The artefacts considered here are mainly household items, used in the
gathering and storage of food, in the construction and maintenance of
dwellings and gardens, and those used for personal adornment. Some of
the items—earthenware pots, stone adzes and axes, bone needles, bone and
shell ornaments, and stone bark-cloth beaters—have provided
archaeologists with data that permit dating. Those made of perishable
materials—such as leaf baskets, string bags, mats and bamboo
knives—seldom leave any trace in the archaeological record. For these we
are dependent on linguistic reconstruction interpreted in the light of
current ethnographic practice.1
Artefacts are organised under the following headings: (1) containers;
(2) mats and cordage; (3) tools; (4) items of body decoration and
clothing, and (5) instruments of communication and music. Terms for
relevant processes are included. Thus, within the section on mats and
cordage we have included terms for weaving, making thread, sewing, and
for needle and twine. Often the term for a tool is derived from the verb
denoting the activity of using it.
Pottery is one of the more distinctive features of the Lapita
culture, here held to coincide with and thus be an integral marker of
the early dispersal of Proto Oceanic.2 Pottery manufacture in
Oceania is geographically discontinuous. By no means all Oceanic
speakers make pottery. Obviously, pottery can only be made where
suitable clay is available, but its availability is no guarantee that
pottery will be manufactured. Nor is its absence from the immediate
locality a guarantee that pottery will not be made: the Gumawana
speakers of the Amphlett group transport their clay some distance by sea
from Fergusson Island. As a result of this discontinuity, pots were
traditionally important trade items. A linguistic spin-off of this trade
is that words for pots are not infrequently loan words, especially in
the languages of the people who are not potters.
Ross (1996c:69) writes that most Oceanic
languages have quite a simple pot terminology with three or four main
terms.
There is generally a term for cooking pot, which often also doubles
as the term for pottery in general … Secondly, there is a term for water
pot or water jar. Thirdly, there is a term for a bowl or dish with a
variety of functions, and finally a term for a frying dish or frying pan
(in some societies the object itself is actually the large sherd of a
broken pot).
There is fair agreement across Oceanic languages about the structure
of the terminology—Ross provides evidence from NNG, PT, Admiralties and
Fijian languages which all have terms (not necessarily cognate) for pot
(generic), cooking pot, water jar, bowl/dish and frying pan (see Figure 4)—and we have PMP reconstructions in support
of corresponding POc terms. However, our cognate sets are
disappointingly small. Of our reconstructions, the cooking pot/generic
term is the most soundly based.
The best candidate for ‘water jar’ is POc *kalala(ŋ),
reconstructed on the basis of Proto WMP *kalalaŋ ‘narrow-necked
water jar’ (Tagalog kalalaŋ ‘narrow-necked water jug’; Blust 1980b). However, only one Oceanic
reflex, in the PT language Iduna, has been found: kalala
‘cooking pot made in Wedau’. Even this reflex is problematic, since POc
*l is reflected as Iduna n in directly inherited
items, and we must therefore assume that the item has been borrowed, as
its gloss would imply.
Another possible, PNGOc, term for water jar is *bʷad(r)i,
for which the evidence is given below. All reflexes except one are from
the north coast of New Guinea, and mean ‘pot (generic), cooking pot’,
where they have ousted reflexes of POc *kuron in this role, but
there is evidence that this is the result of post-Proto Oceanic
genericisation. The characteristic Oceanic cooking pot and water jar are
quite similar in form, differing only in the narrowness of the neck of
the water jar, so that genericisation of the water jar term is quite
likely. The facts that the one non-north coast term, from Misima, means
‘water pot’ and that there are indications (in Mindiri and Bilibil) that
reflexes of *bʷad(r)i also mean ‘water pot’ suggest that this
was its original meaning.
The best candidate for ‘frying pan’, POc *palaŋa, has been
noted by Blust (ACD). Again, Oceanic reflexes are not plentiful, but
here there can hardly be any doubt that they reflect the PMP term.
One other Proto Oceanic term for a type of pot is reconstructable,
namely *bʷaŋa. This seems to have referred to a large pot,
perhaps a communal cooking pot:
We have been unable to reconstruct a POc term for a bowl or dish.
Indeed, the only term we have found reflected over quite a large area is
PPT *na(q)u(q). The meanings of its reflexes indicate that it
meant ‘dish’. In a number of PT languages it has come to mean ‘cooking
pot’, but this is not surprising if it is recognised that in south-east
(but not central) Papua, the typical Oceanic cooking pot with its
restricted spherical form has been frequently replaced by pots with an
unrestricted, dish-like form. In Gumawana, an important pot-making
centre in the Amphletts, no, reflecting *na(q)u(q),
has been genericised to mean ‘pot’ and is the first element in a number
of pot types listed in Olsen’s dictionary: nobadala,
nogaiga, nokaokao, nokunu, nopaeva,
nosipoma. All of these are apparently dish-like in form. Some
reflexes of *naquq are listed below. The crucial reflexes for
determining the meaning of *na(q)u(q) are those from central
Papua-Hula, Motu and Kuni—where Oceanic restricted pot forms remain the
norm, and naɣu/nau clearly refers only to dishes.
