the male social sphere, men were uneasy when I was around. Lauan social order dictated my focus on women and my engagement with female-associated activities. As I began my archaeological work, field surveys, mapping, and excavations on Nayau, the gender-based division of labor and social spheres became even more apparent. During my first field season I selected and hired two women to assist me with archaeological excavations at some prehistoric fortified sites located a half-hour walk from the village I was staying in. I also hired two male assistants. Many members of the community viewed the employment of female field assistants as totally unacceptable for several reasons. First, Lauan women traditionally do not dig; digging is an activity associated with men and their primary subsistence task, gardening. Moreover, the land outside the village bounds is considered a male domain. Second, I compensated local field assistants with cash payment at the end of the workday. The elected village headman (Turaga ni Koro) instructed me to hire people he would select and to change workers each day, but all of the field assistants were to be men. In Lau, men often handle money, and the male head of the household typically negotiates female labor outside the family dwelling.

x

Preface

Social division based on rank and gender was a salient and recurring theme that appeared to permeate every aspect of Lauan society. One’s rank and gender determines what tasks are conducted throughout the day, when and where individuals eat, and how a person carries her or himself in the home, to name a few examples. Because hierarchical social divisions are both an obvious and important structural aspect of day-today interactions, I take rank, gender, and domestic activities as central loci of analysis. I believe that these components of society are important in structuring Lauan interactions and behavior in the present, just as they did in the past. My anthropological focus, as described herein, includes past and present in a long historical continuum. I do not mean to imply that Lauans are unchanged and static in thinking or behavior. On the contrary, Lauans, like all humans, constantly change and respond to their social and physical environments. However, I believe that societies and individuals behave and change in ways that are historically informed and structured by culture and tradition. By understanding the past, we may better understand the present and ultimately use this information to connect the two. I use ethnoarchaeology to explore gender relations and foodways over a broad temporal frame.

ASSUMPTIONS: HUMAN BEHAVIOR, IDEOLOGY, HIERARCHY, AND HISTORY Everyday activities are essentially repetitive patterned behaviors that have social meaning, which may be conscious or subconscious. Nevertheless, these activities are not the sum of mundane actions. I believe that the way people behave is variously constructed of tradition, exigency, and self-expression. Behavior communicates a rich density of messages and attitudes and is ultimately conditioned by ideology. Everyday behaviors are part of a system of meaningful, socially approved, proper relations between individuals and groups. Moreover, everyday actions facilitate the expression of a person’s identity and self to the community (Deverell 1986; Leach 1965, 1976). Turner (1992), Becker (1995), and Toren (1990, 1999) have clearly and definitively demonstrated this phenomenon in Fiji from an ethnographic perspective. Importantly, ideology influences the patterned everyday practices that produce the material residues of the archaeological record. As in any society, all human interactions in Fiji are guided by socially correct and expected behaviors. These behaviors are determined by social morals and standards that are learned at childhood, strictly enforced throughout one’s life cycle, and reinforced though continued action; proper behaviors are patterned and repeated in public and private social situations. It

Preface

xi

should be noted that because village life is communal and most interactions are public, individuals are virtually never alone and, unlike Western norms, the community rather than the individual is the focus (Becker 1995; Lawson 1997; Toren 1990, 1999). Patterned behavior is evidenced and accessible to archaeologists through its material correlates. Ethnoarchaeology can record modern lifeways and behaviors associated with specific materials. This approach provides an avenue to examine the ideational realm, which is often overlooked or simply assumed to be inaccessible to archaeologists. In Fiji and Polynesia everyday activities, including secular and religious actions, are related within a holistic social system. Unlike the Western tradition of dividing a given society into more easily approachable categories, in this cultural reality the parts form a conflated totality, often making categories difficult to delineate when examining ethnographically recorded behavior (Leach 1965; Weiner 1992; Weismantel 1988). Hocart (1970, 256) argued that in Fiji there is no religion, “. . . only a system that in Europe has been split up into religion and business.” Economic and food-related activities were at the time of European colonization, and are today, intricately related to politics and cosmology. These rituals characterize the social and cosmic order of society by repeatedly establishing hierarchies based on birth order, age, and gender. For example, activities and rituals associated with food production and the harnessing of raw materials from the natural world, the realm of the gods, are described as the work of the gods, a fundamentally religious process (Firth 1967; Handy 1927). Humans reaffirm and re-create their hierarchical relation to the gods, or ancestors, through ritualized patterned acts of production and consumption. Geographically, the remarkably widespread ideology surrounding food production, distribution, and consumption based on hierarchy suggests an institution that is anchored in the deep values of Fijian and Polynesian society. This ideology has endured colonization and Christianization, suggesting that it existed long before Western contact. Neotraditional secular rituals as they are practiced today—including subsistence production and food consumption and distribution patterns— provide points of connection between social and material phenomena (e.g., food, spatial organization of the house and village, cooking technologies). Fijian domestic life renews connections between cosmological creation, the ancestors, and humans (e.g., Eliade 1959). The practices of eating food and drinking yaqona (or kava, a mild narcotic made into a traditional drink) are patterned or ritualized forms of sacrifice and acts of mana (supernatural efficacy) (Sahlins 1983; Toren 1998, 1999). These rituals are patterned by proscribed actions. Despite modernization in Fiji, “. . . production, exchange, tribute, and consumption . . . are still distinctly Fijian

xii

Preface

. . . [and] . . . eating together still defines the household . . .” (Toren 1998, 113). Every meal is structured. Ideology and worldview are mapped into Fijian villages and individual house plans. These points are critical from an archaeological perspective as evidence of a direct link between ideological phenomena and material phenomena, as will be discussed in more detail in the chapters that follow. Ideology and practice together define the context within which foods are used. If archaeologists are to understand and identify this social context of food use, then we must have a clear understanding of ideology and foodways in living populations. This understanding will come from ethnoarchaeological explorations and participant observation. On a general level, my research aims to generate data that will create a better understanding of the diverse ways that gender roles and material culture, specifically food, operate in living societies. This study might be labeled ethnoarchaeology to “raise analogical consciousness” (David 1992, 352), in addition to doing ethnography with specific archaeological questions in mind. I hope that this work will enable archaeologists to develop increasingly humanistic and potentially accurate interpretations of archaeologically observed patterns, such as the distribution of faunal remains, the occurrence and character of subsurface features, and household spatial organization. My research exhibits some of the fluidity and complexity of ethnographic settings and should serve to heighten awareness of human behaviors that could have occurred, in order to explain the patterns of archaeological facts. This view challenges the perspective that relies on the assumption of cultural simplicity and provides a constant reminder that archaeological material culture was created by people. I believe that culture cannot be understood as simple, logically predictable, and uniform. David has noted, “Ethnoarchaeology’s primary service mission is still the raising of the analogical consciousness of archaeologists, many of whom prefer their culture dead, sensitizing them to dimensions of variability and the richness of the relationship between human and their artifacts . . .” (David 1992, 352). Finally, my ethnoarchaeological study aims to understand how social processes articulate in ethnographic contexts and create material variation. This work seeks to produce knowledge of causal processes working in this specific context, but which are also applicable and relevant for other archaeological and anthropological contexts. The ethnographic data and social issues described and examined in chapters 3–5 should be considered as a backdrop, or the context within which material culture may be understood and interpreted. This data provides both an analog against which archaeological information can be compared and understood and an example of some of the social issues that may potentially remain invisible archaeologically.

Preface

xiii

BOOK STRUCTURE I begin by providing background to my research in chapter 1. This chapter includes a description of my goals, the methods I employ, and the social and political circumstances surrounding my work in Fiji. A geographic, environmental, historical, social, and archaeological introduction to my study area is provided in chapter 2. I discuss the islands of Nayau, Lakeba, Aiwa Levu, and Aiwa Lailai. While most of my research was conducted on Nayau, I include these closely related islands where I also worked, and where the people of Nayau have deep historical, political, and genealogical connections. Additionally, I examine Lauan political organization, hierarchy, social status, kinship, subsistence practices, division of labor, economic wealth, and Lauan history and archaeology. The succeeding chapters focus on ethnographic data with specific reference to archaeological questions that may be illuminated with the contemporary information (chapters 3–5). Each chapter concludes with interpretations based on answers to the archaeological questions and ethnoarchaeological analogs. Chapter 3 contains ethnographic descriptions of lifeways on Nayau, specifically those associated with food and subsistence activities. I examine domestic group organization and report on interview data. Issues including the folk taxonomy of food, its social dimensions, kitchen activities, food preference, and consumption patterns are all addressed. Food collection patterns and the disposal of food remains are also discussed. Archaeological information collected from a variety of sites on Nayau is introduced in chapter 3. In this chapter I describe excavations and stratigraphy, subsurface features, material culture, zooarchaeological remains, and subsurface features that are interpreted with reference to ethnographically recorded behaviors and material culture. I conclude with a discussion of the potential for zooarchaeological data to address social issues related to foodways, gender, and hierarchy. Lauan food consumption patterns and information about refuse disposal are presented in chapter 4. I documented the types of fishes collected and consumed regularly by the community and specific cases of individual household eating. I asked a group of women to collect the fish bones from their families’ meals over a one-week period and present an analysis of these remains and interview data on the relative proportions of food types and classes consumed. The importance of imported versus local foods is considered in this chapter. In sum, an ethnoarchaeological synthesis, articulating the ethnographic and archaeological data is presented. Chapter 5 includes data on Lauan fishing methods, gear, decisionmaking, characteristics of the typical catch, and food division and distribution patterns. Qualitative accounts of several fishing expeditions are

xiv

Preface

described and analyzed. Lists of the Lauan names, common names, and scientific names for bony fishes accompany this data. Ethnozooarchaeological conclusions are provided at the end of this chapter. In chapter 6, I summarize my findings and analyze and interpret the data I collected from archaeological and ethnographic fieldwork in Lau. I incorporate previously recorded ethnohistoric and ethnographic information into my interpretations as well. I explore the zooarchaeological and archaeological patterns using ethnographic homology, and also describe directions for future research. In summation, I discuss the implications of my work on food in the Lau Islands, and more generally for ethnoarchaeology and zooarchaeology.

Acknowledgments

T

he assistance and encouragement of my colleagues, friends, and family made this book possible. I thank all the people who supported this work. First and foremost my thanks go to Michael Heckenberger, David Steadman, Elizabeth Wing, and Patrick Kirch. Each of them contributed invaluable insights and inspiration. The excavations and some of the analysis presented in this work were funded by grants to David Steadman (National Science Foundation) and to me (National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship). Additional funding that supported my research came from the Center for Women’s Studies and Gender Research at the University of Florida (the Lockhart Fellowship), and the National Geographic Society via a Research and Exploration Grant. I also thank Patrick O’Day, Heather Walsh-Haney, Sean Connaughton, Kenneth Sassaman, Russ Bernard, Susan deFrance, Maureen Kelley, Sidsel Millerstrom, and Joe Ortega. David Steadman, Elizabeth Wing, Kitty Emery, and the Florida Museum of Natural History made multiple laboratories and comparative collections available for part of my analyses. In Fiji, the Fiji Museum staff assisted in excavations and organizing my research. I thank Sepeti Matararaba and Jone Naucabalavu for facilitating my fieldwork. Patrick O’Day provided abundant assistance and insights during the process of field research. Additional field and laboratory assistance was provided by Sean Connaughton, Rusila Colati, Sepeti Matararaba, Tina Bell, Gustav Paulay, and Joe Ortega. I gratefully acknowledge the late Na Gone Turaga Na Tui Lau, Tui Nayau Ka Sau ni Vanua ko Lau, The Right Honorable Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, and his family

xv

xvi

Acknowledgments

for allowing me to conduct research on Nayau, Lakeba, and Aiwa. I am especially grateful to the people of Nayau and Lakeba for welcoming and facilitating my research, in addition to providing me with a wealth of local knowledge, collaboration, and support in all forms. Vinaka vakalevu Jack, Sera, Cakacaka, Colati, Rusila, Mote, Sina, and Nasi.

1

Fieldwork: Motivations, Plans, and Realities

Cooking is a language through which that society unconsciously reveals its structure, unless—just as unconsciously—it resigns itself to using the medium to express its contradictions. —Claude Lévi-Strauss

W

omen’s work and inshore marine resources exploitation are fundamental components of Pacific Island foodways. Nevertheless, until recently these issues were frequently ignored or marginalized in anthropological literature. Teenagers and children are also commonly overlooked by anthropologists, despite the fact that they form a productive labor force and a fundamental part of social, kin, and economic networks. Over twenty years ago Betty Meehan (1982) remarked on the paucity of studies that produced ethnographic observations of socioeconomics with sufficient detail to enable direct comparisons between faunal and material components in archaeological sites with those of living groups. Unfortunately, few studies of Pacific Islanders in the last twenty years, by either ethnographers or archaeologists, have focused on the production of inshore marine food despite its significant dietary contribution.1 Instead, research in Fiji and Polynesia has largely focused on chiefly and malecentered power and sociopolitical complexity. One is left to speculate whether women and their power are recorded in the materials of the past, and if so, how archaeologists can explore and understand this. “The differential prestige accorded to women and men in our own society has also had a profound effect on our interpretations of the prehistoric past” (Nelson 1997, 19). Moreover, the way indigenous groups view 1

2

Chapter 1

gender relations and perceive value has changed significantly as a result of European colonization, Christianization, and engagement in an everexpanding world economy. To alleviate a biased perspective of both women and men in the past, archaeologists are increasingly exploring methods to better interpret power, prestige, and everyday activities. The topics examined by archaeologists and the way archaeology is conducted have been brought into question by archaeologists who employ gendersensitive approaches (Clark 2004; Gero and Conkey 1991; GiffordGonzalez 1993, 1997; Gilchrist 1999; Marshall 1985; Meskell 2002; Nelson 1997, 2006). Fijian women, adolescents, and children, as the primary producers of inshore marine resources provide the vast majority of animal protein consumed each day by the inhabitants of Fiji’s Lau Island Group. The economics of food production, distribution, and consumption are also intricately related to politics and ideology. As such, this situation offers an opportunity to investigate gender-specific subsistence production, associated social relations, and the material correlates of this economic system. Using ethnoarchaeology and a direct historical approach (Kirch and Green 2001), I aim to explore the relationship between archaeological phenomena and social processes. To examine gender-associated relations, including hierarchy and prestige, requires data on long-term processes. What are the historical particularities and patterns of rank and gender relations in a given society? The challenge is fundamentally one of connecting ethnography with archaeological data to answer this question. Ethnoarchaeology is the means I employ to explore and better understand long-term trends in foodways; this is not a comprehensive ethnography, rather it is a targeted ethnographic study to answer archaeological questions. Toward this end, I have three primary goals for my study of Lauan lifeways and more specifically, foodways. • The first goal is ethnographic; I seek to make a detailed description of foodways and the articulation between food and everyday lifeways of contemporary Pacific Island peoples. I describe food procurement on the reef and women’s and men’s food preparation activities in domestic settings. • Second, this is an ethnoarchaeological investigation focused on understanding material culture, what people eat in the present, what they ate in the past, and an endeavor to illuminate food-related social issues through historical homology and comparison with the lifeways of Lauans. Ethnoarchaeological studies can increase the range of possible interpretations of archaeological data. The first step is to record the information, as I do in this work; interpretations may then be subject to independent evaluation.

Fieldwork: Motivations, Plans, and Realities

3

• Third, on a general level, this study is an exploration of quotidian activities surrounding food, especially women’s work and the domestic environment. I am attempting to comprehend everyday social life and historical processes, or long-term patterns in human action and social interaction. Undoubtedly, much more archaeological and ethnographic research is needed to achieve this goal. However, I believe that my preliminary findings related to everyday life and longterm histories provide a starting point for future research. This work raises new questions and provides insights into life in Fiji. Moreover, these findings are applicable to a wide range of anthropological research beyond my study area. In Fiji and Polynesia the etic heuristic categories of economics, politics, and cosmology are all interrelated in holistic emic conceptions (Goldman 1970; Hocart 1929; Sahlins 1962, 1985; Thompson 1940). This relationship has been documented archaeologically, on some Pacific islands, through the practice of household archaeology (VanGilder and Kirch 1997; Weisler and Kirch 1985). Food and ideas about reproduction, both biological and symbolic, are also enmeshed in these concepts. Women actively contribute by producing large amounts of food daily (i.e., protein in the form of inshore marine resources), and are biologically and symbolically associated with the production of human life. Therefore, we might expect that female activities produce material correlates for rank and gender that are visible in modern and archaeological remains of households. My literature search on the subject of food production yielded few studies that focused on women’s work. It is unlikely that only maleassociated food production held social, economic, and religious significance. A close examination of ethnographic data, especially recent work, reveals seemingly contradictory and countervailing gender relations associated with division of labor, ritual and ideological roles, political authority, social organization, and interpersonal relations (Gailey 1987; Linnekin 1990; Mead 1949; Ortner 1996; Toren 1990; Weiner 1992). Rather than attempting to generate simple equations between women and their status (vis-à-vis men), this research seeks to understand the nature of female power, its basis, context, and how female and male relations mutually define each other. I aim to determine if and how archaeologists can use material phenomena to identify hierarchy and gender relations associated with foodways in the past. I believe that all people will become visible through a gender-informed perspective, which facilitates understanding of humans, conflict, change, identity, and all aspects of society. This undertaking will require a long-term historical perspective employing both archaeology and ethnography (original and comparative).

4

Chapter 1

My work in Lau documented socioeconomic behaviors associated with rank and gender in qualitative and quantitative detail in order to facilitate comparisons between these ethnographic data and late prehistoric archaeological households in Fiji. Thereby I could estimate how food refuse uncovered in archaeological households may be used to identify social relations in the past. Specifically, I recorded present day traditional (gender- and agespecific) roles in subsistence production, including: inshore marine resource collection; distribution (within and between households); variations in individual food consumption patterns (male versus female; adults versus children; elites versus nonelites); and refuse disposal. This is an exploratory work. There are few studies to compare my work to and even less in the realm of concrete methodology to guide my endeavors. Therefore, in the text I explore, but in no way succeed in answering, the following questions: What do food remains or zooarchaeological data actually represent in the Lauan context? Are the items that zooarchaeologists identify (bones and shells) simply food rubbish representing calories consumed in the past? Can a deeper meaning be gleaned from these items? For example, do archaeological remains encode information about rank and gender? What do food-associated archaeological features represent? Can the uses of scoop-shaped features such as hearths and earth ovens (lovo) and other components of households that are involved in food preparation or disposal be better understood? What are the social implications for the material commonly recovered from archaeological deposits (e.g., what is the use duration of features in a modern context)? What social elements are invisible in archaeological features (e.g., the gender, age, and rank of the user/maker/consumer, and the time spent by a person who was engaged in the activity associated with the archaeological feature and/or remains)? Can changes through time in consumption and subsistence patterns be detected in archaeological remains? If so, what might these changes represent? Are social variations in rank, gender, politics, ecological exploitation, and environmental impacts reflected in the zooarchaeological materials? The fishermen of the Pacific Islands have frequently been the subjects of anthropological and economic inquiry (Dye 1983; Goodenough 1963; Halapua 1982; Johannes 1981; Kirch and Dye 1979; Lieber 1992; Veitayaki 1995). However, women and adolescents in the Lau Islands traditionally perform the majority of the inshore fishing, which includes collecting by hand, netting, trapping, and spearing. Women are not prohibited from other forms of subsistence production, but women within a wide age range do focus on this activity, which is central to everyday subsistence. My investigation of traditional gender- and age-related roles in subsistence production with particular attention to inshore fishing practices explored the flexibility that exists in labor division, female production of

Fieldwork: Motivations, Plans, and Realities

5

food, and the forms of production most closely tied to age and gender. Trolling outside the reef is a fishing method almost exclusively practiced by men. This conforms with ethnographic work elsewhere in Polynesia, especially in Tonga (Dye 1983; Gailey 1987; Johannes 1981; Kirch and Dye 1979; Malm 1999), where men and those holding public power consider everyday inshore fishing a relatively nonprestigious activity. However, a more comprehensive understanding of culture and society will incorporate alternative interpretations of the activities and position of women and women’s work. In Lau I examined household activities and organization with a focus on material correlates of specific hierarchically regulated behaviors. Based on past archaeological data I expected that faunal remains associated with specific household contexts would be indicative of rank and gender relations in the past and present. In her study of contemporary hierarchical relations in Fiji, Christina Toren argues, “Fijian tradition evinces a dynamic continuity whereby traditional values are constituted anew and objectified in material culture. . . . These values find their focus and form in spatial constructs” (1990, 29). Importantly, she found that the Fijian house is the locus of hierarchical relations (Toren 1990). Fijians refer to natural and human-constructed landscapes in terms implying rank, and literally translating into “high” and “low” (Hocart 1929; Sahlins 1962; Thompson 1940; Toren 1990). Women are associated with the “inside” or “low” areas in space, whereas men are associated with the “outside” or “high” space. For example, the offshore area is referred to as the waitui, or noble sea (Malm 1999; Sahlins 1962). Likewise, the most sacred door of a house is often the “honored door,” facing the sea, and the eastern, male side of the house is the “noble side” (Sahlins 1962; Toren 1990). Archaeologists working in Fiji have yet to explore the connection between hierarchically regulated formal patterned behavior and archaeological phenomena such as spatial organization and food consumption patterns. An archaeological focus on the household and variability in domestic space, artifacts, cooking features, and depositional contexts has greatly advanced studies of social organization in Polynesia (Kirch and O’Day 2003; Van Gilder and Kirch 1997; Weisler and Kirch 1985). In my quest to better understand foodways over long-term history, I documented the contemporary contribution of women to domestic and political economies. Female labor, especially fishing activities, is described with a focus on the relative contribution of inshore marine resources to modern and prehistoric diets. I seek to illuminate the way in which marine resources and female food preparations relate to everyday consumption and ritual or ceremonial activities, including feasts for weddings, funerals, and tributes to chiefs and kin. On Nayau, I recorded the distribution of food within kin groups, in households, and beyond the bounds of these

6

Chapter 1

social groups. In the field of archaeology there is a great need to understand what happens to food before it ends up in the archaeological record. How do food processing, consumption, and discard determine what material remains are visible after these activities? Ethnoarchaeology provides a means to understanding these issues. My field and laboratory research were guided by the three research objectives presented above. I used a direct historical approach as the fundamental methodology to develop ethnographic homologs that can be applied to archaeological contexts, as has been successfully practiced in the Pacific (Kirch and Green 2001) and elsewhere (Heckenberger 2002, 2006). Women’s roles, distinctive behaviors, and associated material phenomena were recorded, and especially food remains and marine resource debris were traced through three levels of analysis including ethnographic (modern lifeways), ethnoarchaeological (living archaeology, modern deposition and disposal), and archaeological (prehistoric). First, I collected ethnographic data focused on women’s, adolescents’, and children’s roles in Nayau’s subsistence economy, documented current patterns of food production and collection in Nayau with an emphasis on marine resources, and conducted time-allocation studies of inshore subsistence activities through participant observation. I participated in fishing expeditions in order to quantify the types of fishes and quantities collected, record the technologies used, and plot where these activities took place (specific location and microhabitats exploited). Target taxa and habitats were also recorded. The relative importance of various taxa was determined based on the frequency of their collection. During a total of seven months (in 2001–2003) in Lau, I recorded frequencies of gathering, collecting, and variations in these activities due to social obligations, natural ecological shifts, weather patterns, and personal preference.2 I learned that the occupants of different villages exploit the inshore marine environment in flexible nonstandardized ways. For example, on Nayau, the leeward village of Liku is positioned so that at certain times of the year fishing grounds become less accessible due to inclement weather. At the same time fishing grounds associated with the villages of Narocivo and Salia, on the windward side of the island, are easily accessible. Likewise, a given family over certain months may prepare numerous feasts associated with birth, death, or marriage, thus affecting collecting and consumption patterns (e.g., stockpiling in preparation may result). Second, I documented present-day patterns of food distribution, preference, and disposal among various Fijian households. Collection of modern food materials, bones and shells, was necessary to determine what patterns might be visible archaeologically. This information is vital to understanding how ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological observations re-

Fieldwork: Motivations, Plans, and Realities

7

late to quantifiable material and/or spatial phenomena. During my ethnographic research, I witnessed numerous food distribution and consumption patterns that were directly influenced by hierarchical and gender roles. For example, men are served first and eat before women and children. Women and children then proceed to eat the leftovers after the men have finished. Because the head is the most valued part of any food animal, men and those of rank commonly consume all of the fish heads (including most of the soft tissue and occasionally small bones). Modern households were investigated with attention to food-related activities. Through participant observation and formal interviews I documented household food distribution, and chronicled the individuals who consumed different types and portions of foods, refuse disposal (what was disposed of and where), individual preference, and individual use of household space. I looked for patterning in consumption, modern refuse disposal, and spatial organization. Additionally, I recorded food consumption patterns in high-ranking families and commoner households in each of Nayau’s three villages. Data collected included information on what species of marine animals are consumed each day (other foods were also recorded), how much is consumed, the relative proportions of starch to meat, what individuals within households consume what types of marine resource and what parts of the animals. Attention was also given to the specifics of the social configuration within households and villages (i.e., rank, gender, and age). My Lauan collaborators were asked to make a food journal as a secondary check on the aforementioned information and as a backup for times when I was unable to personally record this information. A census of livestock was conducted as part of the formal interviews; this was aimed at determining the economic status of each household relative to the others on Nayau. Third, I investigated late-prehistoric archaeological households for indications of patterned distribution of faunal remains and material culture and sought evidence to refute or confirm that prehistoric households might exhibit patterns indicative of ranked and gendered social divisions. Knowing that these divisions permeate activities today, such as food production, division, and consumption, I assume that in the past women did most of the inshore fishing, just as they do now throughout the Pacific Islands. However, the extent and the degree of the marine contribution to the overall diet and the social value of this activity may have varied through time in ways perceptible in zooarchaeological and other household remains. In a situation where historical continuity exists, such as that in the Lau Group, ethnoarchaeology provides a mode of investigating the links between material culture, behavior, and meaning. Although the most obvious contribution of ethnoarchaeology is to archaeology, it can also

8

Chapter 1

provide data that is of interest to anthropology. Specifically, ethnoarchaeology (the study of the material culture and lifeways of living peoples) can facilitate the exploration of social issues and their long-term evolution. Before proceeding, a brief introduction to this subfield and its methods is in order.

ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY AND THE DIRECT HISTORICAL APPROACH Ethnoarchaeology can be traced to Fewkes (1900), but was not regularly practiced by archaeologists until the 1960s and 1970s. While anthropologists in the era of Morgan (1851) and Boas (1964) were especially attentive to material culture, cultural anthropologists later in the twentieth century lost interest in it and focused on other elements of culture. With special attention on material culture, objects, technology, and all material associated with daily life, ethnoarchaeological studies document what ethnographic research frequently fails to describe—material culture. Ethnoarchaeological studies were originally conceived to generate focused analogies applicable to archaeological data and research questions, thus filling a void inherent in many typical ethnographic studies (Binford 1967, 1978; Kleindienst and Watson 1956). Like many subfields within archaeology, ethnoarchaeology has primarily developed within regional specialties without a general set of methods and theoretical principles. Cunningham (2003) views the provincialism or regional focus of ethnoarchaeology as a positive characteristic, arguing that rather than adopting a single unified theory of human behavior, ethnoarchaeologists should have a pluralistic orientation that is sensitive to context and case studies (in particular, the local applicability of certain causal processes). What all ethnoarchaeological research does have in common is the application of and a concern with analogies (K. C. Chang claimed, “No archaeologist is worth his salt, it can almost be said, unless he makes an analogy or two in every monograph he writes” [Chang 1967, 229]). According to Wylie, analogy can be defined as “the selective transposition of information from source to subject on the basis of a comparison that, fully developed, specifies how the ‘terms’ (elements) compared are similar (positive components), different (negative components) or of unknown likeness (neutral components). . . . An argument by analogy, proper, involves the claim that given the similarities and differences specified in the premises, some specific aspects of the neutral analogy may also be assumed to be similar or, to comprise further points of positive analogy” (Wylie 1985, 93–94). Ethnoarchaeologists are generally

Fieldwork: Motivations, Plans, and Realities

9

cautious about analogical forms of reasoning, in an attempt to avoid affirming the consequent (Ascher 1961; Cunningham 2003; Trigger 1978, 1989; Wylie 1985). Generating analogical inferences is a fundamental and inescapable part of doing archaeology; this is true whether analogies are blatantly stated or ensconced in scientific terms. This realization has led some researchers to place emphasis on understanding the underlying causal mechanisms behind observable ethnoarchaeological patterns (Bowser 2000; Cunningham 2003; Wiessner 1983; Wylie 1982, 1985).3 Direct historical analogy, or homology, is an analogy based on observations of contemporary peoples who have a direct historical link through common ancestry with the archaeological populations and their materials under study. North American archaeologists including Wedel (1938) and Steward (1942) were interested in extending the short-term view of ethnohistory and ethnography by combining them with archaeological data in an effort to expose long-term cultural trajectories; these researchers relied on homology. With the advent of the New Archaeology in the 1960s, direct historical approaches fell out of favor. Recently, however, increased attention has been given to historical analogy because homology is thought to provide a more accurate reading of archaeological material culture (Agorsah 1990; Kirch and Green 2001; Trigger 1998). Although homology has sometimes been considered to be the strongest form of analogy, generating inferences with blatant links between the past and present, there are a number of valid criticisms of this type of research, which are relevant to my own work. An obvious potential problem inherent in the application of homology is the fact that similarities in material, or other aspects of culture, may be the result of contact, borrowing, coincidence, or descent. Moreover, Gould and Watson (1982, 359) have claimed that general and historical analogues must be subject to rigorous empirical testing in order to confirm an adequate interpretation (Watson 1982). Homologically derived interpretations, including my own, should be viewed with caution, as the lifeways of modern peoples cannot simply be equated one-to-one for prehistoric lifeways. While these are valid criticisms, it can be said that homology and historical continuity offer an increase in the likelihood that the same causal processes connect modern and archaeological contexts. Homologies, then, may presuppose a higher degree in the similarity of analogs generated at the onset, but are still subject to confirmation by testing and exploring additional lines of evidence. Multiple lines of evidence often accompany the application of homology to anthropological studies in Oceania. This makes for strong ethnoarchaeological inferences and interpretations based on multiple data sets including archaeology, linguistics, and ethnography. Kirch and Green have argued that “interpretations of archaeological data typically have deep

10

Chapter 1

roots within ethnology, as is evident in Polynesia where the transition from one data set to another is virtually seamless” (2001, 51). The direct historical approach, as illustrated by Kirch and Green’s study, is supported by numerous factors in Oceania. First and foremost, strong evidence for continuity is provided by well-dated local archaeological chronologies that exhibit change over time and little or no evidence of population replacement. Oceanic archeological sequences may be considered an independent line of evidence, providing a cross-check and test for linguistic and ethnographically derived constructions of the past. By combining these forms of data, it is possible to create truly historical deeptime accounts of Oceanic cultures (Kirch and Green 2001). In Fiji and the Lau Group specifically, the interpretive history I seek to generate includes indigenous histories and oral traditions, ethnography, linguistics, archaeology, and Western accounts. However, these materials may produce alternative and potentially competing interpretations. It becomes necessary to determine what the relationship is between each source, the methods used to collect information, potential biases, and the histories produced by each line of evidence. Analogs or hypotheses relating the past to the present are needed. While postprocessual and historical approaches lack a formal body of scientific theory, they complement more explicitly scientific processual approaches. Obviously, each view is relevant to examining different sets of questions, yet in the process of interpretation, both rely on analogy. I believe that when applied together these two approaches may result in a more balanced interpretation of the past, one that accounts for economics, ideology, social meaning, and long-term history. By its very nature archaeology requires many scientific procedures. Excavations are conducted with precision and the assistance of advanced technologies, and laboratory analyses require specialized processes appropriate to the material under study. Ethnoarchaeology combines the science of archaeology with the less-objective task of participant observation and ethnography. During my final years of graduate school, when I was applying for funding to return to Fiji and continue ethnoarchaeological work, I encountered some opposition to my proposed research. A common criticism by the reviewers of my grant applications was that I was not an ethnographer and should therefore focus on archaeology. On the other hand, some reviewers were very excited about my work and wanted to see it supported since archaeologists have a critical need to understand what material remains represent in terms of actual human behaviors and lifeways. I find the criticism interesting for a number of reasons. First, although we utilize different techniques, archaeologists and ethnographers are interested in culture in general and exploring many of the same questions. In fact, whether implicitly or explicitly archaeologists rely on ethno-

Fieldwork: Motivations, Plans, and Realities

11

graphic analogies for all interpretations. Nevertheless, ethnographic studies generally fall short in providing focused evaluations of the role of material culture in society, including issues such as manufacture, use life, and discard. The need is obvious. Second, many of the problems encountered by archaeologists are the same for ethnographers. Archaeological work in areas with indigenous communities presents the same challenges for most scientific and humanistic research. For example, we must all survive fieldwork, maintain some level of language competence, interact with local field assistants and interlocutors, adapt to and become accepted in the culture we are studying, select appropriate methods, and confront difficult ethical matters at every turn. Indeed, the challenges of fieldwork are much the same for archaeologists and ethnographers. Beyond the theoretical and methodological aspects of my work are the realities of actually doing ethnoarchaeological research in the Lau Group (see appendix A for a detailed description of my archaeological and zooarchaeological methods). Some background on my experiences is pertinent in order for readers to grasp particulars of the field situation and what working in a male-oriented society was like for a young female anthropologist. Moreover, the many nonscientific human elements of fieldwork that cannot be anticipated or controlled for comprise unavoidable complications that are worth discussing. Paul Bahn satirically noted that ethnoarchaeology is “an excellent means of getting an exotic adventure holiday in a remote location . . . after figuring out what you think is going on with the use and discard of objects (you should never stay around long enough to master the language) you return to your desk and use these brief studies to make sweeping generalizations about what people in the past and in totally different environments must have done” (Bahn 1989, 52–53). Bahn’s statement, while amusing, is unfortunate in its partial-truth. There are no hard established methods for conducting ethnoarchaeological research, and archaeologists seeking to do ethnoarchaeology can easily adopt some ethnographic techniques without appropriate accountability. Fortunately, ethnoarchaeological studies are becoming more mainstream, and an established literature focusing on methods and ethics is developing (e.g., David and Kramer 2001; Hudson 1993; Janes 1983). In an effort to maintain accountability and enable readers to evaluate my work, I now turn to a discussion of the conditions and duration of my research. Between September 2001 and December 2003, I made three research trips to Fiji; I spent a total of seven months there. On each trip my living situation differed, as did my research focus. In order to receive permission to work in Fiji, the Fiji Museum issues permits that must be applied for and purchased by researchers. Additionally, the museum requires that researchers take a museum staff member with them into the field and pay for

12

Chapter 1

the staff member’s travel, food, and lodging as well as their entire salary for the duration of the fieldwork. Technically, the museum personnel are sent to facilitate research. In reality, this person is assigned to a project and does not always assist in ways that Western scientists might imagine. For example, one of the most important ways that I expected to be assisted was with language translation. In Lau, English is taught in schools and spoken by some young people. However, people communicate entirely in the Lauan dialect except when children are being taught English in school. Most of the young to middle-aged people in Lau speak and understand some English, but most older people did not learn it in school and often do not speak or understand English. My level of Fijian language competence is low. I have never had formal instruction in Fijian and learned to get along in Lauan by spending time in the field and being submerged in the culture. I carry a Fijian dictionary and a Tongan dictionary4 in the field with me at all times, and I practiced speaking and reading Lauan with the villagers at every opportunity. I cannot translate word-for-word a conversation spoken in rapid Lauan. Subsequently, I expected that the museum staff member assigned to my project would facilitate understanding and translate important conversations. In all of the time I spent in Lau, this never happened.5 I came to rely on my Lauan collaborators as translators. My interlocutors6 also helped me to learn Fijian by constantly teaching and testing me. We communicated in English most of the time with Lauan mixed in. During my first field season on Nayau I stayed in one village the entire time on the island, living in the home of the Turaga ni Koro, or the elected village headman. He insisted that he and his immediate family move out of his living quarters and into his kitchen, while colleagues and I stayed in relative comfort and slept in their beds. The village headman’s choice to have us stay in his home was partially determined by tradition7 and partially by the prospect of personal monetary gain. It is customary for visitors to reciprocate in some way for accommodations and food, which in our case were supplied by the Turaga ni Koro and his family.8 Each field season we left generous contributions of cash and goods to the households that accommodated us, in addition to donations to each village where we conducted research. I lived in a number of different places during my second and third trips to Nayau. For a few weeks each trip, my colleagues and I camped on a beach near one of the Nayau’s largest archaeological sites. We also stayed with the Turaga ni Koro of other villages and the family of my principal collaborators. On the second trip, in order to spread the burden and reward of preparing and serving meals to us, I attempted to have different families cook dinner for us each night. On my third trip, I was permitted to live more like a Fijian and actually assist with the collection, preparation, serving, and cleanup associated with meals in the home of my prin-

Fieldwork: Motivations, Plans, and Realities

13

cipal collaborator, Rusila. I also helped with cleaning, laundry, collecting firewood, and other domestic tasks.9 I spent most of my time living with Rusila’s family and assisting her with her daily tasks, especially the cooking and fishing. Although my initial interests in Lau were archaeological, I carried out ethnographic work frequently at first and virtually full-time on my final trip.10 Because this living culture is such a rich source for understanding Fijian lifeways and history, I found it impossible not to engage in participant observation. I did not wait until the weekends to conduct ethnoarchaeological research, I was constantly taking notes and engaging people in conversations about history, archaeology, Lauan culture, language, food, fishing, kinship, religion, and so on. During my third field season, Rusila and I conducted structured interviews with women in all of Nayau’s three villages, which are included in appendix B. During these interviews we spoke with people in informal settings in their homes. Family members were frequently present, especially young children and/ or grandchildren. On one occasion a women’s husband who had just returned home from fishing sat in her kitchen with us for part of the interview while we talked with her. She was visibly less comfortable speaking freely after he arrived. As a result, we intentionally tried to make the interviews relaxing and natural in order to encourage women to speak openly and frankly with us in the absence of men. In every case the interview participants were excited to take part in the study.11 Through the experience of making multiple trips to Lau and living with Rusila and her family I have passed through certain Anthropological rites of passage that separate us from travelers and tourists. I gained knowledge about Lauan culture by talking with people, struggling to learn some of the language, getting sick, missing home and its material comforts, and spending months living with unrelated people in an utterly foreign environment. Anthropologists normally do not write about the confusion, depression, and illness that accompany fieldwork, but it is an important part of our experience, which ultimately contributes to the way we interpret our data. I include some of this ambience, but it should be noted that I do not do this with the intention of exoticizing the people I “study.” I want readers to be able to feel, see, and smell life in Lau as I lived it. At the same time, I hope that archaeologists and ethnographers and archaeologists will find this information useful in a comparative sense. The task of summing up and conveying what understanding I gleaned from this experience is daunting for two reasons in particular. First, I do not seek to make many sweeping statements about Lauan culture as a whole. Rather, I aim to convey my experiences and field observations and explore the complicated social relations that surround foodways. I have

14

Chapter 1

attempted to document a slice of everyday life in Lau, with a focus on women, hierarchy, foodways, and historical processes. The aim was not a comprehensive ethnography, but a targeted study to answer specific archaeological questions. Second, I am still in the process of understanding, reflecting, and revising my thoughts and interpretations. I strongly believe that anthropological work is never finished; we simply stop working toward something, but our ideas and understanding are never complete. My thinking about Fiji is constantly evolving as I make additional trips to the islands, engage in discussion with colleagues, write and read more, and teach anthropology. Moreover, the people I write about are also constantly changing. Although I have written some of my ethnographic accounts in the present tense, I do not mean to imply that time has stood still in Lau or anywhere else.

NOTES 1. Notable exceptions include Bird et al. (2002), Bird and Bliege Bird (2000), Malm (1999), and Thomas (2002). 2. Field observations were recorded in notebooks. Tape measures, a spring balance, and a battery-run scale were used to record the size and weight of each catch. Photographic records were created, using a waterproof camera and a standard 35mm digital camera. One hundred eighty-six whole fish specimens were collected for scientific identification and to expand my comparative osteological collection from Fiji. 3. Hodder (1986) and Conkey (1989), among others, have suggested a shift away from ethnoarchaeology toward “material culture studies,” focusing on how people construct their material worlds. In this scenario, culture and material culture are understood in relation to meaning. Hodder suggests that material cultures can only be understood by placing them into a cultural and historical context. 4. The Lauan dialect uses some Tongan words and varies from Fijian that is spoken in the main island groups. Published Fijian dictionaries, such as the one I use (Capell 1984), are in standard Fijian that is the Bau dialect. This is the Fijian that is taught in schools and printed in texts. 5. One of the most difficult things for me to deal with during my research was paying someone to accompany me who did not facilitate my work. Hiring the museum staff member was legally and ethnically necessary, yet I frequently felt that I was missing important conversations and critical information. I attribute some of these difficulties to age and gender differences between the museum official and myself. Cultural norms also undoubtedly influenced our relationship; in Fiji an older gentleman would never normally take direction from a significantly younger woman. 6. I use the term interlocutor to refer to my Lauan collaborators, who might also be referred to as informants. I prefer interlocutor or collaborator because the terms have implications recognizing that these people participated in my research. A

Fieldwork: Motivations, Plans, and Realities

15

number of Lauan collaborators helped to shape my work and took part in countless discussions that influenced my thinking and interpretations. 7. When a visitor comes to a Fijian village and does not have family to stay with, this person is traditionally invited to stay in the home of the Turaga ni Koro. It is unusual for Fijians to arrive in a village without a predetermined place to stay, since people have many extended family connections. Foreigners, on the other hand, commonly end up staying with the Turaga ni Koro. 8. All of my relations with the Turaga ni Koro of Salia village were difficult. Our relationship began with the village headman telling me that he was the village chief. The museum staff member did not clarify this. At the museum official’s suggestion, my colleagues and I even presented the Turaga ni Koro with a large bundle of kava root (yaqona), the traditional narcotic that is customarily presented (sevusevu) as a ceremonial gift to the village chief by visitors. The Turaga ni Koro was thrilled with this successful manipulation and spent all night drinking kava with his friends. This sort of manipulation was just the first of many that mark my relationship with this village headman during my work on Nayau. The community’s situation was unusual because for the duration of my research this particular village did not have a hereditary chief in a position of control. Two closely related individuals were in line for the appointment of village chief, which is made by the king of Lau (the Tui Lau). The Tui Lau was unable to officially select one of them due to illness. As a result the village was in political turmoil and clans aggressively vied for power and control. Not surprisingly, my research team and myself were caught up in this power struggle. 9. During my first season of fieldwork in Lau I was often treated as an honorary male; that is, I was allowed to join the men in certain tasks and situations that women generally are not a part of. I was seated near the top of the house and seating area at meal times and encouraged to eat with the men (before the women and children). Because I am a foreigner, this was permitted. However, men were visibly uncomfortable with my presence in some instances, such as during an evening of kava drinking, or when I would speak up in a room full of men. Many Lauan men are uncomfortable speaking with women, and they are not used to interacting with them in public. As a sign of respect, men generally ignore women in public situations. 10. I applied for, and received IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval for ethnographic activities after my first trip to Lau. 11. There are few opportunities for women to express their opinions and feelings about things to foreign visitors or in a public setting. Moreover, the presence of a researcher on Nayau was unprecedented. We found that people were excited to meet me and talk with our group. We also compensated women who participated in these interviews, which was an added incentive. In all instances the women interviewed did not request to remain anonymous and were excited at the prospect of having their information and photos appear in a book or article or publication.

2

The Environmental and Social Landscape: The Lau Islands, Fiji

The events of human life, whether public or private, are so intimately linked to architecture that most observers can reconstruct nations or individuals in all the truth of their habits from the remains of their public monuments or from their domestic relics. Archaeology is to social nature what comparative anatomy is to organized nature. A mosaic reveals an entire society, just as a skeleton of an ichthyosaur suggests an entire creation. —Honoré de Balzac

T

he day had turned to night hours before as I sat on a worn ibe, a handwoven pandanus mat, enjoying the ocean breeze and listening to the women sing. I was seated among the men of the village and their sons who were drinking yaqona for what seemed like most of the day while the women sang and prepared copious amounts of food, a veritable feast by any standard. I made serious efforts to drink the smallest amount of yaqona possible to be social, and wished that I was allowed to help with the food. The preparations took weeks and resulted in the most diverse collection of cuisine that I had ever seen. This mass of food would be consumed entirely in one sitting. The Lauan feast is quantitatively and qualitatively different from everyday meals. Two kinds of sweet potato, taro, cassava, yams, breadfruit, seaweeds, papaya, cooked banana, and delicacies including different varieties of baked puddings (grated tubers mixed with coconut milk, which are baked in the earth oven) were served alongside an equally diverse array of marine and terrestrial meats. This cornucopia was even more im16

The Environmental and Social Landscape: The Lau Islands, Fiji

17

pressive given the circumstance—the producers were almost two hundred miles from a grocery store and everything consumed was harvested, produced, and prepared locally with the exception of flour and rice that were purchased from a cargo ship. The women, teenagers, and children sang and clapped in time from one side of the village meetinghouse as they prepared the food and patiently waited for the men to finish the yaqona. Their rhythmic sonorous songs accompanied all celebratory feasts and continued for hours before the eating commenced. The feast began with a grand display of food covering every inch of the lengthy tablecloth (i sulu ni teveli), which spread out on the floor before the chief. He sat at the top of the house (i cake) and relished a generous portion of each dish. The plate in front of the chief overflowed with the best parts of the young pig, the head and hindquarters. A foot-long Jack cranium with its glossy bulging fish eyes intact was also presented to the head of the group. The guests and men of high rank joined the chief, enjoying the meal while the women and children waited to begin eating until the people positioned i cake have finished with their first serving. Lively discussions abounded as people ate and relished this community event. The flavor and quality of the food was a common topic of conversation at both ends of the table. Everyone was encouraged to eat more, “kana vaka levu!” The eating went on for hours, and all participants were satiated as we hobbled away from the eating area. Most people moved to occupy more comfortable horizontal positions at various houses where discussion continued until sleep set in. Feasting rituals such as this have been going on in Fiji as long as humans have inhabited these islands. However, rituals associated with eating are not limited to feasts—in fact every Lauan meal is structured with formal elements, particular components, and a suite of expected proper behaviors. An average meal differs from a feast in terms of the quantity and types of special foods prepared, but the structure of the meal is basically the same. Indeed, daily life in Lau involves many rituals that might be classified as secular, but which carry deep meanings and have roots in ancient traditions. It is the long-standing Lauan practices and traditions associated with foodways that I am most interested in understanding. These islands offer a view into lifeways that have maintained some of their fundamental structure over the last 2,000 to 3,000 years of human occupation. In addition to the ethnographic and archeological data from Lau, which will be discussed in succeeding chapters, the accounts of early explorers and missionaries provide useful descriptions of Fijian lifeways at the time of European contact. The exploratory voyages of the Enlightenment brought the Fijian Islands, along with many Pacific archipelagos, into the consciousness of Europeans (figure 2.1). In 1643, the Dutch explorer Abel Tasman located Fiji

18

Figure 2.1.

Chapter 2

Map of the Pacific Islands with Remote Oceania Indicated

for the Western world, when he sighted Vanuabalavu in the Lau Group, although he did not actually make contact with the people or set foot on Fijian soil. The first Europeans to interact with Fijians were the mutineers from the Bounty, who landed on the island of Matuku, located in the Moala Group between Viti Levu and central Lau (Thomson 1968; Thurn and Wharton 1922). Sustained interactions between Fijians and Westerners did not commence until late in the nineteenth century, as the islands were generally avoided by navigators who feared savage cannibals (Clunie 2003; Young 1982). William Lockerby, the sandalwood trader, recorded directions to the Fiji Islands in 1809 and suggested, “Ships going their I would recommend to go well armed and niver to be of their gard for althow they are hospitable people yet they are Canables and will take every Advantage from their propensity to stealing, the low class of them in particular. I would recommend never to go on shoar without being armed for though you may be very friendly with those you are trading with yet they are always at war among themselves and those that are their Enomies will be yours” (cited in Clunie 2003, 4). Indeed, fear deterred explorers from regularly visiting Fiji until late in the nineteenth century, when many other islands in the central Pacific had been in contact with Europeans for one hundred years or more.

