Hierarchy and Stratification in East New Britain

Archaeology in Oceania, 2010

Based on archaeological data it is time to re-evaluate the stratified chiefdom of the Society Islands. The model was constructed mainly on ethno-historical/ethnological data and has been used extensively, and this social system has been projected back in time, sometimes maybe too far. The question that may be asked is: -What happened during almost 1000 years of settlement in the Society Islands? It is now evident from new archaeological investigations of habitations and marae that the stratified chiefdom in the Society Islands was a late development, and that the society went through several changes through time. Therefore, we need to discuss the possibilities of an earlier existence of either traditional chiefdoms and/or open chiefdoms in the Society Islands, following the terminology developed by Goldman on chiefly organizations identified in other parts of Polynesia.

Precedence: Social Differentiation in the Austronesian World, 2009

Journal of Pacific History, 1979

The study of chiefdoms and states is a complex and constantly changing discipline, in which archaeologists are equally adding and retracting notions of what constitutes as a hierarchical or stratified society. Processualists argue that although chiefdoms and states differ radically around the globe, the underlying characteristics are the same (Carneiro 1970). Therefore, middle range theory can be applied to these civilisations in order to recognise key political, economic and social structures (Johnson 2010). However, Post-processualists argue that each chiefdom and state must be analysed independently and within the context of those societies, in order to make adjustments to their specific circumstances and structures (Johnson 2010). Today, there is still no universal mechanism which can be applied to chiefdoms and states, however theorists such as Earle, Carneiro and Peebles and Kus have put forward some main qualities which could potentially identify societies that were ruled by a paramount chief or king. For example the presence of a stratified elite, specialised administration, division of labour, monumental architecture, burials and the spatial patterning and size of settlements (Carneiro 1970). Scholars argue that the presence of monumental architecture and wealth monopolies within the Pacific Islands such as Tonga and Hawaii are clear indicators that they were stratified or hierarchical societies governed by an elite ruler. I will review the nature of theses economic, political and social structures in Tonga and Hawaii and how the presence of monumental architecture reflects a complex society.

Asian Perspectives, 2002

EVER SINCE THEIR DISCOVERY OF THE PACIFIC SOCIETY ISLANDS, Europeans have identified cultural differences between the populations living in the different islands of the great ocean (Beaglehole 1974). Arriving for the first time in Tahiti in 1769, Bougainville thought he had found the "nouvelle cythere," prompting generations of writers to describe Polynesia as a "Paradise on Earth." In contrast, frequent violent encounters with darker-skinned populations in the Western Pacific (Bonnemaison 1984; Spriggs 1997) led to a contrasting perception of "savagery" for the societies that occupied the region named "Melanesia" by Dumont d'Urville . This dichotomized schema of indigenous oceanic cultures, with a divide between Melanesian and Polynesian societies, has been maintained in much of the literature on the Pacific. The classic work in this genre was that of Marshall Sahlins, concerning Melanesian Big-Men and Polynesian chiefs. Basing his synthesis on ethnographic data, Sahlins (1963) differentiated the tribal societies of Melanesia, with their supposed low level of hierarchical differentiation in small territorial units, from the large, complex multilevel Polynesian polities. To be sure, anthropologists and ethnohistorians have themselves critiqued Sahlins' (1963) model as one that was overly simplifying (e.g., Douglas 1979; Thomas 1997); nonetheless, aspects of the model persist in current theoretical conceptions in Oceanic anthropology. This paper-which was written to stimulate discussion at the Eastern Polynesia Mo'orea conference-aims to draw attention to recent archaeological fieldwork carried out in several parts of Island Melanesia (see Fig. ), which has begun to yield a rather different picture of late prehistory for this part of the Pacific. 1 This is by no means a complete review, a task which must be left to another occasion. In order to facilitate comparison between the data from Island Melanesia to Polynesia, my presentation is divided into six major topics. These demonstrate that the cultural distinction, first imposed by the early European explorers, between the complex "nearly civilized" Polynesian societies and the simpler "savage" Mela-

History and Anthropology, 1994

Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1963

With an eye to their own life goals, the native peoples of Pacific Islands unwittingly present to anthropologists a generous scientific gift: an extended series of experiments in cultural adaptation and evolutionary development. They have compressed their institutions within the confines of infertile coral atolls, expanded them on volcanic islands, created with the means history gave them cultures adapted to the deserts of Australia, the mountains and warm coasts of New Guinea, the rain forests of the Solomon Islands. From the Australian Aborigines, whose hunting and gathering existence duplicates in outline the cultural life of the later Paleolithic, to the great chiefdoms of Hawaii, where society approached the formative levels of the old Fertile Crescent civilizations, almost every general phase in the progress of primitive culture is exemplified.

Anthropological Forum, 2019

This article explores the notion that peoples speaking Austronesian languages brought the ideology of social hierarchy based on hereditary leadership into the Pacific Islands. This social model contrasts with the strongly egalitarian leadership that likely characterised peoples already residing in New Guinea and nearby islands. While complex interactions between these two groups did occur, particularly in coastal areas, the latter populations rarely adopted hierarchical models of leadership. In contrast, the institution of hereditary leadership burgeoned into elaborate chiefdoms as Austronesian speakers expanded into Remote Oceania. Using linguistic and archaeological evidence, we argue that hereditary leadership, or the institutions to support it, may already have been in place in early Austronesian societies in Taiwan. We further evaluate this correlation by reviewing ethnographic reports of chiefs and reanalysing scholarly appraisals of big-man societies and chiefdoms. We conclude that the ‘Melanesian big-man vs. Polynesian chief’ contrast corresponds largely to the Austronesian and Non-Austronesian language divide; attention to which can clarify the development of hereditary leadership in the Pacific and illuminate historical relations among cultures in Near Oceania. KEYWORDS: Hierarchy, leadership, chief, big-man, Austronesian

The Journal of Asian Studies, 1997

Chapter 13. The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi, During the 16th and 17th Centuries F. David Bulbeck The Wider Background Background to Gowa Methodology Makassar Titles and Their Wider Equivalents Correlations in Titulation Across Next-Of-Kin Horizontal Links Between the Royal Cores Makassar Status Lineages Makassar Lineage Groups Gowa's Initial Expansion (c.1500-1593) The Golden Period of Greater Gowa (1593-1667) The Survivors (Post-1667) Conclusions Acknowledgments References Chapter 14. The Cultural Construction of Rank, Identity and Ethnic Origins in the Sulu Archipelago Charles O. Frake