Only the Hula form reflects a possible medial *-q-. Since
Hula sometimes adds a nonetymological -y- between vowels,
*-q- cannot be reconstructed with certainty. Final *-q
is reflected in Iduna and Sudest, but not in Gumawana, Molima or Are,
where a reflex would also be expected. These uncertainties raise the
possibility that this term is cognate with the forms attributed to POc
*napu ‘steam (?), boil (7)’ (Ch. 6, §3.4).
Both cooking pots and narrow-necked water jars may have utilised
lids. In addition to those terms glossed ‘plug, stopper’, which are
included with coconut or bamboo water carriers, we have terms referring
rather to ‘lid’ or ‘cover’:
Oceanic pots were typically made using the paddle-and-anvil
technique, whereby a smooth stone (the ‘anvil’) is held against the
inside of the pot while the outside is beaten with a flat piece of wood
(the ‘paddle’). Almost every Oceanic pot-making group for which we have
data refers to the anvil simply as the ‘stone’, for which the POc word
was *patu (Andra pat, Mindiri pot, Uruava
patu, Bauan Fijian vatu are all reflexes used both in
the general sense of ‘stone’ and in the specialised sense of ‘anvil’).
Ross (1996c) has reconstructed *tapi
‘paddle for beating clay into shape’ with the proviso that the apparent
reflexes may be independently derived instrumental nominalisations of
the PMP verb *tapik ‘slap, pat lightly’ (Blust 1988).
The most important non-ceramic vessel in immediate pre-contact times
was the wooden bowl. In parts of Papua New Guinea, finely-wrought bowls
were an important trade item. (Among the most famous are bowls from the
Tami Islands off the Huon Peninsula and the Trobriand Islands). The
generic term for a wooden bowl was probably POc *tabiRa:
This last set could be taken to reflect a POc **tabili, but
their formal and semantic similarity to reflexes of *tabiRa
suggests that this inference is not justified. Rather, they are probably
descended from an etymon which originated somewhere in the Solomons in
the borrowing of a reflex of *tabiRa denoting a trade item,
apparently a wooden dish used for mashing and/or crushing.
A term with more restricted distribution and apparently denoting a
subtype of *tabiRa is PNGOc *gabom ‘wooden dish’:
‘simple unrestricted earthenware vessel found on Brooker
Island’
PSS *popo ‘wooden bowl’ is reconstructable (Gela
popo ‘a bowl’, ‘Are’are hoho ’a wooden bowl for
pounding food’, Lau fofo ‘a round wooden dish’) but no cognates
are known outside the Southeast Solomons.
PCP
*kumete
‘large wooden bowl’ (used as a mortar in pounding,
mashing food and/or in stone-boiling)
(Lichtenberk 1994)
One of the most widely-used containers was the coconut-shell cup, for
which we have several reconstructions. The term for a gourd also refers
to a water bottle in some languages.
An additional reconstruction, POc *asu (V) ‘scoop or ladle
out’ ; (N) ‘ladle, bailer’, from PMP *aŋsu ‘scoop or bail out’
is included in Chapter 7,
§7.4.
The following set, from Ross (1996a), is listed because explanation is
needed for the fact that it is apparently reflected only in Yapese and
NNG languages: is it a retention or a borrowing? (Takia -ae-,
Bilibil, Megiar -ai- reflect *-a- which has undergone
umlaut because of a lost final *-i.)
but adds a warning note that the Oceanic forms cited may reflect POc
*waiR ‘fresh water’. If so, all that can be inferred is a
second gloss for this reconstructed form (ACD).
There is one other kind of container associated with Melanesians
other than the inhabitants of Vanuatu and Fiji, and that is the lime pot
of betel-nut users. The lime container is usually a gourd, coconut shell
or small tightly-woven basket. A lime spatula of bone or wood, sometimes
highly decorated, rests in the gourd and is used to convey lime to the
mouth. We have a reconstruction for the spatula, POc *d(r)amu,
but no specific term for the lime pot. In a number of word lists the
term for lime (often from POc *qapu(R)) also can refer to the
pot. We have reconstructed a PEOc term for a gourd, *tapaya
‘gourd, water bottle’, but there are no cognates from SES, which is the
only area of eastern Oceanic where betel is chewed, and we lack any
Western Oceanic reconstruction.
Usable baskets or trays can be improvised in a few minutes from the
wealth of leaves and fibres generally within easy reach. Baskets used
today vary greatly in size, shape and function. They range from the
large trays used at feasts to tiny purses carried within string bags.
Individual communities have evolved their own shapes, styles and
traditions of use. Some styles may be so individual or striking that
they come to be representative of a particular region or community.