The Environmental and Social Landscape: The Lau Islands, Fiji

19

The accounts of these explorers prove fragmentary and biased yet describe one side of the early interactions between Europeans and Fijians and a glimpse of some traditional practices and lifeways (Wilkes 1985). Nevertheless, much of Fijian culture in the late precontact and early historical periods remains to be understood. For example, during this time, the economic and sociopolitical systems were undergoing dramatic changes as a result of population increases, environmental shifts, and likely the overtaxing of available resources. What were the characteristics of this period in terms of settlement, household organization, foodways, and hierarchical social order? How did large-scale social changes affect people’s lifeways, ideology, and everyday activities in terms of foodways, labor, and production? Through the combined efforts of archaeology, ethnohistory, and ethnography these questions can be explored, and a better understanding of the past may be reached. This chapter provides background on socioeconomics, foodways, and rank in late prehistoric and contemporary Fiji, focusing on the Lau Group. Thousands of years prior to the Enlightenment Voyages, Pacific Islanders explored and occupied the far-flung islands of Oceania. The region of Near Oceania includes the islands of Papua New Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago, and much of the Solomon Islands (figure 2.1). Near Oceania has been occupied by humans since about 40,000 years ago, and it is an area of extreme cultural, linguistic, and biogeographic diversity. Remote Oceania includes the islands east, southeast, and north of Near Oceania. The islands of Remote Oceania were discovered relatively late in human prehistory, around 1500 B.C., and even more recently in some areas. The Lapita peoples are the ancestors of most of the modern occupants of Remote Oceania. Lapita peoples spoke languages in the Austronesian language family and shared a common culture (Kirch and Green 1987, 2001). This culture complex is recognizable by distinctive dentate stamped pottery and associated stone and shell tool assemblages, the archaeological signature of the “seafaring pottery making farmers” who first inhabited Remote Oceania (Lilly 2006, 5). Pacific Island food systems, including those of the Lapita peoples, are a combination of cultivation technologies and domesticated food items originating from Southeast Asia (Sus scrofa, Canis familiaris, Gallus gallus, Dioscorea yams) and New Guinea (Saccharum officinarum and Australimusa bananas), as well as marine resource exploitation. The Lapita peoples colonized the islands of modern day Fiji, western Viti Levu specifically, by about 3050 BP (Nunn 2007). However, the Lau Group was occupied later in prehistory and possibly from Tonga rather than from Viti Levu or the larger islands of Fiji. The Lau Group is a cluster of 80 islands (29 of which are inhabited today) extending north to south across 450 km of ocean along the 180° meridian from latitude 17° to 21° south (figure 2.2 does not include the

20

Chapter 2

southern Lau islands of Ono-i-Lau and Tuvana-i-Ra, located ca. 200 km south of Ogea). The main Fijian islands of Viti Levu and Vanua Levu are located about 200 km west and 100 km northwest of Lau, respectively. Lau lies about 320 km west of Tonga. The rock substrate that makes up the Lau Islands, classified as Lau volcanics, dates to the late Miocene, including 6- to 9-million-year-old volcanics with upper Miocene and lower Pliocene limestone. The islands have uplifted to form coralline limestone cliffs up to 100 m above sea level in places (Bayliss-Smith et al. 1988). Lau exhibits a variety of geological variations, although weathered limestone makes up much of the exposed bedrock (Ladd and Hoffmeister 1945; Stevenson et al. 1994). These islands are located relatively close together, with much inter-island visibility. Geologically, the area has been described as a plateau where the average water depth is 2 km (Best 1984). Extensive reef systems fringe most of the islands. In southern Lau, these reefs are often exposed a few meters above present sea level (BaylissSmith et al. 1988). Submerged reef systems cover large areas throughout the archipelago. The marine zone is rich in faunal resources (Vuki et al. 2000; Wright 1993), and today the coastal zone represents the most important component of the landscape from an economic perspective. Most

Figure 2.2.

Map of the Fiji Islands with the Study Area Indicated in the Square

The Environmental and Social Landscape: The Lau Islands, Fiji

21

contemporary Lauan villages lie on the coast, with easy access to the sea, coconut plantations, churches, and visiting cargo ships (Bayliss-Smith et al. 1988; Hocart 1929; Thompson 1940). Drought and tropical storms are the two natural physical events that commonly adversely affect Lau. The southeast trades (locally referred to as “Lau i cake” or winds moving up the Lau group) are the predominant winds, which blow up along the axis of the chain and are especially persistent from July to December (Vuki et al. 2000). The climate is typically tropical and marine; mean annual temperatures are around 25°C, ranging from 21°C to 30°C with humidity around 78 percent. Rainfall is variable, ranging between 1,500 and 3,500 mm (Fiji Government 2004). In recent years, more severe dry seasons have been observed in central Lau. The wet season is between November and April, although most of the rain falls in heavy but short local showers during the wet season, the height of which is usually in March. Droughts in Fiji are closely linked to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. ENSOs result in weak trade winds, lower ocean temperatures, decreased rainfall, and altered migrations of tuna and billfish (Vuki et al. 2000; Zann and Vuki 2000). Strong ENSO episodes may even cause major droughts throughout the country (e.g., during 1982/1983 and 1997/1998) (Fiji Government 2004). In relatively normal years, the rainfall in dry areas may be so low during the dry season that below-average rainfall for a couple of months may cause a drought. This is a common occurrence in Lau. Between January and May, tropical cyclones are frequent. On average, ten to fifteen cyclones per decade affect some part of Fiji, and two to four cause severe damage. Lau is often hit hard by these events. My work primarily focused on the island of Nayau. However, I sometimes refer to my research in additional field localities, including on the islands of Lakeba, Aiwa Levu, and Aiwa Lailai, which lie to the southeast of Nayau (figure 2.2). Lakeba, the capital of Lau and the seat of the Lau Provincial Government, is the largest island in Lau, measuring 56 km2. Lakeba is surrounded by a fringing reef and has an eroded and dissected volcanic center; mainly andesites through dacites, with some basalts and limestone outcrops along the coast (Best 1984). Lakeba has eight villages, the largest of which is Tubou, located on the south coast. Tubou is the traditional home of the paramount chief of Lau, the Tui Nayau. Aiwa Levu and Aiwa Lailai are located southeast of Lakeba and are currently uninhabited. These two small islands are sometimes referred to collectively as “Aiwa,” and measure 1.2 km2 and 1.0 km2, respectively. The islands are composed of raised weathered late Miocene limestone, and are surrounded by an extensive reef, large parts of which are exposed at low tide. The interiors of both islands are pocketed, with caves and sinkholes. The land is covered with volcanic soils that become thinner

22

Chapter 2

around the island’s edges, exhibiting areas of limestone outcrop. Aiwa Levu is primarily used today as a temporary campground for fishermen who come by boat to exploit the islands’ rich and accessible marine resources. Aiwa Lailai is more difficult to access due to the lack of a beach or landing area. It has fewer flat areas suitable for camping and fewer caves and rockshelters than are found on Aiwa Levu. Nayau (figure 2.3) has a land area of 22 km2 and is located in northcentral Lau, about 240 km east of Viti Levu. The islands of Cicia to the northwest and Lakeba to the southeast are Nayau’s closest neighbors. The island is a geological composite of exposed volcanics and highly weathered raised limestone (Ladd and Hoffmeister 1945). Nayau’s central interior

Figure 2.3.

Map of Nayau Island

The Environmental and Social Landscape: The Lau Islands, Fiji

23

zone is a basin (average elevation ca. 100 m) with large areas of highly degraded volcanic soils (from weathered andesitic and dacitic lavas) where principal crops are cultivated. The basin is surrounded by a discontinuous ring of elevated reefal limestone (maximum elevation ca. 160 m). The limestone varies in degree of surface weathering, from rugged karst outcrops to densely forested areas with substantial weathered soil. Extensive tracts of planted and tended coconut palms (Cocos nucifera) ring much of the island’s coastline. The palms produce copra, which is Nayau’s main commercial export. Nayau’s three villages (Salia, Narocivo, and Liku) are located along the coast and are all positioned on or next to prehistoric village occupations. Salia and Narocivo are on the east, and Liku is on the west. The coastal flats and reefal sands that fringe Nayau probably were formed mainly by storm-wave deposition during the past 4,000 years (McLean 1980). Like many of Fiji’s small peripheral islands, Nayau is subject to extensive damage from hurricanes and tropical storms. In 1979, Hurricane Meli’s wind-driven sea surges struck the northern and eastern coasts of Nayau, sweeping over the eastern two villages and causing a severe loss of life and physical damage to the landscape (Bayliss-Smith et al. 1988, 88). As a result, the island was evacuated, and copra production ceased for almost four years (Bayliss-Smith et al. 1988, 88). When discussing severe weather, people from Nayau often refer to this horrible hurricane and the physical and mental scars it left on them.

LIFE AND HISTORY IN LAU The current population on Nayau is around 400 people. In 2003, Salia village had 167 inhabitants, Narocivo had 164 people, and Liku had 80. At the time of Captain Charles Wilkes’s visit to Nayau in 1840, he claimed that Nayau had a population of 200 people, “who are perched upon inaccessible peaks, in order to protect themselves from depredations” (Wilkes 1985, 176). It is possible that Wilkes made a gross underestimate, given that he did not venture inland. My archaeological surveys of Nayau’s interior hilltop fortifications and their numerous house platforms indicate that populations were likely much grater than 200. The contemporary population on Nayau ranges widely in age, but most of the population is middle-aged to elderly people (about thirty-five to eighty years). This age structure is largely influenced by the emigration of young to middle-age groups; adolescents and young adults are increasingly leaving the island to pursue advanced educations and paying jobs in the cities of the main islands. Emigration affects local labor resources by creating a social environment where extended-family working groups are

24

Chapter 2

increasingly difficult to assemble. Bayliss-Smith et al. (1988) attribute the distorted age structure of Lakeba’s population to modern ideas about individualism that developed in the 1970s and 1980s. On Lakeba, and to a lesser degree on Nayau, changes in land-use patterns have contributed to growing dependence on store-bought foods. Lakeba, as the capital of Lau, is much more influenced by these changes than the surrounding islands. Wilkes estimated that Lau, or what he called the entire “Eastern Group,” was occupied by about 3,000 people in 1840 (Wilkes 1985, 323). This projection is also likely an underestimate. In terms of Fiji’s overall population, Wilkes estimated that “the whole group contains 130,000 inhabitants” (Wilkes, 1985, 323). Based on archaeological data, census information (starting in 1879), and historical records, Best argues that Lakeba’s maximum prehistoric population was around 2,000 people (Best 1984, 575). The 1976 census recorded 2,044 people on Lakeba. Culturally as well as geographically, the Lau Islands are the meeting point between what have been referred to as the culture areas of “Polynesia” (originally meaning “many islands”; a term that has since been defined as a culture area, see Kirch and Green 2001) and “Melanesia” (originally meaning “black islands”). In recent years the term Melanesia has fallen out of favor as it is inherently biased and flawed. When I use the term Melanesia here, I refer to geographic area only, rather than to a cultural or ethnic category. Preferable geographic, linguistic, and cultural divisions are Near and Remote Oceania, as depicted in figure 2.1. While the precise timing and origin of the cultural relationship between Tonga and Lau remain unknown, the two areas regularly interacted by the seventeenth century, and likely well before 1000 BP (Best 1984; Clark 1999; Reid 1990). By the seventeenth century, the Lauan people were intermediaries between chiefly lineages of Tonga and Fiji, and a “House of Fiji” (Ha’a Fale Fisi; Fijian family lines that are permanently connected to Tonga through marriage) was firmly established in Tonga (Hocart 1929; Reid 1990). At European contact, the Lauans were engaged in exchange networks that spanned much or all of Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa (Hocart 1929; Reid 1990; also see D’Arcy 2006). Wesleyan missionaries arrived in Lau in 1835. By 1849 Tui Nayau, the king of Lau, publicly accepted the Christian faith and was soon joined by many of his chiefs and people (Reid 1990). Powerful chiefs emerged throughout Fiji in the nineteenth century, although it was not the direct result of European contact. Particular power configurations can be traced to precapitalist Fijian society, where small confederations of chiefdoms, or Fijian states (matanitu), were common (Reid 1990; Sahlins 1985; Young 1982). However, a substantial shift in the political organization of the Fijian islands as a whole between 1800 and 1874 affected all of the islands,

The Environmental and Social Landscape: The Lau Islands, Fiji

25

including Lau. In 1874 some chiefs ceded political control to the Queen of England, making Fiji part of the British Empire. Simultaneously, three states or matanitu, including Lakeba (all of central and southern Lau from Nayau south), Bau (the Lomaiviti Group off the east coast of Viti Levu from Koro south to Kadavu), and Cakaudrove (southeastern Vanua Levu, Taveuni and northern Lau, south to Cicia), subjugated all the small islands off the east coasts of Viti Levu and Vanua Levu, as well as much of these larger islands (Bayliss-Smith et al. 1988; Reid 1990; Sahlins 1985). As a result, rivalries, political alliances, and trade networks intensified. One outcome of this was the rapid spread of steel technologies that “transformed agriculture, boat-building, house construction and weapons manufacture. . . . This technology . . . had a major impact on the generation of surplus labour and product in Fijian communities, and these changes in the economic base undoubtedly played an important role in centralization of power among certain lineages in the political structure” (BaylissSmith et al. 1988, 48–49). Further compounding change was the increasing influence of the Tongans in Lau through immigration and political alliance, which ultimately affected Lau’s economic base in the mid-nineteenth century. Starting in precolonial times, Tongans and Fijians were involved in extensive trade networks that spanned the island groups of Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa. Tongans introduced Samoan adzes, which were brought to Fiji as exchange valuables, and traded for Lauan hardwoods (vesi or Intsia bijuga, especially for canoes), barkcloth (masi), and red parakeet feathers (D’Arcy 2006; Thompson 1940; Young 1982). Tongan immigrants also settled throughout Lau, thus increasing their connections to Fijians through marriage, political alliances, and exchange. In 1853, the Tongan chief Ma’afu was appointed as the deputy governor of the Tongans resident in Fiji (Reid 1990; Young 1993). Ma’afu settled in Vanua Balavu in 1855, and instituted changes in the land-tenure system that resulted in an increase in Fijian participation in surplus-commodity production for the export trade (especially coconut oils). In Bau, the powerful chief Cakobau exerted rigid control over land sales in Lomaiviti, and thus prevented large-scale European settlement on most of these islands, with the exception of Ovalau (Bayliss-Smith et al. 1988, 54). Generally, Fijian chiefs were reluctant to comply with European desires for Fijian land and local labor. Many of the chiefs were advised by Europeans to avoid the pattern of colonial domination that occurred in New Zealand and Australia. A treaty of friendship was agreed on by the king of Lakeba and the king of Tonga, declaring peace, mutual defense, and the freedom of Tongans and Lauans to settle in either kingdom, in 1865 (Reid 1990, 50). The treaty formally recognized bonds that had existed for many generations; but

26

Chapter 2

was needed to substantiate the claims of Tongans who, from their perspective, found themselves increasingly in competition with Europeans for control and manipulation of the Fijian islands. Using his popularity, political power, and kin affiliations, Ma’afu formed a confederation (tovata) in 1869 that united Lakeba’s possessions (the islands extending from Nayau south to Ono-i-Lau) with the adjacent Tongan possessions of Vanua Balavu and the Moala Group (figure 2.2); this confederation made Ma’afu the first Tui Lau, or king of Lau. In 1938, the Native Lands Commission recorded the Tukutuku Raraba, or oral traditions of the landowning units and individuals. Records show that Lauan society in the twentieth century was the product of political consolidation and economic organization that occurred over a period of at least four centuries (Young 1993, 160). Young (1993) demonstrates that these records are contingent on history and that they validated the social and political status quo and the rights of those people currently in possession of land. The Tukutuku Raraba is obviously biased toward the interests of the people in power, those who believed that they were the rightful owners of land. Nevertheless, these records are useful for understanding past land claims and political and social organization, which formed the historical foundation of the present. Currently, Lauan villages are each presided over by hereditary minor chiefs who hold the title Tui combined with the name of the village. For example, on the island of Nayau, Tui Liku is the chief of Liku village, and Narocivo is ruled by Tui Naro. Salia village does not have a chief, as the Tui Devo died years ago and a new chief has not been appointed by the Tui Lau. The term Devo refers to the name of the old village that was destroyed in 1979 by Hurricane Meli. Devo was located on the coastal strip; the newer village, Salia, is positioned on the alluvial slopes above where Devo was on the landscape. Hocart (1929, 23) claims that Ma’afu moved Salia to its present location. The village chiefs have tributary dealings with the high chiefs and are ranked according to their kin relationship to each other and to the high chief (Thompson 1940). The entire province of Lau is the domain of the high chief or king, the Tui Lau. His full dual title, Na Tui Lau, Tui Nayau Ka Sau ni Vanua ko Lau, translates to the King of Lau, King of Nayau, and High Chief of the Land of Lau; and refers to his lineage from Nayau and associations with Tonga. The title Sau is a Fijian cognate of the native Tongan term Hau. Reid (1990) explains that in Tonga the semi-divine king, the Tui Tonga, became separate from the acting king or high chief, the Hau. “Reluctant to involve the [Hau] in the rough and tumble government, brought to a head by violence, led to the separation of spiritual and temporal functions and the emergence of the Hau as distinct from the Tu’i Tonga” (Reid 1990, 6). In Fiji, the title Sau is only used in Lau, Taveuni, and Vanua Levu, the areas

The Environmental and Social Landscape: The Lau Islands, Fiji

27

closest to Tonga; but unlike in Tonga, it may be held by the same individual who is the Tui. The late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara was both the Tui Lau and Sau (1920–2005, installed in 1969). The Tui Lau is first installed as the Sau, and after a number of years is installed as the Tui Nayau. In addition to the hereditary chief, each village has a locally appointed government representative or village headman, the Turaga ni Koro. The headman is responsible for assigning and directing village communal work, making nightly announcements, and maintaining the general physical and esthetic state of the village. He is also the collector of tribute and taxes. High-ranking people on Lakeba refer to Nayau as “the land of our little house, of our kitchen,” and Lakebans consider the Nayau people to be the household servants to the Tui Nayau, and the island and all its resources to be theirs (Hocart 1929, 23). Narocivo was generally the most high ranked of Nayau’s three villages. This is where the Tui Nayau’s lineage originates. He is closely related to the Tui Naro. Salia gained power in the mid-1800s (Hocart n.d. ms); but since there is currently no chief, or Tui Devo, Salia has lost power and is ranked second to Narocivo. Lauans frequently refer to social hierarchies, which are central to all social relations in Fiji. Lauan kinship is a complicated system of ranking that is intricately interwoven with hierarchy, gender, and status relations, a tradition that undoubtedly derives from the first occupants of Lau. Every person on Nayau, in all three villages, is related through consanguinity, affinity, and/or fictive kin relationships in multiple ways. The reckoning of family is constantly referred to in conversation, but remains extremely flexible according to context. For example, if there is a crisis or someone becomes ill, people will begin to refer to individuals involved as brother, sister, father, or mother, when these people may or may not be consanguines. Hocart (n.d. ms, 40) has argued that knowing someone means that they are a relation and kin. I believe this adequately represents contemporary social relations on Nayau. The largest commonly recognized unit of Fijian kin organization is the yavusa, which has been referred to as a phratry by Thompson (1940). This term, derived from the word yavu (the earth foundation of a house where deceased members of the family were buried), originally referred to groups of ranked and related houses founded by a common ancestor or group of ancestors (Hocart 1929; Thompson 1940; Toren 1994). Phratry units are classified as either “land” (yavusa vanua, or kai vanua) or “sea” (yavusa wai or kai wai) people. Land people, who are always nonchiefly or commoner lineages, claim descent from the earliest known inhabitants of the land and form the largest portion of the population. Not all sea people are of chiefly status (although all chiefs are sea people), but they all

28

Chapter 2

claim descent from ancestors who came from off island. In common usage, yavusa refers to a patrilineal decent group or clan, which combines multiple mataqali (described below), and may refer to an entire village (as is the case in Liku Village). The mataqali, commonly referred to as the clan by ethnographers of Fijian society, is the basic local kin group directing economic activity, which is generally exogamous, patrilineal, and patrilocal. Mataqali are said to be descended from a heroic ancestral spirit, and are a smaller unit than the yavusa (Hocart 1929; Sahlins 1962; Thompson 1940). Thompson argues that mataqali are composed of descendents of a band of brothers who occupied a single hamlet site; before European contact, when hamlets were spread out over a single island. Capell (1984) cited four traditional classifications or types of mataqali in Fijian society; and this kin division appears to “have sprung from the subdivision of naturally increasing families, the sons of the original ancestor being the heads of the resulting mataqali. The mataqali-turaga was the mataqali of the eldest son (na ulumatua); mataqali bati, the warriors; mataqali bete, the priests; mataqali matanivanua, the heralds. These functions are thus hereditary amongst men of the mataqali. . . . The mataqali of a person may be known by (1) the food that is forbidden him; (2) his war-cry (i vakacaucau ni ravu); and (3) the animal or fish he must prepare for the chief of a certain place, and may not partake of himself in the presence of that chief (salu)” Capell (1984, 142). Within the mataqali are two or three smaller named residential kin units of common paternal descent, called tokatoka. Tokatoka maintain land claims, but were not recognized by the Native Lands Commission in the 1930s (the Native Lands Commission’s inquiries establish the land claims for villages and their kin groups at the mataqali level). Sahlins (1962, 241) noted that this kin division is also associated with the phrase “side of the oven” (baji ni lovo), indicating that tokatoka share a lovo and also constitute part of a mataqali. Hocart (n.d. ms) described Lauan cross-cousin marriage practices as the foundation of the kinship system. According to the crosscousin system, if a man is related to another man, he will be related to that man’s brother in exactly the same way; if he is related to a woman in any way, then he is related to this woman’s sister in exactly the same way, but not to her brother. In this situation, a man’s children should marry his sister’s children, and cross cousins are simply considered “man and wife” (p. 45). This is still practiced in Lau and on Nayau specifically, although it is becoming increasingly less common. At the time of European contact, several married couples within a tokatoka would occupy a single house. The term vu vale refers to this association of people who worked together and shared a house and kitchen; the term includes the physical house structure and the people using it (Hocart n.d. ms, 28). The colonial gov-

The Environmental and Social Landscape: The Lau Islands, Fiji

29

ernment regulations of the late 1800s ordered that each married couple must live in a single house, but people no longer consistently follow this rule. All Lauan relations are ranked and hierarchical. Indeed, terminology referring to people is laden with literal and figurative references to their social status in relation to one another and to birth order. For example, a younger brother is often the “after eater” or kana i muri (Hocart n.d. ms, 53). “Small people” (tamata lailai) tend to the food basket at the lower end of the house; thus, the “basket carrier” (cola in kato) may also refer to a younger brother. Conversely, the older brother is often called the “old head” (ulu matua). This younger elder distinction applies to the men with the same mother (Hocart n.d. ms, 53). Seniority is only absolute between brother and sisters. Rank depends largely on seniority, but it is also qualified depending on the social context (Hocart n.d. ms, 72). Likewise the terms “highborn” or “noble” (turaga) and “lowborn” (kaisi) are relative, as is their use. Labor in Lau is organized according to gender, kinship, and age (Hocart 1929; Sahlins 1962; Thompson 1940). Adult male tasks include the following: gardening; fishing (with a spear offshore, with a hook and hand-line); animal husbandry; preparing the earth oven and cooking food in it for special occasions; woodworking and house building; participation in village politics; and contributing labor to village projects and social services (such as construction of fences, community centers, and churches). The primary tasks for women include child care; fishing (inshore, with small nets, hooks, and hand-line); gathering greens, fruits, and fuel for cooking; preparing and cooking food (except in the earthoven); masi, mat, and oil making; cleaning and laundry; and contributing labor to village projects and social services (making decorative items and collecting, preparing, and distributing food for special events). Women are symbolically linked with places on the landscape that are considered to be “inside.” Inside areas primarily consist of the village and inshore marine environments (O’Day 2004). Children also make an important contribution to the economy. In the village, when children are not in school, they are actively involved in tasks that directly result in the production of food, crafts, or other items or resources that are helpful to their families. For example, adults and adolescents often call upon children from about five to twelve years of age to collect firewood or coconuts, run down and kill a chicken for dinner, assist with gardening, and so forth. Lauan children are confident and capable in many everyday household and subsistence tasks. The impacts of gendered cultural expectations on the behavior of people within Fijian society are great. Women are expected to be caring, giving, and focused on members of the household rather than on themselves

30

Chapter 2

(see also Aucoin 2002; Becker 1995; Leckie 2000). These social pressures dictate what, when, and where women eat and the tasks that people engage in throughout the day. Much discussion within the village focuses on whether or not women are identified by their families and neighbors as respectable caregivers, wives, and mothers. The collection, preparation, and serving of food are critical components of care giving. Personal obligations determined by kinship are the basis of exchange systems in Lau (Hocart 1929; Sahlins 1962; Young 1993). This tradition, enabling people to exchange commodities within the region and with areas outside of it, was documented in the earliest accounts of Lau, and exists in the present despite the modern superimposition of the cash economy (Young 1993). All items of exchange (financial, food-related, and otherwise) move through kin groups. The resulting system is one where any item in the possession of an individual is considered property of immediate and extended kin groups. Begging (kerekere) and ceremonial exchange (soli, solevu) are the only traditional Lauan means by which property changes hands (Hocart n.d. ms, 129).1 In Lau today these traditional forms of exchange are supplemented by more Western modes of exchange such as loans and purchases with cash or trade-in-kind. Colonialism and Westernization have undoubtedly affected all aspects of the indigenous lifeways, and Nayau’s subsistence system is no exception. While living on the island, people primarily rely on a subsistence economy. However, Lauans are deeply immersed in the economics of the World System. Unfortunately, the phrase “subsistence economy” is fraught with intellectual baggage and suggests that a group with this relatively simple economic form is struggling. That is not the case in Lau. In fact, people generally have more than enough food to feed themselves and their families. They live off the land, are well nourished, and maintain healthy lifestyles. Lauans are acutely affected by colonization, and modernization. And, there is no doubt that Lau is in the periphery rather than the powerful industrialized core (Sahlins 1999; Wallerstein 1974). Places with subsistence economies are both enmeshed in and impoverished by the World System, that complex network of economic exchange relations traversing the globe. While Lauans maintain fundamentally traditional Fijian elements of existence, ideology, and culture, they are wrapped up in a system beyond the islands they inhabit. Not surprisingly, today imported commodities replace many of the meaning-laden items that were most likely to be exchanged and negotiated between Lauan communities in the past. Introductions with the most obvious impacts on eating habits are (1) cassava or manioc (Manihot esculenta and M. dulcis) and (2) technologies including microfiber fishing line, outboard motors, and fiberglass fishing boats. Cassava was introduced by the Colonial Government between 1900

The Environmental and Social Landscape: The Lau Islands, Fiji

31

and 1912 (Bayliss-Smith et al. 1988). This reliable, rapidly maturing, lowmaintenance crop was quickly adopted by Lauans, and is presently the most commonly consumed root crop and starch staple. It is planted primarily inland in the center of the island, but also along the eroding alluvial slopes just outside the villages. Modern products replace or substitute traditional items readily because they fit into existing niches and thus the system as a whole. Some examples include: cotton replacing barkcloth; “tinfish” (or canned tuna) replacing large offshore fishes; cassava replacing taro and sweet potatoes; metal fishing gear replacing bone and shell fishhooks; alcoholic beverages replacing yaqona (or kava); yarn replacing bird feathers for decorating pandanus mats; and linoleum replacing pandanus mats. The replacement process should not be looked upon as a loss of culture and tradition. Marshall Sahlins recently pointed out, following Margaret Jolly, that when people in Western cultures change, it is called progress; but when indigenous peoples change, it is seen as a tragedy and the death of tradition (Sahlins 1999, ii). In fact, Fijians (just like people all over the world) “indigenize modernity” (Sahlins 1999, x). Modern products enhance existing social systems and are looked upon as a positive influence, as will be discussed in the following chapters. In terms of subsistence-based agriculture Lauans focus on slash-andburn gardening. This seasonally regulated cultivation is done by men and involves the clearing of partially forested areas inland that are outside the villages. Some of the areas cultivated are located on prehistoric archaeological sites; the interior hillforts positioned along the discontinuous ring of elevated limestone surrounding the island’s central basin are especially productive areas, as their soils are rich in organics. Irrigation agriculture, associated with aroid production, is practiced in limited areas of the island (primarily in the northeast and southwest). Most families have multiple garden plots that they regularly tend and harvest throughout the year. Staple starch foods compose a large portion (70–80 percent) of the total diet every day. Principal crops that are produced on island include sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas), yams (Dioscorea spp.), dryland aroids or taro (Colocasia esculenta and Alocasia macrorrhiza), cassava, breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis), and bananas (Musa sp.). Some people also plant sugarcane, melons, corn, cabbage, eggplant, beans, mangos, and papayas. Seaweeds form a small portion of the average diet. They are often eaten, but in limited quantities. They are usually served as a side dish or as a snack. In addition to locally produced foods, people supplement their diet with starches including flour, rice, and noodles (or ramen) that can be purchased at the local stores and from cargo ships with cash, credit, or through exchange.

32

Chapter 2

Coconuts (Cocos nucifera) are a significant component of the diet. They are used for drinking, and their flesh is often grated and combined with many traditional dishes, or eaten raw. Coconut milk is also used in cooking or as a dipping sauce. In addition to their use as food, coconuts produce a husk fiber that is made into sennit (fiber cordage) and oil that is used as a lubricant for the skin and hair. Their fronds are woven for thatch and baskets, and coconut wood is used as a building material. Currently, perhaps the most important economic contribution of coconuts is the production of copra, or dried coconut meat, for export and sale. Copra is a major source of income for people throughout Lau. On Nayau, tracts of cultivated coconut palms ring much of the island’s coastline, and also grow on the interior; forming a major resource, both locally and for copra export. The principal nonfood crops are pandanus (Pandanus caricosus) and paper mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera). These crops are used by women to produce mats and barkcloth, for which Nayau is known. Importantly, kava or yaqona (Piper methysticum) that is used to make the mildly narcotic drink consumed at all ritual occasions is not grown on Nayau and must be imported. Interestingly, kava grows well on nearby islands, but people on Nayau claim that it will not grow on their island. Nayau’s terrestrial faunal resources consist of indigenous lizards, a boa, birds, and fruit bats; as well as prehistoric human introductions including pigs (Sus scrofa), dogs (Canis familiaris), chickens (Gallus gallus), and rats (Rattus exulans, R. praetor). Cattle (Bos taurus), goats (Capra hircus), and horses (Equus caballus) arrived on the island as European introductions in the late 1800s (Hocart 1929). Today, the main animal foods on the island include bony fish, shellfish and other invertebrates (including coconut crabs; lobsters and other crustaceans; sea cucumbers; cephalopods, especially octopus; seasonal annelid sea worms, or Eunice viridis; bivalves; and gastropods), turtles, chicken, pig, and cows. Animals that contribute small and irregular portions to the diet include seabirds, ducks, bats, and goats. Goats are primarily raised for sale to the main islands, and are rarely consumed. Pigs, chickens, and cows are reserved for consumption on special occasions. Locally produced meat is occasionally supplemented by canned meats (such as tuna and corned beef) that are available in Nayau’s stores. Pigs and cows are kept outside the villages by fences that are maintained by local communal labor. Men construct pig pens; but use them primarily for feeding pigs, as the animals run free outside the villages. Horses and cows are most often tied up outside the village. People often keep their goats tied up in the village, and they are occasionally allowed to roam the village along with chickens and dogs. Local perceptions regarding what items are considered valuable, or signs of economic wealth, today are the result of historical processes in Fiji

The Environmental and Social Landscape: The Lau Islands, Fiji

33

and, to a lesser extent, Western ideas about wealth. It is thus instructive to explore the coevolution of economic and political systems through time in order to understand the present and the past. Working from historical records and missionary and indigenous accounts, Bayliss-Smith et al. (1988) characterized economic organization in the Fijian islands around the 1800s as a system focused on domestic production, but with the material resources to produce a surplus for significant ceremonial events and inter-island trade. During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Fiji experienced a period of political and social unrest due to shifts from “a weakly hierarchical and diffusely connected chiefly system to larger more complex lineage aristocracies based on geographical suzerainty rather than purely kinship ties” (Bayliss-Smith et al. 1988, 47). One aspect of this power shift was the intensified struggle among upperstatus individuals to harness and accumulate resources and economic wealth. This tradition continues in the present, as both chiefly individuals and commoners have access to material goods and the ability to gain cash through trade and labor. In the precolonial and early colonial years, smaller islands to the east and west of Viti Levu and Vanua Levu, “were not isolated self-sufficient cells, and by the time merchant capital began to extract value from the physical and human resources of Fiji, a complex system of political patronage, alliances and economic exchanges had evolved to exploit ecological diversity and to facilitate division of labour, centralization of power and inter-island trade” (Bayliss-Smith et al. 1988, 47). From the work of Hocart (1929), Quain (1948), Sahlins (1962), Thompson (1940), BaylissSmith et al. (1988), and Reid (1990), a general characterization of the economic basis of life in the 1800s can be constructed. The economic foundation of Fijian society included the following: • A simple means of production was based on human energy, land cultivation, animal husbandry, and marine-resource exploitation. • A hierarchical system of chiefly leadership and mutual obligations formed the basis of productive relations and labor organization. • Division of labor was based on gender and age, where the men do the gardening and land clearing, go on expeditions, do the offshore fishing, and fighting; while the adult women do the domesticassociated activities such as cooking, cleaning, and inshore fishing and collecting. • Social relations were marked by the appropriation of tribute derived from leadership, economic cooperation, kinship, and marriage. The current Lauan system of economic organization on Nayau overlaps considerably with the aforementioned characterization. I do not mean to

34

Chapter 2

imply that Lauans or the people of Nayau have remained unchanged and static since the precolonial era. Rather, certain important economic structures have remained in place, and while society is certainly changing and constantly incorporating new elements, some structures (including the means of production, the system of social obligations, division of labor, and the social relations of tribute) have remained relatively conservative. For example, the introduction of steel technology to Fiji enabled the generation of surplus labor and product, which contributed to the economic base utilized in the centralization of power among lineages with preexisting authority and political strength. Today’s economic wealth includes land, material good of both foreign and local manufacture (e.g., barkcloth, kava, kerosene, fiberglass boats), food items (e.g., domestic animals, locally collected and produced plants and animals, imported foods), and cash. In some contexts imported goods are becoming equally or more highly valued than certain locally produced goods. The conspicuous consumption and general accumulation of goods by members of the community are prestige-enhancing activities. Within the village there is a feeling that people who pursue this are generally distrusted and considered greedy. However, at the same time these people are envied by members of the community and looked to by kin for material support. The unabashed accumulation of materials goes against the Fijian ethos of giving from which people derive a positive view of their personal identity in the eyes of individuals and the community (Becker 1995). Traditionally, chiefs and the elite class sought material wealth in mass, but commoners generally did not (Hocart 1929; Sahlins 1962; Thompson 1940). This practice is evolving as more and more people at all social ranks seek to accumulate goods.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON NAYAU I conducted archaeological reconnaissance surveys on Nayau in September and November 2001, investigating all three of the island’s traditional districts. Each district corresponds to a modern village (Salia, Narocivo, and Liku). These surveys located thirty-four discrete prehistoric archaeological sites on the island, consisting of three occupation types including inland rockshelters, hilltop fortified villages, and open village sites along the coastal dunes (figure 2.4). Most of the sites were known to the inhabitants of Nayau by the names I use here (table 2.1). Archaeological structures and pottery scatters were mapped, described, photographed, and plotted on air photos and geological maps. Twelve sites were excavated in 2001, yielding preliminary data about chronology, settlement patterns, and animal exploitation from each of the traditional districts and each of

The Environmental and Social Landscape: The Lau Islands, Fiji

35

the site types.2 In 2003, I excavated the site of Na Masimasi, the island’s earliest known occupation. Many of the excavated sites had relatively shallow deposits (⬍ 1 m deep; average 0.5 m) with simple stratigraphy. Waituruturu West and East, Korovatu Rockshelter 2, and Nukutubu Rockshelter 2 displayed more complex stratigraphy with fine lenses, subsurface pit features, and multiple strata. Na Masimasi also exhibited deep stratigraphy and features including possible trash pits, scooped fire features (likely lovo or hearths), and postholes. A prehistoric chronology for Nayau was obtained from the analysis of eight accelerator-mass spectrometer (AMS) radiocarbon (14 C) dates from

Figure 2.4.

Map of Nayau Island Showing Selected Archaeological Sites

Salia

Liku

Narocivo

Site name

Waituruturu East Waituruturu West Qara ni Lulu Vulaga Navutu Daku ni Tuba Na Masimasi Korovatu Rockshelter 1 Korovatu Rockshelter 2 Koro ni Gasau Ulu ni Koro Nukutubu Rockshelter 1 Nukutubu Rockshelter 2

District

WaiT E WaiT W Qara L Vul Nav DKT NaMM KV1 KV2 KoroNG UluNK NukuT 1 NukuT 2

Abbreviation

Summary of Excavated Sites on Nayau

Table 2.1.

Site type Fortified rockshelter with internal platforms Fortified rockshelter with internal platforms Rockshelter Open coastal dune site Hillfort Hillfort Open coastal dune site Rockshelter Rockshelter Hillfort Fortified rockshelter Rockshelter Open coastal dune with associated rockshelter

1⫻1 m test unit 1⫻1 m test units (2) 1⫻1 m test unit Shovel tests (15) 1⫻1 m test unit (1); shovel tests (2) 1⫻1 m test units (2) 1⫻1 m units (3) 1⫻1 m test unit 1⫻1 m test unit 1⫻1 m test unit 1⫻1 m test unit 1⫻1 m test unit 1⫻1 m test unit

Excavation method

The Environmental and Social Landscape: The Lau Islands, Fiji

37

bone and charcoal samples (Jones 2007; O’Day et al. 2003). Samples from the following sites were dated: Na Masimasi, Waituruturu East, Qara ni Lulu, and Nukutubu Rockshelter 2 (table 2.2). The only dated site older than about 600 BP is Na Masimasi, which was occupied by people of the Lapita culture, the first inhabitants of Nayau.3 The site’s radiocarbon date (2400–2630 BP) and the style of the pottery both indicate that Na Masimasi was occupied in the late Lapita period. Elsewhere in Fiji, Lapita pottery and other artifacts similar to those from the site of Na Masimasi are associated with sites whose occupations date to around 3,000 years ago (Anderson and Clark 1999; Best 2002; Clark et al. 2001; Jones et al. 2007). The eight radiocarbon dates provide a baseline for developing Nayau’s cultural chronology. The majority of the excavated sites fall into the mid–late prehistoric period (table 2.3). In particular, these dates help a prehistoric context for both the island and the region and can be used to understand changes in foodways and marine resource exploitation over time. The three 14C samples from Waituruturu East indicate that occupation of this inland fortified rockshelter was confined to a relatively short period during the late prehistoric phase, ca. 680–520 Cal BP (table 2.3). These dates agree with Best’s findings on Lakeba, where inland fortified sites are dated from about 1200 to 200 Cal BP; Best refers to this as the stages of culture history, corresponding with his Periods III and IV (1984, 644–645; 2002, 17–23). Settlement during this phase was characteristically focused on fortifications and correlates with the Navutu and Vuda ceramic styles. Researchers argue that changes in ceramic style and settlement patterns represent a major cultural shift (Clark 1999; Hunt 1986, 1987; Marshall et al. 2000) that may involve contact from the West, especially Vanuatu (Best 1984, 2002). It is also likely that the shifts were related to the rapid cooling and sea-level fall, which according to Nunn (2003), occurred during the transition from the Little Climatic Optimum to the Little Ice Age between 730–525 BP (also referred to as the LCO/LIA transition; Allen 2006; Field 2004).4 The single date from Qara ni Lulu, based on an adult human tibia (not in a primary burial context), suggests a similar late prehistoric occupation of this site at 690–640 Cal BP. Additional evidence for a late occupation of this inland rockshelter comes from the style and elaborate incised and punctuated design motifs on the pottery (typical of the Vuda and later Ra pottery styles that date to ca. 900–100 BP on Viti Levu and Taveuni; Green 1963, Marshall et al. 2000). On Lakeba the gradual introduction of incised elements characteristic of Vuda ceramics occurred a few hundred years earlier than on the larger Fijian islands (Best 1984). The AMS 14C date for Qara ni Lulu is several centuries earlier than dates generally

Coracoid Gallus gallus Tarsometatarsus Ptilinopus porphyraceus Radius Pteropus samoensis Adult tibia Homo sapiens Radius Pteropus tonganus Metatarsal Homo sapiens Metatarsal Homo sapiens Charcoal

Material dated

NaMM

NaMM

NukuT 2

NukuT 2

Qara L

WaiT E

WaiT E

WaiT E

Site

G6, III/13

D8, II/8

IV/1

II–III/3

I/2

II–III/3

II/2

I/1

Unit, Layer/Level

AMS Radiocarbon Dates from Nayau

50 ⫾ 60 420 ⫾ 40

⫺19.9 ⫺15.7 ⫺19.2 ⫺16.6 ⫺14.5 ⫺28.0

610 ⫾ 40 550 ⫾ 40 100.6 ⫾ 0.8 % modern C 280 ⫾ 40 2400 ⫾ 40 2630 ⫾ 40

2580 ⫾ 40

2570 ⫾ 40

700 ⫾ 40

690 ⫾ 40

550 ⫾ 40

⫺21.1

490 ⫾ 40

560 ⫾ 40

Conventional 14C age (yr BP)

⫺19.5

13C/12 C ratio (o/oo)

470 ⫾ 40

Measured 14C age (yr BP)

2760–2700 and 2630–2620

2760–2700 and 2640–2610

540–420 and 380–320

270–180 and 150–10

690–640 and 590–560

680–630 and 600–560

640–580 and 570–520

640–520

OxCal Cal BP (2s) (2␴)

Note: Each determination (by Beta Analytic Inc., Miami, Florida) is on a single bone. The conventional 14C age is adjusted for 13C/12C ratios. Calibration for atmospheric variation in 14C follows OxCal version 3.3 and INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration (Bronk Ramsey 1995 and Stuiver et al. 1998).

235994

235993

173059

165468

164253

164247

164248

164249

Beta Number

Table 2.2.

Mid-prehistoric

Period III

Spread of sites across the landscape to farthest inland areas

Initial spread over landscaped during Period II, with ten times as many sites as Period I on Lakeba

Period I–Period II (Late Lapita)

Navatu (100 BC–AD 1100)

Coastal dune occupations

Site Type/Settlement

Lapita-Sigatoka (1200–100 BC)

Cultural phases according to Green (1963) and Best (2002)

Carved paddle impressions (e.g., cord wrapped) on globular vessels

Polynesian Plainware

Lapita dentate stamp ceramics

Pottery

Red siliceous/chert tools; slate pencil sea urchin spine abraders; broad and long shell ornaments, ceramic bands and pendants; small circular shell beads and shell armbands (present throughout prehistoric periods) Obsidian (from Vanuatu)

Material Culture

(continued )

Waituruturu East and West, Daku ni Tuba

Best’s Period I (ca. 2800 BP on Lakeba)

Na Masimasi and late period Eastern Lapita style pottery (ca. 1000 BC)

Nayau sites and Lauan characteristics (Best 1984, 2002; Jones et al. 2007; O’Day et al. 2003)

General Archaeological Sequences for Material Culture in Fiji and the Lau Region with Notes on the Archaeology of Nayau

Initial colonization ca. 3000 BP by Lapita peoples

Period

Table 2.3.

Historic or Contact

Villages on coast On Lakeba, coastal ring ditch fortified villages

Coastal limestone fortified sites and inland hilltop fortifications on Lakeba

Period IV–Period V (begins ca. 400 BP on Lakeaba and continues through contact)

Ra European Contact (commencing ca. 1791–1805)

Inland fortified villages

Site Type/Settlement

Vunda (AD 1100–1800)

Cultural phases according to Green (1963) and Best (2002)

(continued )

Late-prehistoric

Period

Table 2.3.

Siliceous fakes and cores

Material Culture

On Lakeba: Glass, metal systematic incising, appliqué, end tool impressing, some cross-hatch paddle impressing

New incised decorative elements (also spot carved paddle impressing, appliqué, and end tool impressing on Lakeba)

Pottery

Cannibalism on Lakeba (continuing through Contact Period) Nukutubu Rockshelter 2 (Layers II–III)

Waituruturu East and West, Qara ni Lulu, Nukutubu Rockshelter 2

Nayau sites and Lauan characteristics (Best 1984, 2002; Jones et al. 2007; O’Day et al. 2003)

The Environmental and Social Landscape: The Lau Islands, Fiji

41

associated with Ra style pottery (200–100 BP), which also parallels the Lakeba situation. The Nukutubu Rockshelter 2 date no older than 270–180 Cal BP was from the radius of a fruit bat (Pteropus tonganus) in Layer III. The date suggests occupation of the site during the latest prehistoric to historic periods. A metatarsal from the human burial, undisturbed and confined to Layer IV, yielded an older date of 540–420 Cal BP, thus placing the burial and the lower strata of the site in the mid–late prehistoric phase.

HISTORY AND LAU’S IMPORTANCE TO ANTHROPOLOGICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN OCEANIA Fijians have rich, long-established traditions of recording their histories and the events of the past. Oral traditions can be combined with other forms of evidence such as the archaeological information, records of missionary and commercial contact, and those of the colonial government in order to better understand the past and the present in Lau. These sources provide a variety of ideological and national viewpoints. Each of these alternative perspectives emphasizes different historical viewpoints based on a particular political agenda and the inherent limitations of that source. Archaeology is able to “correct the forgetfulness of the oral tradition by . . . demonstrating the strategic importance of sites now forgotten entirely, or relegated to minor importance in the officially remembered version of events. It is also useful in correcting the chronological, and perhaps the political assumptions supported by other forms of evidence” (Young 1993, 160). My research, presented in the following chapters, draws from these multiple lines of evidence with a particular focus on archaeology and ethnography to reconstruct a history of Lau in general and Nayau in particular. Because the vital population of people in Lau has a vested interest in their history and the way it is interpreted, anthropological research offers an opportunity to draw upon these varied sources of information, including the actions, statements, and traditions of living peoples, and to contribute to a subject that is debated and important to Lauans today. Lauans distinguish between history and tales in their oral traditions. As Hocart stated, “Tales begin with announcement tukuni [to tell or announce]—and proceed with tiktiko (there was). The narrator aims at making his tale interesting and amusing. History, known as ‘stories of ancient days,’ is told informally, but with great care for accuracy” (1929, 3). Fijian history (tukutuku) is characteristically marked by detached episodes rather than a continuous string of events. Some of this history is detailed in the records of the Native Land Commission, the Tukutuku

42

Chapter 2

Raraba, while other elements of the past are documented in the names of places and people. Other histories are confined to archaeological material culture. Place names tend to refer to events that occurred in specific places or to people, and evoke a meaning beyond the term. For example, the place called Na Masimasi on Nayau is where the island’s only known Lapita period archaeological site exists, representing the earliest human occupation of the Nayau (ca. 2800–3000 BP). High-ranked people on Nayau explained that Na Masimasi is where the gods of origin (kalou vu) lived when they first came to the island. The term masi has many meanings, including barkcloth, and the tree used to make barkcloth. It is also used as part of the title Ramasi, or Sir Cloth. Ramasi refers to men that rule the land, such as chiefs of a village or island. Masi is likely used in the name of Nayau’s earliest archaeological site as a reference to the island’s founders and first rulers of Nayau. Legends of the Pacific Islands often refer to the original colonizers of a place as gods, thus the reference to the “place of the gods” associated with Na Masimasi make sense in this context according to the structure of Lauan myth. Oral traditions recorded in the Tukutuku Raraba explain that Lau was originally colonized by people coming from the west. On Lakeba, these original settlers are said to be from Vuna on the island of Taveuni (Reid 1990). While he does not go into specifics, Hocart (1929) points to a significant Tongan association later in prehistory with central and southern Lau. He argues that this would account for the distinctly Lauan culture that exists today and appears to be a blend of Tongan and Fijian. Further support for interactions between Lau and Tonga are found linguistically and in oral traditions (Hocart 1929, 230). The details of pre-European Lauan cultural development and interactions remain to be resolved with archaeological data, although Best has recently published an informative account of early Lauan history (Best 2002). Due to its geographic position, the Lau archipelago is ideally suited to investigate the influences and transformation in archaeological, historical, and social phenomena since initial human colonization. The area also provides a setting to test inter-island variability in ancient Lauan exchange networks, production systems, subsistence practices, and local cultural development. Lau is thought to have been critical to trade prehistorically and after initial European contact (Best 1984, 1987). Hunt (1988) suggests that the island of Lakeba, in particular, was a central political node of the region due to Lau’s geographical position between Polynesia and the main Fijian Islands, a notion that is supported by Best (1984, 2002). A long-term detailed archaeological analysis of various islands in Lau will lead to a better understanding of the region’s evolution and social inter-

The Environmental and Social Landscape: The Lau Islands, Fiji

43

actions through time. Unfortunately, as Best noted in 1984, “Fijian archaeology is still in the ‘what’ rather than ‘why’ stage” of development (Best 1984, 3). The extensive work by Simon Best (1984) on Lakeba is generally considered the archaeological baseline for Lau. Nevertheless, the Lau Islands still have much to contribute to archaeological interpretations of the FijiPolynesia region. Best’s work established that initial human colonization of Lakeba by Lapita peoples occurred by about 2,800 years BP, but a chronology for the remainder of Lau has yet to be established. Recently, archaeological work has been carried out on Vanua Balavu (Nunn 2000; Nunn and Matararaba 2000; Thomas et al. 2004) and Yacata (Clark and Hope 2001). Through the combined efforts of these projects and my own (Jones et al. 2007; Jones 2007) a picture of prehistoric life in Lau is beginning to emerge (see table 2.3). I aim to add to the understanding of Lauan lifeways and foodways over the long term through my ethnoarchaeological research. Fiji’s Lau Island Group, with its incredible marine diversity and a vibrant traditional culture that is actively engaged in marine-oriented subsistence activities, is an ideal location to conduct ethnoarchaeological research. This fact is enhanced by the long-term historical continuity that exists between the living and past populations. Ethnoarchaeological work of this nature would not be possible in other locales, such as Hawai’i, the Caribbean, or Mexico, which lack indigenous populations engaged in intensive marine exploitation in areas where they have lived and subsisted in this way for thousands of years. Moreover, many of the world’s tropical islands and coastal areas support much less diverse marine reef communities, and their reefs are impacted by tourism and extensive modern developments. Finally, research from the Lau Islands may serve as a model of long-term subsistence in rich marine environments, an example that can be compared to other marine-oriented economies and lifeways in tropical settings including the Pacific and the Caribbean. NOTES 1. A material advantage to hosting my colleagues and me in a family’s home is the close relationship that results. When someone stays with a family, they become subject to the social system of exchange. It is both difficult and rude to resist a host’s request for something. 2. Test excavations were carried out in 5 to 10 cm levels using trowels, following natural stratigraphy whenever possible. A permanent datum was established in each rockshelter site to provide vertical and horizontal control. All excavated sediment was screened through nested sieves of 1⁄2" (12.8 mm), 1⁄4" (6.4 mm), 1⁄8" (3.2

44

Chapter 2

mm), and 1⁄16" (1.6 mm) mesh, from which I collected shell, bone, pottery, lithics, nonlocal rock, and any other artifacts and visible ecofacts. All excavations were recorded on standardized field forms. 3. The Lapita peoples were the first inhabitants of Fiji and Polynesia. They occupied Lakeba in Lau around 2,800 years BP (Best 2002). 4. On the large island of Viti Levu the LCO/LIA transition is associated with archaeological fortified settlements and environmental changes that likely included increased storminess, water-table fall, reef-surface death, increased lagoonal turbidity, and the conversion of seawater embayments to brackish-water wetlands (Field 2004; Kumar et al. 2006; Nunn 2003).