Baskets may be with or without handles; carried over the shoulder, from
the head or hand or under the arm; used by men only or women only;
strictly utilitarian or finely decorated, multi-purpose or highly
specific in their use. Different styles may be distinguished by
name.
Perhaps surprisingly, in view of the widespread use of bags and
baskets and the large number of terms collected, it has proved difficult
to locate clear cognate sets with broad distribution. Any proliferation
of types and styles would require new terms or reinterpretation of old
terms. The likelihood of borrowing is also high.
Arosi -s- from *-t- is conditioned by a following
*-u, supporting its reconstruction rather than that of
*-o. Carolinian xɔ̄t and some other Micronesian
cognates are problematic, since their -t reflects POc
*s or *j rather than *t.
This form is unlikely to be of POc ancestry, as medial *-e-
is rare in POc. It may well have an association with one of the two
*k-initial forms above.
Figure 9:
Reconstructions (non-specific) include: POc *katu(m,ŋ)
‘basket’, POc *laka ‘basket’, POc *tab(w)e ‘basket,
probably small’, POc *taŋa ‘basket or bag, small, used for
personal effects’ (after Koch_1986: 104 and n.d.:59)
Biggs (1993) lists two further terms for PPn, *taapola
‘basket plaited from a single coconut frond’ (from POc *bola
‘coconut leaves woven together for any purpose’. See under §3.1 Mats); and *qora
‘fishing basket’.
Bags, typically of twine made from fibres rolled together on the
thigh and then knotted into a mesh, are more likely to be used for
carrying than for storage. They are a prominent item among western
Oceanic peoples, the women carrying them slung from a band round the
head, and the men generally over one shoulder. On the New Guinea
mainland, they are the means by which a woman carries a baby. The
widespread modern term for these bags is bilum, a Tok Pis in
term apparently from Tolai, but without cognates outside MM. The present
distribution pattern of use would seem to reflect a possible Papuan
origin for the net bag. In east New Britain (Tolai and Baining at least)
heavy loads are carried in a coconut leaf basket suspended from the
forehead by a tumpline (Ann Chowning, pers.comm.). The following
reconstruction may have been a general term for a small plaited or woven
container which has come to refer to a net bag in parts of western
Oceania.
Woven mats are made from the leaves of a range of palms, and
frequently the same term is used for both tree and the article typically
made from it. Thus we have POc *kiRe ‘coastal pandanus: mat
made from its leaves’, and PWOc *moke ‘pandanus species, used
to make capes and mats’ (see Plants, vol. 3). Mats on which food is
placed will usually be made from coconut leaf. Where strength and
endurance are important, as in canoe sails, pandanus is the preferred
leaf, and the items are sewn rather than woven. Sleeping mats and house
walls may be of either leaf. On the use of reflexes of *qebal for sails,
see Chapter 7, §5.1.
It is possible that the two NCV reflexes in the above set are
borrowings from Polynesia (Ross Clark pers.comm.). If so, this reduces
the reconstruction from PEOc to PCP.
Two further terms have been reconstructed for PPn only:
*fala ‘plaited pandanus mat’, and *fāliki ‘cover floor
with mats or grass; floor covering’, both from Biggs (1993).
The distinction between weaving and plaiting is not clear even in
English, although as a broad principle, weaving produces a fabric and
plaiting a braid. Sometimes plaiting is used in descriptive accounts as
a general term for all forms of mat and basket making. There are some
processes in mat making where the edges of the mat are finished with a
kind of braiding. Any distinction between the terms in word lists is
consequently not considered significant, unless clarified by context.
Where plaiting is used in reconstructions here, it is to be taken as an
inclusive term for all kinds of mat and basket manufacture (but
excluding loom weaving).
Ann Chowning (pers.comm.) has offered an additional sense to POc
*raraŋ, *raraŋ-i- (from PAn *da(n)daŋ), which
Lichtenberk glosses as ‘warm oneself by fire’; ‘warm up, reheat
(esp. food)’ (see Chapter 6,
§3.5, for the full cognate set). She contributes cognates from
Molima, Kove and Nakanai which all refer to the preparation of pandanus
leaves for mat making by softening them over a fire, and accord closely
with the gloss of the single Polynesian cognate.
The simplest material for tying would have been lengths of vine or
rattan, or strips of suitable bark, such as hibiscus. (POc
*waRoc ‘vine, creeper, rope, string’; POc *quwe
‘rattan’ (see Plants, vol. 3)). A strong light twine could be made by
rolling fibres together on the thigh. The strongest cords and ropes are
made by twisting or plaiting various kinds of fibres or rolled thread,
principally coconut fibre or hibiscus bark.
POc
*loqi
‘make thread by rolling fibres on the thigh’
(Chowning 1991:
*loi ‘thread made …’)
An unrelated PPn term has been reconstructed for the same process,
*amo ‘prepare fibres for string making (by rubbing between
hands or on thigh); prepared fibre’ (Biggs & Clark 1993).
The product of tying a piece of cordage is, of course, a knot. POc
seems to have had no term dedicated to a knot as understood in English,
but had the more generalised term *buku, which referred to a node,
protuberance, joint or knot (this word was also used with the meaning
‘tie a knot’; see Chapter 9, §
10):
PMP
*buku
‘node (as in bamboo or sugarcane); joint; knuckle; knot in wood,
string or rope’ (ACD;
Dempwolff 1938)
POc
*buku
‘node (as in bamboo or sugarcane); joint; knuckle; knot in wood,
string or rope’ (ACD)
POc *saqi(t) was the term used specifically for sewing
activities. The terms *(su)suk-i ‘pierce, sew (mats)’ and
*(su)suRi ‘bone (needle); sew’ were also used for sewing, but
this was not their primary meaning.
In the following set there may be some blending of meaning between
two formally close terms, POc *s(u,i)ri ‘pierce, poke’ (Ch. 9, §4.1) and POc
*suRi ‘bone’, because needles were at times made from bones (of
bird or flying fox or occasionally pig).
Oliver (1989:88) identifies axe heads as having
cutting ends bevelled on both sides, adzes as having cutting ends
bevelled on one side only, and axe-adzes which are bevelled so as to be
used either way. They are, of course, hafted differently on to their
handle, the axe head lying along the same plane while the adze head is
set at right angles to the handle. Axes would have been used primarily
in tree-felling; adzes for such activities as the hollowing out and
shaping of canoes, or the extraction of pith from sago palms. Either
implement could have been utilised in the shaping of timber for the
construction of houses, fenceposts etc. Although the preferred material
for an adze blade was presumably basalt, archaeological sites in Island
Oceania contain numbers of axes and particularly adzes, made of shell,
mostly of Tridacna, the giant clam (Oliver 1989: 89). On coral atolls,
shell often has by necessity to substitute for stone.
The following are possibly related to the set above but all reflect
an extra *i (Loniu and Tawala reflect a possible POc
*mʷati, the NNG items a putative *(m,mʷ)aita). It is
possible that this *i reflects the incorporation into
*(m,mʷ)ata of the generic possessive preposition *qi,
which would frequently have occurred immediately after it (e.g. POc
**(m,mʷ)ata-qi kiRam ‘axe blade’) and is reflected in Mota
matai above.
The existence of axe and adze heads with characteristic shaping to
accommodate a handle, together with reconstruction of a term clearly
designating ‘handle of adze or axe’ indicates that POc speakers were
familiar with a stone head hafted to a wooden handle. This would have
been by means of gum adhesives and cordage, much as described by latter
day ethnographers (e.g. Oliver 1974:
135-137 for Tahiti).
‘handle, a curved shaped handle used in the construction of
several Takia cutting tools. It is made from the makas tree (Pidgin)
(Hibiscus tiliaceus). They heat the handle over a fire in order
to shape it.’
‘that part of a utensil or tool which is to be held with the
hand’
With regard to the reconstruction of *(p,pʷ), see Chapter 2, §2.1. Western Oceanic
and SES languages show assimilation of POc *r to *R,
but we assume that assimilation had not occurred in POc, since, as Blust
points out, Puluwat r reflects POc *r, whilst Woleaian
ṣ inexplicably reflects POc *dr. One of the Arosi
reflexes and the Raga, Puluwat and Woleaian reflexes show haplology.
Knives were typically made from bamboo. Shells also provided good
cutting edges. Probably the very best cutting edge would have been a
flake of obsidian, used as a razor or for whatever forms of surgery
might have been performed on the human body, and the term for this was
apparently *koto (see below). However, dedicated terms for
‘knife’, as opposed to the substances they were made from, are hardly
reconstructable in POc. The only one we can be sure of is:
Although PCP *sele ‘knife; cut with a knife’ seems to have
cognates elsewhere, it is highly likely that the Lukep, Lihir and
Nengone terms were introduced by Fijian or Polynesian missionaries to
apply to western metal knives:
Although the following Admiralties set bears a superficial similarity
to the CP set above, the forms are too different to suggest cognation.
PEAd *care points back to an otherwise unattested POc
**ja(r,c)e.
Obsidian, glass-hard volcanic stone found on Lou Island
(Admiralties), on Fergusson Island in the D’Entrecasteaux group, at
Talasea (Willaumez Peninsula of New Britain) and Banks Island, Vanuatu,
and, from its traces in excavated Lapita sites, a much sought-after
trade item among early Oceanic speakers, serves as a fine cutting edge.