3

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

The seeing eye is the organ of tradition. —Franz Boas

A

s I walked through the forest and around the island with the village chief he told me stories about the landscape, describing places, archaeological sites, and the people who occupied them over the last 3,000 years. Without referencing chronological time in years, he described the past in terms of the first occupation of the island by the gods, the arrival of the first humans, the time when people moved inland and occupied hilltop fortifications, and the arrival of the foreign missionaries. I scribbled as quickly as possible in my notebook, trying to get all these valuable oral traditions down. While I walked and recorded, I looked for archaeological sites that might be marked by features such as walls and house platforms, or pottery scatters on the ground. Our entourage moved over the island, hacking our way through thick areas of the underbrush with freshly sharpened machetes. The sizable Lauan man behind me carried a basket that contained our lunch. When we stopped at midday, he unpacked a feast of boiled sweet potatoes, taro, and large slabs of meat that I did not immediately recognize as pig. All of this was laid out on banana leaves as the chief offered me favored cuts of meat and explained how each tasted distinct from the others. After lunch we hiked toward the southeastern edge of the island, along the coastal dunes. White sand beaches, palm trees, and crystal clear waters of a lagoon fringed by small offshore islands looked like something out of a postcard. The chief described this area as the home of the first 45

46

Chapter 3

gods who arrived on Nayau. The ground was littered with copious amounts of bright red pottery, some of which was decorated with fine dentate stamping that looked like traditional tattoos. Between the coconut trees we found fragments of giant clam, red chert tools, and basalt axes; all of these artifacts represented the remains of a village and the domestic activities of its occupants. More specifically, the material culture, pottery and other artifacts, were undoubtedly evidence of the island’s first occupants, the Lapita people. The chief explained that this place is called Na Masimasi. People believe that Na Masimasi is where the gods of origin (kalou vu), or ancestors of the modern population, lived when they first arrived on Nayau. One of the many meanings of the term masi is barkcloth and the tree used to make this traditional material. In pre-European times masi was both everyday clothing and a sacred item that are traded in association with rites of passage and formal events. In contemporary Lau, masi is primarily used as an important exchange item and for sale to tourists. The title Ramasi, or Sir Cloth is used to refer to rulers of the land, including village and island chiefs. As part of the name for Nayau’s earliest archaeological site, masi references the island’s founders and first rulers of Nayau. Pacific island legends frequently allude to the first colonizers of a place as gods.

CONNECTING THE PAST AND THE PRESENT Ethnographers commonly document domestic activities and economic behaviors relating to food collection, distribution, and consumption (Becker 1995; Lepowsky 1993; Sahlins 1962; Thompson 1940). My ethnoarchaeological study of food focuses on these activities with an analytical emphasis on the material correlates of economic behaviors; this is driven by archaeological questions. In this chapter and the succeeding two, I describe ethnographic and archaeological data derived from seven months of research on Nayau and Lakeba. My participant observations, structured interviews, and archaeological data contribute to this discussion. Beginning with an examination of domestic groups and household spatial organization, I describe domestic contexts and my archaeological findings, which are aimed at providing (1) insights into the social relations and behaviors surrounding foodways that may be invisible archaeologically and (2) a structural framework for homological comparisons between the archaeological data and contemporary domestic contexts. This chapter presents ethnographic information from formal and informal interviews (see appendix B), centering on issues of folk taxonomy, the social dimensions of food, and kitchen activities.

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

47

The archaeological sites and features I focus on produced an abundance of fish bones and shellfish. These data provide context for the interpretations of prehistoric foodways and their historical evolution on the island. Archaeological data are also useful for understanding long-term trends in prehistoric inshore marine resource exploitation, consumption, and the distribution of food within a household or site. The subsequent discussion is aimed at fleshing out elements of the archaeology that are pertinent to the research themes described in the following chapters. Specifically, I examine patterns of prehistoric foodways, animal use, and domestic features such as cooking areas (scoop-shaped features including earth ovens or lovo and hearths). The archaeological questions driving discussions in this chapter include the following: 1. What do village and household spatial arrangements (features, architecture, layout) tell us about social relations in the past? 2. What characteristics can archaeologists use to identify kitchens and cooking features? 3. What is the use life of household features, and cooking features specifically? 4. Do archaeological remains encode information about social structures, such as rank and gender? And, what social issues are invisible archaeologically? These questions will be addressed with ethnographic observations that contribute understanding and some answers in the succeeding sections.

DOMESTIC GROUPS Household Spatial Arrangements The domestic group is the most fundamental category of social organization and economic production in Fijian society. On Nayau the structure of the domestic group (or “house,” vale) is clearly manifest on the landscape (figure 3.1). At the village level, spatial organization is indicative of social relations including rank (chiefly or commoner class), seniority (relative age), and kinship ties. Houses in the village are built around a central open space, which is usually delineated by the presence of the church on one side and a structure such as a town hall on the other. The villages of Narocivo and Liku are organized this way, but Salia Village is not (Salia and Narocivo were rebuilt after Hurricane Meli in 1979). Toren argues that the layout of the villages on Viti Levu expresses balanced reciprocity and “notational equality” (1999, 53). Looking at villages in Eastern Fiji

48

Figure 3.1.

Chapter 3

Aerial View of Liku Village, Nayau

from a broader landscape perspective, one could also argue that spatial organization reflects hierarchy. This is especially true in Eastern Fiji where social formations are more complex than those in Western Fiji (Aucoin 2002; Sahlins 1962, 1976). On Nayau, hierarchy is reflected on the landscape, in the relative position of houses associated with each ranked clan in relation to the village center. Houses belonging to members of each clan, or mataqali, are grouped in close proximity in all the villages. There are four mataqali in Salia, four in Narocivo, and two in Liku. Spatially Liku is divided into three parts based on descent with the Tui Liku and his mataqali in the middle of the village, and the mataqali descended from two brothers on the east and west sides of the village (figure 3.2). The highest ranked mataqali, or the chiefly clans, are located in the center of the village. Houses are aligned with the long axis parallel to the sea and facing each other. Brothers typically live next to each other in the village, and a traditional extended family structure prevails, although independent nuclear families are becoming more common. Households (lewe ni vale) are architecturally divided into functionally distinct units that commonly include the following structures: a main house for sleeping and eating formal meals (vale levu); a kitchen (vale ni kuro); a small oven house (it may consist of a roof and four poles, or the oven may be without an associated shelter and located farther from the vale levu than the kitchen); and various additional sleeping houses (bure) for younger family members, extended family, or visitors. The vale levu is usually one of two styles. The first is a modern rectangular concrete block structure (figure 3.3). This style of house was erected by the Peace Corps in 1979 following Hurricane Meli. The second form is

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

Figure 3.2.

49

Plan View of Liku Village, Nayau

an oval-shaped thatch structure with six posts on a raised coral and sand filled platform (yavu; figure 3.4). This traditional oval house and yavu are found in the Eastern Fijian Islands and in Tonga. The style in Western Fiji is square or rectangular, and includes a yavu. The relative height of the yavu is generally indicative of the rank of the owner. The house foundation is a topographic marker of tributary relations and social hierarchy.

50

Figure 3.3.

Chapter 3

Modern-Style Rectangular Concrete House in Narocivo Village, Nayau

Note that this is changing in contemporary times as more non-chiefly people create a show of status by building vale on relatively tall yavu. The yavu for Tui Nayau’s vale levu in Narocivo is 2 m in height (see figure 3.4) and Tui Liku’s yavu is raised 1 m above ground level (figures 3.2 and 3.5). Most of the known prehistoric villages and residences on Nayau are marked by yavu. In Fijian society, the yavu is traditionally named. The bodies of deceased family members were buried there prehistorically, a practice that became increasingly less common with the rise of Christianity. Because the yavu and its name were considered eternal, when people moved from one place to another, they gave this name to the new yavu (Toren 1999, 69), a practice common throughout Polynesia and Melanesia. People trace their lineages to yavusa, groups of related households combining multiple mataqali that were founded by a mythical ancestor or group of ancestors. After Hurricane Meli in 1979, Salia and Narocivo moved from the coast to where they are located today. These modern villages are positioned slightly inland on the hill slopes above the coastal strip. The old names of yavu were not given to the newer Western style houses, most of which do not have yavu. Modern houses are sometimes given names that lack a particular historical significance, such as “California” and “Rotuma.”

Figure 3.4. Style Vale

The Tui Nayau’s Home in Narocivo Village, Nayau; a Traditional Lauan-

Figure 3.5.

Tui Liku’s Vale, Liku Village, Nayau

52

Chapter 3

Fiji’s colonial government introduced formal kitchens (Thompson 1940). However, household functional divisions separate oven houses and sleeping houses and are an indigenous feature that is recorded ethnographically and archaeologically elsewhere in Fiji and Polynesia (Kirch and Green 2001; Sahlins 1962). Earth ovens, lovo, are positioned 1 to 10 m away from the kitchen and vale levu; sometimes these are located on the edge of the village, especially if the lovo is large. Kitchens and their associated hearths are positioned in close proximity, usually a few steps away from the vale levu and its yavu. Fijians refer to all natural and human constructed landscapes in terms connoting rank, which literally translate into “high” and “low” (Hocart 1929; Sahlins 1962; Toren 1990, 1999). Houses and bure are spatially organized along vertical and horizontal axes corresponding to the Fijian cultural

Figure 3.6.

Generalized Lauan House Plan

Adapted from Toren

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

53

categories of “above” (i cake) and “below” (i ra; figure 3.6). Women are associated with the “low” and/or “inside” areas in space (within the household and village), whereas men are associated with the “high” and “outside” spaces. Each house typically has three doors. In all three villages on Nayau, the main or common entrance (darava i sue) is located at the north end of most houses. Women position themselves “below” (i ra), by the “common entrance,” or, literally, the “door of the cooking irons” (darava i sue). The position of the house and its entrances in relation to the sea and island’s interior is also mapped on to residential space and referred to as the side of the “sea door” (darava e wai), and the land side or the “land door” (darava e vanua). The most sacred door of a house is the “honored door,” facing the sea (Sahlins 1962; Toren 1990, 1999). The eastern, male side of the house is the “noble side.” Likewise, the offshore area of the island, outside the fringing reef, is referred to as the waitui, or noble sea. On Nayau, economically linked familial household groups are often marked by their shared use of a cookhouse and/or kitchen structures. In addition, the extended family (with several nuclear subunits) often takes their meals together. This pattern is typically Fijian, being found throughout Lau, extending to the time of European contact and likely before. Just as Sahlins noted on the island of Moala (1962, 97), a cookhouse in common is indicative of a communal economic life, which involves the distribution of all familial resources including, labor, food, land, and social guidance by the head of the extended household. Families frequently work together in food production activities, such as gardening and fishing, and women often consolidate labor focused on domestic activities. Members of extended kin networks and multiple domestic groups come together to prepare food and cook for special occasions. Vale ni kuro or Kitchens The kitchen is where women spend half or more of every day. It is the center of female social space and a key locus of social interactions within each household. As one Liku woman told me, “In the kitchen I am the boss.” Each household generally has one kitchen that is shared between about two to seven married and unmarried women (affines or consanguines to brothers who live next to each other). Kitchens are often constructed in traditional Lauan style, with an oval floor plan and six posts, with thatch covered walls and roof (figure 3.7). These kitchens have three low, small doors, measuring around 0.65 ⫻ 1.4 m. Some kitchens are large (7 ⫻ 4 m) and constructed on elevated yavu of coral, dirt, and sand, while others sit on a paving of dirt and sand at ground level. At the time of my fieldwork, approximately half of the kitchens on Nayau were constructed using a combination of sheet metal and wood with metal or thatch roofs. These

54

Figure 3.7.

Chapter 3

Traditional-Style Lauan Kitchen, Liku Village, Nayau

are generally smaller in size (6 ⫻ 4 m) than more traditional kitchens made entirely of thatch (figure 3.8). The sheet metal style of kitchen is sometimes added onto the vale levu, or it may be built to stand alone. The structures are connected by a path to the main house and usually located within 5 to 10 m of it. Kitchens sometimes have a low yavu, which may be lined with stones. The following is a description of an average contemporary kitchen on Nayau. The exterior of the kitchen is littered with food rubbish such as plastic and paper wrappers, coconut husks, leaves, cassava and sweet potato peels, fragments of bone and shell. Kitchen utensils (coconut grater and bowls) and machetes are typically left outside where tubers are often peeled and other initial preparations take place. Because of the small door, adults must crouch and lower the head to enter traditional Lauan style kitchens. The kitchen is dimly lit with hearth fires burning continuously and providing light. The air is smoky and thick with the smells of food cooking on the hearth. The windows are small and few, measuring about 50 cm2; these close with a thin wood shutter or a section of woven coconut fronds and are rarely open. The floor is covered with pandanus mats, and often a small low table is positioned in the center or along a wall. Dishes, pots, and utensils are piled along one wall, and sometimes there are shelves running along a portion of the interior that hold containers of water, flour, sugar, tea, and leftovers from the last meal. Women often keep a

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

Figure 3.8.

55

Sheet Metal Kitchen, Liku Village, Nayau

mix of plastic and metal pots and bowls in the kitchen. These replace the locally handmade ceramic pots that were used until about thirty years ago. Cooking pots for boiling are ethnographically referred to as kuros. These low-fired vessels are used to prepare boro—the daily boiled food— and may be suspended above the fire with wood or iron rods (Thompson 1940, 155) or propped up on rocks. Lauans sometimes refer to modern metal cooking pots as kuros. Baskets and pots hang from the rafters where food and other items may be stored. Coconut frond baskets (kato) containing cassava, sweet potatoes, or dalo sit on the floor, ready to be peeled and boiled or baked. Next to these, are more baskets containing firewood, young green coconuts for drinking, and brown coconuts to be husked and grated. Some women still use traditional large wooden bowls, kumete, to mix foods in, mash root crops, and clean dishes (table 3.1). If the household has a kumete, the men of the house will also use it for mashing cassava or dalo to make solo pule and special puddings that are served at feasts and celebrations (figure 3.9). While some things have changed with the introduction of plastic and metal kitchen-wares, there is historical continuity in the association of women and boiled foods cooked on a hearth versus men and baked foods prepared in earth ovens, as I discuss below. At the high end of the modern Lauan kitchen, opposite the main door, is the hearth, which may consist of a metal grill over coals on the ground,

Lauan Term

Peseni Kumete Matadravu Lovo Sepuni Sakalo Kato Kuro Ka kana Kana or i kata lau Benu or droka Buta Ka kana vavi Solo Tuki Tatavu or vakasaqa Vaka tavutavu Vaka cawa Vavavi Wai savusavu Bu Boro I coi

Bowl Bowl Oven or hearth Earth oven Spoon Grater Basket Pots Food Meal Raw Cooked Earth oven food Grated food Pounded food Boil Cook over fire Steam Bake Fresh water Coconut water Vegetables Flesh foods

Specifically, a young coconut fit for drinking Starch and leafy, but in common usage refers to root crops Carries the connotation of accompanied food items (likely due to the cultural preference for eating flesh foods with a starch)

In reference to this cooking method, Lauans say that “Tongans usually do that.” Especially used in reference to puddings, scones, etc.

Taro mixed with coconut milk Galu

Refers to European style or metal spoon Lauan variants include “sakaro” Refers to the baskets made of coconut frond used for carrying food from the garden or firewood Metal or pottery Includes liquid and solid foods

Specifically, peseni lailai (small bowl) or peseni levu (large bowl) Large, and usually oblong, wooden bowl for mixing and for use as a general basin

Comments

Lauan Terms for Food and Related Items

English Name

Table 3.1.

Ka kana dina Vakalolo Madrai

Ika Vivili or kai Manumanu ni wasa Toa Bulumakau Soqo levu or magiti

Starchy crops Pudding Bread

Fish Shellfish Seabirds Chicken Beef Feast Generally referred to as “cow”

Literally, “true food”; includes cassava, bananas, taro, yams, breadfruit, etc. Many kinds, pounded root crop, mixed with coconut cream and baked in the earth oven Modern usage, refers to bread of flour and yeast, traditionally the term applies to Fijian bread of starch, buried in the ground to ferment

58

Chapter 3

Figure 3.9. Man in Narocivo Village Making Cassava Pudding in a Traditional Wooden Kumete (Bowl)

or a raised concrete or metal shelf where the fire and grill are positioned. Stones are also often used to prop up cooking pots, and if the hearth is constructed on the ground, it develops into a scoop-shaped feature over time due to reuse and the frequent rake-out of ash. These scooped hearths features typically measure 0.5 to 1 m in diameter and are filled with charcoal flecks, ashy dirt, and bits of partially charred wood. Hearth scoops are rarely deeper than about 20 cm below the surface and most are about 5 to 10 cm deep. The area around the hearth is marked by ashy dirt and littered with charcoal chunks and flecks as well as the remnants from cooking, such as bits of fish bones, shells, and vegetable peels. The hearth fire is kept going all day, and at night hot coals burn as women continually tend pots of boiling foods. A well worn, soot-covered teapot is always found close by. A few houses in each village now have gas stoves with ovens, or kerosene stoves that are used when people have cash to purchase fuel. However, modern stoves have not replaced the traditional wood-fire hearth. In fact, when I was conducting research on Nayau, I noticed that women who had these prestige goods rarely used them and most women did not know how to start and run their gas stove and oven units. These were often used for storage or nothing at all. Stoves

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

59

are gifts from family members who work in a city, and who can afford to purchase pricey items and ship them to relatives on Nayau. When I was conducting interviews in Narocivo village, I taught two women to use their gas stoves and ovens. After that, different women repeatedly came to me asking that I come to their houses and teach them to use their ovens; this was often followed by an afternoon baking cakes, breads, and scones and eating together over hot tea. The atmosphere in the kitchen is lively, especially around dinnertime when all the women of the household get together to prepare, cook, and serve the evening meal. In the morning the women prepare breakfast, boiling water for tea and making starchy foods, such as scones, pancakes, cassava, or sweet potatoes. Breakfast and lunch are often served in the kitchen, and afterwards dishes are scrubbed there and laid to dry. Dinner preparations usually begin in the late afternoon. If there are toddlers and young children around, they may stay near the women during food preparation activities. Visitors are frequent in the kitchen. Often, a relative or friend will stop by to gossip, chat, or share snacks while meals are prepared. Women frequently visit each other’s houses and kitchens to give small gifts of food such as sweet potatoes, yams, breadfruit, fish, scones, bread, or fish in coconut milk. If a woman has recently gone to the store and purchased a large amount of flour, a box of tea, curry powder, or baking powder, it is common for other women to drop by and ask for some, knowing that the woman in possession of the item will not refuse her request except by falsely claiming to have nothing. In this way, food and specialty items are often redistributed throughout the community. Ovens and Oven Houses The Lauan lovo is the primary means of cooking large prestige items for the Sunday meal and all special events. Items frequently baked in the lovo include: pig, cow, taro (dalo), yams, fish, palusami (chicken, fish, or corned beef mixed with coconut cream and wrapped in taro leaves and tin foil for baking), solo pule (grated root vegetable mixed with coconut cream that is wrapped in leaves), and puddings. All extended households (comprised of relatives who live in close proximity) have multiple ovens (lovo) associated with them. The Lauan oven house is the realm of men; men tend the lovo, conducting and directing activities of its preparation and use. Adolescent and teenaged boys often assist with this, while women and girls are rarely seen around the lovo or the oven house. The exception to this pattern occurs when the lovo or oven house is located within a few meters of the kitchen; in this case there is almost always a hearth next to the lovo, which the women and girls constantly use to cook on and boil water for tea (figure 3.10). The atmosphere around the lovo is much more

60

Chapter 3

Figure 3.10. Lovo Located Next to a Kitchen with a Hearth and Teapot in the Background, Tubou Village, Lakeba

subdued than that in the kitchen as an air of seriousness surrounds the preparation of feast foods. On a typical Sunday, the man of the house will begin preparing the lovo in the early morning, around 5 or 6 a.m. Often, everyone in the household helps to peel the root vegetables that will be cooked in the oven. If there is a pig to be butchered, the men and boys will do this, and the women will prepare the palusami, an increasingly common part of the Sunday meal. With the men and other members of the family taking part in the preparation, the production of feast foods is markedly different from that of the everyday meal. Approximately half of the lovo on Nayau have a structure covering them with four to six poles and a thatch or tin roof (figure 3.11). These structures, referred to as “oven houses,” average 3 ⫻ 2 m, with the lovo in the center. Thatch or sheet metal is sometimes added around one or two of the sides to block the wind. Oven houses are located closer to the kitchen than to other household units, and are occasionally located within about 2 m of it. Lovo are also located on the edge of the village, especially if the lovo is large (greater than ca. 2 m on one side), the kind used for baking feast foods exclusively, or big loaves of bread for festivities.

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

Figure 3.11.

61

Outdoor Oven House and Lovo Area in Liku Village, Nayau

Most lovo measure 0.75 to 1 m in diameter on the surface and are circular in form, dipping into a basin shape about 50 cm below the surface. Next to the earth oven is another depression (0.75 ⫻ 0.50 m) where dirt is excavated to cover the lovo after it has been filled with food. This second depression is slightly smaller than the lovo, but very similar in form and typically located 0.3 to 5 m away. This dirt is recycled throughout the use life of the lovo, thus it becomes very ashy and filled with charcoal over time. The entire area around the oven house is dark grayish brown and littered with shell and bone fragments (mostly fish bones), charcoal, sticks, coconut frond baskets, leaves, coconut husks, pieces of root crops, partially burned rice sacks, and remnants of things that have been cooked in the oven. This midden and lovo sediments extend about 50 cm beyond the posts of the structure. If the earth oven does not have a structure associated with it, the midden and burned sediment extend around the lovo in a radius of about 1.5 to 2 m. When men are preparing foods in the lovo, they have piles of Hibiscus leaves, or vau (Hibiscus tiliaceus), baskets of dalo, yams, cassava, and/or sweet potatoes, fire wood, coconut husks to burn, and cooking utensils such as wooden bowls (kumete), machetes, and knives. Generally speaking, there are five steps involved in preparing an earth oven (vakaraulovo). First, a hole in the ground is excavated about 40 to 55 cm deep, depending on the size of the food to be cooked, and filled with

62

Chapter 3

fuel for the fire (usually wood chips and small branches or dried and cut coconut husks, then larger fuel and/or wood, dry branches, or any part of the coconut tree). Lauans say that they are “digging the hole of the lovo” (kelilovo). Second, the lovo stones (qoca) are gathered and piled up next to the hole. A fire (buka ni lovo) is started in the hole, and the burning wood is topped with stones (see figure 3.10). While the stones are heating, the food (root crops, fish, pig, or any other item) is wrapped in leaves (usually banana, palm, or breadfruit leaves). Third, when the stones are hot, they are spread out and sometimes covered with leaves, usually green coconut fronds or Hibiscus leaves, on which the wrapped food is placed. If tinfoil is used, as is becoming more common on Lakeba, the food is placed directly on the hot rocks. Fourth, after the oven is full of food, it is covered with palm fronds, Hibiscus leaves, and often rice bags. Finally, dirt is piled on top of the rice sacks. This recycled dirt may contain old palm leaf baskets, rice sack fragments, rubbish (e.g., fragments of bone and shell, metal scraps, plastic, and food wrappers), and anything that will burn or is left on the ground. After the food has cooked for a prescribed amount of time—for example, a young pig will cook for around two to four hours—the oven is opened up and the food is removed. Ideally, the meat should fall off of the bone when unwrapped from its leaf covering. The general position of a household’s lovo does not change over time. Earth ovens, especially those associated with oven house structures, are used again and again, being repeatedly dug up and then filled-in at least one time each week for as long as a family lives in the vicinity. The oven stones are also reused for many years, or until they fall apart; new stones are continuously added over time. The dirt around lovo and oven houses becomes dark, ashy, and filled with charcoal, ash, bone, and shell (figure 3.12).

Figure 3.12. Charcoal

Close-up of the Dirt Surrounding a Lovo; Note the Fish Bones, Shells, and

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

63

ARCHEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS AND ETHNOGRAPHIC OBSERVATIONS In the beginning of this chapter I posed four archaeological questions that may be addressed with the ethnographic data presented above. I will discuss each of these questions in order and describe data that illuminates the issues. The first question centered on village and household spatial arrangements and asked what this aspect of the physically construed world, including features, architecture, and overall layout, might suggest about social relations in the present and past. The ethnographic data suggests a strong link between spatial organization and social relations. For example, the orientation of a given house and yavu relative to other houses is indicative of rank, seniority, and kinship relations. For archaeologists, an effective way to examine these social issues is to map archaeological village landscapes and the relative positions of each household.1 The orientations of the houses to each other, and to the sea and the inland areas of the island are significant. The environmental orientation—land versus sea-side of a house—indicates its architectural alignment, defining the vertical and horizontal divisions that correspond with the Lauan social categories of high and low or above and below. These social categories dictate the actions of individuals within the house and may further provide clues to the kin relations between the people who occupied houses located in proximity to each other. The position of archaeological earth ovens, which are traditionally shared among related households, may lend insights into the familial and economic relations of extended household complexes. The second question was: what characteristics can archaeologists use to identify kitchens and cooking features? In the Lauan kitchen, vale ni kuro, food is constantly cooked over a fire in a hearth. The women and children, who most frequently occupy the kitchen, snack as they prepare meals, and a variety of food preparation items can be found nearby. Architecturally, these female-associated areas vary in size, and they may or may not be built on a yavu. One would expect to find food rubbish, charcoal, ash, utensils and domestic implements for food preparation, such as pots and knives, in association with a kitchen. A hearth or shallow scoopshaped archaeological depression might also indicate a vale ni kuro, whereas a deeper scoop-shaped fire feature should be indicative of a lovo or earth oven. The lovo is generally positioned at least a few feet outside the kitchen, while a hearth is most often in the kitchen.2 In terms of behavior, men and boys sometimes snack or eat around the lovo and throw the food rubbish into the surrounding dirt. Food remains also end up in the lovo and the surrounding dirt when women sweep out nearby domestic areas. The food rubbish in the lovo dirt therefore results from the

64

Chapter 3

remains of regular meals and snacks, not necessarily from the foods that were cooked in the earth oven or feasts in particular. In comparison, considerably less bone, shell, and other food remains can be found in hearths. When women and children snack in the kitchen, they toss their food remains into a container for pig foods, or outside the door of the kitchen. Once the food is outside the house, hungry dogs that rove the village may consume it, or it may simply become deposited into the sediment that surrounds the household. My third question asked: what is the use life for household features, especially cooking features? I found that contemporary Lauans continually reuse cooking features, including hearths and lovo. Over many trips to Nayau and Lakeba since 2001, I noticed that people rarely move the household’s hearth or lovo unless they move their home. Therefore, archaeologists might expect that cooking features are used and reused over multiple generations and the remains found in them represent the accumulated remains of countless eating incidents. Fourth, I questioned if archaeological remains encode information about social structures, such as rank and gender, and what social issues are invisible archaeologically. One of the clearest connections between archaeological remains and gender is evident in the female association with the kitchen, hearth, and boiled everyday foods versus the male association with the oven house, lovo, and baked feast foods. The remains of these features look similar, but differentiating them may be possible based on the depth of the features and general differences in the content, as I described above. In the following section I present archaeological data from Nayau and attempt to interpret it based on the patterns discussed in these four ethnoarchaeological points.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS The recovered archaeological material culture associated with residences on Nayau is similar to what might be expected based on the descriptions of the modern residential and kitchen-associated material remains described above (table 3.2). The prehistoric domestic deposits are primarily composed of pottery, with nonceramic prehistoric artifacts such as basalt and shell adzes, chert flakes, clam-shell scrapers, worked bone and shell (ornaments and fishhooks), coral files, and other classes of material culture being much less common. This type of archaeological assemblage is characteristic for the region. Historic-period artifacts, including fragments of metal and glass, were recovered from disturbed contexts in the upper stratigraphic layers at two rockshelter sites (Daku ni Tuba and Nukutubu Rockshelter 2). While none

1 — — —

—

8

—

1 1

1

—

— —

— — — 1

—

—

—

— 1

—

—

— —

60

Total

143

— —

—

—

— —

1

5

—

— — — —

137

KV 1

267

— —

—

—

— —

1

—

—

— — — —

266

KV 2

4

— —

—

—

— —

—

—

—

— — — —

4

UluNK

153

— —

—

—

— —

—

—

—

— — — —

153

KoroNG

2

— —

—

—

— —

—

—

—

— — — —

2

17

— —

—

—

— —

—

—

—

— — — —

17

NukT1 NukT2

106

1 1

—

—

— 1

1

1

—

— — — —

101

2

— —

—

—

— —

—

—

—

— 1 — —

1

QaraL VNay

137

— 1

—

—

1 —

3

3

—

— 1 1 —

127

Vulaga

826

63 2

9

1

1 1

73

19

5

— 1 — 1

650

NaMM

184

— —

—

1

— —

—

—

—

— — — —

183

18

1 —

—

—

— —

—

—

1

— 1 — —

15

DKT Naleca

Note: Na Masimasi (NaMM) pottery count only includes diagnostic sherds (⬎ 4,000 undiagnostic sherds were recovered from the NaMM excavations).

41

29

58

WaiT E

Pottery Basalt tools Complete adzes Adz frags Adz preforms Adz flakes Other lithics and fragments Chert Red chert flakes Debitage or flake fragments Shell tools Tridacna adzes Bivalve scrapers Other Worked bone Fishhooks or fragment Worked shells (beads, ornaments, bracelets, other) Coral files

WaiT W

Distribution by Count of Prehistoric Artifact Classes from Sites on Nayau

Artifact Class

Table 3.2.

1,960

65 4

9

3

3 4

79

36

6

1 4 1 2

1743

Total

66

Chapter 3

of the excavated sites had stratigraphic sequences sufficient to detect stylistic changes in material culture over time, certain artifact classes and types were associated with specific site types (see table 2.3). For example, relatively fancy red-slipped and dentate-stamped Lapita pottery and large numbers of both formal (bifacial) and expedient red chert tools were found only on the open coastal dune site of Na Masimasi. These domestic items are likely associated with food preparation and serving. My preliminary analysis suggests that about 87 percent of the diagnostic Lapita pottery (represented by rim sherds) from Na Masimasi was used for noncooking purposes, such as presenting and serving foods. It is worth noting that Lapita plainewares are typically associated with cooking, corresponding to kuros, while the decorated wares were used in other ways. Ceramics characteristic of the later prehistoric period were recovered from inland hillfort villages and in their excavated deposits (table 3.2). The later period pottery is mostly plain, without decoration, but like much of the Lapita period material, was primarily used for cooking, and boiling over a fire.3 Pottery was recovered from surface scatters and/or excavations at every archaeological site identified on Nayau. The pottery recovered from sites other than Na Masimasi is typical in form and decoration to that of Fiji’s later period Navatu, Vuda, and Ra ceramic phases. Surface collections on the hillforts of Daku ni Tuba and Navutu produced sherds with incised designs, punctations, and elaborate rim decorations (tool-impressed lips and nubbins) similar to those illustrated in Birks (1973, figures 39–44). Such pottery is characteristic of the Navatu Phase on Viti Levu (Green 1979). The excavated pottery is highly fragmentary, but analysis indicates that the majority of pottery recovered from the nonLapita sites was primarily used in cooking, with the exception of a water jug recovered from the site of Qara ni Lulu, which is decorated with punctations and appliqué designs typical of the Vuda and Ra phases of Fijian pottery.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCOOP-SHAPED FEATURES: HEARTHS AND LOVO Scoop-shaped features were the most common subsurface feature-type encountered in my excavations. Of the thirteen sites where test excavations were conducted, eight sites produced one or more of these features (table 3.3). The size (diameter and depth or height of the feature) of the features is relatively consistent across contexts. The scoop features measure 75 to 100 cm in diameter and extend in height (or depth) 30 to 80 cm. Often, an accurate depth of individual features was difficult to determine because they commonly appear in profile as multiple overlapping basins;

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present Table 3.3.

Scoop-Shaped Features in Test Excavations on Nayau # Lovo

Diameter (cm)

Depth of feature (cm)

WaiTE

⬎2

75 and 100

⬎80

WaiTW KV1 KV2 KoroNG UluNK NukuT2 NaMM

2 1 2 1 1 ⬎1 ⬎1

⬎80 and ⬎50 90 ⬎70 and ⬎100 ⬎100 ⬎100 70 60

30 35 40 30 40 30 ⬎30

Site

67

Content Charcoal, ash, copious firecracked rock (FCR), shell, bone, artifacts Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above plus coral, sea urchin spines, pottery, lithics

undoubtedly, this represents reuse over time. The matrix of these features at all the sites was similar; they are typically composed of loosely packed sediments rich in charcoal and ash (some have ash layers), fire cracked rock, and fragments of shells, bones, and various artifacts. Below I describe representative examples of the scoop-features at two sites, Waituruturu and Na Masimasi, from an archaeological perspective in order to exemplify the archaeological signatures of these important domestic features. Waituruturu East and West The surface of the excavation unit at Waituruturu East, one component of a two-part fortified rockshelter complex, was littered with many modern rat (Rattus rattus or Rattus exulans) and bird bones, apparently the result of owl roosts in the overhanging limestone outcrop that forms this large rockshelter. The subsurface deposit consists of three primary strata, designated Layers I–III (figure 3.13). Layer I is divided further by lenses of ash and charcoal. The loose, organic, pebbly, cobbly silt composing much of Layer I4 yielded abundant faunal remains and material culture to a depth of 75 centimeters below surface (cmbs). Layer I is clearly an earth oven (lovo) feature, based on the laminated stratigraphy, its overall shape, the copious amounts of whole and broken fire-cracked volcanic cobblestones and the abundant charcoal flecking and chunks. Layer II is a uniform pebbly silt with much less fire-cracked rock and some charcoal flecking.5 Faunal remains and artifacts are substantial but less frequent than in Layer I. Layer III is lighter in color than overlying layers.6 This loose, highly weathered, indurated, limestone crust contains limestone cobbles and boulders up to 40 cm in diameter. Cultural remains

68

Chapter 3

Figure 3.13. Stratigraphic Profile of South Wall of Test Excavation 1 (TP-1) in Waituruturu East, Illustrating Lovo Feature

decrease and finally dropout completely in Layer III, which represents the precultural rubble underlying the anthropogenic sediment. The stratigraphy in Waituruturu West was much the same as that described above in Waituruturu East. Excavations uncovered overlapping lovo features and a rich, ashy deposit filled with charcoal and bones. The deposit was shallower than that in Waituruturu East, however, extending only 55 cmbs. Na Masimasi Decorated pottery in the Lapita-style (figure 3.14) was recovered from surface-collections and excavations at Na Masimasi, an open site on Nayau’s southeast coastal sand dunes. On the land surrounding, and including, the site is a coconut plantation used by the island’s contemporary inhabitants. The extensive surface scatter of pottery and artifacts in the area represents a village settlement that dates to about 2,400–2,630 BP,7 and represents a relatively late phase of the Lapita culture. The village extends ca. 360 meters north to south along the dunes, tapering off toward the south. The area referred to as Na Masimasi by people on Nayau appears to grade into the archaeological site referred to as Vulaga (see table 2.1). Lacking a clear boundary, the site names provided may correspond to northern and southern extents of what could be one massive site or

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

Figure 3.14.

69

An Example of Decorated Lapita Pottery from Na Masimasi

Drawing by Patrick O’Day

two, possibly contemporary, village sites in sum greater than 500 m in length, running parallel along the sand dunes. Surface scatters of artifacts included several basalt, chert, and shell tools and copious amounts of pottery. Na Masimasi’s position along the coastal dunes is typical of Lapita settlements, indicating a preferential focus on the marine environment. Three excavation units were dug at Na Masimsi (D8, G6, and G7). These were positioned in an area with a dense surface pottery scatter. The strata in each of the units were similar, and the deposit extended on average 1.6 meters below the surface, producing Lapita pottery throughout. This finding suggests that Lapita peoples occupied the site continuously over time and the ceramic technology did not change significantly during this occupation. A profile of the east wall of Unit G6 is illustrated in figure 3.15. Layer I is densely packed silty sand-filled sediment. It contains copious amounts

Figure 3.15.

Na Masimasi East Wall Profile of Unit G6 and Features

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

71

of highly fragmentary pottery, midden, and pumice. Layer I8 is highly disturbed from coconut tree roots and modern human activity, including copra production and the burning of coconut fronds and detritus on the surface. Layer IIa9 is softer, silty, but still compact and contains more sand and charcoal flecks than Layer I. Layer IIa lacks root disturbance; it contains artifacts, fire-cracked rock, and midden composed of whole shells and more obvious bones. Pottery is positioned horizontally in the unit, starting with Layer IIa, indicating a primary deposition. Layer IIb10 is lighter colored than IIa, with higher sand content and produced less pottery than previous layers. In Layer III11 the material culture content, pottery and artifacts, drops off dramatically and the sediment transitions to a soft loose sand containing pumice, shells, and copious limestone cobbles. Below Layer III the sediment becomes very hard and compact, consisting of sand and limestone rock. The section of the unit delineated as “Features 1 and 2” represents one or more combustion features or areas where fire or burning has occurred. These features were created by the site’s occupants and may be the remains of one large lovo used over and over again through time. Both features were basin-shaped in plan view and contained fire-cracked rock, charcoal, bone, shell, pottery, and other artifacts. Features 1 and 2 were 25 cm deep and 40 cm deep, respectively.12 A thin dark brown lens of sediment separates these features.

INTERPRETING ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA In an effort to interpret my archaeological findings, I revisit the four ethnoarchaeological points discussed above that center on the relation between archaeological material culture and social relations. Because most of my excavations on Nayau were preliminary, I did not excavate an area wide enough in any one site to examine subsurface deposits from a complete household or house floor. This is a major drawback to my overall interpretations of the spatial arrangement of the sites, however I was able to identify probable cooking areas and associated features within archaeological villages. These findings will help guide my excavations in the future—for example, having identified cooking features, I can now turn to investigating nearby yavu that kin likely occupied and probable features where people cooked collectively and shared meals. Likely cooking areas and associated features were uncovered at most of the excavated sites. These cooking areas or kitchens appear to be indicated by dark organic soil, abundant charcoal chunks and flecking in the sediments, proximity to scoop-shaped features (representing earth ovens or hearths), large quantities of animal bones (especially fish bones), and

72

Chapter 3

material culture remains such as pottery and domestic tools. My excavations did not uncover any kitchens located on yavu, but most of the mid–late prehistoric sites yielded scoop features within a few meters of residential yavu, suggesting that in pre-European times people may have preferred to construct kitchens without yavu bases. The majority scoop features are likely lovo, based on the ethnographic analogs; the archaeological features are within the size and depth range recorded for modern lovo and appear to have been frequently reused over time. To understand the relationship between social status, particularly rank and gender, and material culture remains, the strongest physical connections evident archaeologically may be: female/kitchen/hearth/boiled foods, versus male/oven house/lovo/baked foods. If the archaeological features are interpreted as lovo rather than hearths, then we can assume that the lovo mark male activity areas. The question remains, however, what do the food refuse from lovo represent: midden from everyday meals cooked in hearths or remains of foods cooked in the lovo? Obviously, my assumption that the features represent lovo will need to be tested with additional archaeological and ethnographic data in Lau and elsewhere. Additional information will help determine what the food remains in archaeological cooking features represent. Nevertheless, my current archaeological findings provide a starting point for examining these complex issues. In the next section I present information from the ethnographic interviews that contribute additional insights into the social dimensions of food, including food sharing, household distribution of food, and consumption patterns.

INTERVIEWS The Lauan “Meal”: Folk Taxonomy of Food The Lauan word for meal is kana, but the phrase i kata lau may also refer in general to any of the typical three meals, breakfast (ti), lunch (vakasigalevu), or dinner (vakayakavi). A “meal,” unlike a snack, must include a starch food, and the participants should be seated to partake. A snack may be taken anywhere, any time, and might only include a piece of fruit or a cup of tea. For a formal meal, such as dinner, both a flesh food and a starch must be present. A very good meal would include a variety of starches (e.g., dalo, cassava, and bread) with the meat, and tea should be served at the end. The evening meals Thompson witnessed usually consisted of: steamed cassava, sweet potato, breadfruit, and greens with coconut cream and fish. “If there is no fish or meat the meal is considered poor” (Thompson 1940, 151). For Lauans, the important culinary distinc-

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

73

tion is between starch foods and flesh foods. A starch can constitute a “meal,” but a flesh food alone cannot. This pattern has been documented elsewhere in Fiji and Polynesia (Becker 1995; Firth 1936; Kirch 2001). The Lauan meal is dependent on presentation almost as much as it is on the presence of the proper constituents (starch and meat). A good meal (ka kana vinaka) always involves an abundant spread that challenges the diners’ abilities to eat it all. As Bell noted, “one of the keenest forms of embarrassment which a Polynesian can suffer is to be unable to provide guests, invited or uninvited, with a sufficiency of food” (1931, 125). On Nayau, anytime people take a meal, a person passing by the house will be called to join the family and eat with them. During meal time throughout the village the phrases “Mai ti!” (Come have tea/breakfast!), or “Mai kana!” (Come eat!) can be heard, as the man or woman of the house waves any adult passerby in. Many of the daily activities of women between the ages of about thirteen and sixty-five are focused on getting food, preparing, serving, and cleaning up after meals, especially the evening meal—the most important meal of the day. This is not to imply that women spend their entire day in search of food. Female social situations are organized around the kitchen and preparation, presentation, and cleanup associated with meals. The Lauan meal, both its preparation and consumption, is fundamentally a social event where visitors are constantly called to join in. Thus, it is simultaneously a public and private/domestic display of wealth and an expression of a person’s ability to care and provide for family and community. The literal translation of the Fijian term va kani a is “giving food.” The practice of giving food is widely recognized as an important way to influence others. Thus, in common use the phrase communicates a tight association between sharing food, feeding people in the home and in the community, and enhancing power or prestige. Indeed, food functions as a marker of social connectedness and an expression of varied social relations. Social Dimensions of Food: Meals, Snacks, Place, Time, Household Distribution The interview data (appendix B) and observations indicate that people commonly eat two or three meals each day where the entire household sits down in either the kitchen or vale levu and consumes food together. All Fijian meals are ritualized. Formal meals, especially dinner, are taken in the vale levu, or main house, while people usually eat breakfast and lunch in the kitchen. In preparation for the meal, a mat is spread out on the floor along the vertical (or long) axis of the house and a cloth is laid on top, in the center of the mat. Both the mat and the cloth visually emphasize the above/below axis of household space. When people sit down

74

Chapter 3

to eat they literally take their seats; that is, each person knows where to sit according to their status relative to the other people present (figure 3.6). The senior man sits at the top of the house, and the other males sit below him, and generally above the women (unless one of the women present is a special guest or an older woman of rank). The woman of the house always sits nearest to the door or main house entrance, which is known as the “door of the cooking irons” or darava i sue. In this way, physical household space associated with formal eating reflects social hierarchy. The largest most impressive foods are placed at the top of the cloth near the high ranked members (e.g., fish heads, the households, largest most ornate bowls of curry pork, and plates piled high with dalo, sweet potatoes, and cassava). Thus prestige is enhanced, as images of abundance are key to a successful presentation. The meal begins with a prayer, and then the people seated “above” (i cake) eat. Individuals seated “below” (i ra), usually women and children, wait for the people above to finish eating before they begin. Both the seating arrangement and the order of eating within households are dependent on hierarchy. People on Nayau, including my host family, were greatly disturbed when I attempted to sit in a position other than the socially proscribed proper one for a foreign visitor that is near the top of the house. During the end of my fourth stay on Nayau, I was finally allowed to regularly sit at the bottom of the house, by the door during meals with my informant and her family. I sat in the seat that her daughter, who was living on Viti Levu to attend school, would normally occupy, and I waited to eat with the women and kids after the men had finished. The first time I sat in this position, my informant’s teenaged son protested and insisted that I move up, “Na,” he said, “Seroni vaka cabe cake!” (“Mom, Sharyn must move up!”). After two weeks of meals where I was seated at the door and assisted in the serving of meals with the woman of the house, the family finally became more comfortable with it. However, many of their neighbors and relatives found this seating arrangement laughable or simply unacceptable. This situation, when I was staying with my informant’s family and doing many of the things that Fijian women normally do each day, was a subject of much discussion and debate in Salia village. People were either amused or incensed by my intimate participation in the household. It also caused political strife because the Turaga ni Koro insisted that all foreign visitors stay with his family and be waited on and treated properly. There has not been a chief in Salia for over ten years, and because the village lacked powerful leadership or direction at the time of my research, Salia was in a constant state of political unrest. My insistence on staying with my informant’s family upset the Turaga ni Koro’s claims to power over foreigners and his standing in the eyes of some of the villagers. This was

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

75

compounded by the fact that I was essentially waiting on my informant’s family and at the same time, elevating their status by staying in their home, providing cash payment for food and collaboration, and treating them as family. At the conclusion of a formal meal the participants (other than those cleaning up after the meal, usually the young unmarried women of the household), and especially guests, are expected to lie down and “relax” or “sit and rest here” (“vaka cequ” or “dabe ke”). The hostess will bring out pillows to recline on, people then assume a more informal posture and begin chatting in an easygoing manner. Men and women often separate— for example, the men may break off and go outside to relax or move into one of the household’s nearby bure. The conversation often reflects on the meal, local politics, and village gossip. It is socially acceptable, and encouraged, to nap after a Sunday lunch, the evening meal, or any feast. Fijian hosts take great pleasure in the degree to which visitors are able to recline, stretch out, and take repose. Snacks differ markedly from meals in both context and composition. In general, I witnessed women snacking more frequently then men. This may be related to their more consistent contact with foods, as women are engaged in meal preparation and clean up throughout each day. During interviews, I asked women if they snacked at all each day; 85 percent of the respondents claimed to snack. Typical snack foods include starches (bread, cassava, sweet potatoes), leftovers, a cup of tea, and fruit. Anytime women, adolescents, and children are collecting on the reef or in the bush, they snack on the items collected. Cooking Activities Women claim to do all of the cooking, but they also note that their husbands typically make the lovo for special occasions and on Sundays. Four of the women interviewed said that their husbands do some of the regular cooking during the week or when they need help. Nevertheless, it is obvious through observation that women do the vast majority of everyday food preparations and cooking. The Lauan cultural category of “cooking” does not appear to include making the lovo. Interviews indicate that Lauans maintain a sharp ideological division between everyday cooking activities and food preparations associated with special events that merit the use of the earth oven. When young unmarried women are members of a household, they take over all or part of the food preparations and postmeal cleaning activities from the older women in the house. To varying degrees, the senior ranking woman may direct the younger member’s activities. If young unmarried women within a household are extended family, they

76

Chapter 3

may spend a great deal of time around the houses of their father’s brothers. This is especially common if a house does not have any young women who live there, and thus a female affine may also assist with that household’s domestic activities. The wife of one of the village chiefs, Mary, does not do any cooking; the women of the village, especially her daughter-in-law (Lea, who is married to one of her oldest sons), do all of the cooking for this household. Lea uses Mary’s kitchen to prepare meals for both of their households. This pattern does not hold for the wife of the acting chief of a neighboring village; both the wife of the chief in the second village and the chief himself do all the cooking in their household. All of the interview respondents indicated that they eat cassava, sweet potatoes, and fish each day. When asked to characterize the differences between everyday cooking and foods prepared and served for feasts, these women consistently made reference to “big foods.” Big foods include cow, pig, chicken, large offshore fish, soup, curry, and chop suey. Pigs are frequently eaten on weekends, baked in the Sunday lovo, but cow is rarely eaten except for feasts associated with weddings, funerals, or other important events that are celebrated by the entire village. In terms of starch foods, yams and dalo are fundamental components of feasts. Lauans always make an effort to present many different root crops together with a variety of meats for feasts or celebrations. Meats and vegetables, especially greens cooked in coconut cream, are typical feast foods. The use of onion, garlic, curry, and soy sauce is another notable difference in the food prepared for special events. During feasts, people make an effort to eat considerably more than they normally do, and there is much encouragement by the participants to this end. One constantly hears the phrase, “kana vakalevu!” (eat big) when sitting at a feast. The presence of big foods, a large variety, and copious amounts of food were key characteristics that the interview respondents and other informants used to describe the fare associated with special events. Interestingly, none of the women interviewed listed puddings (vakalolo) or grated (solo) foods as components of feasts. In my experiences on Nayau and Lakeba “puddings” are always served for feasts and presented as gifts during special occasions. That these foods were not mentioned may be attributed to the fact that men often prepare vakaklolo and solopule. Women occasionally prepare the puddings, but not as often as men do. Food Preference and Individual Consumption Patterns Almost all of the women I interviewed claimed that the people living in their houses eat the same things. The only exceptions were people who said that a member of the household was on a special diet, due to illness

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

77

or other health conditions, and the dieter could not eat items such as butter or flour. While the data indicate that most people eat the same basic suite of foods (cassava, dalo, sweet potatoes, bread, fish, and coconut milk), the portions of food, in terms of size and the animal parts consumed by individuals do vary according to rank, gender, age, and personal preference. The interview data indicate that individual preference for particular types of foods varies widely. All of the women interviewed claimed to prefer fish to other types of meat. Favored fishes varied widely by individual. People like to eat both small and large size fishes. Reef fishes and offshore taxa were listed as favorites during interviews (table 3.4). The most frequently preferred fish is kawakawa. The term kawakawa refers to specific types of Groupers, including Epinephelus merra, and various species in the genus Cephalopholis. These fishes are highly sought after despite their relatively small size. The E. merra caught on Nayau generally measure about 18 cm in total length, while Cephalopholis spp. average 25 to 40 cm in total length. In decreasing order of abundance, the following fish were commonly listed as favorites during interviews: kawakawa; mulu or nuqa (Siganus sp.); kanace (Mugilidae); saqa (Caranx ignobilis and C. melampygus); tabacee (Acanthurus triostegus); boosee (Scarus sp.); ivatui (Parupeneus cyclostomus).13 This includes preferred fishes of the women interviewed and their husbands. Some respondents claimed that they like all types of fishes and were unable to decide on one or two that they prefer.