POc *nad(r)i is reconstructable, although in places it refers
only to hard stone (with a cutting edge?). *qa(r,R)iŋ is
reconstructable only for PWOc. Reflexes of POc *koto refer to a variety
of uses of the material and suggest that its primary meaning was
‘obsidian cutting edge’:
Figure 11: POc
*nad(r)i ‘flint, obsidian, stone with a cutting edge’; POc
*koto ‘obsidian knife or blade’
Multi-purpose piercing tools may have been carried, fashioned from
bone, perhaps a pig’s femur. These were useful for piercing shells,
splitting fibres for weaving, splitting areca nuts, separating coconut
meat from its shell and such daily activities. They were probably also
used to pierce earlobes and the nasal septum. Green (1979:39) lists a worked pig-tusk
piercing tool from the Main Reef Islands, circa 1100 B.C.
Reconstructions appear primarily verbal, with a term for the instrument
sometimes derivable from the verb. They include POc *puru(k),
*puruk-i- ‘pierce, bore (hole)’, POc *buru ‘bore a
hole, drill’; PWOc *bʷaR(i,e) ‘bore (hole)’; and PEOc
*paRo ‘drill through, pierce, perforate’ (see Chapter 9, §4.2, for the cognate
sets).
There is evidence that all three of the basic methods for shaping
stone—flaking (also called chipping), pecking and grinding—were
practised in POc times (Oliver 1989:
144). We have several reconstructions for actions which include
sharpening or grinding, but they may also refer to grating (foodstuffs),
and at times to rasping and filing (wood and shell). Pumice, widely
available in volcanic regions, was typically used for sharpening stone.
Although we can reconstruct terms for the activity, the only
reconstruction we have for the implement is the PCP term for a
whetstone.
From its form it is clear that PCP *vuqa(i)ŋa is a
nominalisation. The corresponding verb occurs in Polynesian languages
with somewhat altered meaning (Samoan foa ‘break rock or
shell’, Hawaiian hoa ‘strike with stick or club’). Together
with the WOc cognates, Iduna (PT) fua- ‘crush’, Motu (PT)
huari ‘smash, as pottery’ and Tolai puar ‘break (cup,
glass +)’ they point to POc *pu(q)a(R), *pu(q)aR-i-
‘break, as s.t. hard, smash’.
Both *kiri and *giri are reconstructable, the
latter perhaps a verb from *N-kiri; the Polynesian reflexes are
attributable to either.
The same terms may have also been used to describe the actions of
smoothing and polishing. The Polynesians, in particular, were concerned
to produce a fine finish to their artefacts by rubbing. Beaglehole wrote
of the Tahitians, “All their [wood] work however acquires a certain
neatness in the finishing for they polish every thing, even the side of
a canoe or a Post of a house, with Coral sand rubbed on in the outer
husk of a Cocoa nut and rays skin, which makes them very smooth and
neat.” (quoted in Oliver 1974: 134).
The general term for this may have been POc *quju(r) ‘rub, make
smooth by rubbing’ (see Ch. 9,
§2.3). In at least one language (Woleaian in Micronesia) the term
for a file is the same term as that for stingray (faiya >
PAn *paRis ‘stingray’), the skin of which serves as a fine
abrasive.
The material used to make bark-cloth or tapa in the Pacific area is
obtained mainly from various species of trees belonging to the genera
Broussonetia, Artocarpus, and Ficus, all of
which belong to the family Moraceae. Wherever tapa was made,
the Broussonetia papyrifera or paper mulberry tree was used for
the highest quality cloth. It is not native to the Pacific, but to
eastern Asia, whence migrants carried it to Indonesia and the Pacific.
The only other significant source is the Pipturus species, used
for tapa particularly in Hawaii (Kooijman 1972: 1).
Bark-cloth is a significant item in Indonesia and in the eastern
Oceanic region, particularly Polynesia, but also Santa Cruz, New
Caledonia and Fiji. However, it does not feature strongly in the western
Oceanic region. Ivens (1918: 186) wrote that although
bark-cloth (tapa) was made in Melanesia, it never figured as an
article of clothing, and its main use was to form a kind of shawl in
which the baby was slung when carried from the shoulder. Ivens was
probably speaking from a Solomons perspective. Kooijman (1972:446) quotes reports by Chalmers
and Gill (1885) which mention bark-cloth from Collingwood Bay and the
Gulf of Papua (both PT); while in the Northern Province of south-east
Papua, for instance, bark-cloth is a prestigious valuable. In parts of
New Britain it was used to bind the heads of young babies to achieve the
desired elongated skull shape (Ann Chowning, pers.comm.). Kooijman
(pp.446-453) points out that the descriptions of the manufacture of New
Guinea bark-cloth and the study of the museum material indicate that, as
a rule, this tapa is relatively thick and stiff and made from
Ficus and Artocarpus varieties, rather than from Broussonetia.
He believes that the latter was probably not used for tapa
cloth in New Guinea. He records little mention of bark-cloth use in
Micronesia, other than the wearing of tapa ponchos in Ponape.
Yen (1973:83), in his examination of the
origins of Oceanic agriculture, describes the cultivation of paper
mulberry, as a pruned shrub for the production of bark for cloth, as
ceasing west of the Melanesia/Polynesia border area.
Figure 12: POc
*ike ‘tapa beater’
Although terms can be located in WOc, none are cognate, and no POc
term is reconstructable, apart from terms for the sources of raw
material, POc *(m,mʷ)ase ‘wild mulberry, paper
mulberry,’Broussonetia papyrifera’ POc *kuluR
‘breadfruit, Artocarpus’ (from PAn *kuluR) and POc
*nunu(k) (from PMP *nunuk ‘banyan, Ficus
spp.’) (see Plants, vol. 3).
The term tapa, now virtually the generic term for
bark-cloth, can be reconstructed for PCP.
Note that although the general term for bark-cloth in Tonga is
ŋatu and in Samoa is siapo, the term tapa
does exist in both places. In Tonga today it refers more generally to
‘edge, rim, border, boundary’, and in Samoa it refers to the uncoloured
border of the coloured bark-cloth sheet or siapo. Biggs (1993)
lists these as apparently unrelated homonyms. Alternatively, if we
assume the original PPn meaning of *tapa to be ‘bark-cloth
which was not printed or stained’, its more restricted meaning in Samoa
is understandable.
A second term in Polynesia, referring both to plant and product, is
widespread:
A number of reconstructions have been made at PCP or PPn level, but
the similarity of gloss indicates the likelihood of more subtleties of
meaning than we have been able to identify here. They include: PCP
*ŋatu ‘old or worn bark-cloth’, PCP *leu-leu ‘(old)
tapa cloth’, and PPn *ŋafi-ŋafi ‘old mat or bark-cloth’ (Biggs & Clark 1993).
The only term reconstructable for the Southeast Solomons is
apparently limited to the island of Malaita.
Biggs (1993) has PPn reconstructions for the action of beating
tapa (*tutu), and the board or anvil on which this was
done (*tutua). Both terms are derived from PAn *tuqtuq
‘hammer, pound, crush’, POc *tutuk (see Ch. 9, §5.1). It is of interest
that the Toradja of central Sulawesi also have a term totua for
the wooden board on which the bark-cloth is beaten (Kennedy 1934).
Over the region as a whole there is enormous variation in the degree
and nature of body covering in these areas. Chowning (1991: 46) points out that “although
ornaments were worn everywhere, clothes were not; for example, in parts
of the Bismarck Archipelago both sexes wore nothing. In others, as
Nakanai and part of Kove, only women wore clothing.” Where clothing was
worn, bark-cloth was undoubtedly the most substantial wearable material.
Leaves, and to a lesser extent, grass, were used to fashion skirts,
aprons and G-strings.
The following reconstruction of POc *malo is soundly based,
although there is doubt as to whether the term can be traced back to an
earlier stage. Blust (1970: 133) proposes PMP *maru
‘loincloth’, but notes the difficulty of reconciling the PMP form with
the POc, with the latter having unexplained *o for expected
*u and *l for expected *r. There can be
little doubt that the POc term referred to bark-cloth and a garment made
from that material.
‘tree species, paper mulberry; beaten cloth of the mara
(bark soaked in water and then beaten out, later painted in gay colours
and used as a sling (duru) to carry a child, or a loincloth
(gaha)’
Another apparent POc reconstruction for a loincloth, *sulu,
with cognates in Kilivila (PT) and New Ireland as well as in the central
Pacific, is relegated to PCP or PPn on the grounds that the term and
garment were brought to New Guinea by Fijian and Polynesian missionaries
in the nineteenth century.
The term *tipi ‘man’s loincloth’ perhaps had the generic
sense ‘man’s clothing’, as its reflexes have been reinterpreted quite
broadly with changes in sartorial customs.
Perhaps surprisingly, there is no widely reflected item for
‘grass-skirt’ or, more accurately, ‘leaf skirt’. The set below has
cognates in two primary subgroups, but, since the Admiralties and the
north coast of New Guinea were connected by trading links, it may be due
to borrowing.
POc *kaput and POc *kopu have been mentioned in
relation to the wrapping of food before oven cooking (see Ch. 6, §3.7), although both are
believed to have more general reference (*kaput ‘wrap up,
cover’, *kopu ‘bundle up together’). It would seem that in
Polynesia their reflexes have also come to apply to the covering of the
body, PPn *kafu ‘spread over, cover the body (with a blanket)’
PPn *kofu ‘wrap up; clothing’.
The practice of rubbing oil or grease on the body is known throughout
the region, coconut and candlenut oil being favoured, rather than the
pig fat used in the Highlands. The practice of painting red, yellow,
black or white designs on the face and body with clay, lime etc. is
found mainly in Melanesia. POc *lumu(k) most probably refers to
oil. POc *pani would seem to cover both oiling and painting.
Reflexes of POc *lumut ‘seaweed’ and *lumu(k) ‘oil’
coincide in several SES languages, so the ’Are’are term appears to be a
blend of the two meanings, the idea of anointing with oil presumably
introduced with Christianity.