Table 3.4.

Favorite Fishes as Indicated in Interviews

Lauan Name

Scientific Name

English Name

N

Kawakawa Mulu or Nuqa Kanace Tabacee Boosee Saqa Ika Ivatui Kabajia Tabacee ni Toga Saqa Sevaseva Matu Jivijivi

Cephalopholis spp. and E. merra Siganus sp. Mugilidae Acanthurus triostegus Scarus sp. Caranx ignobilis Any fish Parupeneus cyclostomus Lethrinus sp. Acanthurus guttatus Caranx melampygus Plectorhinchus sp. Gerres sp. Chaetodon sp.

Grouper Rabbitfish Mullet Convict Tang Parrotfish Giant Trevally Fish Goldsaddled Goatfish Emperorfish Whitespotted Surgeonfish Bluefin Trevally Sweetlips Silver Biddy Butterflyfish

8 7 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

Total Note : N ⫽ number of times fish cited as favorite; some people listed more than one fish.

40

78

Chapter 3

In addition to the data collected during structured interviews, I frequently questioned people about what foods they prefer and why. When respondents were asked why they preferred certain fishes to others, they always referred to the fish head and the size of the head and/or eyes. One informant said that she likes kabajia (Lethrinus sp.) better than other fishes because “It has red lips, big eyes, and sweet flesh.” Another woman claimed that kanace is her favorite fish “because it is fat and has a big head.” My primary informant, Rusila, who sells fish to people on Nayau and all over central Lau, targets kanace to sell “because it has firm flesh that lasts for a few days and it has a big head and big eyes.” Importantly, many people claimed to prefer small fish by specifically saying, for example, “I like the small kawakawa the best.” Alternatively, some respondents simply prefer notoriously small species of fish; four women stated during interviews that their favorite fish is tabacee (the Convict Tang, Acanthurus triostegus, a species that does not get bigger than about 20 cm in total length and average 16 cm TL). Four households exhibited extreme variations from the normal patterns of food consumption and preference. These households hold relatively high ranks, either ascribed or achieved. One of the most dramatic variations from the normal pattern of household food consumption was documented during my interview with Sera. Her husband is the acting Tui of one of the villages. They had far more packaged foods sitting around their kitchen and spread out all over the house than any other household I have seen on Nayau. Also, Sera is one of only two women interviewed that claimed to like imported foods (“Suva food”) better than Nayau food. She said, “Because I get many things from my daughter and sons in Suva, there is nothing here that we want or need from the store.” Sera estimated that about 80 percent of the food she and her husband consume comes from Suva and the rest is produced locally (reef fish and root crops compose the majority of Nayau foods that they eat). However, Sera also admitted that she visits the store every day for items such as flour, rice, and sugar. She sometimes purchases gasoline for her son’s boat; he provides much of the fish that she and her husband eat. Sera and her husband, the chief, both cook, and then she serves the meals. They eat at the same time, but he eats the fish heads. The second major variation from the norm was documented in an interview with Sue. She is the daughter of the last high chief of the village where she resides and is thus high ranked. She claimed that she prefers store-bought foods to Nayau foods and that her household purchases make up about 80 percent of the foods she and her husband eat, while only about 20 percent are produced locally. Sue eats at the same time with her husband, but she serves the food and eats the fish tails. This family owns twenty pigs and two cows, a relatively large number indicative of their considerable wealth.

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

79

Individual consumption patterns in the house of one village chief and his wife, Mary, differ in some ways, but also conform to what was recorded in other households. Although Mary claimed that she and the chief eat the same foods as the other inhabitants of the village, they receive the majority of their foods as tribute and the local women do all of the cooking for them. When women collect inshore resources, they bring fish, invertebrates, and seaweed to Mary and the chief. I asked Mary if she selects particular foods from what is collected, taking the items that she wants. She responded, “I just take what is given to us.” During my interview with Mary’s daughter, she told me that turtle (vonu) and the Giant Trevally or Bluefin Trevally (saqa), especially the saqa head, are reserved for the chief. She noted that other than these foods, “The chief eats the same foods that everyone else does. When he receives a turtle or a saqa head, he returns with a tabua [whale’s tooth]. The chief’s son fishes for him a couple times each week. All the people in the village bring food to the chief when they return from fishing for their households. When they come back to the village, people bring him vasua [Tridacna sp., the giant clam].” Mary told me, “Our vegetable food comes from the chief’s garden. His garden is next to the other gardens that belong to the people of our village, but his garden is larger and has different crops. It is more organized. He has cassava, sweet potatoes, uvi, and, via. His son collects them for us [because the chief is blind].” The presentation of foods to people of rank is always elaborate and a deliberate show of excessive giving. When Lauans present foods to the chief and his family, they seek to outdo each other and give everything, often leaving little or nothing for themselves. Thus, despite the typical Fijian proclivity of describing acts in diminutive terms, the presentation of food, or other items, to a chief and his family is always impressive—that is, quantitatively and/or qualitatively elaborate. The chief and his family are well fed and cared for, which reflects positively upon the village. In Mary’s village, people respect the chief and show it by taking him all of their turtles, saqa (Caranx sp.), giant clams (Tridacna sp.), and sici (Turbo sp.). To supplement their diet, Mary occasionally collects seaweed (nama), sici, and sea cucumbers on the reef. She sells part of the sea cucumbers to passing cargo ships headed to the cities, in order to earn cash. Mary claims to buy only “a little bit” from the store, preferring Nayau foods to imported foods. Importantly, much of the store foods she purchases are paid for with sacks of copra. Various village residents, including the chief’s youngest son, give the copra to her husband as tribute. However, like most of the people interviewed, for everyday meals, Mary’s household consumes more fish than chicken, pork, or cow, and more starch than meat. A more obvious variation in consumption patterns occurs during feasts and special events, where the chief receives the “most,” “biggest,”

80

Chapter 3

and “best” of everything, including more cow, pork, chicken, large fish (and fish heads), coconut crab, etc. It is interesting that Sera (wife of the acting chief of one of the villages and daughter of the deceased high chief of another village), Sue (also the daughter of a deceased high chief), and Mary (wife of yet another chief) were the only interview respondents who included yams in their list of foods that are prepared for a feast. This finding may indicate that yams are more valuable to high-ranked women than to commoners; yams are still presented as first fruits offerings annually to chiefs during harvest times (specifically, regular yams are presented in May and sweet yams in July). The fourth household where consumption patterns varied markedly from the norm is that of Rusila. She and her husband have a business license and collect and sell fish on Nayau. They own one of the few fiberglass fishing boats on the island with a forty-horsepower outboard motor. Rusila spends more time fishing than any other woman on the island. Her family has access to both cash and a constant supply of fish (in addition to goods traded in payment for her catch), which is unusual in Lau. Moreover, unlike the other households, this family eats almost as much fish and meat as vegetables and starches. She told me during her interview that her husband eats fish heads, but there are usually enough heads to go around so that each member of their household gets one (there were five people living in her house at the time of my fieldwork). Often, the family will give their fish tails to neighbors, friends, and relatives. This household also boasts a relatively large amount of livestock: fourteen pigs, four horses, one cow, and fourteen chickens. Rusila estimates that her family purchases only about 10 percent or less of the food they eat from the store. “Other people in Salia probably spend more money on store food than we do; we spend money on fishing gear and fuel.” All of the most obvious variations in food consumption patterns, and notably different responses to my questions about feasts, occurred in households of relatively high-ranked women (Sera, Sue, Mary, and Rusila). Two of these women are married to powerful men (chiefs), and all four women came from high-status lineages before marriage. Among the people I interviewed, rank appears to be the most important factor determining the physical wealth of households and their individual consumption patterns. The acting chief of Narocivo, for example, has twenty-two pigs, more than twenty chickens, and five cows. His wealth, in terms of livestock, exceeds that of most the other households in Narocivo, Salia, and Liku. The number of cows that a person has is especially indicative of wealth and status. At the village level, a household’s social status appears to affect what foods its members consume. For example, Mary and her husband (a villagelevel chief) eat foods presented in tribute to the chief and collected for

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

81

them. The daughter of another chief, Sue, purchases around 80 percent of the foods her household consumes from the store. The acting chief of another village and his wife (Sera) also eat foods that are very different from what most the villagers eat; these are largely store bought foods, but also consist of tribute (primarily fish). Finally, Rusila and the members of her household eat far more protein, especially fish, than the members of any other household I interviewed on Nayau. Age, Gender, and Rank in Contemporary Food Consumption Age, gender, and rank affect all aspects of food distribution and consumption within households, the village, and Lauan society in general. Thompson recorded the typical mode of serving in a Lauan household where food is presented in the center of the group or family and the fish is divided into portions according to rank. “The head of the fish, the center of mana [supernatural efficacy], goes to the highest ranking man” (Thompson 1940, 152). In contemporary Nayau, a striking difference exists between the parts of animals consumed by men and women. The most frequently observed and documented gendered variation in terms of animal body parts taken is the consumption of fish heads by the ranking male of the household. All of the interview respondents claimed that the men eat the fish heads and the women and children eat the tails at family meals. The head (uluna) of other animals is also reserved for men. When a pig is served, men will eat the head, buttocks (muna), and back legs (dibina). Depending on personal preference, some men also eat the backbone (suitu). Interview data indicates that men have preferential access to certain parts of the chicken as well. Many people do not eat chicken heads; unlike the heads of fish, pigs, and cows, chicken heads appear to lack particular value. According to the women I interviewed, men prefer the chicken backbone, legs, and thighs. Women on Nayau and Lakeba claim that, “the head of the pig is for the husband and for the chief.” Rank and gender determine the order in which people eat. Almost all of the women interviewed serve their husbands, or the male head of the household, first and eat only after the men have finished. This is also the order of eating that I have observed at nearly every meal during the entire course of my research on Nayau and Lakeba. Exceptions to this pattern were documented in four households. In the first household, two seventy-one-year-old twin sisters live with their nephew. The twin sisters told me that when they are eating with their nephew, sometimes they eat together—at the same time he eats. On other occasions, he arrives to the meal late, after they have already started eating; in this case, they eat first. Sometimes they eat the fish heads, and sometimes he does, but the women always serve the food.

82

Chapter 3

In the second household, the acting chief of Narocivo eats with his wife. She does not wait for him, but she serves him the food and he always eats the fish heads. The third household is that of a seventy-three-year-old widow who lives alone. She takes her meals with her son-in-law, eating at the same time, while her daughter waits for them to finish, before eating. The elder woman sometimes eats fish heads, and other times she eats the tails. The fourth case is in a house where a seventy-five-year-old widow lives with her son and his wife; she eats at the same time as her son, although his wife waits for the elder woman and her husband to finish before eating. The categories of age, gender, and rank are not stable throughout an individual’s life. As women age, their rank appears to increase and they gain new opportunities or experiences in different social settings. When a woman becomes the oldest member of a household, she acquires some of the same privileges afforded to high-ranked men. At meal times men generally eat the fish heads unless women are eating without the men, in which case, the women will eat the fish heads. Regardless of rank, most of the women I interviewed who are over sixty take their meals at the same time as the man of the house. These women may or may not serve the food (depending on the presence of a younger woman), but they typically sit next to the door, just as young women do. One woman said that her son occasionally serves food to her. None of the respondents said that they eat before men, but if no men are in attendance at a meal, the ranking woman of the house may take her food before the other women and the children who are present. When I asked some of the older women how many meals they eat each day, they proudly responded that their families take good care of them, feeding them frequently and keeping them from cooking and other “hard work.” Luse Tayaga, a seventy-two-year-old woman, stated, “I eat three meals each day. My family looks out for me.” The daily activities of women over sixty-five to seventy are few in comparison with women of other age groups. During the day, older women typically weave mats or make masi and might go fishing once a week. They may help in the kitchen, or direct activity, but do not contribute significantly to food production, preparation, serving, and cleanup. One elder woman told me, “My son wants me to sit here all day and not work.” The community views this as a sign that her son is a good caregiver and an able provider.

ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INTERVIEW DATA The interviews I conducted on Nayau are helpful for outlining common behaviors associated with food and eating, which may be useful in the interpretation of archaeological remains. The ethnoarchaeological implica-

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

83

tions of the interview data include seven important points. First, meals differ in context and content from snacks; meals are structured social rituals that might be expected to produce a specific suite of archaeological remains, including the animal bones and or invertebrates and the archaeobotanical residues of starches. A proper meal includes meat and starches presented in a formal manner to a group of people seated according to rank. Women occupy the “low” areas of the house during meals, and men occupy the “high” areas. Second, giving food enhances prestige and power. This is true both within and between households, and may also be seen when villagers pay tribute to a chief. Third, snacking is not an uncommon activity, even when women are working or collecting food on the reef. Fourth, Lauan women ideologically divide everyday cooking, a female activity, from the cooking of big foods (pigs, cows, offshore fishes, puddings) for special occasions. The latter is predominantly a male activity. Fifth, most women claim to prefer locally produced foods, and when asked about fish, my interlocutors explained that they like inshore fishes (which are relatively small-bodied). Preference for specific types of fishes appears to be related to the size of a fish’s head and eyes, as well as its color (red is a favorite color). Sixth, age, gender, and rank all play a role in determining what and how people eat. The order in which people eat at a meal is determined by these social factors; that is, if an animal is served, the male head of the household will eat the head and the women and children will eat the leftovers, most often the tail. Seventh, as women age, it is socially acceptable and often expected that they may assume some of the behaviors of higherranked men in regards to eating and the physical positions that they occupy at meals and other social events. Therefore, social categories are context dependent. The remains of prehistoric meals, as represented in zooarchaeological or faunal assemblages are described in the following section. After discussing this data, I aim to use it and these seven ethnoarchaeological points to further explore the questions posed at the beginning of this chapter.

ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS Nayau’s excavated archaeological sites yielded a rich assemblage of wellpreserved bones (table 3.5). The Na Masimasi assemblage differed from fauna recovered at other sites in terms of the faunal makeup, abundance, and diversity; I will discuss this material separate from that produced by the other sites. Unlike the bone from the Mid-prehistoric to Contact Period sites, the Na Masimasi fauna was dispersed throughout the strata, and while bone was recovered from probable lovo, it was not concentrated

Total

723

—

—

3,320

624 4 — 15 — 76 — — — 4

WaiT E

1,329 199 — 138 9 1,644 — — — 1

WaiT W

22

—

10 — — — — 2 — — — 10

KV 1

286

3

265 — 1 1 7 5 — — 4 —

KV 2

465

—

8 6 — 30 4 415 — — — 2

UluNK

69

—

36 7 — 1 5 11 — — — 9

KoroNG

13

2

9 — — — — — — — — 2

NukuT 1

152

—

28 — — — 20 2 — 1 — 101

NukT 2

119

—

47 — — — — 3 — 1 — 68

QaraL

Distribution of Selected Classes of Vertebrates (NISP) from Excavated Sites on Nayau

Fish Lizard/Snake Sea Turtle Bird Bat Rat Pig Dog Cat Human Med. Mammal

Class

Table 3.5.

18

—

18 — — — — — — — — —

Navutu

75

—

73 — — — 1 — — — — 1

Vulaga

630

12

599 2 — 3 12 1 — — — 1

DKT

8,317

12

7,570 6 11 3 3 664 2 4 — 42

Na MM

14,209

29

10,616 224 12 191 61 2,823 2 6 4 241

Total NISP

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

85

in these features. The sample described here includes about 80 percent of all the recovered fauna; I am currently working to analyze the remainder of the Na Masimasi assemblage. The Mid-prehistoric to Contact Period sites produced 5,889 individual specimens, of which only 2.5 percent display obvious evidence of human alteration such as burning or cut marks. Most of the burned bones were recovered from cooking features. Scoop-shaped features, likely lovo, produced the majority of the faunal assemblage from the Mid-prehistoric to Contact Period sites. Within Mid-prehistoric and Contact Period sites fish represents 52 percent of the recovered archaeological bone by count (NISP), weighing a total of 255.2 g (table 3.6). Intersite variation in fish remains is minimal for taxonomic composition, because Waituruturu East and West contributed 80 percent of the total fish NISP. Korovatu Rockshelter 2 contributed 11 percent. The other nine sites yielded comparatively few fish bones and contribute little to the understanding of prehistoric foodways; additional excavations in these sites would improve the data set. The fish assemblage reflects a heavy reliance on near-shore reef fishes, especially in the families Acanthuridae (Tang), Balisitidae (Triggerfish), Diodontidae (Porcupinefish), Lethrinidae (Emperorfish), Scaridae (Parrotfish), Serranidae (Grouper), and Labridae (Wrasse). These families make up 93 percent of the identified Mid-prehistoric to Contact Period assemblage by count or weight (table 3.7). Emperorfish contribute 5 percent of the MNI and 15 percent of the biomass. At the family level of identification the Nayau archaeological fish assemblage resembles other prehistoric Oceanic assemblages (Butler 1994; Davidson et al. 2002; Green 1986; Leach and Davidson 2000). Fishes that typically inhabit the offshore area and pelagic zone, including Scombridae (Tuna) and Exocoetidae (Flyingfish), were represented by only four bones. When the identified fish bones are grouped according to skeletal elements, the frequency of cranial to postcranial bones is apparent (table 3.8); this summary does not include over 2,000 unidentified elements classified as Osteichthyes (or unidentified bony fish) that consist primarily of spines and small undiagnostic fragments. A total of 527 identified bones (34.5 percent) are from the head or cranial region, while 1,001 (65.5 percent) are postcranial elements. Vertebrae form the most abundant portion of all skeletal elements identified, making up almost 43 percent of the total identified elements. This data indicates that head elements are particularly common and heads may have been preferred, or at least frequently eaten, by the occupants of these archaeological households. Fish bone was copious throughout the strata in the Na Masimasi units, making up 91 percent of all the recovered fauna by count. This is a diverse assemblage including 33 different taxa (table 3.9). Fish vertebrae make up

Table 3.6. Summary of Fish Bone from Mid-prehistoric to Contact Period Excavations on Nayau Taxon

Habitat

NISP

Mass (g)

Osteichthyes/unidentified Carcharhinidae Muraenidae Gymnothorax sp. Exocoetidae Belonidae Tylosurus crocodilus Myrpristis sp. Perciformes Serranidae Epinephelus merra Cephalopholis sp. Epinephelus sp. Carangidae Caranx sp. Lutjanidae Lutjanus sp. Lethrinidae Lethrinus sp. Lethrinus erythropterus Lethrinus harak Monotaxis grandoculis Mullidae Labridae Bodianus sp. Cheilinus sp. Halichoeres sp. Scaridae Sparisomatinae Scarus sp. Acanthuridae Acanthurus sp. Naso sp. Siganus sp. Scombridae Pleuronectidae cf. Pleuronectidae Balistidae Sufflamen sp. Ostraciidae Diodon sp. Diodon liturosus Diodon hystrix

— Near reefs and offshore Shallow reefs Shallow reefs Oceanic offshore waters Reefs and inshore Coastal waters and reefs Reefs, caves, and crevices Reefs and offshore Reefs and rocky shore Reefs and rocky shore Reefs and rocky shore Reefs and rocky shore Reefs and offshore Reefs and offshore Reefs Reefs Reef, sand, and rubble Reef, sand, and rubble Reef, sand, and rubble Reef, sand, and rubble Reef, sand, and rubble Reef and sand Reefs Reefs and coastal waters Reefs Reefs Reefs Reefs Reefs Reefs Reefs Reefs Reefs Oceanic offshore waters Sand and mud substrates Sand and mud substrates Reefs Reefs Reefs Reefs Reefs Reefs

2,380 1 8 2 2 6 1 1 12 35 18 4 3 3 3 1 1 12 6 1 4 3 7 7 7 1 1 4 7 42 179 37 8 5 2 2 1 104 18 4 55 32 16

128.2 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.7 — 0.1 1.2 3.9 1.9 1.6 0.7 1.7 2.7 — 0.2 5.3 4.4 1.2 3.8 6.6 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.1 1.4 3.9 11.9 16.1 2.9 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 17.3 6.0 1.5 16.2 2.6 5.0

3,046

255.2

Total

Table 3.7. Family-Level Summary of Fish Bone from Twelve Mid-prehistoric to Contact Period Sites on Nayau Family

Common name

NISP

% NISP

Mass (g)

% Mass

Carcharhinidae Muraenidae Exocoetidae Belonidae Holocentridae Serranidae Carangidae Lutjanidae Lethrinidae Mullidae Labridae Scaridae Acanthuridae Siganidae Scombridae Pleuronectidae Balistidae Ostraciidae Diodontidae

Requiem sharks Moray eels Flyingfishes Needlefishes Squirrelfishes Groupers Jacks Snappers Emperors Goatfishes Wrasses Parrotfishes Surgeonfishes Rabbitfishes Tunas Flounders Triggerfishes Trunkfishes Porcupinefishes

1 10 2 7 1 60 6 2 26 7 16 53 224 5 2 3 122 4 103

⬍1 2 ⬍1 1 ⬍1 9 1 ⬍1 4 1 3 8 34 1 ⬍1 ⬍1 19 ⬍1 16

0.2 1.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 8.1 4.4 0.2 21.3 0.6 2.5 17.2 19.6 0.3 0.2 0.9 23.3 1.5 23.8

⬍1 1 ⬍1 1 ⬍1 7 4 ⬍1 16 ⬍1 2 14 16 ⬍1 ⬍1 1 19 1 19

654

100

126.1

100

Total

Note : Nonspecific identifications (Osteichthyes and Perciformes) are not included here. Table 3.8. Fish Element Frequency from Identified Fish Bones from Mid-prehistoric to Contact Period Sites on Nayau Element General Cranial Articular Clethrum Dentary Hyomandibular Maxilla Opercle Preopercle and Premaxilla Quadrate General Postcranial Scale Vertebrae Atlas Pelvic Spines Total

Count

Percent (%)

118 25 88 26 80 26 36 97 31 11 10 653 8 23 296

7.7 1.6 5.8 1.7 5.2 1.7 2.4 6.4 2.0 0.7 0.7 42.7 0.5 1.5 19.4

1,528

100

2 2 18 1 22 51 4 1 12 46 3 21 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 39 4 4 27 3 32 1 19

NISP

Summary of Fish Bone from Na Masimasi

Carcharhinidae Dasyatidae Muraenidae Albula glossodonta Belonidae Exocoetidae Holocentridae Holocentrinae Perciformes Serranidae cf. Plectropomus sp. Epinephelus merra Epinephelus sp. Carangidae Caranx sp. Gerres sp. Lutjanidae Haemulidae Lethrinus sp. Monotaxis grandoculus Mullidae Pomacentridae Abudefduf sptemfasciatus Labridae Cheilinus sp. Scaridae Sparisomatinae Scarus spp.

Taxon

Table 3.9.

0.2 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.75 0.47 0.31 0.1 2.11 4.87 0.17 1.0 1.11 0.11 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.2 1.1 0.03 0.1 3.21 0.1 8.11 0.1 3.12

weight (g) 1 2 1 1 1 3 — 1 — — 1 4 2 — 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 — 1 4

MNI 8.47 17.47 25.32 4.90 24.06 16.63 11.97 4.90 51.19 102.48 6.33 27.54 30.03 4.41 0.60 4.07 4.07 0.60 0.60 7.24 29.81 1.50 4.07 72.51 4.07 156.49 4.07 70.82

biomass (g) 0.60 1.23 1.79 0.35 1.70 1.17 0.84 0.35 3.61 7.23 0.45 1.94 2.12 0.31 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.04 0.04 0.51 2.10 0.11 0.29 5.11 0.29 11.03 0.29 4.99

% biomass

7,570 550

Total Without unidentified fish

323.69 66.1

0.4 0.32 0.01 7.01 0.26 2.1 0.25 5.7 1.78 0.11 0.1 19.25 257.5

Note : Percent biomass calculated excluding unidentified bony fish.

15 3 1 69 10 3 11 5 49 2 3 53 7,020

Mugilidae Sphyraena barracuda Sphyraena sp. Acanthuridae Acanthurus sp. Naso sp. Siganus sp. Scombridae Balistidae Monacanthidae Ostraciidae Diodon sp. Unidentified bony fish 59 59

2 1 — — 10 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 — 4,065.03 1,418.18

12.87 10.70 0.60 138.66 9.00 50.98 8.72 116.78 44.45 4.41 4.07 320.68 2,646.85 100.00 100.00

0.91 0.75 0.04 9.78 0.63 3.60 0.61 8.23 3.13 0.31 0.29 22.61 —

90

Chapter 3

85 percent of the fish material (identified and unidentified). Spines make up the second most significant portion of the assemblage, 10 percent; this includes the diagnostic body spines of Porcupinefish, the first dorsal spines of Triggerfish and Filefish, Stingray spines, and dorsal spines that are unidentifiable to taxa (table 3.10). All other elements contribute less than 1 percent to the assemblage. Bones from reptiles and birds were uncommon in all excavations on Nayau. Sea turtles, lizards, and snakes make up a minor portion of the bone assemblage (ⱕ 4 percent by NISP or count). Most reptile specimens are from small lizards. The lizard remains, mainly from Waituruturu West, probably reflect commensal species or barn-owl prey remains rather than animals taken for food by people. One fragment of sea turtle (Cheloniidae) was identified from Korovatu Rockshelter 2. Sea turtle was also present in the Na Masimasi excavations, where eleven fragments representing two individuals (one adult and one subadult) were identified. According to my own research and ethnographic and traditional accounts, sea turtle was a highly valued commodity, primarily consumed by the chiefly and elite class (Hocart 1929; Thompson 1940). On Nayau today, captured sea turtles are usually given to village chiefs. Thus, the paucity of sea turtle remains in archaeological contexts is not surprising. A relative abundance of sea turtle in faunal assemblages from the Lapita period is common in the region (e.g., Best 2002). In later-period archaeological occupations, a relatively high frequency of sea turtle could support an inTable 3.10.

Na Masimasi Fish Element Frequency from Identified Fish Bones

Element

Count

Percent (%)

General Cranial Tooth isolate Articular Clethrum Dentary Pharyngeal grinder or plate Hyomandibular Maxilla Premaxilla Quadrate General Postcranial Scale Vertebrae Atlas Spines

4 19 4 3 17 31 4 10 36 9 3 18 3,323 32 389

⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 85 ⬍1 10

Total

3,902

100

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

91

terpretation of a site as an elite residence, just as elites consume more turtle bone in contemporary contexts. All the bird bone from Na Masimasi represents chicken. Chickens were introduced to Nayau by the Lapita peoples. The low avian diversity, as seen in Nayau archaeological sites, is typical of late prehistoric sites in the Fiji-Tonga-Samoa region, where most extinction of native birds took place in the earliest Lapita times (Steadman 2006; Steadman et al. 2002). Na Masimasi is a late Lapita occupation, thus the avifauna represents a time when the bird diversity had already been impacted by humans and introduced mammals including pigs, dogs, and rats (O’Day et al. 2003). The identified mammal bones (table 3.5) represent indigenous fruit bats (Pteropus spp.) and sheath-tailed bat (Emballonura semicaudata), as well as the prehistorically introduced pig (Sus scrofa), dog (Canis familiaris), and rats (Rattus spp.) (O’Day et al. 2003). Skeletal remains of the Europeanintroduced cat (Felis catus) were recovered from a disturbed archaeological context, Korovatu Rockshelter 2. The designation “medium mammal” refers to highly fragmentary mammal remains that could not be reliably assigned to pig or dog but fall into that size category. Rats make up 37 percent of the total NISP from Mid-prehistoric to Contact Period sites. Although present in 10 of the 13 excavated sites, 99 percent of Rattus bones were from the rockshelters of Waituruturu West (76 percent), Ulu ni Koro (19 percent), and Waituruturu East (4 percent). The abundance of rat bones is a result of the presence of barn-owl (Tyto alba) roosts in these three large rockshelters. Much of the rat material is relatively complete and was recovered in the upper levels of the excavations. The rat bones are primarily from the small Polynesian rat, R. exulans, which was introduced by Lapita peoples. Best (1984, 543) makes a case for rat consumption by the prehistoric inhabitants of Lakeba based on skeletal element frequency. By these same criteria, I believe it is unlikely that the Nayau rat remains in my assemblages represent food. Midden deposits yielded fragmentary human remains at eleven of the thirteen excavated sites. Many of these bones have signs of burning and fracturing potentially indicative of nonfunerary and possibly cannibalistic behavior. This is consistent with what Best (1984, 638; 2002, 26) encountered at numerous middle- to late-period sites on Lakeba, starting in what he terms “Period II” (ca. 2500 BP). He interpreted the common occurrence of human remains in archaeological sites to suggest that humans were a regular source of food. More data is needed from Nayau to confirm if the human bone is the result of cannibalism or other causes. A single burial (NISP ⫽ 101) was partially uncovered in a sand dune deposit at Nukutubu Rockshelter 2, comprising all of the obvious nonmidden human bone recovered from Nayau.

92

Chapter 3

Invertebrates Excavations produced a wide variety of marine shell. Over 3,000 specimens were recovered from Mid-prehistoric to Contact Period sites, including whole shells and fragments, weighing 11.5 kg (table 3.11). Most of the shell is well preserved except that nearly all specimens from earth oven features were charred and fragmentary. The marine invertebrate taxa are primarily mollusks from the classes Polyplacophora (Chitons), Gastropoda (univalves—e.g., marine snails), and Bivalvia (bivalves). A small amount of sea urchin remains (phylum Echinodermata) were identified. The marine shell from Mid-prehistoric to Contact Period sites is dominated by six gastropod and three bivalve taxa. The most frequently identified gastropods in order of abundance include: Turbo setosis, Turbo spp., Strombus gibberulus, Strombus spp., Cypraea spp., Conus spp., and Nerita spp. Among gastropod families, the Turbinidae accounts for 42 percent of the total shell NISP and 63 percent of the total shell mass, whereas the Strombidae comprises 19 percent NISP and 13 percent total mass. The most common bivalve species are Modiolus auriculatus (family Mytilidae), Atactodea striata (Mesodesmatidae), and Tellina spp. (Tellinidae), none of which is as common as the most frequently found gastropods (table 3.12). Gastropods weighed a total of 9,448.8 g, and contribute 5.5 kg of meat according to biomass estimates. Bivalves contribute only 631 g and an estimated 0.8 kg of meat to the overall assemblage. There are few detectable differences between the molluscan faunas associated with different Midprehistoric and Contact Period sites. The molluscan fauna from Na Masimasi is abundant and overwhelmingly dominated by Strombus gibberulus (the small Fighting Conch) in all measures including, count (NISP), MNI, and weight (table 3.13). Turbinids are the second most common invertebrate, while all other taxa occur in insignificant frequencies (figure 3.16). The Na Masimasi invertebrate assemblage is markedly different than those recovered from other archaeological sites. Most of the identified invertebrates inhabit areas that include the splash zone above the high-tide line, tide pools, sand flats, grass flats, and fringing reefs. The bivalves also can be found in shallow-water habitats such as silty or sandy inshore areas on fringing reefs (Colin and Arneson 1995; Gosliner et al. 1996; Kay 1979). Some of these species are commonly found along Nayau’s shoreline today, with Turbo spp. and Nerita spp. being especially common. Strombus gibberulus, which occurs in a high frequency at Na Masimasi, ranges widely, inhabiting coral reefs, intertidal zones, and shallow tidal and subtidal habitats (e.g., 0–3 m). It is commonly associated with sandy bottoms and muddy anoxic sediments.

Table 3.11. Summary of Identified Marine Shell from Excavations of Twelve Midprehistoric to Contact Period Sites on Nayau Taxon Turbo spp. Strombus spp. Modiolus auriculatus Turbo setosis Cypraea spp. Atactodea striata Conus spp. Strombus gibberulus Nerita spp. Echinoidea Tellina spp. Trochus spp. Chitonidae Cypraea annulus Littorina spp. Cryptoplax sp. Cymatium sp. Thais armigera Drupa morum Cerithidae Vasum ceramicum Astralium spp. Codakia sp. Spondylus sp. Lambus sp. Anadara sp. Astraea rhodostoma Drupa sp. Muricidae Pinctada sp. Terebra sp. Periglypta sp. Asaphis sp. Tridacna sp. Cypraea moneta Mitra sp. Fragum fragum Naticidae Patellidae Nassariidae Total

NISP

Mass (g)

952 393 347 156 155 150 101 96 90 35 32 19 18 14 9 8 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4,664.3 976.5 208.3 1,664.9 240.3 199.5 852.3 269.8 226.9 6.0 36.5 121.3 9.3 24.3 7.9 1.4 19.7 109.2 34.4 5.7 52.8 41.7 19.0 98.1 46.6 38.7 26.9 17.1 5.1 2.1 23.0 13.3 9.0 5.1 3.3 2.5 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.3

2,625

10,085.8

Table 3.12. Family-Level Summary of Marine Shell from Mid-prehistoric to Contact Period Sites on Nayau. Taxon

Common name

NISP

Turbinidae Strombidae Mytilidae Cypraeidae Mesodesmatidae Conidae Neritidae Echinoidae Tellinidae Chitonidae Trochidae Muricidae Littorinidae Cymatiidae Cerithiidae Lucinidae Spondylidae Arcidae Pteriidae Terebridae Veneridae Psammobiidae Tridacnidae Mitridae Cardiidae Patellidae Nassariidae

Turban Shells Vase and Harp Shells Mussels Cowries Sandy Beach Clam Cone Shells Nerites Sea Urchins Tellens Chitons Top Shells Rock snails Littorines/Periwinkles Triton Shells Cerithids Lucinas Spiny Oysters Arc Shells Pearl Oyster Auger Shells Venus Clams Sunset Clams Giant Clams Miter Shell Heart Shells and Cockles Limpets Nassarids

1,113 495 347 170 150 101 90 35 32 26 19 12 9 5 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

42 19 13 6 6 4 3 1 1 1 1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 4 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 <1 4 ⬍1

6,397.8 1,346.5 208.3 267.9 199.5 852.3 226.9 6.0 36.5 10.7 121.3 165.8 7.9 19.7 5.7 19.0 98.1 38.7 2.1 23 13.3 9.0 5.1 2.5 1.4 0.5 0.3

63 13 2 3 2 8 2 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 1 2 <1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 ⬍1 <1 ⬍1 ⬍1

2,625

100%

10,085.8

100%

Total

% NISP

Mass (g)

% Mass

Table 3.13.

Summary of Identified Marine Shell from Na Masimasi, Nayau

Taxon

NISP

weight (g)

MNI

Cryptoplax sp. Gastropod Astraea rhodostoma Astralium spp. Turbo argyrostomus Turbo setosus Turbo spp. Neritidae Nerita polita Nerita sp. Littorina spp. Cerithium nodulosum Cerithium sp. Strombus gibberulus Strombus mutabilis Strombus sp. Cypraea annulus Cypraea caputserpentis Cypraea moneta Cypraea sp Drupa ricinus Drupa morum Drupa spp. Nassariidae Conus sp. Bivalvia Atactodea striata Codakia punctata Tellinidae Quidnipagus palatam Scutarcopagia sp. Modiolus auriculatus Crustacean Crab Echinoidea Heterocentrotus sp. Unidentified Mollusca

1 93 1 8 3 24 263 8 4 1 2 1 2 1,041 56 8 11 2 1 75 1 7 2 1 9 36 4 1 8 2 1 16 1 1 1 8 28

1.1 144.2 5.8 7.1 61.54 436.5 931.1 9.4 3.6 1.3 2.1 6.6 4.8 2,326.0 85.7 5.5 11.8 6.8 1.4 101.3 4.9 29.1 15.6 1.0 47.6 101.38 7.7 12.3 9.35 7.7 18.3 8.2 0.75 0.8 0.26 13.4 31.56

1 2 3 21 40 6 4 1 2 1 — 852 47 3 3 1 1 5 1 5 2 1 3 5 3 1 3 1 1 4 — 1 — 1 —

1.31 116.48 6.06 7.30 53.21 322.69 647.85 9.45 3.91 1.53 2.38 6.82 5.09 1,504.11 72.17 5.77 11.64 7.01 1.64 84.17 5.19 26.72 15.05 1.20 42.01 219.81 38.09 52.38 43.47 38.09 68.62 39.76 — — — — 28.79

Total

1,732

4,463.54

1,026

3,489.77

1

biomass (g)

96

Figure 3.16.

Chapter 3

Family-Level Summary of Identified Invertebrate Fauna from Na Masimasi

Interpreting the Faunal Data Despite the preliminary nature of my archaeological investigations, the Nayau zooarchaeological data provide general information about subsistence in the past, which is comparable to the ethnographic documented foodways. Several archaeological patterns specifically relate to subsurface features and the composition of marine faunal or food assemblages. The archaeologically derived information assists in characterizing long-term trends in prehistoric exploitation patterns on Nayau. Moreover, these findings closely parallel the archaeological data from Lakeba (Best 1984, 2002), indicating that settlement phases, the presence and general chronology of pottery types and other artifacts, and the character of subsistence remains may be regional patterns. The nonfish zooarchaeological remains suggest that much of Nayau’s indigenous fauna already had been lost through human exploitation by the time of occupation at Na Masimasi and certainly by the Midprehistoric Period. Native birds and reptiles are uncommon finds in the

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

97

faunal assemblages. Not surprisingly, subsistence patterns emphasized a broad range of inshore marine resources including small to medium-sized reef fishes and to a lesser degree, a variety of shellfish taxa. Importantly, there is very little variation between the dominant marine inshore fauna identified archaeologically and the present-day pattern of exploitation on Nayau. The exception to this pattern of subsistence continuity is the finding that in the past, invertebrates apparently formed a larger component of the diet as evidenced by the weight, count, and MNI compared to the vertebrate fauna. Biomass estimates for the invertebrates from Mid-prehistoric to Contact Period sites suggest that the meat associated with this fauna is 7.7 kg, which is almost three times larger than the meat (2.6 kg) contributed by the fish assemblage. Less emphasis on invertebrates is apparent at Na Masimasi where biomass estimates indicate that fish (4.1 kg) were a more important component of the diet than shellfish (3.5 kg). Interpreting the patterns of relative frequencies of invertebrates to vertebrates in the archaeological sites may be facilitated with consideration to consumption and discard patterns; these issues are discussed in chapter 4. The most commonly encountered type of subsurface feature for all excavations were deep scoop-shaped features, probably earth ovens. These features also produced a majority of the invertebrate and vertebrate assemblages for all sites other than Na Masimasi. In terms of abundance, the lovo at Waituruturu West and Waituruturu East yielded the highest frequency of fauna. Probable lovo were encountered at Korovatu Rockshelter 1 and Rockshelter 2, Koro ni Gasau, Ulu ni Koro, and Nukutubu Rockshelter 2. In all of these deposits, the cooking features are relatively consistent in shape, size, and content. These features are characterized by a loosely packed matrix of rich organic sediment, containing charcoal flecking and chunks, ash, burned and fire-cracked rock (both basalt and limestone), burned and unburned bone, shell, and other material culture (such as lithics and pottery fragments). Often the features exhibit layers of ash and charcoal. Probable archaeological lovo generally measure between 0.75 to 1 m in diameter, forming a circle or subcircle on the surface, and extend below the surface in the basin shape measuring on average 0.55 to 1 m deep. Archaeological scoop-shaped features are common not only on Nayau, but also on the nearby islands of Aiwa Levu and Aiwa Lailai, where I excavated in 2000–2003. I interpret these features as an indicator of maleassociated domestic activities, and because of their ubiquitous nature in the archaeological sites, this feature has much potential to inform about household foodways. It is unclear, however, what exactly the fauna from these features reflects. Are the faunal remains parts of meals that were left in the oven? Or, are the bones and shells food rubbish that was tossed into the dirt near the oven? Ethnographic data facilitates interpretation of

98

Chapter 3

these features and helps answer questions about the meaning of faunal remains collected from cooking contexts. Based on my observations in a contemporary context, I suggest that fauna recovered from lovo and surrounding contexts are food refuse associated with eating around ovens and habitation sites in general. Through domestic activities, including eating, snacking, and sweeping, food remains, and bones in particular, end up on the ground around households and in the dirt surrounding cooking features. The taxonomic composition, by NISP and MNI, of the Nayau fish assemblages is characterized by a high frequency of a group of species across sites from Mid-prehistoric to Contact Period sites. This includes the following taxa, in order of abundance: Tangs (acanthurids), Parrotfish (scarids), Groupers (serranids), Triggerfish (balistids), Wrasse (labrids), Emperorfish (lethrinids), and Porcupinefish (diodontids) (figure 3.17). All of these taxa inhabit reefs and inshore areas and can be captured using nets, traps, spears, and hooks and hand lines. The four fish families that contribute the most to the Na Masimasi faunal assemblage by NISP and MNI are Tangs, Groupers, Porcupinefish, and Parrotfish (figure 3.18). In contrast to the later prehistoric fish fauna, when the Na Masimasi fish identifications are grouped according to family, it becomes apparent that Emperorfish are rare in this early occupation. According to my data, the importance or frequency of Parrotfish and Emperorfish varies over time. Parrotfish consumption decreases over time while Emperorfish exploitation increases over time (in terms of MNI and biomass). These two species, especially Parrotfish, are commonly identified in zooarchaeological assemblages from Lau and elsewhere in the Pacific. Moreover, these fishes are both common in modern catches, as will be described in chapter 5.

Figure 3.17. Family-Level Summary of Identified Fish Fauna from Twelve Midprehistoric to Contact Period Sites on Nayau

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

Figure 3.18.

99

Family-Level Summary of Identified Fish Fauna from Na Masimasi on Nayau

Following Myers descriptions (1991), I organized the identified Na Masimasi fish by habitat. By all measures (NISP, MNI, and weight) about 80 percent or more of the identified fishes represent species that inhabit inshore reef environments (table 3.14). Pelagic and offshore species contribute a minor part to the overall assemblage (ⱕ10 percent). The final ethnoarchaeological question I posed at the beginning of this chapter was: do archaeological remains encode information about social structures, such as rank and gender? And, what social issues are invisible archaeologically? An examination of the identified fish bone elements may illuminate these issues. The archaeological fish bone element frequency is overwhelmingly skewed toward postcranial elements (tables 3.8 and 3.10). The high frequency of postcrania is not surprising given that the average fish has many more of these bones than cranial bones. Fishes have about fifty-six cranial bones (some paired and others unpaired), between twenty-four to thirty-six vertebrae, and numerous additional postcranial elements including hundreds of bony spines and rays (note that this is an estimate, and depending on the species, the number of bones Table 3.14.

Habitat Summary for Identified Fish from Na Masimasi

Habitat

NISP

%NISP

wt. (g)

% wt.

MNI

%MNI

Reef Pelagic-marine Reef-estuarine Inner reef Reef-pelagic Offshore reef-oceanic Inshore

435 56 29 23 4 2 1

79.1 10.1 5.3 4.2 0.7 1.0 0.2

57.7 6.17 1.05 0.85 0.12 0.2 0.1

87.2 9.3 1.6 1.3 0.2 0.3 0.2

48 4 2 2 1 1 1

81.0 6.8 3.4 3.4 1.7 1.7 1.7

Total

550

100

66.19

100

59

100

100

Chapter 3

overall and per body-region varies widely). Regardless of the species, postcranial elements far outnumber cranial elements by about three to four times in the average fish skeleton. Nevertheless, the Mid-prehistoric to Contact Period sites contain a relatively high frequency of cranial elements (34.5 percent), which is remarkable. Because my bone identifications were based on postcranial elements including vertebrae, as well as cranial elements, I believe that the element frequencies are a sound basis for interpretation. The archaeological body part frequencies may result from cranial preservation bias, depositional bias, or consumption patterns. For example, cranial bones may be frequently deposited in the archaeological contexts due to individual preference or status variations in households. Because fish heads are highly prized, people of rank and family members in their households may consume more fish heads than lower status people. While I cannot yet answer the major archaeological question posed at the beginning of the chapter here, I believe that I have identified an important aspect of zooarchaeological assemblages that is worth considering in my future research and by other archaeologists. If fish heads are found disproportionately in an archaeological site, it may indicate that the occupants were people of rank. The rank of individuals occupying household complexes could be investigated by comparing fish assemblages between different contemporaneous households or from different cooking features. In this way, families of relatively higher rank than their neighbors or other villagers may be may be identified. Additional lines of evidence, such as the relative height of the household’s yavu, the presence of rare fauna (e.g., turtles or large pelagic fishes), and the characteristics of the recovered material culture (pottery and stone tools) could be used to support or refute an argument about the potential rank of the occupants of a household.

NOTES 1. Simon Best (1984) utilized this approach effectively on Lakeba as he investigated a broad temporal range of prehistoric villages and explored social complexity and its evolution on the island. 2. This pattern makes logical sense following the Fijian ideology of insideoutside, where women are associated with the “inside” areas of the landscape (the village in general, domestic space, the hearth, the inshore area of the reef) and men are associated with “outside” areas (the bush, the men’s house, the oven house, the offshore reef). This phenomenon is described by Sahlins as it relates to the island of Moala (1962, 120–23). 3. Pottery vessel forms and functions were determined based on analysis of rim shapes, use wear, and manufacture techniques. The archaeological pottery frag-

Foodways and Social Relations in the Past and Present

101

ments were divided into four basic categories, including cooking, serving, storage, and other (specialty forms such as pot stands and ceramic figurines). Cooking vessels were the most frequently identified form, as evidenced by soot on the exterior and/or on the interior of the pots, and spalling of the ceramic material as the result of being heated over direct fire. 4. Munsell 7.5 YR 3/2, dark brown, dry. 5. Munsell 5 YR 4/4, reddish brown, dry. 6. Munsell 5 YR 4/3, reddish brown, dry. 7. The measured radiocarbon ages for the two samples are: 2400 ⫹/⫺40 BP and 2630 ⫹/⫺ 40 BP. 8. Munsell 7.5 YR 2.5/1, black, dry. 9. Munsell 7.5 YR 3/3, dark brown, dry. 10. Munsell 10 YR 5/4, yellowish brown, dry. 11. Munsell 10 YR 7/8, yellow, dry. 12. Both features are Munsell 7.5 YR 3/2, dark brown, dry. 13. A note on the spelling of Fijian fish names: when a vowel is long in Fijian, it differentiates words; therefore I have used double letters to mark long vowels.

4

Food Consumption Patterns and Refuse Disposal

T

he accumulated labors of the cooks were seen in the shape of one large heap of ground taro puddings, four heaps of baked taro, and yams covered with arrow-root pudding, and turtles. Seventy turtles were placed by themselves in another heap. The hills of food were flanked on the left with a wall of yanggona, thirty-five feet long and seven high. On the right was a fence of uncooked yams, numbering thirty-eight thousand” (Wallis 1983[1851], 213). Mary Wallis, the wife of Captain Benjamin Wallis and one of the first Western women to travel around and live in Fiji, made this account of feast preparations on the chiefly island of Bau in the mid-1800s. Her descriptions provide some insights into the rituals of feasting and the vast amounts of food amassed for these events. Unfortunately, as with most historical accounts, Wallis’s records lack crucial details of quotidian activities surrounding eating. In order to understand Lauan behavior and to make homological comparisons between the past and the present, I examine modern food consumption patterns, the relative proportions of food types consumed, consumer opinions, and food collection and refuse. The ethnographic data in this chapter was collected to answer the following three archaeological questions. First, what does the food refuse from a household look like over a given period of time, in terms of the types of animals consumed, NISP, MNI, weight, and the elements present? Second, what food items does the typical Lauan diet include, and in what proportion do people eat starches versus specific types of meats (vertebrate, invertebrate, fish, pig, etc.)? Third, how and where are food

102

Food Consumption Patterns and Refuse Disposal

103

remains disposed of? This chapter discusses these issues with an eye toward dietary composition and material remains.

HOUSEHOLD FOOD REMAINS AND CONSUMED FISHES I asked five women in Liku Village to save all of the fish bones from their meals for one week, including bony body parts. The participants provided me with fish bones consumed by members of their households that were collected after each meal and placed in a sealed plastic container. These women also kept running lists of the fishes that they prepared for their families and/or ate over the week. After one week, I collected these lists and associated fish remains and quantified the bones using the same methods that I apply to archaeological samples (table 4.1). The household referred to as “Household 5” collected remains for two weeks (labeled 5a and 5b in table 4.2). I kept each sample separate to enable comparisons between household weekly fish consumption and to provide an additional example for inter-household comparisons. A total NISP of 4,045 fish bones was collected, weighing 628.5 g, from the five households. The total calculated MNI from this sample is 124 (in contrast, the number of fishes consumed according to the food logs is 135). Households exhibited great variation in the frequency of fishes consumed. NISP counts range from 263 to 1,163 and MNI calculations vary from 10 to 35. The weight of the recovered fish remains is also highly variable. Household 2, yielding the largest sample of fish bones, yielded 277.7 g of bones, while household 1 produced only 43.7 g of fish bones. Households 3, 4, and 5 contributed intermediate quantities of fish bones by NISP, MNI, and weight.