Chowning (p.48) mentions another form of body ornamentation, the
blackening of teeth, evidently widespread in Melanesia as far east as
the Solomons. Seligman (1910:492) describes the custom among
the people of Tubetube (PT), in which fragments of a black bituminous
semi-fossilised wood called tari are mixed into a paste with
the chopped and roasted leaves of the badira tree, and held against the
teeth overnight. He gives the purpose of teeth blackening as ‘a means of
personal adornment and to attract the opposite sex’. A reconstructed
form, *tapal, can be made for PWOc (the Sa’a term,
taha rather than the expected aha, has to be
considered a borrowing). Mikloucho-Maclay (1975:89) recorded in 1871 that
“The natives [of Astrolabe Bay] not only blacken their faces, but also
the mouth (tongue, teeth, gums, lips) with a substance which they chew.”
He gives the name taval for this substance. Although we cannot
attribute taval to a particular language (Mikloucho-Maclay
lived in a village of Papuan speakers), it is evidence that reflexes of
*tapal occur in the NNG area.
‘pigment made from river rock, used in teeth-blackening’
A second reconstruction is PSS *ogo ‘tooth-blackening
powder’ (Lau ago, Kwaio ogo). Ivens (1927 (reissued 1972):83) described the
custom as practised by ‘young men or girls, who wish to give themselves
airs’, although later, (1930: 121) he wrote that “it was said to
preserve the teeth and prevent sore gums”.
Chowning (1991: 48) points out that tattooing
in New Guinea has only limited distribution, tending to be confined to
people with relatively light skin. “Where it was practised, methods
ranged from the cutting of fine lines with obsidian, after which pigment
was rubbed in, to the use of special implements. Darker-skinned people
practised ornamental cicatrisation.” Although no POc reconstruction has
been made for the activity, reflexes of POc *saRum (see §3.2.1) indicate that a
tattooing needle of bat’s bone was known in both eastern and western
Oceanic as well as the Admiralties. In the east Oceanic region tattooing
is widespread. It was practised most extensively and reached its highest
artistic development in Polynesia. A needle of bat or bird bone was
tapped repetitively with a mallet, and a dye, probably of vegetable
origin, rubbed into the punctured area. (Maoris used a dye made from the
oily smoke of burning nut kernels. In Bellona the sap of the
ŋieemuŋii tree—Canarium harveyi—was collected, allowed
to set, burnt and the carbon collected and scraped into a black powder
(Tickle 1977: 11)). A group of
Samoic Outliers (Anuta, Luangiua, Takuu, Tikopia) use reflexes of PPn
*matau ‘axe’ to refer to their tattooing chisel.
Ross (1996c) has reconstructed a verb,
*noŋo ‘decorate’, used with reference to putting patterns onto
pots and other articles, and for tattooing, but his supporting data are
limited to three reflexes, and the reconstruction must be deemed
tentative.
The kinds of designs used in tattooing, as on pottery and carved
objects, and to a more limited extent on baskets and mats, are a
substantial study in themselves. Ross has identified one pattern which
reflects a familiar pattern in nature, the fishbone, and is found across
a range of crafts.
Chowning (1991: 47) describes the situation in
the New Guinea area:
Perhaps the most common everyday ornaments were necklaces of shell or
animal teeth, bracelets and armbands of a variety of materials, most
often worn above the elbow, and ear ornaments. Noses were usually
pierced, but it is not clear how often nose ornaments were worn. The
other very common ornaments were leg bands, worn below the knee, and
anklets; belts and girdles; and hair ornaments, including ornamental
combs. Aromatic herbs were commonly stuck onto armbands and into the
hair; feathers too, unmodified or made into simple ornaments, were often
stuck into the hair.
Spriggs (1997a: 88) lists the distinctive
range of shell ornaments recovered from Lapita sites such as Eloaua in
the Admiralties, Balof (New Ireland) and Arawe Islands south-west of New
Britain. They include Conus shell rectangular units, beads, rings and
disks, Tridacna rings, Spondylus beads and long units and
Trochus armrings. Reconstructions have been possible for
armlets, pearlshell ornaments, ear decorations and for the act of
stringing together a necklace.
Although these examples are in theory sufficient to justify
attributing to POc *[la]lak[o] the meaning ‘bracelet’ in
addition to its shell meaning (see Shellfish, vol. 3), we cannot know if
both meanings were genuine inheritances in the daughter languages, or
were simply associations independently made.
A similar reconstruction, referring both to a particular shell and to
an ornament typically made from it, is POc *japi.
POc
*japi
‘k.o. bivalve (possibly gold-lipped pearlshell, Pinctada
maxima); ornament made from this’
(Pawley 1996b)
Shell items were evidently used not only for decoration but also
strung together as a form of wealth. Seligman (1910:514) writes of the Southern
Massim:9
[Sapisapi] is a widely distributed name for the small red or
purple discs made from the lip of a bivalve shell which I believe is
Chama pacifica. There are various qualities of
sapisapi, and these discs are worn singly as earrings (on a
ring of turtle shell), or made up into such standard ornaments as
bagi or the necklaces called samakupa at Tubetube.