Table 4.1. Totals for Fish Bone Food Remains Collected from Households in Liku for One Week House #

1 2 3 4 5a 5b Total

#Adults

#Children

NISP

MNI

Weight (g)

N Types

2 4 2 2 2 2

2 2 0 3 2 2

594 1,163 473 764 788 263

20 35 10 25 22 12

43.7 277.7 85.1 68.4 74.9 78.7

14 7 8 11 9 8

14

10

4,045

124

628.5

57

Note : “N Types” ⫽ number of different species of fishes consumed.

104

Chapter 4

The condition of the collected bones was relatively uniform throughout the sample. None of the bones were burned, and according to the food journals all of the fishes were boiled. Vertebrae contributed the greatest number of elements to the sample, and very few cranial elements were present, despite my requests that people collect the entire skeletons of the consumed fishes. Women explained that some of the fish heads were eaten or they simply “disappeared” during the meals. In fact, not a single complete fish skeleton was recovered from the consumed fish sample. When I have asked people on Nayau to save all of the fish bones from their meals on other occasions, they have given me only the vertebrae and tail. The low frequency of cranial elements in the sample may be attributed to the Fijian habit of dismantling the fish head, consuming all the soft parts of it, and biting or breaking the head to release the juices inside. Pieces of fish crania are sometimes swallowed during meals, or they may be spit out or thrown to the dogs. Regardless of how fish heads are disposed of, after a fish is consumed, a mass of fish bones containing head parts often ends up on the plate of the eater, who is usually a man. My sample from the five households includes sixteen varieties of fishes, representing thirteen families that were eaten over a week (table 4.2). People in each household consumed both tabacee (Acanthrurus triostegus) and boosee (Scaridae and/or Scarus spp.). Ose (Mullidae and/or Parupeneus spp.), or Goatfish, is also common in the food remains, being present in five of the six samples. Acanthurids (Acanthuridae, Acanthurus guttatus, Acanthurus spp., and Acanthurus triostegus) were the most frequently consumed taxa, followed by Mullids (Mullidae and Parupeneus sp.) according to NISP and MNI. When compared by weight, Acanthurids, Mugil sp., Diodon sp., and Scarids (Scaridae and Scarus sp.) were the dominant taxa. Household 5, the home of the Turaga ni Koro (the acting headman who functions somewhat like a mayor) for one of the villages and his wife, is the highest-ranked family that contributed fish bones to my sample. His family of two adults and two small children (ages two and three) consumed a moderate amount of fish in the first week’s sample, ranking third by MNI, weight, and the number of different fish types consumed (table 4.1). However, in the second week household 5 consumed considerably less fish by NISP and MNI. It is important to note that the adults in this house eat far more than their young children. Household 2 consumed the most fish by all measures, with the exception of the diversity of fishes eaten. By NISP, MNI, and weight, fish bones from this house far outnumber the other assemblages. Four adults and two children, ages thirteen and six, live in household 2, which may account for the relatively large amount of fish bones in the sample. Household 3, occupied by only two adults, consumed a total MNI of ten fish, yet yielded the second most abundant sample by weight.

Food Consumption Patterns and Refuse Disposal Table 4.2.

Fish Taxa Consumed by Households in Liku for One Week

Taxon

Acanthuridae Acanthurus guttatus Acanthurus spp. Acanthurus triostegus Balistidae Caranx sp. Chaetodon sp. Diodon sp. Holocentridae Mugil sp. Mullidae Muraenidae Parupeneus sp. Perciformes Scaridae Scarus sp. Serranidae Siganus sp. Terapon jarbua Teraponidae UID fish Total

105

Count

Weight (g)

MNI

108 45 160 707 21 22 43 386 84 220 409 79 24 19 33 219 28 235 479 67 658

18.0 15.0 17.4 56.9 10.1 13.0 4.3 85.5 4.3 144.5 22.6 13.4 2.9 2.4 1.1 93.0 2.5 31.8 21.7 1.5 66.6

— 2 7 36 3 1 2 4 4 5 17 1 1 — — 9 3 9 12 — —

4,045

628.5

116

By tracking household consumption, I determined the amount of fish that may typically be eaten in a week, the characteristics of the resulting faunal assemblage, and taphonomic factors impacting the material remains. In one week the study households with 2 to 6 people (2 to 4 adults and up to 3 children) consumed between 263 and 1,163 NISP, 10 and 35 MNI, and 43 to 277 g of fish; between 7 and 14 different types of fishes were eaten. This exercise produced data on the condition of bones that might be included in a deposited assemblage. Because the fish were prepared by boiling, none of the bones were burned. Nevertheless, all of the fish were highly fragmentary, and the sample lacked any complete individual skeletons. Eating practices resulted in fish assemblages with few head elements (78 percent of the material is comprised of vertebrae). Not surprisingly, the fish bones that remained after eating were far less abundant than those associated with consumed fishes. Specific correlations between the archaeological data and social structures are evident in two lines of data: (1) the amount of fish consumed over a week and the number of people living in each household, and (2) the rank of the household occupants. Household 5, whose occupants are the highest-ranked family in the village, produced a moderate amount of

106

Chapter 4

fish remains; the two adults consumed almost all of the food; the children, ages two and three, ate little. The food journals from this household indicate that these people ate more chicken and pig than the occupants of other households. The most common pattern is for people to eat inshore fish almost exclusively during the weekdays, and to supplement their diet with chicken and pig on the weekends, especially on Sunday. Household 2 has the largest number of occupants and consumed the largest quantity of fish by all measures. The diversity of fishes present in the household samples does not directly correspond with family size or rank. Moreover, no obvious link was found between the sizes of the reef fish in the assemblages and a household’s rank. Both additional data and a longitudinal perspective are needed to adequately evaluate these issues. An analysis of the written food logs and the fish remains suggests a pattern of everyday consumption of inshore fish species. People’s preferences appear to have an effect on the composition of the fish assemblages and the taxa consumed each week. The female head of each household, who collected the fish remains, explained to me why their families ate particular types of fishes. All of the women commented that they enjoy many types of fishes, or “all reef fish.” When fish are collected during group fishing trips, people will sometimes trade fish or ask for specific favorite types. When a woman goes out fishing alone, she may look for particular kinds of fishes, but she will typically capture whatever she encounters. I recognize that my one-week sample of five households is small; however, it provides a foundation for additional research. I plan to focus on expanding the sample size and documenting consumption over longer time periods in the future. The aforementioned patterns concerning family size and rank will be supported or refuted with long-term studies of modern fish collection and consumption. Specific questions that will be examined with future research include the following: (1) Do faunal assemblages from modern contexts represent both household food preferences and the local availability of animal resources (a generalized collection strategy)? (2) Do people in highranked households consistently consume more pig and chicken than other people? (3) Do high-ranked people commonly eat larger fish than lowerranked people? (4) Is the collection and consumption of relatively small inshore reef species a long-term pattern, practiced throughout the year?

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FOOD TYPES With one exception, each interview respondent claimed to eat more starch than meat or protein. General observations on Nayau and Lakeba confirm

Food Consumption Patterns and Refuse Disposal

107

this pattern. I estimate that 70 to 80 percent of the foods people eat every day are starches, while the rest of the diet includes meat and leafy vegetables. Staple starch foods include, in order of importance and the highest frequency of consumption: cassava, sweet potatoes, dalo, flour, yams, rice, bananas, and breadfruit (table 4.3). The phrase ka kana dina, literally means “true food,” and refers to the aforementioned starchy root crops and fruits. The inclusion of starch foods is critical to constitute a proper meal; starches are also the most common snacks. While i coi (meat) is desirable, it remains a “relish” and an accompaniment to “true food” in everyday contexts. All of the women interviewed said that they eat bony fish every day. Indeed, observational data also indicate that fish contribute the largest portion of consumed animal protein island-wide. Chicken and pig1 are most commonly eaten on Sundays and for special occasions. Virtually all the respondents said that they only eat cow for special occasions (birthdays, weddings, funerals, and village celebrations). When the weather is bad, and people cannot go fishing (as it often was when I conducted these interviews), they eat more chicken and tin fish (tuna) than they prefer to. Shellfish is eaten regularly in relatively small quantities, and it appears to contribute only a nominal portion to the overall diet of adults. People, especially women and children, eat shellfish as a snack or, less frequently, as a side dish. Sici (Turbo sp.), the most frequently consumed and preferred shellfish, is commonly eaten raw or served in coconut cream. It is frequently served at feasts. About half of the women interviewed claimed to eat sici as a snack each week. These respondents estimated that on their own they consume between five and thirty-five sici in one sitting. Of all the women interviewed, only two claimed to prefer shellfish to other types of meat. Two seventy-one-yearold twin sisters who live together, explained that they each have few teeth and their remaining “teeth are tender.” In this particular household, all of the inhabitants, including the man of the house, eat more shellfish than other kinds of meat. Women commonly eat shellfish while fishing on the inshore reef. Even if they are targeting bony fish, women and adolescents will constantly snack on shellfish, rarely passing up even the average cone (Conus sp.) or nerite (Nerita sp.). Children are frequently seen cracking shellfish open on the shore with a rock or snacking on them while roaming the reefs at low tide. Without following them all day, it would be virtually impossible to determine how much shellfish children eat in comparison to other foods. When not in school, some children, ages four and older, spend entire days away from their homes and roam the island freely, eating whenever they get hungry.

Lauan Term

Dalo

Kasava

Kumala Madrai

Niu Raisi Tivoli

Uto

Uvi Via

Vudi

Taro

Cassava

Sweet potatoes Flour/Bread

Coconuts Rice Wild yams

Breadfruit

Yams Giant taro

Bananas

Musa sp.

Dioscorea alata Alocasia or Cyrtosperma

Artocarpus altilis

Cocos nucifera Oryza sp. Dioscorea nummularia

Ipomoea batatas

Manihot dulcis

Colocasia esculenta

Scientific Name

Family garden (interior)

Village gardens and hill slopes Family garden (interior) Family garden (interior)

Coastal strand Local store Interior forests

Family garden (interior) Local store

Family garden (interior)

Family garden (interior)

Source

Lauan Staple Plant Foods: Their Sources and Uses

Food

Table 4.3.

Peeled and boiled, baked or pudding Peeled and boiled, baked or pudding Peeled and boiled or baked Mixed with water or coconut milk and baked or boiled, fried Raw, grated, boiled Boiled Boiled or pounded and mixed with water Baked, mixed with water and fermented Peeled and boiled or baked Peeled and boiled, baked or pudding Raw or peeled and boiled

Preparing

Some meals and snacks

For guests, gifts Collective meals

Meals, snacks, gifts

Collective meals, snacks, gifts Collective meals Some meals, snacks

Collective meals, snacks Collective meals and snacks

Collective meals, for guests, gifts Collective meals, snacks

Serving

Food Consumption Patterns and Refuse Disposal

109

After bony fish, chicken is the second most regularly consumed meat. Virtually every household has about five to ten full-grown chickens that run free around the house and feed on scraps and leftovers. Observation and interview data indicate that about half of the people on Nayau eat chicken once every week or two. Households that have more than half a dozen chickens might eat one once or twice every month. Chicken is often eaten on Sundays, and chicken soup and curry chicken are common dishes served at feasts. The primary method of preparing chicken is to boil it. This meat is rarely baked in the lovo, except when it is included in palusami (taro leaves wrapped around chicken, fish, and coconut cream). Thompson noted that on Kabara, Southern Lau, turtle and pig were only eaten at formal feasts (1940, 154). On Nayau people eat these meats more regularly—for example, in association with minor celebrations, such as birthdays or special occasions and at all formal feasts. Most people on Nayau own at least two pigs, while the most prosperous people have ten or more. Neighbors and family commonly remark upon the number of pigs a person owns; the quantity of pigs owned is a point of pride and a marker of wealth. Men and boys tend to the pigs, feeding them scraps and halved coconuts one or two times each day. Pigs are kept outside the village by fences and are free to run through the coconut plantations and forests associated with each of Nayau’s three villages. Each man has a pigpen located outside the village boundary where he feeds his pigs. A pig is often selected on Saturday evening or early Sunday morning for slaughter. Those between the ages of four to seven months are preferred, because the meat is said to be the most tender and sweet. After the men and boys of the house butcher the pig, part of it will be boiled and the rest will be baked. Pigs are baked in the lovo on Sundays. Related households will share the meat of a pig for a Sunday lunch and dinner. During weddings, funerals, or other special events certain households are expected to contribute one or more pigs to the collective feast or to an individual; this is based on kinship and rank. On Nayau, turtles are eaten opportunistically anytime they can be captured. While the people in Liku follow protocol and give at least the turtle head, if not the entire animal, to the chief and his family, in Narocivo turtles are only sometimes given to the chief. The Tui Naro is often off island, and thus the acting chief is supposed to receive any turtles that are caught in the village’s fishing grounds. However, when I was conducting interviews in Narocivo, the son of the acting chief caught a turtle and did not present the animal to the chief. The chief and his wife were angered and offended, but nothing became of it. Because there is no chief in Salia, people do not pay tribute to any person or family with regularity.

110

Chapter 4

IMPORTED VERSUS LOCAL FOODS AND CONSUMER OPINIONS The relative consumption of imported and local foods is indicative of a family’s ability to pay in cash for food, rather than simply eating what they produce locally. Most of the interview respondents (93 percent) claimed to prefer Nayau foods to store-bought foods, and one woman stated that she likes both Nayau foods and store-bought foods. The number of times women visit the village stores varies widely, and does not appear to be obviously related to age or social status, but is dependent on people’s available cash and their desire for imported goods.2 For example, some women receive cash from their children who live on Nayau and have a small income (from copra or other sales), others earn income from the sale of mats and masi (primarily exported to Suva where these are sold in the tourist markets), some people save their money throughout their lives and have a stockpile of cash when they get older, while others have family that live off island and send money back home. Some women rarely purchase food at the store and make a point of stating their disinterest in imported foods. A woman from Liku told me, “I do not want or care about flour. I never buy flour.” She prefers local starches, especially cassava, yams, and dalo. Women in Narocivo purchase foodstuffs more frequently than those in Liku. Some Narocivo women go to the store two times a day. Two women (Sera and Sue) in Narocivo claimed that about 80 percent of the food their families consume comes from the store, while 20 percent is locally produced. One of these families receives money from the Social Welfare Department to pay for their food, and both of these women are high ranked in the village. Another woman, Tina, in Narocivo visits the store an average of two times each day to buy such items as sugar, kerosene, salt, tin meat, noodles, flour, and soap. She estimates that 50 percent of her family’s food comes from the store although she prefers Nayau food to store food. Tina has four daughters living in her household (ages fifty, eighteen, sixteen, and eleven) who go fishing every day and who also produce masi and mats to sell to Suva; “We make a lot of money,” she told me. Having a disposable cash income to spend on store-bought foods is unusual for my sample of households and, I believe, is reflective of the small cash economy on the island in general. Few people can afford to purchase a large portion of their food, and more importantly, about 93 percent of the people I interviewed prefer locally produced foods to packaged and store-bought foods. Even those people who estimated that they buy 20 percent or more of their food claim they prefer Nayau foods. Sought after items from the village stores include (in decreasing rank order): sugar,

Food Consumption Patterns and Refuse Disposal

111

flour, rice, “tin fish” (canned tuna), corned beef, butter, noodles, soap, kerosene, kula, yaqona, fishing line, and tobacco.

FOOD COLLECTION AND PRODUCTION Observations and interview data indicate that food production activities are subject to a sharp division of labor according to rank, gender, and age. The items collected, technologies used, and strategies of collection (in the case of marine resources) are also highly variable and dependent on these classifications. Food collection activities can be divided into the two major categories of gardening and fishing. Fishing is discussed in detail in chapter 5. Most of Nayau’s inhabitants have claims to large and productive garden areas on the interior of the island. In Salia and Narocivo the garden plots are located a relatively short distance from the village, approximately a ten- to fifteen-minute walk to the interior. Liku’s garden area is more difficult to access, because of the village’s position at the base of a steep cliff, requiring up to an hour-long trip or more each way. Nevertheless, men in all of the villages visit their gardens at least three times each week and spend a large part of the workday there. Often men will go to the garden in the morning, make a lovo with root crops for lunch, and spend the day in the garden working, eating, and napping. The amount of time and energy people spend in their garden varies widely and obviously affects the overall productivity of the garden. Certain men have reputations for being hardworking and thus have well-maintained, highyielding gardens. If a man neglects his garden and visits it infrequently, he can usually support a small family by supplementing with gathered foods from the bush including greens, breadfruit, nuts, papayas, bananas, wild yams, and coconuts. However, according to Lauans, only well-kept and cared-for gardens will produce the desired root crops such as dalo, yams, and sweet potatoes. Lauans respect men who are good gardeners and providers. Indeed, even the chiefs tend their own gardens and are known for being hard workers and knowledgeable gardeners; chiefs are expected to keep their gardens in good order so that “the people may eat” (Sahlins 1962, 342). The male head of the household does the vast majority of gardening and collecting vegetables and fruits for the entire family, although all male members of the household, including unmarried men, adolescent boys, and young boys assist with gardening activities. During planting and harvest times, the women will help if a family has few male members. Women, adolescents, and children also collect greens from feral sweet potato plants; they cut the stem and leaves for boiling with coconut milk.

112

Chapter 4

FOOD REFUSE AND TAPHONOMY Interview data indicate that all households on Nayau feed much of their food scrap and refuse, including bones, to their pigs, dogs, and chickens. Some people (two of the women interviewed) also throw food refuse into the sea. Only one woman interviewed claimed to throw some of her food rubbish into the bushes around the vale levu. I observed people throwing or sweeping food refuse out one of the doors of the kitchen or main house during or just after meals. Usually, dogs or chickens eat up these items quickly. About half of the time, bones that are thrown outside fall into the bushes surrounding the house, or the bones land on the ground where they are not consumed by animals. The majority of bones deposited around households end up in front of doorways and windows. I recorded trash-burning pits within 5 to 15 m of some houses. These pits are usually round or oval in shape and measure 0.75 to 1.0 m in diameter (figure 4.1). Often a shallow hole (0.3 to 0.5 m deep) is excavated, the dirt being thrown nearby so that it can be used to fill or cover the hole. Trash, consisting of food refuse (although this always makes up the smallest portion of burned rubbish), paper products, baskets, and any broken household items, such as plastic ware or fishing line, is thrown into the

Figure 4.1.

Trash Burning Pit Located Near a House in Salia Village, Nayau

Food Consumption Patterns and Refuse Disposal

113

hole and it is set on fire. Superficially, these features may resemble lovo, except that no lovo stones are added and trash pits are generally much more shallow. In this way, trash pits look more like hearths than lovo. However, hearths generally do not contain many fragments of domestic refuse or a large amount of food refuse. Trash pits are used again and again, much like cooking features. Most women sweep their homes two or three times each week. In preparation for Sundays, the arrival of a visitor, or special events, women sweep out their houses and shake out the pandanus mats and rugs that cover the floors. On Saturdays many women in the village clean their houses. If it is sunny, they will put all of the mats, pillows, and blankets out to dry in the sun (this keeps the mold to a minimum and prolongs the life of these items). When women sweep, they open all of the doors and use locally produced brooms of straw to push all of the lint, dirt, and rubbish outside. In houses with traditional coral and sand or dirt paving, a broom is still effective, but more of the rubbish falls in between the sand and coral pieces and becomes part of the yavu or house foundation deposit. Women use plastic rakes, which are sold in the Narocivo store, to rake the outside area around their households and keep it looking tidy. Like most prestige items on Nayau, only a few women in each mataqali own rakes, and although one woman owns these items, they are frequently shared between a number of households. Raking moves bone refuse around the house, but people do not pick up the bones and dispose of them somewhere else. Thus, raking and sweeping affect bone deposition but do not eliminate it, and my observations indicate that bones will stay in relatively close proximity to the house from where they were originally deposited.

ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL SYNTHESIS: UNDERSTANDING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN PAST AND PRESENT The three archaeological questions directing my ethnographic observations may now be examined in light of the domestic behaviors described in this chapter. First, I sought to better understand what food refuse from a typical household might look like over a weeklong period. The five household samples supplied data (including the types of animals consumed, NISP, MNI, weight, and element composition) comparable to zooarchaeological assemblages, such as those described in chapter 3. Not surprisingly, social factors influencing the composition of the food remains include household size and composition (the number of adults and children) and the rank of the occupants. This exercise also provides data indicating that inshore fish species are consumed

114

Chapter 4

every day throughout the village, a finding supported by my interviews and participant observations. The most important finding regarding fish consumption and discard is related to the quantity of recovered bones from the five households. This oneweek sample is made up of 124 fish, represented by 4,045 bones (NISP), weighing 628.5 grams, consumed by 14 adults and 10 children.3 The total number of fish bones recovered was undoubtedly influenced by my insistence that the women keep all the bones from their meals rather than dispose of them as they normally do (throwing the bones around the outside of the house, out the back door of the kitchen, or tossing them to the dogs or into the pig feed). When the modern fish bone refuse is compared to the total quantity of archaeological bone from my preliminary excavations (Midprehistoric to Contact Period sites: NISP = 3,046, weight ⫽ 255 g; from Na Masimasi: MNI ⫽ 59; NISP ⫽ 7,570, weight ⫽ 4,065 g), it becomes clear that the archaeological bone reflects only a fraction of the fish consumed by an individual household. Therefore small fish bone assemblages from archaeological deposits and features reflect either few catch events or partial remains of numerous events and meals. Based on my observations in domestic contexts on Nayau and Lakeba, I think it is more likely that the recovered archaeological bone represents a minute part of the food actually eaten. Therefore, zooarchaeological remains are the result of many meals over the course of a family’s occupation of a site or use-life of a cooking feature. For archaeologists this finding suggests that robust assemblages are needed to adequately sample seasonal cycles of fishing or collecting behaviors, and long-term patterns of food consumption. My second archaeological question centered on understanding what the typical Lauan diet includes, and in what proportions people eat starches and specific types of meats. Starches, or “true foods,” are consumed with every meal and form the majority of snacks. Inshore fishes contribute the most to the animal protein portion of the diet while pigs, chickens, and cows are reserved for special occasions. The exception to this pattern is found in high-ranked households, where people eat a greater variety of meats during the week. Based on this data, domestic animals identified from the archaeological record may mark special events. On the other hand, when domestic animals form a relatively consistent or significant part of zooarchaeological assemblages, these remains may be indicative of the high social statues of the household occupants. Shellfish may be consumed in small numbers, but usually this occurs on the reef as women and children snack on invertebrates while fishing and collecting. Shellfish rarely forms a part of daily meals. This finding stands in contrast to the zooarchaeological remains, which suggest that shellfish made a much more significant contribution to the overall diet in the past than in a contemporary setting.

Food Consumption Patterns and Refuse Disposal

115

In terms of gender relations, there is a clear connection between men and gardening. Men also care for the pigs and cows, but chickens are allowed to roam freely around the domicile and are cared for by the women of the house. Women have a strong association with the inshore reef. Proving these gender-marked relations between different food types in the archaeological record is difficult if not impossible. However, the traditional Lauan division of labor and the resulting gender-based associations between certain types of food is so strong, being recorded in ethnohistoric records at the time of European contact, and continuing to the present,4 that it is likely that these connections are fundamental historical structures of Fijian and Lauan society. Third, I asked how and where food remains are disposed of. People tend to throw food rubbish out the windows and doors, to the dogs, and in some cases, in the sea. Much of the remains of meals, including fish bones, are fed to the pigs. Some midden is swept out of the house and thus becomes deposited in the sediment surrounding people’s homes. Food remains are occasionally included in trash pits, where they are burned. In a modern context shellfish remains are often discarded on the reef. These discard behaviors are less than ideal from an archaeological standpoint. Nevertheless my findings strongly suggest that the remains of one meal, or an entire animal that was consumed, might never end up in a single neat deposited assemblage. Therefore, MNI estimates may be a gross underestimation of the actual number of animals associated with a site or feature; likewise, NISP and weight reflect a small fraction of food that was once consumed. As previously mentioned, zooarchaeological deposits likely reflect a mixture of partial food remains from numerous eating events.

NOTES 1. Unlike our Western tradition of referring to meats marked for consumption by names that differ from that of the animal, Lauans refer to pig, cow, and chicken by these literal terms, regardless of whether the animals are marked for consumption or not. 2. Men rarely visit the village stores to purchase food; however, they often go to the store to buy tobacco and yaqona root. 3. This is the combined total from the one-week sample of five households plus the additional material from a second week contributed by household 5 (see table 4.1). 4. This pattern of gender-specific labor activities and gender-marked foods is found throughout Polynesia and elsewhere in the Pacific Islands (Becker 1995; Bell 1931; Firth 1936; Hocart 1929; Kirch and Green 2001; Matthews and Oiterong 1995; Sahlins 1962).

5

Lauan Fishing

The waters surrounding the islands of Lau are rich in fish. On clear days, as one passes by canoe over the colorful lagoons, large schools can be seen moving over the white bottom and slowly drawing around the coral limestone formations, which stretch under the water like colored hills and valleys. —Laura Thompson

I

was neck deep and a little nervous in the placid blue water at the south end of the island, as I watched a group of women spread out across the shore with their net. Fifteen feet away from me on both sides were young women who also sat shivering in the water and chatting with the women who flanked their sides. I was instructed that on the cue of the lead fisherwoman, we should swim quickly and thrash about in the water as we moved toward the group with the net. I had never done anything like this before and was anxious, but on the cue I swam quickly to the net and tried not to think about sharks. The fins that had so impressed my fishing group propelled me with great speed, but when I arrived at the net, I looked up to see that the other women were still working their way through the water much more slowly and making a considerable amount of noise and boisterous movement. Through my mask I could see hundreds of frightened fish dart to the net, hitting it with force and either becoming tangled by their gills and spines or getting snatched up by the older fisherwomen. Everything happened very quickly, and I snapped out of my daze when I heard Rusila yelling at me, “Seroni! Make yourself useful! Help us gather these fish. Your white skin is scaring all the boosee 116

Lauan Fishing

117

[Parrotfish] away!” We moved the net and repeated this drill five times over the course of the next few hours, bringing in hundreds of brightly colored reef fishes that would feed part of the village in the following days. While my personal performance on this first fishing trip was poor, my introduction to group fishing or sabisabi opened my eyes to the masterful skill of Lauan fisherwomen. I was amazed at how much people seemed to enjoy this important mode of food production. Throughout the fishing expeditions people laughed and joked, despite the work of swimming long distances, treading water, hauling a heavy net that was thirty feet or longer through the inshore area, and shivering from the cold under large wet shirts and long skirts that preserve female modesty. In Lauan fishing expeditions I witnessed the interactions of cultural customs and behaviors, including traditional ecological knowledge, labor divisions, resource production, personal preference, and the operations of kinship, identity, and social hierarchy. These cultural customs and structures are a means for social reproduction, maintaining tradition but evolving to incorporate new ideas and technologies. It became abundantly clear that food and its production, distribution, and consumption involve much more than calories and simple economic formulations. This chapter describes ethnographic data derived from my observations and documentation of fishing expeditions. There are six ethnoarchaeological questions in particular that may be better understood through a contemporary perspective on fishing activities, including: (1) What type of fishing methods may be used to collect the species commonly identified from Pacific Island zooarchaeological assemblages in general, and specifically the Nayau archaeological fauna? (2) What gender associations may be found between fishing methods and the types of fishes collected? (3) Does the high frequency of dominant fish taxa (e.g., Parrotfish, Porcupinefish, Wrasse, Triggerfish) reflect differential preservation and easy identifiability of bones from these taxa, or does their abundance reflect the behaviors of the people who collected, consumed, and discarded this material? (4) What is the average body-size of the inshore fishes collected? (5) How do people make decisions about when and how to fish? (6) How is the catch divided up? LAUAN FISHING ON NAYAU: METHODS, GEAR, AND EXPEDITION ORGANIZATION Fishing techniques employed by people in Lau differ according to what part of the reef is exploited, the weather, the water depth and currents, the tides, the fish targeted, the number of people in the fishing party, and the technologies accessible to the fisherperson (table 5.1). Microfiber nets

Lauan Term

Qoli Lawa Lawa toni Lawa toka Lawa sua Lawa ni lovulovu Wa ni siwa Bati ni siwa Moto Moto ni cocoka Moto ni nunu Loaloa Sabisabi

Popono Kadakada Yavirau

Fishing Fishing net Mullet net Net to set Crab net Fine mesh net Fishing line Fishhook Spear Man’s fishing spear Woman’s fishing spear Charcoal sunscreen Group fishing

Hand fishing Mullet fishing

Fishing Methods and Gear on Nayau

English Name

Table 5.1.

Any type of fishing General net “Dip net”; mesh usually 4 cm mesh Net that is set and left; “Placed net” “Hobble along net” Small gauge net for small fish Refers to microfiber or natural fiber line; siwa is also a verb, “to catch fish” “Bati” literally means “tooth” General term Long spear with multiple points; cocoka is a verb, “to spear fish” Spear with one point; nunu is a verb, “to dive” Women rub charcoal on their faces to prevent sunburn Fishing in a group with nets, people chase fish into the net, swimming, kicking, throwing rocks, and slapping the water Fishing for small fish using hands only Fishing for Mullet using a net Method used when many people participate; string is wrapped around coconut fronds and fish are chased into it and scooped up

Description

Lauan Fishing

119

(lawa) greater than 20 m long are the most desirable fishing technology, but these are expensive, heavy to carry, and require constant maintenance; thus only a few men own large nets in each village (Salia, 3; Narocivo, 2; Liku, 0). The waters associated with each of Nayau’s three villages are known for different types of bony fish and shellfish. For example, the reef in front of Salia village is recognized as the best place to catch kanace. The area in front of Narocivo village is said to be very good for collecting a large variety of fish and shellfish. Liku Village’s inshore strip on the windward side of Nayau is locally known as the best place to collect invertebrates such as sici (Turbo sp.) and lobsters. People prefer to do inshore fishing at low tide during the day, and fishing is said to be the best around new and full moons. Night-fishing is relatively uncommon, being practiced for specific occasions and with the intention of collecting particular fishes. Some men night-fish inshore with a flashlight and a spear (moto), targeting large carnivorous fishes that come inshore to feed. People with motorboats and long nets often target kanace at night during the full moon; they will set their nets at low tide and then leave them overnight. Two times each year, October (vulai balolo lailai, “the moon of few balolo”) and November (vulai balolo levu, “the moon of many balolo”), the entire village gathers to collect the annalid balolo worm (Eunice viridis) at the full moon. People use baskets to scoop up the reproductive swarms of balolo and then prepare it by boiling or cooking in the earth oven. Adult women between the ages of sixteen and sixty-five are the primary producers of inshore marine resources. Women go out to the reef every day, and their catches are fundamental components of the diet for most households on the island. Unmarried men and adolescents may join the women inshore, or groups comprised of two to five men occasionally go out together with spears, nets, and motor boats on the inshore or offshore reef edge. Men of all ages and boys fish on the outer reef edge with a mask, snorkel, and a multipointed spear (moto ni cocoka, a man’s spear with four or more points); this is usually done alone rather than in a group. It is relatively uncommon for entire families, including parents and children, to go fishing together; however, a husband and wife may fish inshore together a few days a week, using spears and a small net. The frequency that women go out to the reef varies by individual, some women fish every day, weather permitting, and others fish two to three days a week, providing just enough to supply their family with a few fish each day and little excess. In households where women outnumber the men or groups of related women live together, these women appear to fish more frequently than other women (e.g., in Tina’s household that includes her four unmarried daughters, they fish every day). Men of all ages fish much less frequently than do women. Men who refer to themselves as

120

Chapter 5

“fishermen” may go fish as often as three to five times each week, but these men form a small portion of the total male population in each village. When women fish alone or in groups, they may paint their faces black with charcoal (loaloa) to protect them from the sun; this is becoming less common in the younger generations. They use nets, spears (moto ni nunu, a woman’s spear with a single point), small hooks (bati ni siwa), line (wa ni siwa), and baskets for fish collection. Fisherwomen use a mask and snorkel if they own one, or they may borrow one from a relative or friend. Many of the older women (over fifty) fish without a mask, by looking through the water and moving very slowly to locate and capture fish with a spear or a fine mesh net (lawa ni lovulovu). The method of fishing in groups is referred to as sabisabi and is the most common mode of fishing on Nayau. Sabisabi requires one or two people to set the net and about three to six additional people that assemble some distance away. Areas between the net and the swimmers should support numerous coral heads that are ideally teeming with fish. After the net is set, the swimmers spread out and begin to splash, kick, throw rocks, slap the water, and generally thrash around, scaring the fish into the net. When the fish hit the net, the swimmers move along it, killing the fishes by biting their heads, sticking their fingers into the eyes, or tearing open the gills, and then tying them onto a stringer or placing the fish into a basket. Virtually all of the fish that hit the net are taken, regardless of size or type; only on very rare occasions have I seen people throw a small fish back (individuals less than 10 cm total length). Both women and men practice sabisabi and occasionally go out in fishing groups together; however, the women generally run the inshore expeditions. When people fish for Mullet or kanace, the practice is specifically referred to as kadakada, literally meaning, “to run after fish.” This is usually done in smaller groups and often with only two people. My collaborators described a method of fishing called yavirau (a drag net or fishing with a scare line). This technique is used for special occasions, such as the preparation for a funeral, holiday, or other feast, and involves participation by the entire village and the use of vines to scare fishes into coconut frond nets. Thompson (1940, 131–32) explained this method in detail, and her description is similar to the way that people on Nayau described it.1 Women occasionally use poison from the bark of the tuva tree (Derris trifoliate, the Common Derris tree) to stupefy fish, although this practice is becoming increasingly less common since it was recently deemed illegal by the Lau Provincial Council. Fish poison is also derived from the Barringtonia tree (Barringtonia asiatica), which, like tuva, causes the fish to temporarily suffocate without affecting the edibility of the flesh. Today, there are only a few older women on Nayau who practice this form of

Lauan Fishing

121

fishing, and some people look upon this activity unfavorably since even the smallest and immature fish are affected and taken. On the weekends children (under the age of thirteen) may join their mothers on the reef. Their contribution to the total catch is consistently small; when children fish with adults, they primarily assist in chasing fish into the net and collecting fishes from the net. However, children gather small shellfish in a greater frequency than do adults. Children spend hours, when they are out of school, combing the reef alone or in groups. They use their hands (popono), small hooks and a line, and sticks to collect invertebrates and small bony fish. The catch is most often consumed immediately on the beach, eaten raw or cooked over a small fire. If children fish alone, without parents, they generally do not share their catch or take it home to the family. Rather, children will often make an impromptu fire on the beach to cook the fish and then consume it immediately. The Outlier Many of the generalities discussed above are not found when observing the daily practices of one family of fisherpeople in Salia, that of my primary interlocutor, Rusila. Moreover, the impact that this family has on the eating habits of people over the entire island is remarkable. Rusila and her husband Sepesa have a business license and sell fish to people in all of Nayau’s three villages. They use a 7 m long fiberglass boat with an outboard motor, and four large nets (each net is a single panel greater than 45 m long, with 6 and 10.5 cm stretch mesh) to fish all over the island, exploiting both inshore and offshore areas every day, except Sundays when they rest and go to church. They catch a large variety of fishes using nets and hook and line. They often troll the outside of the reef using heavy monofilament line (50 to 300 lb test) and large hooks to catch Tunas (Scombrids), Jacks (Carangids), and Dolphinfish (Coryphaena sp.). Rusila and Sepesa generally aim to catch as many fish as possible to sell in the villages, and for personal consumption. They own a gas-powered generator and an electric freezer (one of only three or four on the island). When their catch is especially copious, they either freeze the fish or send cooked and dried fish to friends and relatives on Viti Levu via one of the cargo ships that visit Nayau every two to four weeks. They may also sell their catch to the cargo ships or trade fish for fuel to run their boat and generator. I recorded Rusila and Sepesa’s business transactions over one week of “bad weather” when they only fished twice and had a very small catch. At this time I was in the process of visiting each of the villages and conducting interviews. When I asked people in Narocivo what they ate every day, many elderly respondents explained that they eat fish every day, “but when the weather is bad and Rusila cannot fish, we eat chicken or

122

Chapter 5

buy tin fish.” On any given weekday Rusila will sell between two and five fish each to various households in one to three villages on Nayau. Moreover, at the time of my fieldwork, the only people actively engaged in commercial trade exchanged such items as dalo, pandanus leaves, masi, and pigs with Rusila’s family for fish.2 The composition of the fishing parties that go out with Rusila and her husband are diverse. For example, some days Rusila and Sepesa will go to their boat with the intention of fishing on the south of the island, not having mentioned this to anyone. By the time they have loaded up their nets and started the engine, a group of people, up to ten men and women of various ages, may be assembled around them. These people are ready to fish and want a part of the yield from Sepesa’s nets. Because of strong cultural traditions, Fijians feel socially pressured to accept all requests made by relatives and friends; anyone who shows up on the beach is accepted as a member of the fishing party. Rusila and Sepesa often fish with their sons, ages seventeen, eleven, and nine, on the weekends and over holidays. All of their children are expert fishers, capable of catching fish with their hands, trolling, and assisting is sabisabi (group fishing expeditions). This family provides an interesting case study because their habits are extremely divergent from the norm. Not only do they catch copious amounts and varieties of fishes and earn a comparatively large cash income, but they also travel all over Central Lau and maintain constant contact with people in each of Nayau’s three villages. They are actively engaged in trade and thus have access to goods, such as masi, kula (colored yarn), pandanus leaves and pigs that other people do not often receive in trade outside of close kin groups (mataqali). Because of the constant flow of fish through their household, Rusila and her family have their pick of fishes for household consumption and some days eat more fish than starch foods.

FISHING EXPEDITIONS Over the course of my research on Nayau I accompanied and interviewed people, including individuals and groups, on thirty fishing expeditions in order to record information on marine-oriented subsistence activities. I observed and recorded fishing trips at different times over the entire course of my research on Nayau.3 In addition to general observations, I collected the following data to quantitatively document some of these fishing expeditions (Thomas 2002, 186): 1. members comprising group 2. collection strategy

Lauan Fishing

123

3. occasion for which the group is collecting 4. target prey 5. actual prey, location, count, weight, and SL (standard length) of collected items 6. collection area (marine zone, type description, location) 7. date, time, moon phase 8. search time 9. handling time, processing time 10. general weather and tidal conditions 11. how the catch is divided up 12. items consumed on shore or during fishing 13. patterns of flesh and tissue disposal on the beach 14. who will consume the fish Nine fishing trips on different days, covering a total of twenty hours (1,140 person hours) were formally documented by collecting the above information. The group size ranged from three to thirteen members per trip, with an average of seven people. In order to simplify quantification, I assume that the work and time spent fishing was equally shared among all of the participants. When the catch is divided, Lauans make the same assumption and always claim that the work is divided fairly between all members. Leadership is based on age, rank, and ownership of the technologies. Importantly, the members of most fishing parties appeared to have similar levels of ability. The lead fisherpeople make decisions about where to fish and where and how to set the nets. Because the fishing expeditions I formally recorded involved sabisabi, other than the leader(s), each individual participant was involved in almost identical activities throughout the expeditions; this was true regardless of age, rank, gender, or marital status. There is little to no discussion about where and how to fish among the group. The participants rarely discuss their fishing activities, preferring to converse about what fish are caught, village happenings, or they simply joke with each other and have good time. A mixture of married and unmarried males and females of all ages participated in the expeditions I recorded. Adults (people over fifteen years old) formed the majority of participants, and ages ranged from thirteen to fifty-five, with an average age of thiry-seven. Children occasionally participated in the fishing expeditions, but this was rare, as much of the fishing occurs during the week when most children are in school. My sample of fishing expeditions includes some relatively large-scale expeditions that employed engine-powered fiberglass boats and large microfiber nets owned by Sepesa and Rusila. The groups of people that fish with them are also composed of comparatively more men than would normally participate in inshore fishing activities. My gender-biased

124

Chapter 5

sample stands in contrast to the groups of women (ages thirteen to sixtyfive) that go fishing daily in the inshore area. Males rarely accompany these fisherwomen, and they do not use boats. Occasionally, on weekends one or two male or female children will join the women. Fisherwomen use a mix of nets, handlines, spears, and hook and line, fishing most often in groups of three to seven; they may stay out on the reef for two to four hours at a time. The collection strategy used most frequently on Nayau is sabisabi with microfiber nets. People rarely fish offshore, focusing daily marine food gathering practices on inshore net fishing. Thompson (1940) lists a number of common fishing methods and associated material culture, some of which are the same as practices I observed on Nayau. Parts of Thompson’s descriptions are relatively detailed and provide a useful view of fishing techniques in the late 1930s and early 1940s in Southern Lau. However, it appears that the contemporary diversity of fishing methods commonly employed on Nayau and Lakeba has decreased markedly since Thompson conducted her research. On Nayau, fishing activities occur throughout the interior of the fringing reef. People utilize the entire available reef, targeting environments that appear to have the most fish or areas where the lead fisherperson expects to find a particular sought after type of fish (such as Mullet or Parrotfish) or a diverse catch. All of the fishing expeditions I formally documented aimed to collect for everyday eating rather than for feasts or large special occasions. Most expeditions were focused on collecting a mix of inshore species. The exception to this pattern occurs during the full moon, when Mullet are targeted. If schools of Mullet or large Parrotfish (ulave) are spotted, or if they are known to inhabit a certain area at a specific time, people may target those fish. A large variety of inshore reef fishes are commonly caught in the fishing expeditions I recorded and participated in. I generated a list of fishes (along with their Nayau or Lauan names, scientific names, and habitat classifications) that are often collected and consumed (table 5.2). Many of these species were collected during the course of my study. While some of the names for the fishes that my interlocutors gave me are the same as those recorded elsewhere in Fiji, outside of Lau (Veitayaki 1995, appendix 4), to my knowledge many of the Nayau names are not documented elsewhere. This list of fishes is not exhaustive, but provides a starting point for constructing a detailed account of Lauan fish names. In addition to fish, people may collect cephalopods, crustaceans, turtles, and invertebrates while fishing in groups, if the opportunity presents itself. People make decisions about when to fish based on the season, moon phase, tides, and currents. Lauans prefer to fish inshore at low tide.

Lauan Name

Mulu or Nuqa Tabacee Tabacee ni Toga Ikaloa Taa Boosee

Boosee damu Boosee karakarawa Boosee dravu Ulavisole

Ose Ivatui Ivatui Ivatui Ivatui Kabajia Ululoa Buu Buu or Ikatuu

Ikazina Ikatuu

Rabbitfish Convict Tang Whitespotted Surgeonfish Surgeonfish Unicornfish Parrotfish

Redlip Parrotfish Blue Parrotfish Dusky Parrotfish Steephead Parrotfish

Yellowstripe Goatfish Goldsaddled Goatfish Swarthyheaded Goatfish Banded Goatfish Sidespot Goatfish Emperor Yellowtailed Emperorfish Robinson’s Seabream Humpnose Bigeye Bream

Orangestriped Emperorfish Striped Largeeye Bream

Fishes Consumed on Nayau

English Name

Table 5.2.

rubroviolaceus oviceps prasiognathus microhinos

Lethrinus obsoletus Gnathodentex aurolineatus

Mulloides flavolineatus Parupeneus cyclostomus P. barberinoidae P. multifasciatus P. pleurostigma Lethrinus sp. Lethrinus atkinsoni Gymnocranius grandoculus Monotaxis grandoculis

Scarus Scarus Scarus Scarus

Siganus sp. Acanthurus triostegus A. guttatus Acanthurus sp. Naso sp. Scarus sp.

Scientific Name

Reefs Reefs

Reef and sand Reefs Weed and sand near reefs Weed and sand near reefs Sand and rubble near reefs Reef, sand, and rubble Reefs Sandy bottoms Reef, sand, and rubble

Reefs Reefs Reefs Reefs

Reefs Reefs Reefs Reefs Reefs Reefs

Habitat

Bu when large size, if small called Ikatuu “True fish” Name means fish that stands in place (continued )

General term for small Parrotfish; name depends on color, shape “Red Bose” “Blue Bose” “Brown” or “Dusty Bose” Large blue and green fish, name means carrying bundles of mats “Horse” “To lift up” or “step up” “To lift up” or “step up” “To lift up” or “step up” “To lift up” or “step up” “To climb up” “Black head” or “black top”

“Tongan Tabace” “Black fish”

Notes

Lauan Name

Saqa

Saqa

Tavilawa Kawakawa

Kawakawaloa Kawakawadamu Kerakera or Kawakawasiga Kerakera Donu

Coro

Corocoro

Draveisau

Iculanigatu

Drimi

Sevaseva

Matu

Giant Trevally

Bluefin Trevally

Pennantfish Grouper or Rockcod

Peacock Rockcod Tomato Rockcod Honeycomb Cod

Marbled Grouper Queensland Grouper

Squirrelfishes

Squirrelfish

Spiny Squirrelfish

Violet Squirrelfish

Soldierfish

Sweetlips

Silver Biddy

(continued )

English Name

Table 5.2.

Gerres sp.

Plectorhinchus sp.

Myripristis sp.

Sargocentron violaceum

Sargocentron spiniferum

Sargocentron spp.

Holocentridae

E. polyphekadion E. lanceolatus

Alectis ciliaris Serranidae or Cephalopholis spp. Cephalopholis argus C. sonnerati Epinephelus merra

C. melampygus

Caranx ignobilis

Scientific Name

Reefs Reefs and rocky areas, esp. caves Reefs especially caves and crevices Reefs especially caves and crevices Reefs especially caves and crevices Reefs especially caves and crevices Reefs especially caves and crevices Reefs especially caves and crevices Inshore coastal waters and estuaries

Reefs Reefs Inshore reefs

Coastal and offshore waters around reefs Coastal and offshore waters around reefs Coastal reefs Reefs

Habitat

“Blood change”; this fish has poison spines “Pierce” or “sew a large native cloth”

“To scorch” or “singe”

“Straight” or “right”

“Black Kawakawa” “Red Kawakawa”

“To skim” or “brush the net” General term for Grouper

Notes

Vai

Vuvula

Bisi Qurusici

Bajibasaga Boila Daabea Tunatuna

Ilawaninuqa Daadaakulaci Kaboa Ikavuka Sise Saku

Dolo Maimai

Kake

Stingray

Ladyfish

Starry Eel Zebra Eel

Blackblotched Moray Bartail Moray Longfang Moray Whitemargined Moray

Guineafowl Moray Harkequin Snake-eel Longtailed Catfish Flying fish Garfish Garfish or Longtom

Spiny Flathead Dolphinfish

Seaperch or Snapper

Tiger Shark

Jivijivi Qioo Qioodaniva or Taika

Butterflyfish Shark

Lutjanus spp.

Gymnothorax favagineus Gymnothorax zonipectus Enchelynassa canina Enchelycore schismatorhynchus Gymnothorax meleagris Myrichthys colubrinus Euristhmus lepturus Cypselurus sp. Hyporhamphus spp. Platybelone, Strongylura, Tylosurus Onigocia spinosa Coryphaena hippurus

Echidna nebulosa Gymnomuraena zebra

Elops sp.

Dasyatis sp.

Galeocerdo cuvier

Chaetodon sp. Carcharhinidae

Reefs

Sand bottoms Oceanic offshore waters

Reef crevices Sand bottoms Coastal waters Oceanic offshore waters Coastal waters Coastal waters

Reef crevices Reef crevices Reef crevices Reef crevices

Reefs Offshore areas and near reefs Deep offshore and near reefs Sand bottoms and near reefs Coastal waters and mangroves Shallow reefs Shallow reefs

(continued )

This term is from English mahimahi, which originates from Hawaiian

“Flying fish”

“Net of poison”

“To disembowel”

“Crunch sici [turbo or trochus shells]”

“tiger”

“Sideways” “Taika” is from English

Lauan Name

Yaaboo Sirisiriwai

Kanace

Kava

Loa

Ogo

Dulu Drevu

Dagava Labe Labe Labe

Dravisau Saku Walu

Davilai Nuqaleka

Cumu Qau

Paddletail Southern Drummer

Mullet

Diamondscale Mullet

Sea Mullet

Barracuda

Striped Seapike Wrasses

Doubleheaded Maori Wrasse Southern Tubelip Wrasse Pavo Razorfish Carpet Wrasse

Blackspot Pigfish Marlin or Spearfish Tuna or Mackerel

Flounder or Sole Threetoothed Puffer

Triggerfishes Bluefinned Triggerfish

(continued )

English Name

Table 5.2.

Balistidae Balistoides viridescens

Bothidae and Soleidae Triodon macropterus

Bodianus vulpinus Istiophoridae Scomberomorus spp.

Sphyraena obtusata Anampses spp. and Thalassoma spp. Cheilinus undulatus Labropsis australis Xyrichtys pavo Novaculichthys taeniurus

Sphyraena barracuda

Mugil cephalus

Liza vaigiensis

Mugilidae

Lutjanus gibbus Kyphosus bigibbus

Scientific Name

Reefs and reef slopes Reefs and outer reef slopes Sand bottoms Rubble and weed areas near reefs Rocky reefs Oceanic offshore waters Oceanic and coastal waters near reefs Sand or mud bottoms Coastal waters and offshore areas Reefs Reefs

Inshore sandy areas and estuaries Coastal waters and estuaries Coastal and freshwater and estuaries Coastal waters and offshore reefs Rocky coral reefs Reefs

Reefs Reefs

Habitat

“To root like a pig” “Mine to eat”

“Black” or “bruised”

“Those who bury a chief” “To jump” or “glide along the water”

Notes

Qau Cumuqase Guuguu Culacula

Vucevuce Voocia

Sokisoki Imasi

Sokisoki Cere

Yellowspotted Triggerfish Ebony Triggerfish Yellow Boxfish Roundbelly Cowfish

Starry Pufferfish Reticulated Pufferfish

Porcupinefish Mikspotted Toadfish

Spotfin Porcupinefish Scorpionfishes Chilomycterus reticulatus Scorpaenidae

Diodon hystrix Chelonodon patoca

Arothron stellatus Arothron reticularis

Pseudobalistes fuscus Melichthys niger Ostracion cubicus Lactoria diaphana

Reefs Reefs Reefs and rocky areas Coastal waters, young in estuaries Sand and mud bottoms Shallow coastal waters over sand and mud Reefs Bays and brackish mangrove estuaries Coastal waters near reefs Seaward reefs

“Mine to eat” “Old” or “dwarf Cumu”

130

Chapter 5

During the summer months (October to March) and especially around the full moon, fishing intensifies. As Veitayaki explains, The seasonal and temporal nature of fishing is today less significant because of the increasing regularity of fishing. If the weather and village activities permit, fishing is done from Monday to Saturday. Furthermore, the use of contemporary fishing methods has allowed the fishers more freedom regarding their fishing. . . . With the use of outboard engines, goggles, spearguns and flippers, the people move with fewer natural restrictions to whichever fishing grounds they choose with no marked change in their efficiency and catch. (1995, 121)

During fishing expeditions the participants spend very little time selecting the place to set the net, traveling between each fishing spot, and setting the net. Most of the fishing time is spent herding the fish into the net and collecting the fish from the net. Adolescents and women often collect invertebrates when they have time between herding and collecting bony fish. Conversely, I rarely observed men collecting invertebrates while fishing, or consuming them on shore. A few of the captured fishes may be consumed as a snack during the fishing trip or when the group arrives on shore. However, when the fishing party consists of a majority of men or a mix of men and women, the fish catch is usually divided up on shore immediately, and then processed and consumed in the homes of each of the participants. Women more frequently scale and gut their fishes on the beach than do men, although neither gender does this consistently. Women typically process fish if it is brought home. Exactly where people prepare the catch varies according to the weather, the size of the catch, and the whims of the participants or the leader of the fishing group. Division and Distribution of the Catch Firth noted that on Tikopia the apportionment of the product of cooperative work is governed by numerous social conventions, including kinship, a code of etiquette, and ritual obligations (Firth 1965, 279–80). The same is true of the division and distribution of the catch from fishing expeditions on Nayau. When a group brings the catch on shore, they immediately begin to divide it up. Depending on the composition of the group, the fish may be prepared on the beach, or simply taken away by the members of the fishing party to their respective households. Regardless of whether the boat or net owner participated in the expedition, he will receive the first and largest portion of the catch (this may be the biggest or most highly prized fish, such as a Jack, a large Mullet, or a Parrotfish). The owner(s) of the technologies are rewarded with part of

Lauan Fishing

131

the catch first, then a pile of fish is created for each of the participants, no matter what an individual’s role in the expedition (figure 5.1). If a husband and wife are both present, their pile will have approximately twice as many fish as the other piles. Just as Firth (1965, 280) noted on Tikopia, people on Nayau do not attempt to determine the relative contributions of the members of the fishing party when dividing up the catch. The person or people distributing the fish claim to make every attempt to make each pile “equal.” Nevertheless, the piles are clearly organized according to rank and age. The oldest, highest-ranked male will have a pile located next to that of the owner of the technologies. If only women are present, then the oldest, highest-ranked woman will receive the first and most desirable division. There is wide variation in the sizes and taxa of fishes collected by sabisabi. Heterogeneous catches are divided up beginning with the choicest fish, and large or favored fishes are distributed into the piles of the highestranked persons first. For example, after the large fishes are distributed, the remainder of the catch often consists of Parrotfish, Goatfish, Wrasse, Surgeonfish, Triggerfish, Porcupinefish, and Emperorfish, and will be divided in order of preference as follows. Emperorfish are highly desired by most people. The Porcupinefish will be given to a person who likes this particular type (some people love to eat Porcupinefish, while others do not care for it). Then small Parrotfish, Goatfish, and Wrasse are distributed. Triggerfish and Surgeonfish are frequently divided up last. If the

Figure 5.1.

People Dividing up the Catch after Fishing

132

Chapter 5

fishes are small, two or more will be given. Often the last part of the catch will consist of Surgeonfish (especially tabacee or Acanthurus triostegus), and five or more may be given to each participant. If the catch is small, and there are not enough fish for each member of the party to have one, then the owner of the technology or leader may go without. It is considered shameful for the leader to keep a fish while his assistants go away empty handed. I documented a Mullet fishing expedition on the south end of the island (the inshore area of Raviravi) that was particularly unproductive. Five fishermen (this group was entirely composed of men) were in the water for almost four hours and only caught ten Mullet. The owner of the boat and the net gave me the largest Mullet (ca. 42 cm TL), and then two to each of the crew, keeping the second largest Mullet for himself. During this expedition I did not get in the water or assist with the fishing in any way, yet I was presented with the choicest fish as a show of respect to a foreign visitor. Despite taking the second largest fish, the captain kept the smallest portion of the catch for himself; his behavior was the most honorable and selfless way to deal with a poor yield. The division of a turtle or large carnivorous fish, such as a shark, tuna, or Jack, is slightly different than that described above. The head of the offshore or pelagic species is customarily presented to the chief. In Salia, where there is no chief, the head may be given to the village’s highest ranking man, or acting chief (note that this position differs from the act-

Figure 5.2.

Women from Salia Village, Snacking on the Beach after Fishing

Lauan Fishing

133

ing chief of Narocivo who is the rightful holder of the title and a recognized representative of the chief). In Liku and Narocivo, the chief or acting chief usually receives the head and then returns this presentation with a tabua (whale’s tooth) or a food item, such as a basket of root crops or a baked pudding. The remainder of the fish is then divided up among the participants of the fishing expedition. A tail portion will go to the lowestranked member, often the youngest man present. After a group of women fish together, they will frequently take a rest on the shore before returning to the village. The catch is divided into piles according to rank, and the women will often prepare the fish by scaling and gutting it on the beach while they joke and snack (figure 5.2). The fisherwomen may consume some of the smaller catch and invertebrates raw and eat the fish gonads while cleaning the fishes on the beach. All of this activity may take place before the catch is taken back to the village.

LAUAN FISHING IN AN ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT My ethnographic observations of fishing practices and the distribution of the catch reveal the complicated social interactions surrounding these activities. Lauan behaviors are the result of a number of interrelated natural and social issues including: the environment, access to technologies, group dynamics, hierarchy, the local availability of particular taxa, and preference. The ethnographic data provides a starting point for additional research in the future, which will examine fishing practices over a longer period of time in order to determine if major seasonal variations exist in marine exploitation. Based on talking with people and visiting Lau at different times of the year, I suspect that people rely on inshore fishing constantly, throughout the year. The archaeological questions I posed at the beginning of the chapter may be examined in light of the contemporary practices described above. I offer the following six points to address each question and suggest possible answers. First, generalized collection strategies are the most common form of fishing (sabisabi) on Nayau. The resulting catch is very diverse but may include some species that are specifically targeted (for example, Parrotfish, Mullet, and Convict Tangs). Use of this method will generate a collection of taxa including those commonly identified from Pacific Island zooarchaeological assemblages. However, a diverse assemblage of fishes could also result from a combination of methods, such as a spear and a hook and hand line. In a modern setting where many villagers have access to expeditions that include microfiber nets and fiberglass boats with outboard engines, the frequency with which people net fish is likely much higher than

134

Chapter 5

it was fifty years ago and in pre-European times when nets were produced on island using natural fibers. People on Nayau support the claim that smaller groups of fishers using a combination of methods were more typical in the past, before people had outboard engines and modern nets. From an examination of the archaeological fish bones, it is unclear exactly how people fished, but it is reasonable to speculate that the diversity present in the zooarchaeological record came from a combination of inshore methods and/or net fishing. A wide variety of inshore reef fish are abundant throughout the Lau Group and in the waters surrounding Nayau. These fishes are relatively easy to catch in mass using net technologies that the Pacific Islanders have employed for millennia (Jones et al. 2007; Kirch and Green 2001). Second, women are strongly associated with inshore fishing and the physical area Lauans delineate as the “inside reef.” Fisherwomen most often fish in groups in the inshore area and frequently use nets. Women, ages of sixteen and sixty are the primary producers of inshore resources in a contemporary setting. Given the strong ideological connection between women and the inshore reef versus men and the offshore area, I suspect that women and men have always had distinct connections on the landscape and with the types of foods produced in particular gender-marked areas. Unfortunately, this will be difficult to prove archaeologically. Third, Pacific Island assemblages often contain high frequencies of the dominant taxa identified from the Nayau assemblages (e.g., Parrotfish, Porcupinefish, Wrasse, Triggerfish). Faunal analysts who work on this material have argued that these taxa are abundant for the following reasons: (1) differential preservation of certain elements biases the identifications (e.g., the large sturdy pharyngeal plates of Parrotfish and Wrasse); (2) the easily identifiable and highly diagnostic nature of these sturdy elements and of others, such as Triggerfish bones and shark teeth; and (3) the natural abundance of certain skeletal elements in individual skeletons, for example, hundreds of Porcupinefish spines occur in a single individual (Allen et al. 2001; Nagaoka 1994). Some zooarchaeologists suggest that the presence of such bones inflates NISP values (or count) relative to MNI (or the minimum number of individuals). However, these assumptions have yet to be examined using ethnographic data. If certain zooarchaeological fish bone elements and associated species are common in assemblages primarily because of preservation and identification biases, then ethnographically recorded data should indicate that other species are as common or more common in fish catches. From an ethnoarchaeological perspective, it appears that these species are copious in the archaeological record for a number of reasons: they are common in the local reef ecosystem, they are frequent components of a net haul, and these fishes are well

Lauan Fishing

135

liked and sometimes targeted by Lauans. In addition to the behavioral and environmental considerations, the presence of these species may also be inflated due to preservation and identification bias. Remains of Tangs, Parrotfish, Groupers, Triggerfish, Emperorfish, and Porcupinefish are common in all of the Nayau assemblages. On the island today, fisherpeople collect species in each of these families on a daily basis using fishing nets. Tangs (especially Acanthurus triostegus) often occur in schools and may be caught in large numbers. Emperorfish typically inhabit the shallows around inshore seagrass beds and sandy bottoms adjacent to coral reefs, either in small schools or alone. Inshore netting expeditions often target Emperorfish, a favored food of Nayau’s inhabitants. The three archaeological species identified (Lethrinus harak, L. erythropterus, and Monotaxis grandoculis) are frequently caught using this method. Fourth, the average body-size of the collected inshore fishes is relatively small (ⱕ 50 cm TL). In the Mid-prehistoric Period sites, fish vertebral centrum widths range from 1.5 cm to 16.3 cm in total length and average only about 3 to 4.5 cm (table 5.3); a reef fish with vertebral centra of this size would weigh just 120 to 360 g.4 A Lauan’s preference for a particular fish does not appear to be based on the fish’s body size. Lauans consider characteristics other than the body size of a fish to determine its value, such as the size of the eyes. For example, small-bodied inshore species such as Convict Tangs and the honeycomb and hind Groupers are highly sought after. Fifth, people make decisions about when and how to fish based on a variety of issues, including natural factors (weather, moon phase, tide, currents, etc.); the technologies accessible; the number of people in the fishing party; and the fishes targeted. Fishing in Lau is not a struggle, rather, Table 5.3.

Fish Vertebral Centrum Widths (mm) from Aiwa and Nayau Excavations

Island and/or Site

Aiwa Levu and Aiwa Lailai Waituruturu West, Nayau Waituruturu East, Nayau Korovatu RS1, Nayau Nukutubu RS1&2, Nayau Qaranilulu, Nayau Ulunikoro, Nayau Vulaga, Nayau Na Masimasi, Nayau Overall

N

Mean

stdev

Range

620 235 123 65 6 16 1 18 1,432 2,516

4.7 3.3 4.2 4.7 3.1 4.6 2.9 7.2 3.0 4.2

6.0 1.3 2.1 2.5 0.5 1.6 0.0 3.9 1.8 —

1.5–14.3 1.5–10.1 1.9–16.3 1.9–13.0 2.4–3.7 1.9–7.3 2.9 3–18.7 0.61–20.2 0.61–20.2

Note : N ⫽ number of vertebra measured; stdev ⫽ standard deviation.

136

Chapter 5

the reef is a reliable resource that is exploited preferentially, according to the needs of the members of the fishing party and their families. Sixth, the catch is divided up on the beach immediately after it is brought on shore. Distribution of the fishes occurs along lines of rank, with additional preference being given to the owner of the technologies used in the expedition. The largest or choicest fish are given out first, but at the same time, people make efforts to be equitable and generous. The heads of large carnivorous or pelagic fishes are generally reserved for the chief, as are sea turtles. Scaling and gutting frequently take place on the shore before or after the catch are divided up.

NOTES 1. Thompson (1940, 129–38) presents an exhaustive description of many fishing methods used on Kabara at the time she conducted her research. The varieties described herein are the most common modes of fishing on Nayau today. It appears that fishing methods have narrowed down considerably from what Thompson documented. This is likely the result of the introduction and everyday use of microfiber nets, which are flexible technologies in terms of the ways that Lauans used them to target specific fishes or a variety of taxa, and they may be used in various environments. 2. Internal exchanges within close kin groups are not considered commercial trade. Thus, when I asked interview respondents if they “trade” foods, they claimed not to, even though they frequently exchange food items with relatives living in the same village or in other villages and other islands. What people on Nayau consider “trade” is an exchange they make with a person who is selling something, who demands cash or goods in kind for an item. 3. This information was collected over a total of three months during September, October, and November 2001 and 2003. 4. Estimates of total body weight (gm) are made using the allometric formula log Y ⫽ 2.53 (log X) ⫹ 0.872, where Y is the body weight and X is the vertebral width, following Newsom and Wing (2004, 71).

6

Food in the Lau Islands and Its Implications for Ethnoarchaeology and Archaeology Eating together is the most salient marker of household membership. Indeed sharing food is itself definitive of kinship. —Christina Toren

I

n preceding chapters I argued that through the combined efforts of archaeology, ethnohistory, and ethnography, social issues related to foodways, hierarchy, and identity can be explored and an enhanced understanding of the past may be reached. I also suggested that zooarchaeological assemblages in particular have potential to address these important subjects. Studies of Pacific Island faunas typically consider food from economic, ecological, and evolutionary perspectives. In order to extract meaning beyond the obvious implications about diet from archaeological bone assemblages, I documented contemporary Lauan foodways, generating focused ethnographic analogs to assist in answering archaeological questions and interpreting the zooarchaeological assemblages. My study indicates that human behavior in the present, and likely in the past, is not only directed by economic and ecological constraints but is equally, if not more importantly influenced by social mechanisms, such as an ideology of social hierarchy. Hierarchical social structures are evident in patterned variations of modern food consumption and distribution. Food-associated quotidian activities and special occasions reestablish social order, reinforcing and illustrating social inequalities and hierarchy. An ideology of hierarchy is a fundamental component of Lauan society that structures human actions in the present, as it undoubtedly did in the past. 137

138

Chapter 6

In chapters 3 to 5, I presented data from both the past and present, establishing a long-term history that relies on homology and results in a fuller interpretation of Lauan foodways and everyday activities. The ethnographic data discussed in chapter 3 contributes to enhanced interpretations of archaeologically observed patterns, such as the distribution of faunal remains, the occurrence and character of subsurface features, and household spatial organization. Chapter 4 illuminates food consumption patterns and refuse disposal, providing baseline data with which to compare zooarchaeological data. In chapter 5, I discussed inshore fishing practices with a focus on fishing methods, gender relations, decision-making, the types of fishes collected, division of the catch, and the relationship between exploitation behaviors and the material or faunal consequences. This research documents some of the fluidity and complexity of contemporary social relations and heightens awareness of human behaviors that could have occurred, in order to explain archaeological patterns and material variation. This work produced knowledge of causal processes, including economics, ideology, and history, working in this specific context. This information is also applicable and relevant to other archaeological contexts. My important ethnoarchaeological findings are summarized in the seven points listed below. • A suite of social and environmental considerations as well as individual preference affects food consumption. Lauan inshore areas are rich in resources; people, especially women, have an intense understanding of the marine ecological environments. This pattern of preference is visible as it determines what people eat given a choice and what fish they target on the reef. It also accounts for some of the characteristics of their food rubbish and general consumption patterns, such as the consumption of fish heads by the head of the household. • Household and village spaces emphasize social inequality and social relationships. This is evident in the orientation of houses relative to each other and relative to landscape features. An example is the relative height of a person’s yavu (house platform), which reflects rank, or the positioning of house features in relation to kinship connections and to shared cooking features, such as lovo. • In contemporary contexts on Nayau, inshore net fishing is the predominant form of marine exploitation. This method produces fishes of an average size, size range, and species composition that are similar to zooarchaeological assemblages from Nayau and elsewhere in the Pacific Islands. Inshore bony fish and invertebrates formed the largest protein portion of the prehistoric diet on Nayau, according to

Food and Its Implications for Ethnoarchaeology and Archaeology

•

•

•

•

139

the zooarchaeological data. Women and adolescents likely conducted inshore fishing in the past, just as they often do in the present. Modern food consumption and distribution evidence hierarchical social patterns based on rank, age, and gender. For example, the order in which people eat meals (men first, followed by women and children) and the consumption of fish heads are directly influenced by ideologies of hierarchy based on an individual’s lineage, birth order, age, and gender. Scoop-shaped features that likely represent earth ovens or lovo are ubiquitous in archaeological sites and in contemporary villages. These features are associated with copious bone and shell deposits in the Mid-prehistoric to Contact Period sites. Their forms are remarkably similar in terms of size, shape, and content within and between sites. Continuity in these characteristics exists between modern and archaeological lovo. Hearths and rubbish pits are similar to lovo, yet I argue that each of these features has a distinct physical signature that may be detected archaeologically. Excavations yielded a proportion of fish heads or cranial elements, which may reflect preference and/or status in the Mid-prehistoric to Contact Period occupations. A suite of small and medium-sized inshore fish taxa including Parrotfish, Tangs, Groupers, Wrasse, Porcupinefish, and Emperorfish are the most common components of zooarchaeological assemblages. Lauans target these fishes in the present and have a long history of doing so. The overall size of the fish collected throughout prehistory is relatively small; measurements of more than 2,500 fish vertebral centra from sites on Nayau and Aiwa (table 5.3) reveal a mean fish size of about 24 cm in total length (and generally ⬍ 35 cm TL), based on comparisons to modern fish specimens from Lau. A surprising finding is that the fishes collected at the early Lapita occupation were smaller than those consumed later in prehistory.

HIERARCHY AND ECONOMIC WEALTH VARIATION Food giving in many societies is a basic form of generosity. In contemporary Lauan households, feeding and food sharing are primary means of creating and maintaining social relationships and household organization based on hierarchy and gender; women are actively engaged in this through food-associated domestic tasks. Social meaning and value are created by acts of food production, distribution, and consumption (Becker 1995; Corr 2002; Weismantel 1988; Weiss 1996). In these ways, food is an

140

Chapter 6

agent of empowerment, and an expression of what Weiner (1992) called political potentiality (e.g., the keeping and giving of fine mats and cloth goods, such as masi or barkcloth). The Fijian term vakani a denotes the giving of food, or feeding another person. Vakani, giving food, is an important way to influence others, build social rapports, and exhibit to the community and to oneself that one is competent in care giving (Becker 1995, 13). Bell (1931) argued that in Polynesia, displays involving copious amounts of food are a show of wealth and an effort to improve one’s social status within the village by making others envious and indebted. My work in Fiji has led me to understand that a fundamental problem with Western theories of kinship is that these theories often do not account for the fact that people’s kin roles are dynamic. According to Weiner, “Social value must be created and recreated to prevent or overcome dissipation and loss” (Weiner 1992, 15). For example, a woman may be both a wife and a sister; the social obligations associated with each role are different. Women and men have multiple context-dependent identities that change over time as people mature within a community. All people are socially unequal, and members of a group have social statuses that are situationally dependent. In order to understand hierarchy, we must have a grasp of social situations and the many roles individuals hold. Unfortunately for archaeologists, this can best be understood in an ethnographic context. However, ethnoarchaeology provides a view into these complex social relations and a mode of improving understanding by presenting a range of possibilities for interpretation. Within domestic groups the effects of rank and gender on social divisions are most obvious in the division of labor, physical positioning of people in social settings (especially at meals and feasts), and food consumption patterns. Labor, like food, is divided according to rank, gender, and age. Women prepare the majority of food that is consumed each day in the kitchen. Most of their cooking involves boiling tubers and fish. For special occasions, men may contribute time to food preparation, such as constructing and tending to large earth ovens (lovo) outside the kitchen or on the periphery of the village, helping with the peeling and boiling of root vegetables, and preparing solo pule (a bundle of grated root vegetable mixed with coconut cream, wrapped in leaves, and baked in the lovo). However, women direct and oversee the feast preparations. Thompson (1940, 152) discusses gender and age structures within the kitchen, where the oldest active woman in each kitchen group directs the procurement and preparation of food. Thompson specifically uses the term “boiled,” not “cooked,” because in her experience, women only boil food. On Nayau, women who are older than about sixty to sixty-five years old, including those who are unmarried, married, and widowed, receive crops from closely related younger men (sons, sons-in-law, nephews, and

Food and Its Implications for Ethnoarchaeology and Archaeology

141

grandsons). How well these young men care for the older women in their family reflects on the man’s social status in the village and the way others see him and his productive capabilities. Thus, a low-ranked man who is a good caregiver may gain prestige in the form of social recognition. Women attend to, organize, and oversee all activities associated with the kitchen and the cooking of three meals each day. This includes preparing and cooking meat (fish, chicken, pig, and cow), vegetables (any root crops, leafy vegetables, breadfruit, etc.), and other items (e.g., sea weed, bread, grated coconut). Men are responsible for the lovo, and the cooking of foods baked in it (root crops, pigs, puddings). Women and adolescent boys may help to prepare foods that are baked, but men are generally in charge of the lovo, while women run the kitchen. Interestingly, Thompson states, “The men do the major part of the cooking including all the steaming, roasting, boiling with hot stones, preparing sweet puddings, and fermenting in salt water. The women do all the boiling in pots and fermenting by burial in the ground” (1940, 151). She argues that the type of food prepared by each gender is dependent on what foods men and women produce; for example, men prepare root crops, while women cook the reef fish and leafy vegetables. The pattern of labor division that I witnessed on Nayau differs from what Thompson recorded. Women on Nayau do the everyday cooking and a large part of feast preparation and cooking. Generally men cook in the lovo, an activity that occurs on Sundays and for special events. The disparity between what I recorded and Thompson’s information may be the result of a recent increase in men’s labor being focused on copra production, which is the main source of income for men on Nayau. Men now spend most of their time in the coconut plantations, producing copra, and gardening. Nevertheless, Thompson’s observation is surprising. Nowadays, the most profitable avenue for female labor is making barkcloth or masi. The potential income from masi sales is about $2.50 Fijian dollars (FJD) per hour, and is over two times the amount men can earn cutting and preparing copra for sale (ca. $1.50 FJD/hour). It takes a woman four to five hours to pound the paper mulberry bark and five hours to paint a bedspread-size piece. About eight stems of paper mulberry are required to make this size sheet. Conversely, men earn $4–$5 FJD per bag of copra. Around six to seven hours of work are involved in cutting and preparing one bag of copra for shipping. Fijians explain that it takes “all day” to cut enough copra to fill a bag; this translates to about $4–$5 for a day’s work. To generate a higher cash income, it seems that the female production of masi would be an even more lucrative way for women to focus their time. Surprisingly, however, they do not. Evidently, generating a cash income is not the main priority for the women of Nayau. In this setting female labor is most valuable in terms of providing for the family by fishing and in

142

Chapter 6

food preparation and other domestic activities that form the basis of a successful functioning household. Families on Nayau are organized according to seniority by birth. Rank is determined by birth order and follows a patrilineal trajectory. The family elder acts as patriarch, who represents the group publicly and presides over household decisions. The internal system of social status within domestic units is a microcosmic copy of the village’s (or the entire community’s) scheme of ranked order. The hierarchical system of social organization affects all aspects of life including seating arrangements, the order in which individual’s eat, what foods are consumed, sleeping positions in the house, the way in which people speak to and address each other (or avoidance), and the physical posture of individuals within a confined space in relation to each other. Recognizing this social pattern is significant for the analysis of social space in the past and the present.

THE LAUAN MEAL AND FOOD PREFERENCE Mary Douglas (1975) argued that the meaning of a meal is found in the system of repeated analogies where each meal is a structured social event—this provides the framework for organizing other events according to the same pattern. Douglas explained that meals, like all cultural phenomena are structured through practice, a process that creates and maintains meaning. In this way, every meal on Nayau is structured, following hierarchical principles and traditional cultural norms. Despite colonialism and Christianization of the Fijian Islands, “production, exchange, tribute, and consumption . . . are still distinctly Fijian . . . [and] . . . eating together still defines the household” (Toren 1998, 113). Every meal is structured as a feast at a smaller, less formal scale, just as every man is treated as a chief in his home. Hocart noted that a “small private feast is often called an oven (lovo)” (Hocart 1929, 75). An earth oven is used at least once a week to prepare food, but often more regularly depending on the household and the occasion. Normal patterns of food consumption and what constitutes a “meal” at a basic level may be viewed as a small-scale feast (but, with less quantity overall, no pudding, and lacking an abundance of meat from domestic animals—chicken, pig, dog, cow) (Becker 1995, 58; Kirch 2001). A proper “meal,” according to traditional Fijian and Polynesian customs, is composed of “true food,” starchy crops (e.g., taro, yams, sweet potatoes, cassava, breadfruit) and flesh food or “relish” (most often the products of inshore fishing—shellfish and reef fish) (Hocart 1929, 13–140; Kirch and O’Day 2003). A prayer is said before each meal, just as it was before the islands were Christianized (Handy 1927; Hocart 1929; Thompson 1940; Toren 1999). Hocart recorded that

Food and Its Implications for Ethnoarchaeology and Archaeology

143

Lauan women sometimes prepare “a special evening meal called the awaiting feast (i wawa)” for their husbands (Hocart 1929, 137). Identity and Food Providing Food collection, preparation, and serving occupy a central place in the daily lives of Lauan women. On a fundamental level, cooking and food preparation transform raw foods into consumable form. Lévi-Strauss argued that cooking is one of the core symbols of culture; this activity makes the natural world domesticated and social (Lévi-Strauss 1979). Weismantel (1988, 27) demonstrated this phenomenon in Peru, showing that on a household-level, cooking enables a family to internalize the external world. The same is true in Lau, where women and adolescent girls take raw foods and transform them into something that is distinctly Lauan and an appropriate part of a meal. Thus family and community are created and maintained by practice. Rhoda Halperin (1998) investigated community and argued for the redefinition of it as a place and, more importantly, as a set of culturally embedded and class-marked practices that create the structures of community within larger, social power structures. Halperin’s work demonstrates how family-oriented economies share resources within extended family networks. She concluded that these sharing networks promote economic well-being and a sense of identity for the people involved. The behavior Halperin discussed and its social outcome are an apt description of what occurs on Nayau and is encompassed in the term vakani a. The public display of large quantities of food or the presentation of an abundance and diversity of foods are ways that Lauans may gain respect and seek to improve their social status. Bell (1931) suggested that this sort of display was aimed at obtaining the respect and envy of the villagers, and was principally practiced by chiefs. “Food en masse is a definite proof of either the economic ability or the political power of the exhibitor” (Bell 1931, 119). On Nayau, nonelites who are able to marshal resources in an attempt to gain status utilize a similar form of wealth display. They may draw on the economic resources of relatives locally and those who live elsewhere. For example, people who work on Viti Levu or abroad earn a cash income and may be able to send money and material goods like candy, chocolate, flour, gasoline, pots and pans, and ovens to their relatives Nayau. The people of Nayau know what the modern world offers in terms of material wealth and technology, and they constantly discuss village life in opposition to this other world. Foodways are one form of resistance and a point of contrast between Lauan “village ways” and the outside. People on Nayau frequently preface discussion with the following, “We village

144

Chapter 6

people . . .” or “In the village. . . .” They claim that in the village life is simple, easy, and it is the best place to raise a family. According to the Lauans I lived with and interviewed, village life is associated with having plenty of good foods (fresh fish and root crops), a lack of money, and the time to socialize and interact with family and friends. While Lauans all would like to have money, people who choose to live on Nayau appear to value other things more and have a very different life from their relatives who live and work in cities. When Hurricane Ami hit Nayau in 2003, the government sent bags of rice and lentils to every family as part of the disaster relief program. Lauans claim ignorance in the matter of preparing lentils because this item is not something they traditionally eat. Lauans associate lentils with the large population of Indians that live in Fiji and essentially turn their nose up at “Indian food.” Ironically, people purchase curry and rice from the stores on Nayau. When they make curry, they refer to it as a “Fijian curry.” When foreign foods are incorporated into the Lauan eating system, they are assimilated and often categorized as existing food items. For example, women on Nayau make something they call “flour,” a lump of flour mixed with water or coconut water that is shaped like root crops, wrapped in leaves, baked in the lovo, and served in place of true starchy vegetables as a specialty item or in times of scarcity. These new foods are thought of as equal to existing traditional foods. This transformation of foreign items into the local cuisine makes their consumption acceptable and even desirable. Learning to Fish All of the women I interviewed on Nayau learned to fish from their mothers. The term mother has a number of different translations in Fijian, including and individual’s biological mother (tina na), the sisters of a person’s father (vugo na), and a person’s mother’s sister (tina na lailai). The men that I talked with also explained that they learned to fish from their mothers. Traditional ecological fishing knowledge is often passed on from elder women, although this is changing. People currently living on Nayau claim that more adolescent and married men are fishing now than they did in the past. Men who fish regularly also pass on their knowledge of fishing to their daughters and sons. A woman’s competence in fishing is frequently the subject of discussion in the village. Therefore, a woman’s ability contributes to her identity on social and personal levels. After interviewing and working with Fijian women, I suggest that inshore marine fishing strategies are comparable to land-based hunting in terms of skill and knowledge requirements (see Matthews and Oiterong 1995). As researchers in Polynesia have stated,

Food and Its Implications for Ethnoarchaeology and Archaeology

145

fishing is by no means a passive activity (Kirch and Dye 1979; Malm 1999). The same is true of what has been termed “collecting and gathering”; this activity is often considered less important than other forms of food production, despite its significant protein contribution and the degree of skill and mastery of technology involved. Inshore fishing and collecting is demanding work, requiring a great degree of skill, speed, and knowledge of the environment. Fijians highly value an individual’s ability to work hard and spend much time discussing and reflecting on this. Indeed, strength and the ability to work hard are equated with health and social connectedness (Becker 1995, 50). The practical knowledge of fisherwomen is expressed in their daily routines of food production and participation in communal village life. Certain fish are highly prized, while others may be noted for their “sweetness.” Fishes all have specific names, tastes, and value characteristics that everyone in the community understands and discusses with much animation. The case of Rusila is informative to the issues of personal identity, providing food, and feeding others. She is a businesswoman who receives cash or goods in kind for her fish catch, yet she maintains a close connection with her “customers,” the people who buy her fish throughout the week. She enjoys bringing people fishes and providing them with their favorite kinds. Although she lives in Salia, she sometimes reserves special kinds of fish for customers who live in the other villages (Narocivo and Liku). She takes great pleasure in bringing large amounts of fish ashore and causing a commotion as people select the fish they want. Her business practices also expand her social network and provide her and her family with a relatively high social status, and privileges including access to locally produced commodities (e.g., food and masi) and imported goods (fuel, flour, kerosene, fishing line). People constantly come to her home requesting fish, placing orders, and offering money for “a bundle” of fish. When Rusila leaves her home, people call out to her to come visit and chat about how the fishing is and what she is catching. Undoubtedly, her social interactions are affected by her outgoing personality, but given that her husband is one of the lower-ranked members of his lineage on Nayau (Sepesa’s mother is the daughter of a previous Tui Devo, the former chief of Salia, but his father was not particularly high ranked), their present social status is achieved through their business, fishing skills, and the family’s generous nature. Cooking Features, Food Refuse, and Spatial Analysis The Fijian lovo or earth oven proved an important component of the archaeological record. Currently on Nayau, earth oven preparation is an activity almost exclusively involving men and adolescent boys. I documented the

146

Chapter 6

construction, size, location and use of lovo and hearths in detail, with special attention to their associated food content, and the way food refuse may be incorporated. Importantly, men often sit around the oven snacking and throwing food remains, bones, and shells into the dirt that is then used, and reused, to cover the oven. Because lovo are often located near the kitchen, a small amount of food rubbish is deposited into the surrounding soil. Therefore, the food remains that are incorporated into modern ovens primarily represent postconsumption refuse. Earth ovens are most commonly used in the preparation of feast foods and items for special occasions, such as pigs and puddings. This information provides social context to interpret the ubiquitous archaeological earth ovens and associated fauna. Reef fishes are rarely, if ever, prepared in the lovo, yet their remains were frequently identified from archaeological ovens dating to the Mid-prehistoric to Contact periods. There is striking continuity in the size, shape, and content of the archaeological and modern lovo. Based on the ethnographic data, I suggest that the food remains recovered from the archaeological lovo do not reflect feast foods prepared by men. Rather, this food refuse represents snacks and rubbish from average meals, including small reef fishes and invertebrates. Earth ovens provide a promising avenue of research into foodways, including patterns of preparation and refuse. The lovo is the most commonly encountered, easily recognized subsurface archaeological feature in my experiences in Lau. Lovo are used in contemporary cooking on Nayau and throughout Fiji and Polynesia. This feature leaves a distinct archaeological signature and typically contains numerous faunal remains and artifacts. The lovo is also a key indicator of secular and more formal ritual cooking preparations. Today, food is prepared in a lovo at least once a week, often on Sunday, and sometimes more frequently. Thus lovo are material representations of secular rituals; as Hocart stated, a lovo constitutes a minifeast (1929, 75). A microscale analysis of their contents has proven informative, as I demonstrated in chapter 3 and elsewhere (Jones et al. 2007; O’Day 2001). Another notable ethnoarchaeologically recorded pattern related to food consumption and refuse in Nayau occurs when women are fishing and commonly collect and consume invertebrates as snacks. This material is rarely transported to the village, nor is it likely to enter the domestic archaeological record where it might be recovered in the future. When women have finished fishing, they often rest on the beach and consume some of the smaller fish and invertebrates raw. In addition, they eat the fish gonads while cleaning the animal, before taking the catch back to the village. These behaviors add to the diet but are unobservable archaeologically. Again, ethnography can contribute to explanations for patterns

Food and Its Implications for Ethnoarchaeology and Archaeology

147

of eating and discard that may not be visible from the archaeological record alone. A recent article by Valentin et al. (2006) interprets the subsistence practices of the Late-Prehistoric Period peoples of Cikobia (a Fijian island north of the Lau archipelago), based on isotopic analysis. Their approach directly analyzes human bone to determine what general types of foods people ate (marine versus terrestrial foods and protein versus overall diet), providing measures for various categories. This research suggests that the Cikobia diet was composed primarily of root crops. The authors state that “the proportion of marine fish was at most 25 percent whereas shellfish or sea mammal flesh do not seem to have constituted an important part of daily food” (Valentin et al. 2006, 1404). The analyzed skeletons were elite status individuals who likely had slightly different diets than nonelites. Thus it is not surprising that the marine protein portion of the diet (estimated at about 25 percent of the entire protein portion of the diet) has an isotopic signature suggesting that pelagic fish were frequently consumed by elite individuals. The conclusions of Valentin et al. bring up additional questions about taphonomic changes that might occur between the deposition of food remains into domestic sites and later, the excavation and recovery of food refuse. Since isotopic analysis of human bone provides a direct measure of what people ate, this approach offers both a contrast and a test to zooarchaeological analysis. Because zooarchaeological data is largely dependent on taphonomic changes, recovery procedures, and analytical methods, it is biased in ways that isotopic data is not. Importantly, the identified fishes from this Cikobia site all primarily inhabit inshore habitats rather than pelagic environments (Valentin et al. 2006, 1404–5). The difference between the zooarchaeological data and isotopic data is marked, and the question remains: what happens to the fish catch before it ends up in the archaeological record? And, are villagers eating different foods? This is an issue I have attempted to address in chapter 4. A better understanding of behaviors including food processing, consumption, and discard will enable archaeologists to more fully illuminate foodways. These interpretations may then be subject to independent lines of evidence such as isotopic data. On contemporary Nayau the house and kitchen are dark, purposefully kept closed and separate from the outside space that is frequently bright and sunny. The contrast between inside and outside space is striking and indicative of an ideology of stark oppositions that define “home,” the kitchen, being Lauan, and cultural traditions. Lauans attempt to maintain strict divisions between the home or inside space and outside space. People spend their free time lounging around in the shelter of the vale levu, kitchen, or bure. They prefer this space to the outside. Children may be found relaxing and playing outside, but adults almost never do.

148

Chapter 6

A study of ideology and hierarchy should also consider the vocabulary of space where inside-outside oppositions, cardinal directions, centralized power (for example, the position of a person’s head, the location of the east in relation to the house), walls, entrances, windows, and house posts all convey meaning. Even mundane everyday activities and rituals are organized according to fundamental structural principles. Archaeology can contribute to these issues by exploring contexts associated with specific material correlates, including the distribution and disposal of food in domestic settings and household organization. My future work in Lau will closely examine the spatial and temporal dimensions of modern and archaeological household architecture through mapping, stratigraphic excavations of more oven features and entire households, fine-grained analyses of faunal content, spatial patterning, and artifact distribution. I will continue to compare archaeological to modern household use, the element distribution of fauna (especially fish heads versus other parts), and species composition of archaeological assemblages to determine if this reflects favored species, as recorded in chapter 4. Finally, I will collect ethnographic data over a longer, continuous period of time in order to detect seasonal versus long-term patterns in inshore exploitation.

CONCLUSIONS Bayliss-Smith et al. (1988, 4) argue that “no island is truly an island in the modern world.” They convincingly demonstrate that indeed, islands cannot be studied or conceived of in isolation. This is true for the past as it is in the present. I do not assume that Lauans exhibit lifeways that are static and representative of the past in a simple one-to-one form. Rather, I have attempted to use the ethnographic research as a way to understand some of the fundamental aspects of Lauan foodways and lifeways. The importance or central place of food in Lauan culture is obvious. The question remains, however, what aspects of the present are evident in the past? Unfortunately, the archaeology of food cannot easily speak to issues of identity in the past. This undertaking will necessarily involve long-term research that combines evidence from ethnography, oral traditions, history, and household archaeology. On a general level, I sought to generate data that contributes to an improved understanding of the diverse ways that material culture, specifically food, operates in living societies. This sort of ethnoarchaeology might be labeled as ethnoarchaeology to raise analogical consciousness (David 1992). My work aims to assist archaeologists in developing increasingly rich interpretations of archaeologically observed patterns, such

Food and Its Implications for Ethnoarchaeology and Archaeology

149

as the distribution of faunal remains, the occurrence and character of subsurface features, household spatial organization, and the social relations surrounding food collection, preparation, distribution, consumption, and refuse. This research also exhibits some of the complexity of ethnographic settings and should serve to heighten awareness of human behaviors that could have occurred, in order to explain archaeological patterns. Finally, my ethnoarchaeological research aimed to understand how social processes articulate in ethnographic contexts and create material variation. This study sought to produce knowledge of causal processes working in this specific context, but which are applicable and relevant for other archaeological contexts. Specifically, by focusing on hierarchy, gender, and foodways in a historical context, I aimed to generate an understanding of the suite of social relations in Fiji, which is also applicable to Polynesia and other tropical island settings. Recent approaches to understanding gender relations, a corollary of hierarchy, and women in the Pacific Islands have been productive and informative (Brewis 1996; Keating 1998, 2000; Leckie 2000; Malm 1999; Matthews and Oiterong 1995; Toren 1999). As Mead astutely noted in 1949, the questions we ask influence and even set the answers arrived at. In regard to Pacific Island anthropology, Mead may have been the first to assert that anthropologists should not simply limit the questions we ask to the false dichotomy between male and female, high and low, animal and spiritual, body and spirit. She argued that the traditional false dichotomy misses more important lines of inquiry. Unfortunately, Mead’s research on gender seems to have had a much greater impact on anthropologists working outside of Oceania. Gender research has only recently become more common in the Pacific Islands, and most of this has been focused on societies of Near Oceania (e.g., the work of Annette Weiner and Marilyn Strathern). In Polynesia, the overwhelming focus of research has been on politics, economics, and the development of chiefdoms. While hierarchy has also been a central concern, the social roles of women (and female power, including that of female chiefs) have largely been ignored until recently. Likewise, female roles and their contribution to economic systems and subsistence have been the subject of few studies in Fiji and Polynesia. An interpretive history of the Lau Islands includes information from indigenous histories and oral traditions, ethnography, linguistics, archaeology, and Western accounts. Because each of these lines of evidence is collected in different ways, each data set may provide competing interpretations. Therefore, analogs and questions relating the past to the present are needed. The application of ethnographic data to understanding archaeological assemblages from hundreds of years ago is inherently dangerous and may result in flawed interpretations. However, I have

150

Chapter 6

identified a strong pattern of Lauan ideology centered on hierarchy and gender that I argue influences food collection, distribution, consumption, and deposition of materials in ways that are likely similar through time. A historical approach has resulted in interpretations of the past that account for economics, ideology, and long-term history. It is my hope that this ethnographic data provides both an analog against which additional archaeological questions and information can be compared and understood, and an example of some of the social issues that may potentially remain invisible archaeologically.

Appendix A

Archaeological Methods

L

ate prehistoric (ca. AD 1400–1800) household sites were excavated to provide comparative data for modern households, in an effort to determine whether parallel gender-specific spatial patterning exists in late prehistoric households on Nayau. Preliminary research indicates that archaeological sites on Nayau span the temporal spectrum from contact period (AD 1800–1850) to Lapita (800 BC). Household sites were evaluated for faunal, spatial, architectural, and other material data that might confirm or deny the hypothesized patterns. Excavations focused on key areas of the house, such as areas thought to have potential cooking features and areas where food might have been prepared and consumed, as identified in the ethnographic context. I targeted places that had an abundance of charcoal, ash, and fire-cracked rock. I also conducted test excavations on yavu or house platforms in order to determine the nature of the subsurface deposits in comparison to other areas. Excavations were carried out using a standardized methodology, the same as that employed in all previous work in the Lau Islands. Excavations were done by hand, using trowels and all sediments were screened through nested sieves of 1⁄2" (12.8 mm), 1⁄4" (6.4 mm), 1⁄8" (3.2 mm), and 1⁄16" (1.6 mm) mesh sizes. All recovered samples were shipped to the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH), University of Florida, where I conducted my initial faunal, artifactual, and sedimentary analysis. Additional research was carried out at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, where the collections are currently held.

151

152

Appendix A

ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL METHODS All faunal material was identified using comparative collections from the Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, and reference specimens that I have collected in Fiji and elsewhere in the Pacific Islands over the last decade (my personal collection held at University of Alabama at Birmingham). Zooarchaeological methods follow techniques developed by Reitz and Wing (1999). All efforts were made to identify faunal specimens to the lowest taxonomic level possible. Categories of determination were broken down for mammals and birds into “medium” and “small” size classifications when more specific determinations were not possible. For example, remains classified as “medium mammal” include mammals the size of a pig or a dog. All faunal material was counted and weighed, and modifications such as cut marks or burning were recorded. The number of identified specimens (NISP) is the basic specimen count used. Minimum number of individuals (MNI) was determined by paired elements and estimated age for vertebrates. Following Reitz and Wing (1999, 194), MNI was defined as the smallest number of individuals that is necessary to account for all skeletal specimens of a given species within the assemblage. When estimating MNI, each provenience (i.e., unit or feature) was considered separately with attention to stratigraphy when appropriate. I attempted to use all diagnostic elements to make determinations. Fish identifications were based on the following skeletal elements: premaxilla, dentary, articular, maxilla, quadrate, palatine, hyomandibular, posttemporal, pharyngeal plates, opercle, preopercle, cleithrum, spines, vertebrae, atlas, basioccipital, vomer, frontal, lachrymal, epiotic, epibranchial, sphenotic, otolith, scale, and teeth isolates. Habitat classifications for fishes are based on information from Froese and Pauly (2004), Lieske and Myers (2002), and Myers (1991). The terms reef, pelagic, and inshore are used here to refer to specific environments inhabited by the identified fishes. Reef species are those that inhabit and live in and around coral reefs. Pelagic species are those fishes that are adapted to life on the open ocean; they swim on the surface of the water, usually in schools, staying either offshore (away from the shore line) or inshore (close to the shore), depending on the species.

ESTIMATES OF DIETARY CONTRIBUTION Calculated sample biomass was used to estimate the relative dietary contribution from the skeletal weight of archaeological specimens. These calculations provide information on the quantity of meat potentially sup-

Archaeological Methods

153

plied by an animal based on allometric principles that an animal’s body mass, skeletal mass, and skeletal dimensions change in proportion with body size increases (Reitz et al. 1987). Biomass estimates provide information that cannot be ascertained from specimen weights alone. The equation below was applied to data from the selected sites in order to describe the relationship between body weight and skeletal weight, estimating the amount of meat or soft tissue related to the archaeological materials. Y ⫽ aXb or log10 Y ⫽ a ⫹ b (log10X) where Y ⫽ estimated sample biomass (kg) contributed by the archaeological specimen for a taxon X ⫽ specimen weight (kg) of the archaeological specimen for a taxon a ⫽ the Y-intercept of the linear regression line b ⫽ slope of the regression line Sample biomass, or soft tissue weight, was predicted for each identified faunal group (i.e., gastropods, bivalves, fishes, birds, and mammals) using specimen weight for X, in the allometric formula above. The allometric constants, a and b, were obtained from Reitz and Wing (1999, 72) who originally derived the constants from a large set of reference specimens (Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida) with known whole body weights and dimensions of the skeletal or exoskeletal elements.

Appendix B

Structured Ethnographic Interviews Conducted on Nayau, October and November 2003 INTERVIEW #1 Name: Lucy1 Age: 40 From: Cicia; moved to Nayau to marry Eats: tails of fish; her husband eats first, and he eats the heads Her husband’s favorite fish: Rabbit fish Her favorite fish: mulu Household Interviews 1. Four people (two kids, Lucy, and her husband) 2. Husband gardens (“works in the plantation”) and cuts copra during the day; he grows cassava, sweet potato, paper mulberry, pandanus, yams, papayas, bananas, Fijian cabbage (bele; Hibiscus manihot), peanuts, and beans. Her husband is the primary gardener; however, occasionally Lucy will join him in the garden to help with the weeding. She also helps with the paper mulberry plants especially. Her husband made their bure, can make boats, and so on. He went to school in Suva. She spends her days washing, doing housework, making masi, and mat making. These items will be sold in Suva. She also goes fishing when the “weather is good.” Sometimes she shares her catch with friends and relatives. Sometimes she fishes with friends and relatives (other women and young people). Animals they have: horse, chickens (many), cats, pigs (“lots”), cow (one). 155

156

Appendix B

Consumer Opinions She purchases at the store items, including flour, tin fish, biscuits, corned beef, salt, soap, rice, yaqona, and tobacco. About 90 percent of the food she and her family eats comes from Nayau (produced in the village by her and her husband). She would “rather eat Nayau food than store-bought food and flour.” She favors “Liku food.” She and her husband decide where, how, and when to spend the money she makes from selling her mats and masi to Suva. She prefers to eat fish rather than chicken, pig, or other domestic animal/meat. Her family eats fish about two times a week. They eat more crop foods than fish or meat. Her favorite foods are fish with lolo (coconut milk), dalo, cassava, sweet potato, and octopus with lolo. Food 1. She is “the boss in the kitchen.” Her husband may assist her if she needs help and he always makes the lovo. They have a lovo on Sundays and on special days. 6. She snacks during the day and she usually serves three meals each day and tea (she likes to snack on the reef while fishing and also while she is cooking). 7. The Sunday meal takes her about one hour to prepare (the preparation and cooking time). For marriages and funerals or special events the cooking time will be about one hour, and all the women cook together. 8. All her family’s food rubbish (including fish bones and bones of other animals) are fed to the pigs and the dogs (all bones and leftovers). In one week she and her family ate fourteen different kinds of fish (bones were collected from these).

INTERVIEW #2 Name: Dami Age: 45–50 Household Interviews 1. Six people live in her house (Dami and her husband, kids ages: six, thirteen, sixteen, seventeen). 2. Her husband spends his days gardening, working in the plantation, and cutting copra. Her husband built her kitchen [which we are sit-

Structured Ethnographic Interviews

157

ting in during the interview] and also constructs things that they need. During the day she cooks, cleans, washes, makes masi (pounding it in the kitchen), and paints masi (she paints it in the sleeping/ eating house). Her husband plants cassava, sweet potato, dalo, paper mulberry, pandanas, bananas, and yams. She and the rest of the family help when it is time to harvest the yams. She fishes two to three times each week. The time she spends on the reef depends on the weather and on low tide, on average about one to two hours or more. She collects shellfish, octopus, sici (Turbo sp.), and small fish. She uses a spear and a hand line only, no nets. She fishes both alone and sometimes with others. They have pigs (four), chickens (fifteen), dogs (two), and a cat. 3. At the store she purchases kerosene, sugar, soap, flour, rice, milk, and tea. Most of what they eat comes from their garden and the sea; about 90 percent of what they eat is local food. They do not trade foods. 4. She and her family eat more starches and crop foods than meat. Food 1. Only the women in her house cook. She has a daughter in school; she helps her mother cook when she is home. The husband makes the lovo, this is usually on Sunday. They reuse the same lovo place again and again (the same hole); it can be reused “as long as you like.” 5. The perfect meal for her would include “boro (vegetables-all kinds including starches), with fish, sweet potato, and cassava.” The meat would be Convict Tang (tabace), Parrotfish (bose), and small Grouper (kawakawa). 6. She and her family eat breakfast and dinner, sometimes skipping lunch. She snacks during the day and on the reef. She spends about one hour cooking and preparing each meal. 8. All bones and food refuse are fed to the dogs and pigs, always. She ate seven different types of fish in one week.

INTERVIEW #3 Name: Camilia Age: 26 From: Salia Village, Nayau Favorite fish: kawakawa (large Serranidae, Rockcod)

158

Appendix B

Household Interviews 1. Two people live in her house, she and her husband. Her husband, a son of the village chief, spends his days planting and working in the garden, cutting copra and fishing (he uses a spear offshore, a spear gun in deep water, and a hook and hand line offshore at the reef’s edge; sometimes he participates in fishing expeditions where nets are used). In the garden he plants yams (uvi; Dioscorea alata), sweet potato, cassava, via (giant Alocasia and Cyrtosperma), cabbage, Fijian cabbage (bele), corn, and bananas. Camilia sometimes joins her husband fishing. During the day Camilia makes masi, paints masi (qisaqisa), cooks, washes, takes naps (“moce”), watches kids of relatives, and fishes. She fishes about two times each week, depending on the weather. She goes out for three to four hours at a time, usually to Raviravi (at the south end of the island), but sometimes she collects shellfish in front of the village. When Camilia fishes, she collects both bony fish and shellfish at the same time, including sici (her favorite shellfish, of which she may eat about ten or more in one day), voro (cone shell), kai (small clams), and other shellfish. She uses a mask, snorkel, occasionally a spear, and a hook and line (inshore). 3. At the store Camilia purchases flour, rice, sugar, yaqona, and kerosene. The item she prefers to buy/most sought after food, is Ramen noodles. She and her husband prefer Nayau and Liku food to store-bought foods. 4. She claims to eat the same foods as her husband, except that he eats the heads of the fish and she always eats the tails. Sometimes she will trade foods, especially fish that she has caught for other items with her sister in law and her mother in law.

Food 1. Camilia “does all of the cooking, and Vatu makes a lovo on Sundays.” It takes her about an hour to make dinner (cooking and preparation time). This month she always eats rice, because the store is out of flour and due to the drought and lack of fresh root crops (there was an island-wide shortage, although Liku had more root crops available than Salia or Narocivo). When the store has flour, she makes a lot of bread, cakes, buns, pancakes, etc. Foods that she prepares for special occasions are “big foods” and “many foods,” such as pig, cow, and chicken. For special events, she likes to prepare chicken curry, chop suey, sweet potato, soups, cassava, dalo, and a mix of these things; she will prepare and cook the

Structured Ethnographic Interviews

159

foods with other women. For example, when she goes to Salia to prepare for the marriage of her brother to her cousin, she will work with other women from all over the islands and cook for an entire day, the preparations for this extend days in advance of the event as well. A perfect meal would include chicken curry, pig curry, chop suey, sweet potato, cassava, and dalo. She likes to snack each day, eating, for example, cassava, corn, and shellfish (on the reef while fishing). She prepares breakfast and dinner each day and sometimes skips lunch when she and/or her husband are out working, gardening, or collecting. 8. All of her food refuse, including bones, is fed to the pigs and dogs. In one week she and her husband ate eight different types of fish. “It was a bad week for fishing because of the weather.” Normally, she would collect and consume many more fish.

INTERVIEW #4 Name: Nani Age: 24 From: Liku Village Favorite fish: tabace Household Interviews 1. Five people live in her house (Nani and her husband and three kids, ages one, three, and five). 2. During the day her husband works in the garden, cuts copra, and fishes (he uses a net and fishes with other men, she does not join her husband to fish). Her husband grows sweet potatoes, paper mulberry, dalo, yams, and cassava. She never works or helps out in the garden, “This is my husband’s job.” During the day she takes care of the kids, cleans, does the washing, cooking, makes and paints masi, weaves. She rarely fishes because she is busy taking care of the kids (a one-year-old baby, the others are three and five); she says that “there is no one to look after the kids when she is on the reef” [an interesting comment, because both Camilia and Camilia’s mother-in-law sometime help take care of the kids when Nani is busy working away from the house; I have observed this]. When she fishes, she will only go out for about one hour in front of the village, and then she only collects shellfish. Her husband tends to the animals. They have five pigs and lots of chickens. They also have a dog.

160

Appendix B

She sells her mats and masi to Suva; sometimes her relatives in Suva will send orders for more, especially around Christmas time, when she may make five mats and five large pieces of masi. She makes about twenty pieces of masi each year, a mix of large and long pieces, most of it is sold in Suva, but some is given away locally for weddings, funerals, and other social obligations. 3. At the store she purchases kerosene, flour, sugar, butter, and custard. She estimates that about 90 percent or more of the food she and her family eat is produced locally in Liku. She especially likes to eat a lot of shellfish. 4. She and her family eat much more starch than protein/meat. “We eat more crops than meat.” She says she usually does not trade food, but occasionally will get fish from Camilia. Food 1. Nani “does all of the cooking, and her husband makes a lovo on Sundays.” 5. A perfect meal would include fish (“ika”), tabace, and sweet potatoes. 6. It takes her about an hour to cook a meal for her family. She usually serves and eats three meals a day and snacks (for her and her kids, “because the kids are small and like to eat a lot”). 8. All of her food refuse is fed to the pigs and dogs, including all fish and other bones. In one week Nani and her family ate eleven different kinds of fish.

INTERVIEW #5 Name: Annie Galisaya Age: 52 From: Liku Village Favorite fish: nuqa (rabbitfish) Household Interviews 1. Four people live in her house (Annie Galisaya and her husband and two grandsons ages two and three). 2. Her husband is the village Turaga ni koro, thus he spends part of each day directing village economics. He also gardens and cuts copra. He grows cassava, sweet potatoes, bananas, yams, Fijian cabbage, eggplant, paper mulberry, cabbage. Her husband spends much time in the garden, “He will go into the bush in the morning and leave in the

Structured Ethnographic Interviews

161

afternoon, his plantation is very far away.” [Note that virtually all of the plantations that belong to people in Liku are up the hill and inland; this walk takes the men about fifteen minutes up hill and then depending in the distance to their gardens, ten to fifteen more minutes.] They have five pigs, two cows, many chickens, a dog, and a cat. She spends her day washing, caring for her grandsons, fishing, beating masi, weaving, cleaning, and cooking. She fishes about two times each week if the weather is good. She spends about three hours each time she fishes, and collects sici, vuro, kuita (octopus), ika (fish). She only uses a spear and a hook and hand line (inshore). 3. At the store she purchases flour, sugar, kerosene, butter, rice, tea, cocoa, and milk. Annie estimates that about 85 to 90 percent of the food she and her family consume is produced locally. They prefer Nayau and Liku foods to store bought foods. She usually does not trade foods. 4. Her husband eats all the heads of the fish, while she eats the tails. She says that she prefers fish stomachs, gonads, and tails. She says that in her house people eat much more starch than meat. The crops they eat the most of include dalo and cassava. Food 1. She cooks all of the food. Her husband makes a lovo on Sundays and for special occasions. He may also make cow on Sundays and for special days. 5. According to her, a perfect meal consists of fish in lolo, vegetables (especially root crops), and sweet potatoes. 6. She eats breakfast, lunch, dinner, and, sometimes, tea with a starch (bread, cassava, etc.). She snacks during the day when she is cooking and cleaning or fishing. She does all of the cooking each day, which takes her about an hour to cook (but not prepare) each meal. 8. All of the food refuse from her household is fed to the pigs by her husband, or it is fed to the dogs and chickens by her. This includes bones and soft tissue refuse. Food refuse is never thrown into the bushes or along the side of the house or kitchen. In one week she ate nine different kinds of fishes.

INTERVIEW #6 Name: Tala Age: 48 Favorite fish: kawakawa (Serranidae, Rockcod)

162

Appendix B

Household Interviews 1. Two people live in her house, Tala and her blind mother who is seventy-six years old. 2. She spends her days washing, cleaning, cooking, making and beating masi (samusamu), fishing (collecting kuita, nama/seaweed, and sici). She says that she collects these shellfish (vivili) because she only has one working eye. She goes fishing about one time each week and does not go far, mostly right in front of the village, not to Raviravi. She fishes for about two hours at a time. Sometimes she goes into the forest to search for coconut crabs. Her younger brother brings them vegetables from his garden, including: sweet potatoes, cassava, dalo, etc. Q: Who taught you how to fish? A: I learned to fish from my mother and sister-in-law at the age of about seven years. I never went to school, because at the age of six I lost my eye.

Relation to the village chief: he is her big father. She “always used to live in a small bure next to Tui’s house,” but during the last storm (Cyclone Ami) the walls of the house were torn off, so she moved into her mother’s house. Her house was constructed in a traditional style with six posts in an oval shape, a coral paving, and thatch roof and walls. 3. At the store she purchases much the same as everyone else (flour, sugar, tea, kerosene, soap), plus tobacco, but she only purchases small quantities of these things because she has very little money. If she could buy anything at the store, she would buy flour, sugar, and soap. She sells some masi to Suva, but less than the other women in the village. She prefers village foods to store-bought foods. Food 1. All of the cooking is done by her. Sometimes her brother will make a lovo, and she and her mother will share in it (this is usually on Sundays and special occasions). She spends about two hours preparing and cooking each meal. 2. For normal household cooking, less food and less variety is prepared. On special occasions the quantity of food is much greater and there is more diversity. 5. Her favorite food is ika vakalolo (fish boiled in coconut milk). And, she loves sici. She eats more ika than other meats (this comes from

Structured Ethnographic Interviews

163

her younger brother). A perfect meal would include coconut crab, nama, cici, and coconut shavings. 8. All of the food refuse from her and her mother is fed to the pigs that belong to her brother, the dogs, and the chickens. Q: How do you choose a place to fish and collect? A: I wait for low tide, or just before and I go to the shallow areas, never the deep places. I know all of the places because I grew up fishing here. Low tide is the best time for collecting. Q: What foods are reserved for the chief? A: Vonu (turtle) and saqa (Caranx sp.) are given to the chief, otherwise he eats the same foods that everyone else does. When the Tui receives a turtle or a saqa head, he returns with a tabua (whale’s tooth). The way Tui gets food is, his son goes fishing for him and all the people in the village bring food to the chief when they return from fishing for themselves. When they come back, they bring him vasua (Tridacna sp.).

INTERVIEW #7 Name: Tami Age: 33 From: Totoya, she has lived in Liku for ten years Favorite fish: bose (Scaridae) Tami is the sister-in-law of Tala (Tami is married to Tala’s younger brother). Household Interviews 1. Seven people live in Tami’s house (Tami, her husband, two daughters, and three sons; ages three, six, seven, eleven, and thirteen). Her husband spends his days fishing [“He is a great fisherman, and she is a great fisherwoman!” exclaimed Rusila, my interpreter and informant], gardening, cutting copra; “he made my house with the help of his father.” He fishes with a spear on the outer reef edge. In the garden, her husband grows via, dalo, cassava, sweet potatoes, bananas, beans, and cucumbers. He also tends to the livestock; they have seventeen pigs, many chickens, dogs and cats. During the day Tami cooks, cleans, fishes, makes and paints masi, looks after her kids. Sometimes she will join her husband in fishing expeditions, using a spear and a hook and line; they do not have a

164

Appendix B

net. When she fishes, she usually goes out for three to four hours, sometimes leaving in the morning and walking to Raviravi, “because the fishing there is better than in front of [the village].” She collects sici, civa (Pinctada sp.), and kawakawa (using a hook and line). Sometimes she fishes alone and other times with other women and/or her husband. She loves to eat sici—she can eat about twenty in a day. Tami’s mother sells her masi in Suva. She makes about ten pieces a year (pieces usually are about 2 to 3 feet rectangular or oval). 3. She and her family prefer Nayau foods to other kinds of foods. More than 90 percent of the foods they eat are produced locally. 4. Her husband eats first, and he eats all of the fish heads. She eats second, and she eats the fish tails. They eat more starch than meats, and more fish than other kinds of meat. Q: How did you learn to fish? A: I learned to fish from my father and mother on Totoya at the age of about eleven years.

Food 1. Tami does all of the cooking in her house with some help from her teenaged daughter. 5. A perfect meal would include dalo leaves cooked in coconut milk, coconut milk, dalo, sweet potatoes, cassava, and bose. She and her eldest daughter, age thirteen, serve the food and the women (young and old) always sit by the door and eat after the men. 6. Foods that they eat every day include fish, cassava, crabs, octopus, eel [preparation of eel: it is usually boiled, she likes to boil it in coconut milk; Rusila fries it]. She spends about an hour cooking each meal. Sometimes she skips lunch, but she serves the family breakfast and dinner each day. She often snacks during the day and when fishing, eating cassava, sici, dalo, and sea urchins. 8. All of the food refuse from her household is fed to the pigs, dogs, and chickens.

INTERVIEWS #8 AND #9 Name: Rachel and Bes Age: 70 and 15 Favorite fish: kawakawa and tabace

Structured Ethnographic Interviews

165

Also present during this interview was Rachel’s granddaughter, Bes, who is fifteen years old. She assisted with some of the translation and answered many of the questions, she was very involved in the interview. This interview was conducted in Rachel’s mat making house, while she and Bes were scraping pandanus leaves to sell. They were using a shell (Periglypta cf. puerpera) that had evidence of use as a scraper along its ventral margin. Rachel and her immediate family live/sleep in the cement block house on the hill behind the eastern half of the old village. Also part of their household is a thatch structure at the east end of the village that utilizes a large rock outcrop—essentially a rockshelter (see Liku map, figure 3.2). Household Interviews 1. Four people live in her home (Rachel, Bes, Rachel’s brother, and her son). The men in the house do the gardening; sometimes they “go to the beach and sometimes they do not leave the house. The men do not fish; sometimes they pick sea cucumbers to sell to people in Salia, who sell the cucumbers to Suva.” They make $30–$50/ kg depending on the different types and sizes. Sometimes the men will take the net out fishing with Bes. In the garden the men grow yams, cassava, dalo, bananas, vei, and so forth. In their house garden they have breadfruit trees. The family has ten pigs, three cows, and twenty chickens. Rachel spends her days weaving (talitali), cooking, cleaning, samusamu and painting masi, making mats, and sometimes fishing, “but seldom.” When Rachel fishes, she collects nama, sici, and other vivili. She sells her rolls of leaves at the price of 50 rolls for $5 (FJD). [Note that each “roll” is one pandanas leaf.] Bes also does reef picking and collecting for sici and nama. She does the washing, cleaning, cooking, masi making, and mat making. 2. At the store they buy flour, sugar, tea, kerosene, tin fish. They prefer Nayau/Liku foods to store-bought foods and purchase less than 10 percent of their total foods from the store; they produce most of what they eat. Sought-after store items include tin fish and flour. 3. Men in the house eat first, consuming the fish heads, while the women eat second and eat the tails. Food 1. Bes does most of the cooking, with some help from Rachel. The men make the lovo on Sunday. It takes Bes about one hour or less to cook each meal. Every day they eat lolo, ika, dalo, via, and cassava. Special meals differ from everyday meals by the amount of food and the different kinds of food, especially meats.

166

Appendix B

5. A perfect meal would consist of ika (preferably kawakawa), boro with fish and lolo and tabace (for Bes). 6. The family eats breakfast, lunch, and dinner, although sometimes they skip lunch. Bes does not snack, but Rachel does. 8. All of the household food refuse goes to the pigs, dogs, and chickens.

INTERVIEW #10 Name: Mary (wife of the village chief) Age: 68 Favorite fish: mulu (rabbitfish) When I conducted this interview Mary was in her vale levu with her daughter-in-law and some other women from the village. They were all tending to the daughter-in-law’s sick son, a nine month old, who had what appeared to be the flu (the women said that he was fine in the morning, but by noon he started vomiting and had a fever and could not keep anything down). When I was there, he was laying under a mosquito net in the middle of the vale, still, except for his heavy breathing. He was hot to the touch, sweating profusely, and looked very ill. I felt that Mary was worried and focused on her sick grandson, and so I did not want to push her with too many questions, although I had more I wanted to ask her than I did in other interviews. She started talking to Rusila as soon as we entered the house. The house they sleep in is where sevusevu is conducted with the village chief. Q: Where are you from? A: I am from Vanuavatu. The chief came to my island and saw me, and then I came here with [him].

Household Interviews 1. Two people live in this house (Mary and the Tui). She has seven kids, “all of them are married and only one, a boy, lives here in [the village].” Their kitchen is NW of the vale. 2. Her husband spends his days “going around the beach, fixing the house (working on the thatch and reeds that line the walls, etc.), and working as chief.” Q: [Because the chief is blind, I ask where their vegetables come from.] A: Our vegetable food comes from the Tui’s garden. His garden is next to the other gardens that belong to Liku people, but his garden is larger and has dif-

Structured Ethnographic Interviews

167

ferent crops. It is more organized. He has cassava, sweet potatoes, uvi (yam, Dioscorea alata), and via [but no dalo!]. His son collects them for us. When other women go collecting food on the reef, they bring it to me. Q: Do you get your pick of what they have collected? A: Not really, I just take what is given to us.

[When I ask her how she spends her days, she begins the answer with the phrase, “The wife’s jobs are . . .”] She spends her days weaving mats and making masi to sell in Suva. At low tide, she goes fishing on the reef sometimes. She collects nama, sici, and sea cucumber (which she also sells to Suva). 3. At the store she purchases only “a little bit.” “I buy a little yaqona at the store.” Sometimes they will trade copra (obtained by tribute and from their son) for salt and other store items. Flour, rice, soap, and yaqona are sought after items. They prefer village foods to store foods. 4. Her favorite fish is mulu (rabbitfish); her favorite shellfish is sici and cega (Tridacna squamosa). The Tui’s favorite fish is saqa, prepared boiled. They eat more fish than chicken or pig and more starch than meat. She thinks that she and the Tui eat all the same foods that other people in the village eat. Food 1. Other women (especially her daughter-in-law, Lea) in the village do all of the cooking, making breakfast, lunch, and dinner. It takes them about one hour to prepare and cook each meal. “As the wife of the chief, she does not cook, other women in the village cook for her.” 5. A perfect meal would include ika, lolo kuita, yams (“these are first fruits to the chief”). Tui’s favorite fish is saqa, prepared boiled. Tui always eats the heads, and she eats the tails after him. He eats first, she eats second and always sits low (“i ra”) in the house. When she visits other houses and eats with other people, she is served first and eats first. “In other houses I do not eat last.” 8. All the food rubbish from their household is given to the pigs and dogs.

INTERVIEW #11 Name: Lea Age: 26 Favorite fish: kawakawa

168

Appendix B

Lea lives north of Tui’s house. She is married to his youngest son, and comes from the mataqali on the southeast side of the village (related to Rachel). All of her husband’s brothers live in Suva. On the day that I interviewed Lea, her nine month old was sick with what appeared to be the flu. I rushed this interview, because I did not want to take up too much of her time. This interview was conducted in her sleeping and eating house, a cement block house; she shares a kitchen with the Tui’s wife. The kitchen was built for the Tui and his family by the villagers. Household Interviews 1. Five people live in her house: Lea, her husband, and three kids, ages nine, three, and nine months. During the day she watches the kids, washes, cleans, cooks, and makes masi to sell in Suva. She does not fish. Her husband spends the days working in the garden and fishing. He uses a spear and fishes inshore and off the outer reef edge. In the garden he grows cassava, via, sweet potatoes, and bananas. Some of the food from her husband’s garden goes to the Tui. [It appears that Lea’s husband provides a major portion of the food to the Tui and his wife.] 3. At the store she purchases flour, sugar, kerosene, and soap. The items she would buy if she had unlimited money are flour and sugar. She and her family prefer village foods to store-bought foods. 4. Lea says that she eats the same things that her husband eats. However, she serves him first and he eats first. He eats the fish heads, and she always eats the tails. They do not trade foods with anyone, they produce their own. Her husband’s favorite fish is mulu (rabbitfish). Food 1. Lea does all of the cooking, preparing three meals a day. It takes her about half an hour to prepare dinner or the other meals. Every day they eat fish and cassava. For special gatherings they eat much more food than they normally do (large quantity), many different kinds of foods (variety), and “big sized foods, such as curry pig and chicken.” 5. A perfect meal would include “boro and ika,” [vegetables and fish, she means root crops when she says “boro”; she is not referring to leafy vegetables], cassava and lolo. Her family eats more fish than any other meat. She loves to eat katavaut (Tridacna maxima) and sici. She can eat about twenty sici a day. 8. All of the food refuse from their household goes to the pigs and the dog.

Structured Ethnographic Interviews

169

INTERVIEW #12 Name: Michelle Age: 47 Favorite fish: all kinds Household Interviews 1. Three people live in her house (Michelle, her husband, and her five-year-old grandson). Her husband spends his days working in the garden, cutting copra, and fishing. He uses a spear inshore and at the outer reef edge; he catches renua (Kyphosus sp.), ta (Naso unicornis), and tabace. In his garden he grows paper mulberry, sweet potatoes, cassava, bananas, and dalo. Michelle sometimes helps her husband by weeding in the garden, harvesting, and carrying food home. She spends her days cooking, cleaning, fishing, making masi, and looking after her grandson. When she fishes, she usually goes out alone. She uses a spear and a hook and hand line and a mask (“a glass”). She targets kuita but also takes small fish and vivili. She sometimes fishes with other women. She goes fishing about three to four times each week. 3. At the store she purchases sugar, soap, and kerosene. “I do not want or care about flour.” She never buys flour. If she had plenty of money she would buy sugar, soap, and kerosene. She prefers village foods to store foods. 4. She says that she eats the same foods as her husband. She serves him first, and he always eats the heads. She eats the tails. Her grandson eats fish and fruits. Her husband’s favorite fish is lulu (eelfish). Food 1. She does all of the cooking, but her husband makes a lovo on Sundays. Foods that they eat every day include: ika, cassava, sweet potatoes, octopus, and sici. She likes to eat about ten sici each day and lots of fish. They eat chicken and pig on special days. For feasts and special occasions there is “bigger and more foods,” including chicken and pig. 5. A perfect meal according to Soko would include ika vakalolo (fish in coconut milk), kuita lolo (octopus in coconut milk), and cassava. She prepares three meals each day, and she snacks during the day. It takes her about fifteen minuets to cook dinner (this does not count preparation time).

170

Appendix B

8. All of the food refuse from their household is fed to the pigs. “The bones are all pig food.” INTERVIEW #13 Name: Rusila Age: 43 From: Cicia, Tokolau village Favorite fish: kabatia (Lethrinidae) Rusila and her family live in a house located above the center of the old village, on her husband, Sepesa’s family’s old yavu (house platform); this is one of the only houses in Salia that still has the original yavu (most were destroyed by Hurricane Meli in 1979, or torn down when the village was moved above its former position on the beach). Household Interviews 1. Five people live in her house (Rusila, Sepesa [forty-five], and three boys nine, eleven, and seventeen). She has two more children that live in Nadi, ages twenty-one and twenty-three. She spends her days weaving mats, making and painting masi, fishing, washing, cleaning, cooking, looking after kids, and “catching crabs.” When she fishes, she goes out for one to two hours at a time or five to six hours, depending on the kind of fishing they are doing and if the yield is good. She fishes every day, except Sundays, and uses nets, lines, and trolling (with a boat, long line, and big hooks). She rarely goes out with the other women in the village, although people usually join Rusila and Sepesa, especially if they go out during the day, when the whole village watches and waits to see what they are doing. She and her husband have a business license, and they sell fish to all of the villages on Nayau. Her husband spends his days fishing (he fishes every day except Sunday, same as she, and spends about the same amount of time out; they usually fish together), going to the garden (one time a week— her son Lesi tends to the garden), taking care of the pigs and the cow, making and fixing fishing nets, selling fish, constructing and repairing their vale and bure, and preaching (he is a pastor). When Sepesa and Rusila go fishing, they are often joined by people of all ages (relatives and friends) from Salia, Narocivo, and/or Liku (depending on when and where they fish). They fish all over Nayau and are constantly looking at different places to assess the potential for “good fishing.” They “always fish for sevaseva (Sweetlips),” because it is

Structured Ethnographic Interviews

171

one of their favorites, and for kanace (Mullet) because it is a good fish to sell (it lasts a few days, the flesh is firm, it has a big head and big eyes). Crops that grow in their garden include sweet potatoes, cassava, cabbage, bele, yams, bananas, papaya, dalo, white dalo, beans, eggplant, sugarcane, and uto (breadfruit). They have fourteen pigs, four horses, one cow, fourteen chickens, and one dog. 3. At the store Rusila purchases baking powder, flour, sugar, tea, rice, butter, fishing line, nets (only at the Narocivo store), tea pots, cups, plates, biscuits, gum, snacks (“Bongo”), gasoline, and kerosene. They produce most of their own food; she estimates that 90 percent of the food they eat is Nayau food and 10 percent is store-bought food. “Other people in Salia probably spend more money on store food than we do. We spend money on fishing gear.” Sought after items at the store are fishing line, hooks, and lures. She and her husband trade fish for food and raw materials (e.g., unpainted masi and pandanus leaves) or livestock (pigs, chickens, goats). When they fish, they collect around ten to fifteen bundles of fish (depending on the size of the fish caught, a bundle can include ten to two fish; large fish like Mullet might be two to a bundle, while smaller reef fish, like Surgeonfish and Goatfish may come seven in a bundle). They sell each bundle of fish for about $10, and individual fish (for example, large Parrotfish, “ulave,” Scarus ghobban) for $1 to $2.50, depending on the size. Sometimes Rusila will trade for pigs; for example, she will give one pig for three hundred bundles/rolls of pandanus leaves (this is enough leaves to make one large mat). To purchase a four-month- to one-year-old pig on Nayau, it costs about $60 (FJD). Rusila may also trade one bundle of fish for a basket of dalo or cassava. One piece of large masi, measuring about six feet by two feet may be traded for one bundle of fish. Rusila makes mats and masi to sell in Suva. She sells about ten mats every year, charging $15 to $35 for one mat; for large mats with kula (colored yarn decoration) she may receive $60. She sells about $100 worth of plain and printed masi every year (it varies in the price per piece from $10 to $50). She also makes and sells fans, door rugs, baskets, and fish and chips (baskets cost $0.50 to $3, rugs cost $1, and fans sell for $0.50 each). The item that Ruslia desires for trade more than anything else is masi. “Masi is better than money.” 4. Rusila claims that everyone in the family eats the same foods and that there is no individual variation in consumption patterns. Her family eats more fish than any other meat and a larger portion of meat than starch each day. The order in which people eat is: Sepesa eats first, then their oldest son, then Rusila with the two younger

172

Appendix B

sons. She says that Sepesa eats fish heads, but that there are usually enough fish heads to go around. Often the family will give their fish tails to neighbors, friends, and relatives. If they have a saqa, Sepesa always eats the head. Sepesa’s favorite fish are saqa, sevaseva (Plectorhinchus sp.), and vatui (Parupeneus sp.). Rusila’s favorite fish is kabatia because it has red lips, big eyes, and sweet flesh. Sepesa eats the stomachs and heads of all the fish, and their oldest son also eats the heads. “Every day we eat fish and cassava and drink bu” (juice from young green coconuts; there was a drought on Nayau when I collected this information; people were drinking bu instead of water). If Rusila is cooking for a special occasion, she will prepare roast chicken, pig, fish, lobster, and octopus. The family eats chicken about one time each week, and they eat pig about one time each month. Food 1. Rusila does most of the cooking, but sometimes has help from Sepesa and their oldest son. Also, when her twenty-three-year-old daughter is home from Vit Levu, she will help Rusila with the cooking. Sometimes she and her husband prepare food together, peeling cassava and other root crops and scaling and cleaning fish. Their seventeen-year-old son usually makes the lovo (on Sundays and for special occasions). They cook sweet potatoes, cassava, via, chicken, and “flour” (balls of flour mixed with coconut milk and shaped like root crops) in the lovo. 2. They reuse the same lovo each time they cook. The household has two different lovo, one that is located 10 m from the house is usually used for making bread and one is located on the beach and is used for root crops and meat. 5. A perfect meal according to Rusila would include fried fish with lolo, curry, and onion, served with sweet potatoes and breadfruit. 6. Rusila snacks all day every day on cassava, yams, sici, katavatu, and raw and fried fish. During fishing expeditions she will snack on nama, fish, and sici. She usually serves her family two meals a day, breakfast and dinner, and she often skips lunch because she is working. She sometimes serves tea in the afternoon with leftover cassava, sweet potatoes, bread, or pancakes. During everyday meals she and her family will all help out, serving and cleaning. For a special occasion she will serve the meal, waiting until everyone else is finished to eat, or she will prepare and serve the meal in the same way with other women. 8. The food rubbish from Rusila’s household is either fed to the pigs and dog or she dumps it into the sea.

Structured Ethnographic Interviews

173

INTERVIEW #14 Name: Marla Age: 48 From: Cicia Favorite fish: matu (Gerres sp.) Household Interviews 1. Six people live in her house (Marla, her husband [forty-eight], her mother-in-law [seventy-two], her daughter [twenty-four], her husband’s brother [forty-two], and a daughter [ten]). The men in the house spend their days gardening, cutting copra, tending livestock, and fishing; they go fishing about one time each week. In the garden they have sweet potatoes, paper mulberry, cassava, dalo, bele, cabbage, cucumbers, watermelons, and pumpkins. The family has nineteen pigs, thirty chickens, and one cow. The women in the house spend their days weaving mats, making and painting masi, cooking, fishing, and washing. The women go fishing about one to two times a week, often with the men, and they spend about three hours each time. They collect katavatu, sici, nama, vivili, and various fishes using spears and hooks with hand lines. 3. Marla goes to the store every day and sometimes two times in one day. She purchases sugar, flour, rice, soap, kerosene, gasoline, and mosquito coils. If Marla had plenty of money to spend at the store, she would buy cola. She prefers Nayau and Narocivo foods to storebought foods. She estimates that about 85 percent of the food she and her family eats is locally produced on Nayau. 4. She says that she eats the same foods that other people in her house eat, except her mother-in-law who is on a special diet and is ill. Marla says that in her house people eat more fish than any other meat and they sometimes eat more fish than starch. In one day Marla can eat about thirty sici. Her favorite shellfish is madrali (Nerita polita). 5. Marla trades masi for Rusila’s fish (one bundle of fish for a bundle of masi). Food 1. All of the women in the house cook. It takes them about two hours to prepare, cook, and serve each meal. Foods that the family eats every day include “boro,” cassava, yams, dalo, and fish. They eat chicken about one time each week; pig on most Sundays, special

174

5. 6.

7. 8.

Appendix B

days, and when there is no fish; and cow only on special occasions, about one time each month. According to Marla, a perfect meal includes sweet and sour fish, pig with root crops. She snacks on cassava in between meals, and she prepares three meals each day. The women in the house eat second, after the men are finished eating. Usually Marla’s twenty-four-year-old daughter serves the food. The men eat the fish heads, and the women eat the tails. When they eat pig, the backbone and leg is for the men (“same thing for the chief”). The same consumption pattern occurs when the family eats chicken, except they throw the chicken head away, “it is rubbish.” If Marla is making food for a special occasion, she will make pig, chop suey, curry, fried fish with lolo curry, garlic, and onion. All of the family’s food refuse is fed to the pigs.

INTERVIEW #15 Name: Susan Age: 49 From: Nayau Favorite fish: kanace (Mullet) Household Interviews 1. Four people live in her house (Susan, her husband [fifty], a son [twenty-two], a daughter [eight]). Her husband spends his days gardening; looking after the pigs, horses, and cow; and cutting copra. In his garden he has uvi, dalo, cassava, sweet potatoes, bananas, and paper mulberry. They have twenty pigs, eighteen chickens, two horses, four cows, and two dogs. She spends her days cooking, weaving mats, making masi, cleaning, washing, and fishing. She fishes three times each week for about two hours at a time. She does not have a net, so she fishes with a hook and hand line and spears. Her husband does not fish. When she fishes, she collects vivili, sici, sea urchins, and sea cucumbers (some of these she eats and some are sold to Salia and then Suva). Her favorite fish is kanace, and her favorite shellfish is sici (of which she eats about seven at a time). 3. She goes to the store one time each day to buy flour, sugar, soap, oil, salt, onion, garlic, and soy sauce. The item she wants the most at the store is kula. She estimates that she gets about 85 percent of her food

Structured Ethnographic Interviews

175

locally and purchases 15 percent of it at the store. She prefers Narocivo food to store-bought food. 4. She eats all of the same things that the other people in her house eat. They eat more crops than meat and more fish than other types of meat. 5. Susan trades her masi for fish from Rusila. Food 1. Foods that people in Susan’s house eat every day include rice, flour, boro, and fish. Susan does all of the cooking with some help from her daughter. She prepares and serves chicken about one time each week, usually on Sundays; the same is true for pig. They rarely eat cow, only on special occasions. For a feast or special occasion Susan will make curry pig, soup, and ika lolo. 5. A perfect meal would include curry chicken and root crops. 6. Susan snacks on mango, bananas, watermelon, and other fruits during the day. She also prepares and serves three meals each day. She serves the food with the help of her daughter. They serve the men first. The men eat all of the fish heads, and then the women eat. The women always eat the tails. 8. All of the food refuse, including bones, from Susana’s household is fed to the pigs.

INTERVIEW #16 Name: Tina Age: 72 From: Nayau Favorite fish: mulu Household Interviews 1. Seven people live in her house (Tina, her husband [seventy], her unmarried daughter [fifty], daughter [eighteen], daughter [sixteen], daughter [eleven], grandson [one]). During the day her husband works in the garden, weeds, and “moce” (sleeps). Their garden has sweet potatoes, cassava, uvi, yams, and dalo. They have seven pigs and twenty chickens. They do not have a dog. During the day Tina spends her time preparing pandanus leaves for mats, weaving, making and painting masi, looking after her grandson, and staying home. She sells her mats and masi to Suva (she sells about five pieces of masi each year, one large and four

176

Appendix B

smaller). Tina does not go fishing, but her daughters go fishing every day except on Sundays. Her daughters will go out for as long as five hours, and many go two times each day. “It is a long walk to the fishing spots.” They fish at the north end of the island, using a hand line and a hook and a spear. They collect sici, kuita, and ika. Her favorite fish is mulu, and her favorite shellfish is sici (she eats about twenty sici a day). 3. She goes to the store two times each day to buy sugar, kerosene, salt, tin meat, noodles, flour, and soap. If she had plenty of money to spend at the store, she would buy flour and kerosene. She prefers Nayau food to store food, but she estimates that about 50 percent of her food comes from the store (“We make a lot of money”). 4. Tina says that everyone in the house eats the same foods. They eat much more crops than meat, especially cassava. 5. She trades masi for fish from Rusila a couple of times each week. Food 1. She does little to no cooking each day (her daughters do most of that). Every day they eat boro, cassava, and lolo. They eat chicken when the weather is bad and they do not have any fish. They eat pig on some Sundays and for special occasions. They only eat cow for special occasions such as weddings and funerals. They prefer to eat fish over other kinds of meat. 5. A perfect meal includes boro with fish and cassava. 6. During the day she snacks on fruit and bu. She eats three meals each day (“My family looks out for me.”). The women in the house eat after the men, but if the men are away, then Tina will eat first, and then she eats the fish head. Her daughters and the girls will serve each meal. The men always eat the back legs, bottom, and head of the pig; the same is true for chicken. 7. For a special meal or a feast Tina will cook curry and ika. 8. All of the household’s food refuse is fed to the pigs.

INTERVIEW #17 Name: Lisa Age: 56 From: Nayau Favorite fish: jivijivi (Chaetodon sp.)

Structured Ethnographic Interviews

177

Household Interviews 1. Five people live in her house (Lisa, her son [thirty-seven], daughter [forty], son [ten], daughter [nine]). Her husband just died last month. During the day she makes and paints masi, prepares pandanus leaves and weaves mats, cooks, watches after the kids, and fishes. She goes fishing about three times each week for about four hours at a time (to places near and far from the village). She uses a hook and hand line and a spear and collects nama, sici, ika and vivili. Her sons go fishing sometimes and use a spear gun, other times they fish with Rusila and Sepesa, using nets. Her son has a garden where he grows uvi, sweet potatoes, bananas, paper mulberry, cassava, and dalo. The family has twelve pigs, two horses, one cow, twenty chickens, and one dog. 3. Lisa goes to the store two times each day. She purchases flour, sugar, kerosene, soap, rice, and tea. Sought after items at the store are soap, sugar, and hair dye. She estimates that 70 percent of the food she and her family consumes is locally produced, and 30 percent comes from the shop. She says that she prefers Nayau foods to store foods. Lisa has money because her daughter is the Telecom agent for Narocivo and they have a phone in their vale levu. 4. Foods her family consumes each day are vegetables [meaning root crops], lolo, cassava, ika, and sweet potatoes. Lisa says that she and everyone else in the house eat the same foods. They all eat more crops, especially cassava, than meat. She sometimes trades masi for bundles of Rusila’s fish. Her favorite fish is jivijivi (Chaetodon sp.), and her favorite shellfish is sici (she likes to eat about ten to fifteen of these each day). They eat chicken when the weather is bad and they cannot get any fish, or on Sundays and for special occasions. They eat pig, roasted and/or with curry lolo about one time each week. Cow is reserved for special occasions only. Food 5. A perfect meal would include ika lolo and fried fish with onion and garlic. 6. She eats three meals each day and snacks on bread, scones, and pancakes. 7. Meals for feasts and special occasions such as weddings include vegetables (an abundance of root crops) with fish, dalo, cassava, and curry soup. She eats after men when they are present at meal times. The men eat the fish heads, and she and the other women eat the tails. 8. All of their household food refuse is fed to the pig.

178

Appendix B

INTERVIEWS #18 AND #19 Names: Betty and Cindy (twins) Age: 71 From: Nayau, Narocivo Village Favorite fish: mulu, kanace, bose This interview was with identical twins; they were both married, but their husbands are now dead and they live together with their nephew who is also widowed. Household Interviews 1. Three people live in their house (the twins and their nephew [fiftytwo]). Their nephew spends his day in the garden, feeding pigs and caring for the livestock, and fishing. In his garden he grows cassava, sweet potatoes, bele, and cabbage. They have “five pigs, fifteen chickens (“plus kids”), one cow, two horses, and no koli [dog].” The twins spend their days cooking, cleaning, mat making, making and painting masi, and fishing. They go fishing about three times each week for a few hours at a time. They look for kai (bivalves) and vivili especially. They go out at low tide and return at high tide, usually walking to the inshore area just in front of the village or to the southeast, by the washing area. They pick shellfish and collect nama, sici, kai, things that are soft and easy to eat. [They are both missing many teeth and have “tender teeth.”] 3. They go to the store, but rarely. When they do, they buy kerosene, flour, sugar, soap, and tin fish. The item that they want to buy at the store, if they had unlimited funds, is kula. They trade masi for bundles of Rusila’s fish. They prefer Nayau food to store foods, but they like both. More than 95 percent of the food that they eat is locally produced. They sell their mats and masi to Suva to make money. They make about four mats each a year and sell them for $8 to $10 a piece. They also sell their masi to the Narocivo store for $0.60/square meter. 4. Everyone in the house eats the same things, but one of the sisters has high blood pressure and she eats more rice and flour. They all eat more crops than meat, and they eat a lot of kai. Food 1. The twins do all of the cooking. It takes them about one hour to prepare and cook each meal.

Structured Ethnographic Interviews

179

5. A perfect meal would include ika vakalolo. 6. They eat three meals each day and snack on leftovers, cassava, buns, and pancakes in between meals. When the weather is bad they eat chicken or pig; usually, they only eat these on Sundays. They only eat cow when there are special events in the village, such as weddings or funerals. When they are eating with their nephew sometimes they eat together, other times he comes late and they have eaten first. Sometimes they eat the fish heads, and sometimes he does. They serve the food. 7. Feast foods that they cook include: curry soup, ika lolo, and boro. 8. All of the food refuse from this household is fed to the chickens and the pigs.

INTERVIEW #20 Name: Sera Age: 61 From: Nayau, Salia Village Favorite fish: kawakawa Sera is the wife of the acting chief of one of the villages. The village chief, the Tui, is often in Suva, and thus many of the political responsibilities fall on to Sera’s husband. She comes from a high-ranked family in Salia, related to the most recent Tui Devo line—her father was the last Tui Devo, and her brother is one of the highest-ranked men in Salia. Sally, married to the Turaga ni Koro of the village is her daughter. She and her husband live in a large “fancy” concrete block house that has carpet, tile, velvet couches, a recliner, and other modern conveniences. Their house is located at the north end of Narocivo Village and is directly inland from high chief’s bure. Household Interviews 1. Two people live in her house, Sera and her husband, age sixty-seven. He is the uncle of the village chief and thus “sits next to the Tui.” He is the acting chief of the village when Tui is away (which is most of the year). Sera explains that her husband spends his days sitting, eating, bathing, and sometimes gardening, “but no fishing.” They get most of the crops they eat from her son’s garden and from their sonin-law’s garden (especially cassava). They have twenty-two pigs, more than twenty chickens, five cows, and one dog. Sera spends her days making masi and mats, cooking, cleaning, and fishing. She fishes about one time each month. Occasionally

180

Appendix B

she will go fishing with Rusila and uses a net. She will go for about two hours at a time, using a net, hand line, or a spear. She goes out at low tide and returns when it gets high. She collects small vivili and sici. 3. Sera goes to the store every day. She purchases flour, sugar, and rice. Sometimes she buys gasoline because her son has a fiberglass [boat with an outboard engine]. Also they have a TV, a video player, a stove and an oven, all of which run off a generator that needs fuel. Sera has three children that live in Suva and send her plenty of things from the stores there. She gets all of her kerosene from Suva and much of the food that she and her husband eat. She only occasionally purchases small items from the village store—“Because I get many things from my daughter and sons in Suva, there is nothing here that we want or need from the store.” They prefer Suva food to Nayau food. Sera estimates that about 80 percent of her food comes from Suva and 20 percent comes from Nayau. 4. Her husband eats different foods than she does; he eats less starch and no butter. Her favorite fish is kawakawa, her husband prefers kabatia. Her favorite shellfish is vasua (Tridacna sp.). 5. She usually does not trade or sell food, although if they want to eat fish, she may exchange some of her masi for Rusila’s fish. Food 1. Both she and her husband cook, they eat three meals each day. She estimates that the total preparation and cooking time for each meal is two hours. [This estimate seems very high to me since much of their food is packaged.] Every day they eat cassava and vegetables (root crops). They eat chicken about one time each month and the same with pig. They eat ika every day. 5. Sera says that a perfect meal should include bread. 6. She snacks on food all day, including leftovers from breakfast. She serves the food, but does not eat after her husband, they eat together. He eats the fish heads. 7. Food that she will prepare for a feast includes cow, pig, yams, and dalo. 8. All of their food refuse is fed to the pigs. The day I visited Sera and conducted this interview she was fighting with her daughter-in-law and her son. Sera’s son caught a turtle and did not offer any part of it to his father, including the head. They were greatly offended.

Structured Ethnographic Interviews

181

INTERVIEW #21 Name: Verna Age: 73 From: Tuvuca Favorite fish: kawakawa Household Interviews 1. Verna lives alone in her house. Her husband is dead. She spends her days weaving, fishing, making masi, and washing. She does not cook. She obtains garden foods from her son-in-law (especially cassava). He has thirty pigs, twenty chickens, two cows, and one dog. Her son-in-law tends to these animals. Verna goes fishing one to two times each week and stays out for about five or six hours at a time, from morning to afternoon and from low tide through high tide. She fishes in front of the village and to the north. Sometimes Rusila takes her to Lawaki (the point at the north end of the island and north of Narocivo village). She collects kai, sici, vivili, and kamakama. She uses a line, spear, and a net when she is with Rusila. 3. She goes to the store about one time each day and sometimes two times in one day. She purchases tobacco, flour, sugar, noodles, tin cow, tin fish, and kula. The items that she would like to buy more of, if she had the money, are “kula and foods.” She likes both Nayau foods and store-bought foods. She estimates that about 85 to 90 percent of her food is locally produced. 4. She eats more starches and crops than meats. She especially eats a lot of cassava. Her favorite fish is kawakawa, and her favorite shellfish is sici (she eats about six of these each day). 5. She trades her masi for Rusila’s fish. She does not sell her mats to Suva—“They are for local ceremonies only.” She does sell masi to Suva, about one piece each year.

Food 1. All of the cooking is done by her daughter—“I am too old.” Foods that she eats every day include: “cassava with vegetables and lolo, ika, and tin fish.” She eats chicken in bad weather, when she cannot get fish, and on some Sundays. She eats pig when there is a ceremony in the village and cow when it is someone’s birthday or there is a funeral.

182

Appendix B

5. A perfect meal according to Verna includes cassava, vegetables (root crops), and fish lolo. 6. Sometimes she eats three meals, and other days she skips lunch. She snacks during the day on tea, bu, and bananas. She eats with her son-in-law; they eat at the same time while her daughter serves the food. Sometimes she eats the fish heads, and other times she eats the tails. 7. Feast foods include ika, vegetables, cow, pig (roasted and vakalolo). 8. All of her food refuse is fed to the pigs by her son-in-law and her grandson. Q: Who taught you to fish? A: On Tuvuca my big mother taught me to fish; she is now dead.

INTERVIEW #22 Name: Sue Age: 78 From: Nayau, Narocivo Village Favorite fish: kanace and saqa Sue is the daughter of the last Tui Naro. She married in the same village where she grew up. Household Interviews 1. Six people live in her house (she and her husband [seventy-seven], son [forty-seven], son [forty], grandson [eighteen], granddaughter [eighteen]). The men in her house spend the day, “weeding and staying home.” They get crops from her son’s garden. He plants cassava, sweet potatoes, uvi, bananas, via, dalo, and the highland variety of dalo. They have “twenty pigs, two big chickens, two cows, one horse, and four dogs.” During the day she prepares pandanus leaves, weaves mats, cooks, and washes. She does not fish. 3. She goes to the store every day. She purchases sugar, kerosene, soap, matches, tobacco, flour, and rice. Sought after items are linoleum (“carpet”) and any imports. She prefers store foods to Nayau foods. She estimates that about 80 percent of the food she eats comes from the store and only 20 percent comes from Nayau. She gets Social Welfare money from Suva to pay for these store items.

Structured Ethnographic Interviews

183

She sells about two or three mats each year to Suva and about three or four pieces of masi. She sometimes trades her masi to Rusila for fish. 4. She says that all of the people in the house eat the same things. Her favorite fish are kanace and saqa. Her favorite shellfish is katavatu. Food 1. She cooks for her husband each day, spending about one hour to prepare and cook each meal. They eat three meals each day. She also snacks on tea and buns. Foods that they eat every day include tea and cassava, “especially cassava.” They don’t eat chicken very often and “sometimes eat a little pig on Sundays especially.” 5. A perfect meal would include sweet potatoes and fish. She eats together with her husband; they eat at the same time. She serves the food and sits by the door, and he eats the heads of the fish while she eats the tails. 7. Feast foods include fish, pig, curry, lolo, cassava, uvi, and chop suey. 8. All of their food rubbish, including bones, are fed to the pigs, chickens, and dogs. At the end of this interview Sue said to Rusila, “I am so excited, I don’t know what to say to her, I want to meke! (dance)” She then proceeded to do a little dance for me while I took her picture and her husband stood silently beside her. INTERVIEW #23 Name: Pam Age: 53 Favorite fish: kanace Household Interviews 1. Four people live in her house (Pam, her daughter [twelve], grandson [six], and grandson [two]). Her husband is dead. She spends her days “weaving mats, making and painting masi, sewing, cleaning, washing, cooking, caring for the kids, talking to friends and relatives, and some other village work.” She sells her mats and masi to Suva, about five each a year. She gets her crops from men in the village who are related to her. They give her “some

184

Appendix B

of what they have.” Her husband’s brother keeps her pigs and other livestock. She has many pigs, twenty chickens, one horse, and two dogs. She sends money to her daughter in Suva for school fees. She sews clothes and trades them for some masi and money. She does not go fishing. Other people in the house go; for example, sometimes her daughter will go fishing with Rusila. 3. She goes to the store every day and purchases things on credit; her kids pay. She buys flour, sugar, tin fish, kerosene, and soap. The items she wants most at the store are flour and sugar. She prefers Nayau food to store-bought foods. About 90 percent of the food she eats is produced locally. Sometimes she trades masi for Rusila’s fish. 4. She eats much the same foods as other people in the house, but she does not eat oil or butter. Her favorite fish is kanace and her favorite shellfish is katavatu. Food 1. Sometimes her daughter cooks, but most often she does the cooking, making three meals each day. The preparation time for one meal is about fifteen minutes, and the cooking time is about the same or one half hour. Foods that they eat every day include cassava, rice, crops (especially yams). They eat chicken on some Sundays or during bad weather when they cannot get fish. They eat pig on special occasions and on Sundays. She eats cow on special occasions and birthdays. 5. The perfect meal would include rice, sweet potatoes, fish, and curry chicken. 6. She snacks around 10:00 a.m. each day on breakfast leftovers. She eats at the same time as the other people in the house, the kids; and sometimes the kids eat first. She always serves the food. 7. Feast foods include curry, soup, and chop suey. 8. All of her household food refuse is either fed to the pigs or she throws it in the ocean. This includes bones.

INTERVIEW #24 Name: Donna Age: 75 From: Nayau, Narocivo Village Favorite fish: kawakawa and mulu

Structured Ethnographic Interviews

185

Household Interviews 1. Three people live in Donna’s house (Donna, her son [forty-five], and his wife [forty]). During the day her son takes care of the animals, gardens, and cuts copra; sometimes he goes fishing with Rusila and Sepesa. They have two horses (one mother and one colt), twenty pigs, six cows, and two goats. He grows cassava, dalo, banana, via, uvi, and sweet potatoes. During the day she weaves mats, prepares pandanus leaves, but does not cook or fish or make masi. “My son wants me to sit here all day and not work.” She sometimes sells her mats to Suva or trades them and/or pandanus leaves. She does not fish. She stopped fishing five years ago, when she was seventy years old. 3. Donna goes to the store daily to purchase flour, biscuits, rice, sugar, soap, and kerosene. If she had money to buy anything at the store, she would buy corned beef. She prefers Nayau foods to store-bought foods. She especially likes “fish and chips” (this is deep fried fish that is breaded). Most of the foods she eats are produced locally (85 to 90 percent); the rest come from the store. 4. She says that she eats the same foods as other people in the house. They eat more crops than meat, “especially cassava and dalo.” She sometimes trades her masi for Rusila’s fish. Her favorite fish are kawakawa and mulu. Her favorite shellfish is kuku (Modiolus sp.). Food 1. Sometimes she uses her stove to cook for herself. Foods she eats every day are fish, cassava, and tin fish. She eats chicken when the weather is bad and she cannot get fish and on Sundays. She eats pig on some Sundays and on special occasions and cow at weddings and for special occasions. 5. A perfect meal would include noodles, cow, and fish. 6. She usually eats three meals a day and snacks during the day on melon and beans. She eats with her son and is served by either her daughter-in-law (usually) or her son (less often). 7. Feast foods include pig, fish, and cow. 8. All of her food rubbish is fed to the pigs by her son. INTERVIEW #25 Name: Sharon Age: 29 From: Tuvuca Favorite fish: kanace

186

Appendix B

Household Interviews 1. Five people live in Sharon’s house (Sharon, her husband [forty], daughter [eight], son [three], daughter [two]). During the day her husband fishes, works in the garden, cuts copra, collects wood, and feeds the pigs. Crops her husband plants include paper mulberry, cassava, coconut, eggplant, sweet potatoes, dalo, bele, cabbage, and melon. They have six pigs, ten chickens, and one dog. During the day Sharon spends her time fishing, making and painting masi, looking after the kids, cleaning, washing, and cooking. She goes fishing about three times each week, sometimes she goes alone (using a spear or a hook and hand line) and other times she will join Rusila and Sepesa and use nets. When she fishes she will stay out for about six hours, and she always goes to the north side of Narocivo. She collects: vivili, sici, ululoa, bose (Scarus sp.), ikaloa (Acanthurus sp.), and kanace. She likes to eat sici, and may eat twenty in one day. She learned to fish when she was very young, from her mother on Tuvuca. 3. Sharon goes to the store about one time each week to purchase four, sugar, rice, kerosene, soap, pots, pillowcases, and mosquito nets. The item she wants the most from the store is flour. She prefers Nayau foods to store bought foods, and she estimates that more than 90 percent of the food her family eats is locally produced. 4. She says that everyone in her house eats the same foods. They eat more crops than meat. Sometimes Sharon will trade her masi for Rusila’s fish, other times she will buy fish from Rusila. Kanace is her favorite fish because it is fat and has a big head. Her “favorite shellfish is vivili” (general shellfish). Food 1. Both she and her husband cook, but she does most of it. She spends about fifteen minutes cooking each meal, preparation time is more variable depending on what she is cooking. Every day they eat cassava and fish. They eat chicken about one time each week and pig on special Sundays. 5. A perfect meal would include fish and octopus vakalolo. 6. She prepares and eats two or three meals each day, sometimes skipping lunch and snacking between meals. She snacks on tea, fruit, and melon. She and her husband eat together; she does not eat after he has finished. Her husband eats the heads of the fish, and she and her daughter serve the food and sit by the door. 7. The most important feast food is pig, roasted, cooked in lolo and/or curry.

Structured Ethnographic Interviews

187

8. All of their household food refuse, including bones, is fed to the pigs by her husband.

INTERVIEW #26 Name: Sally Age: 42 From: Nayau, Narocivo Village Favorite fish: kabatia Sally is the daughter of Sera and the acting chief of the village. She is married to the village Turaga ni Koro (the locally elected village headman and government representative) and thus has countless social obligations. Sally is from a high-ranking family and greatly values generosity and large displays of giving. When she serves a meal to anyone, including her immediate family, it is always a formal sit-down affair where there is so much food that it would be impossible to eat it all. She always prepares a beverage (juice, punch, or tea) to accompany a meal and follows the meal up with tea service. Household Interviews 1. Six people live in Sally’s house (Sally, her husband [forty-seven], son [seventeen], daughter [thirteen], son [nine], son [five]). Sally’s husband spends his days gardening, making lovo (each morning for bread), feeding the pigs and tending to the livestock, fishing, working in the store and for the Telecommunications Company, and he is the Turaga ni Koro. In his garden he grows yams, sweet potatoes, dalo, melon, cassava, eggplant, corn, and papaya. They have nineteen pigs, one horse, two cows, ten chickens, and two dogs. Sally spends her days weaving mats, cooking, washing, making and painting masi, looking after the kids, and fishing. She also spends many days taking care of guests who stay with the Turaga ni Koro. Often, Sally and her husband will have visitors staying in their house for months at a time. She feeds the guests three meals each day plus tea with baked goods. Her social obligations are great compared to other women in the village. Sally goes fishing about two times each week, staying out for an hour or two at a time. She often fishes with other women, using a net, or she fishes alone and uses a hook and hand line. Her husband has a large net (over 30 m long). When she fishes, she collects ika, sici,

188

Appendix B

kuita, and sea cucumbers. She likes to eat sici and may consume twenty in a sitting. 3. Sally goes to the store about three times each week to buy flour, sugar, matches, onion, curry, steel wool, tea, kerosene, soap, and gas (she does much of her cooking on a gas stove). If she had lots of money to buy things at the store, she would buy cement, tin roofing, and kula. She prefers Nayau foods to store-bought foods and estimates that about 85 to 90 percent of the food her family eats is locally produced. 4. She says that everyone in her household eats the same foods. They eat more crops/root vegetables than meat. Sally’s favorite fish is kabatia, and her favorite shellfish is sici. Her husband’s favorite fish is Goatfish. 5. She does not trade or sell food, although she does exchange food (gives and receives “gifts” of food) with her sister and brother-inlaw, her mother, and with friends (e.g., Rusila and Sepesa). Food 1. Sally does all of the cooking, and her husband makes a lovo (almost every day for bread). She prepares and eats three meals each day. It takes her about thirty minutes to cook a meal and the same or more to prepare it, depending on what she is cooking. Foods the family eats every day are cassava, ika, and tea. They eat chicken one time a week or more and pig once each week, often on Sundays. Cow is reserved for special occasions. 5. A perfect meal would include boiled fish with lolo and root crops. 6. Sally’s family snacks during the day, but she does not. Snacks include corn, cassava, tea, watermelon, and bread. Sally serves each meal, sometimes with her thirteen-year-old daughter’s help. She may eat with her husband, but usually waits for him to finish. He always eats the fish heads; he also eats the legs and backbone of pigs and chickens, and sometimes the head. She eats the fish tails. 7. For feasts and special occasions she will prepare curry, chop suey, pig, cow, and soup. 8. All of the family’s food rubbish is fed to the pigs and dogs by her husband.

INTERVIEW #27 Name: Midge Age: 26 From: Tuvuca Favorite fish: tabace ni toga (Acanthurus guttatus)

Structured Ethnographic Interviews

189

When I conducted this interview, Midge’s husband and his mother were present. This is the first interview I conducted where a man was present. He sat between his wife and me, but off to the side, with his back partially turned away from me, and his arms crossed against his chest. He was attempting to appear disinterested, but it was obvious that he wanted to be involved (also, ignoring me was a sign of respect, he has always “respected” me in this way). As the interview progressed, his posture relaxed, and he took an increasing role and began to say things to both his wife and myself. I feel like this interview is more biased than the others because he was there, asserting himself, and he has a strong, dominant personality in his relationship with his wife (this is also based on watching them interact). Midge said very little during the interview, but kept bringing bowls of food for us (Rusila and me) to eat. When we would partially finish something, she would leave and come back with more food. When Midge was a teenager (about fifteen years old), her parents died crossing from Tuvuca to Nayau in a wooden canoe. From that point on she lived with her older sister, who was married in Salia. Midge never learned to make mats or masi from her mother, or anyone else. Household Interviews 1. Three people live in her house (Midge, her husband [forty], and their one-year-old son). Her husband spends his days gardening, fishing, and cutting copra. In his garden he grows cassava, dalo, uvi, wild yams, bele, cabbagae, and sweet potatoes. They do not have any pigs, or cows; they have one chicken and one horse. He goes out fishing every day with other men from the village, or with Sepesa and Rusila at Raviravi. He does not have a net, but takes part in fishing expeditions where nets are used. Midge spends her days taking care of her son, cooking, washing, and sleeping. She does not do much fishing, and she does not know how to make mats or masi. Occasionally, about one time each week, she will go collecting sici and nama on the reef, using a spear. She may eat five sici in a sitting. When she goes fishing, she only stays out for about one half hour at a time (she does not like to leave her child). 3. Midge goes to the store about two times each week and purchases rice, flour, soap, biscuits, kerosene, sugar, and tobacco. Sought after items include: yaqona, tobacco, and sugar. She prefers Nayau food to store-bought food and estimates that more than 90 percent of the food her family eats is locally produced. 4. She says that everyone in her house eats the same foods. She does not trade or sell foods. Her favorite fish is tabace ni toga, and her favorite shellfish is sici. Her husband’s favorite fish is saqa.

190

Appendix B

Food 1. Midge does all of the food preparation and cooking in her home. It takes her about an hour to prepare each meal. Every day they eat yams and fish. They may eat chicken on Sundays and only eat pig when there is a special occasion in the village (“only for weddings”). 5. According to Midge, a perfect meal would include coconut crab. 6. She prepares three meals each day and also snacks in between meals (on bu, bananas, fruit, papayas). She serves her husband first and eats when he is finished, unless he is away, then she will eat first. He always eats the fish heads, and she eats the tails. If they are eating pig, she will eat the tail and the leg. “In Liku the head of the pig is for the husband” [and the chief], she explained. 7. If Midge is preparing food for a feast, she will cook curry, soup, stew, cow, and fish. 8. All of the household’s food rubbish is fed to her husband’s brother’s pigs.

NOTE 1. All of the names of the people I interviewed have been changed to protect their identities. The only exceptions to this are my primary informant Rusila, and her husband, Sepesa. These interviews were conducted with the approval of the IRB and I used a standardized, IRB-approved consent form in association with the questions, information, and discussions that are documented in this appendix. The women interviewed all agreed to allow me to use their real names, but I have chosen not to include this information. Moreover, many of the women were very excited to have their information included in my study and in a book. All of them offered to let me take a portrait of them in their homes, and some of the pictures appear in this book. The numbers given next to each response refer back to the specific interview question.

Bibliography

Agorsah, Emmanuel Kofi. 1990. “Ethnoarchaeology: The Search for a SelfCorrective Approach to the Study of Past Human Behaviour.” African Archaeological Review 8:189–208. Allen, Melinda S. 2006. “New Ideas about Late Holocene Climate Variability in the Central Pacific.” Current Anthropology 47:521–35. Anderson, A., and G. Clark. 1999. “The Age of Lapita Settlement in Fiji.” Archaeology in Oceania 34:31–39. Ascher, R. 1961. “Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17:317–25. Aucoin, Pauline Karen McKenzie. 2002. Gender and the Politics of Meaning in Western Viti Levu, Fiji. Ottawa: National Library of Canada. Bahn, Paul. 1989. Bluff Your Way in Archaeology. Horsham, UK: Ravette Books Ltd. Bayliss-Smith, Tim, Richard Bedford, Harold Brookfield, and Marc Latham. 1988. Islands, Islanders and the World: The Colonial and Post-colonial Experience of Eastern Fiji. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Becker, Anne E. 1995. Body, Self and Society: A View from Fiji. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bell, F. L. 1931. “Place of Food in the Social Life of Central Polynesia.” Oceania 2:117–35. Best, Simon. 1984. “Lakeba: The Prehistory of a Fijian Island.” Ph.D. diss., University of Auckland, New Zealand. ———. 1987. “Long Distance Obsidian Travel and Possible Implications for the Settlement of Fiji.” Archaeology in Oceania 22:31–32. ———. 2002. Lapita: A View from the East. New Zealand Archaeological Association Monograph 24. Auckland: New Zealand Archaeological Association. Binford, Lewis R. 1967. “Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning.” American Antiquity 32:1–12. 191

192

Bibliography

———. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press. Bird, Douglas W., and Rebecca Bliege Bird. 2000. “The Ethnoarchaeology of Juvenile Foragers: Shellfishing Strategies among Meriam Children.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19:461–76. Bird, Douglas W., Jennifer L. Richardson, Peter M. Veth, and Anthony J. Barham. 2002. “Explaining Shellfish Variability in Middens on the Meriam Islands, Torres Strait, Australia.” Journal of Archaeological Science 29:457–69. Birks, L. 1973. “Archaeological Excavations at the Sigatoka Dune Site, Fiji.” Bulletin of the Fiji Museum No. 1. Suva: Fiji Museum. Boas, Franz. 1964 [1888]. The Central Eskimo. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Bowser, Barbara. 2000. “From Pottery to Politics: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Political Factionalism, Ethnicity and Domestic Pottery Style in the Ecuadorian Amazon.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7 (3): 219–48. Brewis, Alexandra. 1996. Lives on the Line: Women and Ecology on a Pacific Atoll. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Bronk Ramsey, Christopher. 1995. “Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: The OxCal program.” Radiocarbon 37 (2): 425–30. Butler, V. 1994. “Fish Feeding Behavior and Fish Capture: The Case for Variation in Lapita Fishing Strategies.” Archaeology in Oceania 29 (2): 81–90. Capell, A. 1984 [1941]. A New Fijian Dictionary. Suva, Fiji: Government Printer. Chang, K. C. 1967. “Major Aspects of the Interrelationship of Archaeology and Ethnology.” Current Anthropology 8:227–43. Clark, Geoffrey R. 1999. “Post-Lapita Fiji: Cultural Transformations in the Midsequence.” Ph.D. diss., Australian National University, Canberra. Clark, Geoffrey, Atholl Anderson, and Sepeti Matararaba. 2001. “The Lapita Site at Votua, Northern Lau Islands, Fiji.” Archaeology in Oceania 36:134–45. Clark, Geoffrey, and Geoffrey Hope. 2001. “Archaeological and Palaeoenvironmental Investigations on Yacata Island, Northern Lau, Fiji.” Domodomo 13 (2): 29–47. Clark, Sharri R. 2004. “Representing the Indus Body: Sex, Gender, Sexuality, and the Anthropomorphic Terracotta Figurines from Harappa.” Asian Perspectives 42 (2): 304–29. Clunie, Fergus. 2003 [1977]. Fijian Weapons and Warfare. Suva: The Fiji Museum. Colin, P. L., and C. Arneson. 1995. Tropical Pacific Invertebrates: A Field Guide to the Marine Invertebrates Occurring on Tropical Pacific Coral Reefs, Seagrass Beds and Mangroves. Beverley Hills, CA: Coral Reef Press. Conkey, Margaret W. 1989. “The Place of Material Culture in Contemporary Anthropology.” Pp. 13–31 in Perspectives on Anthropological Collections from the American Southwest: Proceedings of a Symposium. Anthropological Research Papers, Number 40, ed. A. L. Hedlund. Tucson: Arizona State University Press. Corr, Rachel. 2002. “Reciprocity, Communion, and Sacrifice: Food in Andean Ritual and Social Life.” Food and Foodways 10 (1): 1–25. Cunningham, Jerimy J. 2003. “Transcending the ‘Obnoxious Spectator’: A Case for Processual Pluralism in Ethnoarchaeology.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22:389–410. D’Arcy, Paul. 2006. The People of the Sea: Environment, Ideology, and History in Oceania. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Bibliography

193

David, Nicholas. 1992. “Integrating Ethnoarchaeology: A Subtle Realist Perspective.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11:330–59. David, Nicholas, and Carol Kramer. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davidson, Janet, Foss Leach, and Christophe Sand. 2002. “Three Thousand Years of Fishing in New Caledonia and the Loyalty Islands.” Pp. 153–64 in Fifty Years in the Field. Essays in Honour and Celebration of Richard Shutler Jr.’s Archaeological Career. New Zealand Archaeological Association Monograph 25, ed. S. Bedford, C. Sand, and D. Burley. Auckland: New Zealand Archaeological Association. Deverell, B. 1986. “Introduction.” Pp. iv–ix in Pacific Rituals: Living or Dying? ed. G. Deverell and B. Deverell. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pacific Studies of the University of the South Pacific. Douglas, Mary. 1975. “Deciphering a Meal.” Pp. 249–75 in Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology, ed. M. Douglas. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Dye, Thomas S. 1983. “Fish and Fishing on Niutoputapu, Tonga.” Oceania 53:243–71. Eliade, M. 1959. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. New York: Harcort Brace Jovanovich. Fewkes J. W. 1900. “Tuseyan Migration Traditions.” In Bureau of American Ethnology, 19th Annual Report. Washington DC: Bureau of American Ethnology. Field, Julie S. 2004. “Environmental and Climatic Considerations: A Hypothesis for Conflict and the Emergence of Social Complexity in Fijian Prehistory.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23:79–99. Fiji Government. 2004. Electronic Document, www.met.gov.fj/climate_fiji.html (accessed May 17, 2004). Firth, Raymond. 1936. We, the Tikopia. London: George Allen and Unwin. ———. 1965. Primitive Polynesian Economy. London: Routledge. ———. 1967. The Work of the Gods in Tikopia. New York: Athlone Press. Froese, R., and D. Pauly, eds. 2004. Fishbase, version 03/2004. www.fishbase.org/ search.cfm (accessed March 25, 2004). Gailey, C. 1987. Kinship to Kingship: Gender Hierarchy and State Formation in the Tongan Islands. Austin: University of Texas Press. Gero, Joan M., and Margaret W. Conkey, eds. 1991. Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane P. 1993. “Gaps in Zooarchaeological Analysis of Butchery: Is Gender an Issue?” Pp.181–99 in From Bones to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Contributions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains. Occasional Paper Number 12, ed. Jean Hudson. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. ———. 1997. “Gender and Early Pastoralists in East Africa.” Pp. 115–37 in Gender in African Archaeology, ed. Susan Kent. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Gilchrist, R. 1999. Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past. New York: Routledge. Goldman, I. 1970. Ancient Polynesian Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Goodenough, W. 1963. Cooperation in Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Gosliner, T. M., D. Behrens, and G. Williams. 1996. Coral Reef Animals of the IndoPacific. Monterey, CA: A Sea Challengers Publication.

194

Bibliography

Gould, Richard A., and Patty Jo Watson. 1982. “A Dialogue on the Meaning and Use of Analogy in Ethnoarchaeological Reasoning.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:355–81. Green, Roger C. 1963. “A Suggested Revision of the Fiji Sequence.” Journal of the Polynesian Society 72:235–53. ———. 1979. “Early Lapita Art from Polynesia and Island Melanesia: Continuities in Ceramic, Barkcloth, and Tattoo Decorations.” Pp. 13–31 in Exploring the Visual Art of Oceania: Australia, Melanesia, and Polynesia, ed. S. M. Mead. Honolulu: University Press of Hawai’i. ———. 1986. “Lapita Fishing: The Evidence of Site SE-RF-2 from the Main Reef Islands, Santa Cruz Group, Solomons.” Pp. 13–35 in Traditional Fishing in the Pacific, ed. A. Anderson. Pacific Anthropological Records 37. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Halapua, Sitiveni. 1982. Fishermen of Tonga: Their Means of Survival. Suva, Fiji: University of the South Pacific. Halperin, Rhoda H. 1998. Practicing Community: Class, Culture, and Power in an Urban Neighborhood. Austin: University of Texas Press. Handy, E. S. Craighill. 1927. Polynesian Religion. B. P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 34. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Heckenberger, Michael J. 2002. “Rethinking the Arawak Diaspora: Hierarchy, Regionality, and the Amazonian Formative.” Pp. 99–122 in Comparative Arawakan Histories: Rethinking Language Family and Culture Area in Amazonia, ed. J. Hill and F. Santos-Granero. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ———. 2006 The Ecology of Power: Culture Place and Personhood in the Southern Amazon. New York: Routledge. Hocart, A. M. n.d. Manuscript Document #269, “The Windward Islands of Fiji.” Manuscript original of The Lau Islands, Fiji, photocopy typescript for Bishop Museum Bulletin 62 (1929). Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. ———. 1929. The Lau Islands, Fiji. B. P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 62. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. ———. 1970 [1936]. Kings and Councillors. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Hodder, Ian. 1986. “From Ethnoarchaeology to Material Culture Studies.” Dialoghi Di Archaeologia 3 (1): 93–97. Hudson, Jean. 1993. From Bones to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Contributions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains. Occasional Paper 21. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, Center for Archaeological Investigations. Hunt, Terry L. 1986. “Conceptual and Substantive Issues in Fijian Prehistory.” Pp. 20–32 in Island Societies: Archaeological Approaches to Evolution and Transformation, ed. P. V. Kirch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1987. “Patterns of Human Interaction and Evolutionary Divergence in the Fiji Islands.” Journal of the Polynesian Society 96:299–334. ———.1988. “Graph Theoretic Network Models for Lapita Exchange: A Trial Application.” Pp. 135–56 in Archaeology of the Lapita Culture Complex: A Critical Review. Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum Research Report 5, ed. Patrick V. Kirch and Terry L. Hunt. Seattle: Burke State Museum Press. Janes, Robert. 1983. Archaeological Ethnography among Mackenzie Basin Dene, Canada. Technical Paper 28. Calgary: Arctic Institute of North America.

Bibliography

195

Johannes, R. E. 1981. Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and Marine Lore in the Palau District of Micronesia. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jones, S. 2007. “Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Environments of Fiji’s Lau Group: Current Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Research.” The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 2 (2): 239–44. Jones, S., D. W. Steadman, and P. O’Day. 2007. “Archaeological Investigations on the Small Islands of Aiwa Levu and Aiwa Lailai, Lau Group, Fiji.” The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 2:72–98. Kay, Allison E. 1979. Hawaiian Marine Shells: Reef and Shore Fauna of Hawaii, Section 4: Mollusca. Burnice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 64 (4). Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Keating, Elizabeth. 1998. Power Sharing: Language, Rank, Gender and Social Space in Pohnpei Micronesia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2000. “Moments of Hierarchy: Constructing Social Stratification by Means of Language, Food, Space, and the Body in Pohnpei, Micronesia.” American Anthropologist 102 (2): 303–20. Kirch, Patrick V. 2000. On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands before European Contact. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 2001. “Polynesian Feasting in Ethnohistoric, Ethnographic, and Archaeological Contexts: A Comparison of Three Societies.” Pp. 168–84 in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. M. Dietler and B. Hayden. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Kirch, Patrick V., and T. S. Dye. 1979. “Ethno-archaeology and the Development of Polynesian Fishing Strategies.” Journal of the Polynesian Society 88:53–76. Kirch, Patrick V., and Roger C. Green. 1987. “History, Phylogeny, and Evolution in Polynesia.” Current Anthropology 28:431–56. ———. 2001. Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia: An Essay in Historical Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirch, Patrick V., and Sharyn Jones O’Day. 2003. “New Archaeological Insights into Food and Status: A Case Study from Pre-contact Hawai’i.” World Archaeology 34 (3): 484–97. Kleindienst, Maxine, and Patty Jo Watson. 1956. “Action Archaeology: The Archaeological Inventory of a Living Community.” Anthropology Tomorrow 5:75–78. Kumar, R., P. D. Nunn, J. S. Field, and A. DeBiran. 2006. “Human Responses to Climate Change around AD 1300: A Case Study of the Sigatoka Valley, Viti Levu Island, Fiji.” Quaternary International 115:133–43. Ladd, H. S., and J. E. Hoffmeister, eds. 1945. Geology of Lau, Fiji. B. P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 181. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Lawson, Stephanie. 1997. “Chiefs, Politics, and the Power of Tradition in Contemporary Fiji.” Pp. 108–18 in Chiefs Today: Traditional Pacific Leadership and the PostColonial State, ed. G. M. White and L. Lindstrom. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Leach, Edmund R. 1965. Political Systems of Highland Burma: A Study of Kachin Social Structure. Boston: Beacon Press. ———. 1976. Culture and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leach, Foss, and Janet Davidson. 2000. “Fishing: A Neglected Aspect of Oceanic Economy.” Pp. 412–26 in Australian Archaeologist: Collected Papers in Honour of

196

Bibliography

Jim Allen, ed. Atholl Anderson and Tim Murray. Center for Archaeological Research and Department of Archaeology and Natural History. Canberra: The Australian National University, Coombs Academic Publishing. Leckie, Jacqueline. 2000. “Gender and Work in Fiji: Constraints to Re-negotiation.” Pp. 73–92 in Bitter Sweet: Indigenous Women in the Pacific, ed. Alison Jones, Phyllis Herda, and Tamasailau M. Suaalii. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago Press. Lepowsky, Maria. 1993. Fruit of the Motherland: Gender in an Egalitarian Society. New York: Columbia University Press. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1979 [1968]. The Origin of Table Manners (L’Origine des Manières de Table). New York: Harper Colophon. Lieber, Michael D. 1992. More Than a Living: Fishing and the Social Order on a Polynesian Atoll. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Lieske, Ewald, and Robert Myers. 2002. Coral Reef Fishes Indo-Pacific and Caribbean. Rev. ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lilly, Ian, ed. 2006. Archaeology of Oceania: Australia, and the Pacific Islands. Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Linnekin, Jocelyn. 1990. Sacred Queens and Women of Consequence: Rank, Gender, and Colonization in the Hawaiian Islands. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Malm, Thomas. 1999. Shell Age Economics: Marine Gathering in the Kingdom of Tonga, Polynesia. Lund, Sweden: Department of Sociology, Lund University. Marshall, Yvonne. 1985. “Who Made Lapita Pots?: A Case Study in Gender Archaeology.” Journal of the Polynesian Society 94:205–34. Marshall, Yvonne, Andrew Crosby, Sepeti Matararaba, and S. Wood, eds. 2000. Sigatoka: The Shifting Sands of Fijian Prehistory. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Matthews, Elizabeth, and Evelyn Oiterong. 1995. “Marine Species Collected by Women in Palau.” Micronesica 28 (1): 77–90. McLean, R. F. 1980. “Spatial and Temporal Variability of External Physical Controls on Small Island Ecosystems.” Pp. 149–75 in Population-Environment Relations in Tropical Islands: The Case of Eastern Fiji, ed. Harold C. Brookfield. MAB Technical Notes 13. Paris: UNESCO/UNFPA. Mead, Margaret. 1949. Male and Female: A Study of Sexes in a Changing World. New York: William Morrow. Meehan, Betty. 1982. From Shell Bed to Shell Midden. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. St. Louis, MO: Humanities Press. Meskell, Lynn. 2002. “The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology.” Annual Review of Anthropology 31 (1): 279–302. Morgan, Lewis Henry. 1851. League of the Iroquois. New York: Sage and Brother Publishers. Myers, Robert F. 1991. Micronesian Reef Fishes: A Practical Guide to the Identification of the Coral Reef Fishes of the Tropical Central and Western Pacific. 2nd ed. Guam: Coral Graphics. Nagaoka, Lisa. 1994. “Differential Recovery of Pacific Island Fish Remains: Evidence from the Moturakau Rockshelter, Aitutaki, Cook Islands.” Asian Perspectives 33 (1): 1–17.

Bibliography

197

Nelson, Sarah M. 1997. Gender in Archaeology: Analyzing Power and Prestige. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. ———, ed. 2006. Handbook of Gender in Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Newsom, L. A., and E. S. Wing. 2004. On Land and Sea: Native American Uses of Biological Resources in the West Indies. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Nunn, Patrick D. 2000. “Investigations of Anthropogenic Sediments in Qaranilaca, Vanuabalavu Island.” Archaeology in New Zealand 43:73–79. ———. 2003. “Revising Ideas about Environmental Determinism: HumanEnvironment Relations in the Pacific Islands.” Asia Pacific Viewpoint 44 (1): 63–72. ———. 2007. “Echoes from a Distance: Research into the Lapita Occupation of the Rove Peninsula, Southwest Viti Levu, Fiji.” Pp. 163–76 in Oceanic Explorations: Lapita and Western Pacific Settlement, ed. Stuart Bedford, Christophe Sand, and Sean P. Connaughton. Terra Australis 26. Canberra: Australian National University, E Press. Nunn, Patrick D., and Sepeti Matararaba. 2000. “New Finds of Lapita Pottery in Northeast Fiji.” Archaeology in Oceania 35:92–93. O’Day, Sharyn Jones. 2001. “Excavations at the Kipapa Rockshelter, Kahikinui, Maui, Hawai’i.” Asian Perspectives 40 (2): 279–304. ———. 2004. “Past and Present Perspectives on Secular Ritual: Food and the Fisherwomen of the Lau Islands, Fiji.” Pp.153–61 in Behaviour behind Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status, and Identity, ed. Sharyn Jones O’Day, W. Van Neer, and A. Ervynck. Oxford: Oxbow Books. O’Day, S. Jones, P. O’Day, and D. W. Steadman. 2003. “Defining the Lau Context: Recent Findings on Nayau, Lau Islands, Fiji.” New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 25:31–56. Ortner, Sherry B. 1996. Making Gender: The Politics and Erotics of Culture. Boston: Beacon Press. Quain, Buell. 1948. Fijian Village. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reid, A. C. 1990. Tovata I & II. Suva, Fiji: Fiji Museum. Reitz, Elizabeth J., Irvy R. Quitmyer, H. S. Hale, Sylvia J. Scudder, and Elizabeth S. Wing. 1987. “Application of Allometry to Zooarchaeology.” American Antiquity 52 (2): 304–17. Reitz, E. J., and E. S. Wing. 1999. Zooarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sahlins, Marshall D. 1962. Moala: Culture and Nature on a Fijian Island. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ———. 1983. “Raw Women, Cooked Men, and Other ‘Great Things’ of the Fiji Islands.” Pp. 72–93 in The Ethnography of Cannibalism, ed. P. Brown and D. Tuzin. Washington DC: Society for Psychological Anthropology. ———. 1985. Islands of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1999. “What Is Anthropological Enlightenment?: Some Lessons of the Twentieth Century.” Annual Review of Anthropology 28:i–xxiii. Steadman, David W. 2006. Extinction and Biogeography of Tropical Pacific Birds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

198

Bibliography

Steadman, David W., Gregory K. Pregill, and David V. Burley. 2002. “Rapid Prehistoric Extinction of Iguanas and Birds in Polynesia.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 99 (6): 3673–77. Stevenson, Andrew J., Richard H. Herzer, and Peter F. Balance, eds. 1994. Geology and Submarine Resources of the Tonga-Lau-Fiji Region. Suva, Fiji: SOPAC Secretariat. Steward, Julian. 1942. “The Direct Historical Approach to Archaeology.” American Antiquity 7:337–43. Stuiver, Minz, Paula J. Reimer, Edouard Bard, J. Warren Beck, G. S. Burr, Konrad A. Hughen, Bernd Kromer, Gerry McCormac, Johannes van der Plicht, and Marca Spurk. 1998. “INTCAL 98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000-0 cal BP.” Radiocarbon 40 (3): 1041–83. Thomas, Frank R. 2002. “An Evaluation of Central-Place Foraging among Mollusk Gatherers in Western Kiribati, Micronesia: Linking Behavioral Ecology with Ethnoarchaeology.” World Archaeology 34 (1): 182–208. Thomas, Frank R., Patrick D. Nunn, Tamara Osborne, Roselyn Kumar, Francis Areki, Sepeti Matararaba, David Steadman, and Geoff Hope. 2004. “Recent Archaeological Findings at Qaranilaca Cave, Vanuabalavu Island, Fiji.” Archaeology in Oceania 39:42–49. Thompson, Laura M. 1940. Southern Lau, Fiji: An Ethnography. B. P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 162. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Thomson, Basil. 1968. The Fijians: A Study of the Decay of Custom. London: Dawsons of Pall Mall. Thurn, Sir Everard Im, and Leonard C. Wharton, eds. 1922. The Journal of William Lockerby, Sandalwood Trader in the Fijian Islands during the Years 1808–1809. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Toren, Christina. 1990. The Social Construction of Hierarchy in Fiji. London: Athlone Press. ———. 1994. “All Things Go in Pairs, or The Sharks Will Bite: The Antithetical Nature of Fijian Chiefship.” Oceania 64 (3): 197–216. ———. 1998. “Cannibalism and Compassion: Transformations in Fijian Concepts of the Person.” Pp. 95–115 in Common Worlds and Single Lives: Constituting Knowledge in Pacific Societies, ed. V. Keck. Oxford: Berg. ———. 1999. Mind, Materiality and History: Explorations in Fijian Ethnography. London: Routledge. Trigger, Bruce G. 1978. “Ethnoarchaeology: Some Cautionary Considerations.” Pp. 1–9 in Ethnology by Archaeologists, ed. E. Tooker. Washington DC: American Ethnological Society. ———. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1998. “Archaeology and Epistemology: Dialoguing across the Darwinian Chasm.” American Journal of Archaeology 102:1–34. Turner, J. W. 1992. “Ritual, Habitus, and Hierarchy in Fiji.” Ethnology 31 (4): 291–302. Valentin, F., H. Bocherens, B. Gratuze, and C. Sand. 2006. “Dietary Patterns during the Late Prehistoric/Historic Period in Cikobia Island (Fiji): Insights from Stable Isotopes and Dental Pathologies.” Journal of Archaeological Science 33:11396–410.

Bibliography

199

Van Gilder, Cindy, and Patrick V. Kirch. 1997. “Household Archaeology in Kipapa and Nakaohu, Kahikinui.” Pp. 45–60 in Na Mea Kahiko o Kahikinui: Studies in the Archaeology of Kahikinui, Maui, ed. Patrick V. Kirch. Oceanic Archaeology Laboratory Special Publication Number 1. Berkeley: University of California Berkeley. Veitayaki, J. 1995. Fisheries Development in Fiji: The Quest for Sustainability. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific. Vuki, V., L. P. Zann, M. Naqasima, and M. Vuki. 2000. “The Fiji Islands.” Pp. 751–64 in Seas at the Millennium: An Environmental Evaluation, vol. 2, ed. Charles R. C. Sheppard. Oxford: Pergamon. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press. Wallis, Mary. 1983 [1851]. Life in Feejee, or, Five Years among the Cannibals, by a Lady. Suva, Fiji: Fiji Museum. Watson, Patty Jo. 1982. “Review of Living Archaeology.” American Antiquity 47:445–48. Wedel, W. R. 1938. “The Direct-Historical Approach in Pawnee Archaeology.” Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection 97 (7). Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. Weiner, Annette B. 1992. Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-WhileGiving. Berkeley: University of California Press. Weisler, Marshall, and Patrick V. Kirch. 1985. “The Structure of Settlement Space in a Polynesian Chiefdom: Kawela, Molokai, Hawaiian Islands.” New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 7:129–58. Weismantel, Mary J. 1988. Food, Gender, and Poverty in the Ecuadorian Andes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Weiss, Brad. 1996. The Making and Unmaking of the Haya Lived World: Consumption, Commoditization, and Everyday Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Wiessner, Polly. 1983. “Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points.” American Antiquity 49:253–76. Wilkes, Charles. 1985 [1845]. Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition, during the Years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, Tongataboo, Feejee Group, Honolulu, vol. 3. Reprinted by Fiji Museum. Suva, Fiji: Oceania Printers Ltd. Wright, A. 1993. “Introduction.” Pp. 1–13 in Nearshore Marine Resources of the South Pacific, ed. A. Wright and L. Hill. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pacific Studies. Wylie, Alison. 1982. “An Analogy by Any Other Name Is Just as Analogical: A Commentary on the Gould-Watson Dialogue.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:382–401. ———. 1985. “The Reaction against Analogy.” Pp. 63–111 in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 8, ed. Michael B. Schiffer. New York: Academic Press. Young, John. 1982. “The Response of Lau to Foreign Contact: An Interdisciplinary Reconstruction.” Journal of Pacific History 17 (1–2): 29–50. ———. 1993. “Lau: A Windward Perspective.” Journal of Pacific History 28 (2): 159–97. Zann, L. P., and V. Vuki. 2000. “The South Western Pacific Islands Region.” Pp. 705–22 in Seas at the Millennium: An Environmental Evaluation, vol. 2, ed. Charles R. C. Sheppard. Oxford: Pergamon.

Index

baked foods. See earth oven; lovo barkcloth. See masi boiled foods, vii, 55, 56, 58, 64, 66, 72, 104, 105, 108, 109, 111, 119, 140–41

clan. See mataqali coconut cream. See coconuts coconuts, 23, 25, 32, 55, 56–57, 59, 61–62, 68, 71, 76, 107–9, 111, 140–41, 156–90 commoner, 29, 47, 80, 100, 143 community, x–xi, 25, 29–32, 48, 59, 73, 76, 82, 140, 142–43, 145 cook house. See kitchen cooking, 47, 53, 56–57, 59–64, 66, 71, 73–76, 100, 101n3, 113, 141, 143, 155–90 crafts, 29, 32, 34, 82, 110, 122, 140–41, 155–90

cannibalism, 18, 40, 91 chickens (Gallus gallus), vii, 32, 38, 57, 59, 76, 79–81, 84, 91, 106–7, 109, 112, 114–15, 115n1, 121, 141–42, 155–90 chief, 17, 24–26, 28, 34, 45, 48, 74, 76, 78–80, 90, 109, 111, 132, 136, 142–43, 149, 158, 162, 166–67 children, 1–2, 4, 6–7, 11, 23, 29, 59–60, 63, 74, 82–83, 104, 107, 109, 111, 121–23, 144 churches, 29, 47, 48

direct historical approach, 5, 9–10 division of labor, ix, 3–4, 23, 25, 29, 33, 53, 73–76, 115, 115n4, 117, 119, 123, 139–41, 155–90 dogs (Canis familiaris), 32, 64, 84, 91, 104, 112, 115, 142, 152, 156–90 domestic animals, 7, 19, 32, 34, 80, 114, 142, 147, 155–90 domestic context, 3–5, 29, 33, 46, 53, 60, 64, 73, 75, 100, 113, 139, 142, 146, 148, 155–90

adolescents, 1–2, 4, 6, 23, 29, 59, 73, 75, 82, 111, 121, 130, 138, 144–45, 164 Aiwa, ix, 21–22, 139 analogy, 8–11, 56, 142, 148–50. See also homology archaeological sites, 35, 36, 38, 45, 47, 146, 151 archaeology, 2–4, 7, 10, 34–43, 64–72, 137, 140, 145–46, 148–53

201

202

Index

earth oven, 4, 16, 29, 47, 52, 55, 62–63, 66–72, 70, 75, 97–98, 119, 139, 141, 145–46. See also lovo economy, xi, 1–4, 32–33, 48, 53, 73–83, 110–11, 117, 121–22, 138–43, 155–90 elite, 4, 29, 34, 80, 90, 100, 143, 147 ethnoarchaeology, viii–xii, 2, 5–12, 43, 46, 64, 82–83, 133, 137, 140, 146, 148–50 European colonization, 2, 25, 30, 41, 52, 142 everyday life, x, 2–4, 8, 17, 29, 53, 60, 73, 76, 83, 107, 135, 137, 143–45, 148 exchange, 25, 30–31, 33, 42, 43n1, 46, 59, 76, 108, 121–22, 136n2, 142–43, 160–90 feasts, 5–6, 16–17, 45, 55, 57, 58, 60, 64, 75–76, 79–80, 102, 107, 109, 124, 140, 142, 146, 179 female labor, ix, 1–5, 53–59,72, 82, 138–39, 144–48, 155–90 female space, 53–59, 63, 72, 82, 139, 144–45 fish, 19, 28, 32, 47, 59, 72, 76–81, 85, 98–100, 101n13, 105–7, 109, 115, 125–29, 138–44, 146 fish bones, 58, 61, 62, 64, 67–68, 71, 83, 85–90, 98–100, 102–15, 134, 146, 152, 155–90 fisherperson, 4–5, 22, 29, 117–20, 132–35 fish heads, 7, 17, 74, 78–81, 83, 85, 87, 90, 99–100, 104–5, 138–39, 148, 152, 155–90 fishing, 53, 79–80, 82, 107, 115–36, 138, 141, 144–45, 155–90 fishing grounds, 6, 98, 109, 117, 119 fishing methods, 4–5, 29–30, 98, 115, 117–21, 118, 121, 133–35, 136n1, 138, 145, 157–90 food distribution, 47, 59, 73–82, 117, 130–33, 136, 138–39, 143, 149 food preparation, 56–57, 58, 59–63, 73–76, 136, 140–42, 146, 149, 155–90

food remains, 4–5, 7, 39–40, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 71, 83–100, 102–15, 130, 138–39, 146–51, 156–90 foodways, 17, 19, 45–46, 45–102, 115n4, 137–50 gardening, ix, 31–33, 79, 108, 111, 115, 141, 155–90 gender, ix–x, 2–3, 14n5, 27, 33, 47, 64, 72–83, 100, 115, 115n4, 117, 123–24, 134, 138–40, 149–50 habitat, 6, 86, 92, 99, 125–29, 139, 152 Hau, 26–27 hearth, 4, 35, 47, 52, 54–55, 58, 60, 63, 66–100, 100n2, 113, 139, 146 hierarchy, viii, x, 2–3, 7, 17, 27–29, 33, 48–49, 52–53, 74, 114, 133, 136–37, 139–40, 142–44, 149–50 historical perspective, viii, 2–3, 6, 9–10, 14, 33, 41, 47, 55, 138–39, 142, 150 homology, 2, 9, 46, 102, 138 house, 28, 47–50, 50, 52, 54, 73, 75, 112–13, 115, 130, 138, 145, 147, 151 household, xii, 4–7, 28–29, 45, 47–48, 55, 71, 73–75, 78–81, 97, 100, 103–6, 109, 113, 115n3, 130, 138–39, 142–43, 149, 151, 155–90 house platform. See yavu identity, x, 3, 27, 73, 143–45, 148 ideology, x–xii, 2–3, 19, 30, 137–38, 148–50 interviews, 7, 13, 15n11, 46, 59, 76, 82, 107, 144, 155–90 invertebrates, 32, 39, 46–47, 54, 57, 61–62, 62, 64, 65, 67, 71, 75, 79, 83, 92, 93–96, 97, 102, 107, 114–15, 119, 130, 133, 138, 142, 146, 156–90 IRB, 15n10, 190n1 kava, ix, xi, 15n8, 31. See also yaqona kinship, 13, 27–31, 34, 48, 53, 63, 71, 76, 109, 117, 122, 130, 137, 139–40, 142 kitchen, viii, 13, 27–28, 46–48, 52–59, 54, 55, 59, 63–64, 71, 112, 140–41, 147, 156. See also vale ni kuro

Index labor. See division of labor Lakeba, 20, 21, 24–27, 37, 39, 40, 41–43, 46, 62, 76, 81, 91, 96, 100n1 landscape, xii, 5, 20, 29, 45, 48, 52, 134, 138 Lapita, 19, 37, 39, 42–43, 44n3, 66, 68–71, 69, 83, 88–89, 90–92, 139 Lau Group, viii–x, 19–43, 20, 41–42, 134, 139 LCO/LIA transition, 37, 44n4 lewe ni vale. See household Liku, 6, 23, 26, 28, 35, 36, 47–48, 48, 49, 109–10, 119, 145, 156, 158–68 lovo, 4, 28–29, 35, 47–48, 49, 52–53, 56, 59, 59–62, 60, 61, 61–62, 64, 66–72, 70, 75, 83–85, 97–98, 109, 111, 113, 119, 138–42, 145–48, 156–90 mana, xi, 81, marine resources, 1–6, 29, 32–33, 43, 69, 79, 85, 92–100, 115–17, 138, 142, 144, 147–48, 155–90 masi, 42, 46, 82, 110, 122, 140–41, 145, 155–90 mataqali, 28, 48, 113, 122, 168 material culture, xi–xii, 1–2, 5, 8–9, 11, 14n3, 19, 39–40, 42, 46, 64–72, 65, 110, 113, 118, 124, 143, 146, 148 meals, viii, xi, 45, 48, 53, 63–64, 71–75, 108, 112, 114–15, 140–43, 155–90 men, ix, 4, 7, 15n9, 29, 53, 55, 58, 59–62, 72–75, 81, 97, 100n2, 104, 111, 115, 115n2, 119, 124, 130, 131, 133–34, 139–45 methods, 6, 8–9, 13, 14n2, 15n10–11, 43n2, 147, 149, 189 midden. See food remains Narocivo, 6, 23, 26, 35, 36, 47–48, 58, 59, 80, 82, 109–11, 119, 121, 133, 145, 158, 171, 173, 177, 181–82, 184, 187 Nayau, viii–x, 20–23, 20, 22, 27, 32, 35, 41, 46–47, 48, 64, 73, 109, 117, 130, 134, 138–39, 141–43 Oceania, 9–10, 18, 19, 24, 85, 138, 146, 149

203

offshore fishing, 21, 33, 77, 79, 85, 99, 121, 124, 132, 134, 147, 152 oral traditions, 26, 28, 41–42, 45–46 oven. See lovo oven houses, 59–60, 61, 100n2 pigs (Sus scrofa), 32, 45, 59–60, 62, 64, 74, 76, 78–81, 84, 91, 102, 106–7, 109, 112, 114–15, 115n1, 122, 141–42, 146, 152, 155–90 pottery, 19, 34, 39, 45–46, 55, 64–71, 65, 96, 100, 100n3 power, 1, 3, 15n8, 33–34, 73–74, 80, 83, 140, 143, 148–49 preference, 6–7, 76–81, 100, 106, 117, 133–35, 139, 142–45 prestige, 1–2, 34, 58–59, 73–74, 79–81, 83, 113, 130, 141, 143, 145 puddings, 16, 55, 57, 58, 59, 76, 83, 102, 132, 140–42, 146 radiocarbon dates, 41, 35–37, 38, 101n7 rank, x, 7, 16–17, 29, 42, 47–49, 52, 63–64, 72, 74, 78–83, 90, 100, 104–6, 109–10, 113–14, 117, 123, 131, 136, 139–43 reefs, 20–21, 53, 83, 92, 98, 114–15, 124, 134, 136, 138, 152 refuse. See food remains relish, 142 ritual, xi, 3, 17, 73–83, 102, 130, 137, 139, 145–46, 148 Salia, 6, 15n8, 23, 26, 35, 36, 47, 74, 80, 109, 111, 112, 119, 132, 145, 158–59, 189 Sau, 26–27 sea, 6, 20–23, 27, 48, 53, 63, 92, 112, 115–36, 157 sea people, 27–28 sea turtles, 32, 79, 84, 90–91, 100, 102, 109, 132, 136, 163, 180 serving food, 30, 66, 79, 81–82, 101n3, 143, 155–90 shellfish. See invertebrates snacks, 31, 63–64, 72–75, 108, 114, 132, 133, 146, 155–90

204

Index

social space, viii, 5, 7, 15n9, 16–17, 27, 46–48, 49, 52–53, 52, 59, 63, 73–75, 100n2, 112, 134, 138, 140, 142, 148–49, 151 social status. See rank solo pule. See puddings starch foods, 7, 16, 31, 55, 56–57, 59, 61, 72–74, 76, 79, 83, 102, 107, 110, 114, 122, 140–44, 147, 155–90 subsistence economy, 1, 30–31, 42, 72–82, 96–100, 110–11

vale. See house vale levu. See house vale ni kuro, vii–viii, 48, 48, 53–59, 54, 73 village, xi, 27–30, 48–50, 52, 58, 68, 71, 74, 76, 79–80, 111, 113, 117, 119–20, 133, 140, 142–44

Tonga, 5, 19, 24–27, 42, 49 traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), 117–30, 135, 138, 145 Tui Lau, 15n8, 21, 24, 26, 50, 51 Tui Liku, 49, 51 Tui Nayau. See Tui Lau Turaga ni Koro, ix, 12, 15n7–8, 27, 74, 104, 160, 187

yaqona, ix, xi, 15n8, 16–17, 31, 102, 111, 115n2, 156, 167 yavu, 27, 49–50, 53, 63, 71–72, 100, 113, 138, 151, 170 yavusa, 27, 50

wealth, 32–34, 73, 78, 80, 109, 140, 143 women, ix, 1–7, 13–14, 15n11, 17, 29, 53–55, 58–59, 72–83, 100n2, 106–7, 113, 115–19, 124, 130–31, 134, 138–43, 146, 155–90

zooarchaeology, 4, 7, 83–100, 113–15, 117, 133–34, 137–38, 147–48, 152–53

About the Author

Sharyn Jones is an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and she received her PhD from the University of Florida in 2004. Her technical expertise includes the analysis of marine vertebrate and invertebrate faunas and animal resource exploitation. She has directed and conducted field-based research in many tropical Pacific and Caribbean islands, and in North America. Jones has directed both academic and contract archaeology projects and instructed field schools in the United States and abroad. She has published numerous peer reviewed scientific articles, and is the lead editor of a volume focused on zooarchaeology, ritual, and religion. Jones is currently working on projects to understand issues of cannibalism, marine ecology, and foodways in the Pacific Islands.

205