Bagi are always imported and never made locally either at
Tubetube or Milne Bay, in both of which localities they constitute the
most valuable portable property a man can acquire.
POc inherited *saRu ‘comb’ from PMP. However, Remote Oceanic
reflexes reflect *seru, and this discrepancy suggests that a
borrowing must have occurred at some stage during the Oceanic
dispersal.
These fall into two main categories, a) wind instruments, and b)
drums. Apart from the conch shell trumpet, the wind instruments recorded
in the ethnographic literature are usually of bamboo, although Blackwood (1935: 413) describes a
didgeridoo-type instrument, the mabu, used on Buka, which is
made from the trunk of a small tree. Bamboo instruments are often simply
referred to by the term for bamboo. The drums are typically wooden; but
occasionally lighter drums are made from larger varieties of bamboo.
Where a skin head is required, as in the hourglass drums, the skin of
the monitor lizard is used where available. In Polynesia (Rarotonga),
sharkskin has been recorded as a drum skin.
Other musical instruments mentioned in the ethnographic literature
include Jew’s-harps, dancing sticks, a stringed bow and rattles made
from seed pods or strings of shells.
Reflexes of POc *upi/*ipu ‘blow’ or compounds
containing it, commonly refer to either the playing of wind instruments
or the wind instruments themselves. It is of interest that terms for
panpipes from the sets below are limited to the Southeast Solomons. We
have no POc reconstruction specifically for panpipes.
‘flute: traditional musical instrument made out of bamboo
(monomono); it has four notes per octave. Historically a man would play
the flute when he was hungry and had nothing to eat.’
This relatively small drum, easily carried, is of wood, with the end
covered in (lizard) skin. Chowning
(1991: 59) has noted that on the
north coast of New Guinea and in some parts of west New Britain the name
for the instrument is suspiciously close to the word for ‘monitor
lizard’ (Sengseng pahiyo ‘drum’, apahiya ‘lizard’).
Drumming is produced with the hand, and typically accompanies dances. Ivens (1927 (reissued 1972): 169) reports that
“a true drum of wood with skin stretched over it, such as is used in New
Guinea and Torres Straits, is not found on Mala [Malaita] and
Ulawa”.
The alternation in gloss between the two kinds of drum is probably
due to the term for one kind being used also as a generic. Chowning (1991: 60) reports that in Kove
kure can be used for either instrument, although there is a
separate term for slitgong.
Slitgongs are carved from logs hollowed through a longitudinal slit,
and beaten on one side of the lip, usually with a single heavy stick.
They are often played in unison, with different logs producing different
notes. The sound can carry over considerable distances and can be used
to convey simple messages, summon villagers, announce a feast or the
death of someone of rank and so on (Blackwood 1935: 409). They are large
and heavy, often ornately carved, and will normally survive for many
years. They are almost always used horizontally. In the entire Oceanic
region, upright gongs, standing on their own, are found only in central
Vanuatu (Crowe 1996: 147). In
southern Malaita (SES), somewhat smaller wooden gongs are placed on
stands and played in sets of three, loosely described as soprano, tenor
and bass. These are beaten with short sections of sago bark branches,
pithy and soft (Ivens 1927 (reissued
1972): 169).
Although words for musical instruments are candidates for borrowing,
the fact that POc final *-t is regularly reflected or deleted
throughout the cognate set below is a strong indication that these terms
are not borrowed.
Our reconstructions are for items which draw on a range of raw
materials. They include:
vegetable products (a variety of timbers, bamboo, coconut shell,
leaves, vine, cane and bark)
stone (of variable quality, the most useful being obsidian, flint
and basalt)
coral and shell (Tridacna, Trochus,
Conus, clam, pearlshell and others; turtle shell)
animal products (bone, skin)
earth products (pigments, earth, clay).
While most of these would be readily available throughout the western
Oceanic region, two in particular—obsidian and clay of good, workable
quality—are limited in their distribution. Although obsidian and clay
pots were widely traded, cognate sets supporting reconstructions are
relatively few. The potting term evidence, however, for all its
limitations, shows considerable continuity of terms from PMP to POc The
paucity of Oceanic terms may be due in part to the scattered nature of
pot-making settlements, together with the widespread replacement in
recent times of pots by tinware, but is also no doubt due to the
long-term disappearance of the skill in the eastern Oceanic region.
Although traces of Lapita pots have been uncovered as far east as
Fiji-Tonga-Samoa, the manufacture and use of pottery was evidently
abandoned in Polynesia early in the first millenium AD (Kirch 1997:68). Fiji is the most
easterly place where pottery manufacture survives in the Pacific. In the
Solomons, archaeologists have found few traces of pottery other than
some scattered remains on Buka Island (Kirch 1997:53), and, more recently, in
Marovo Lagoon, western Solomons (Peter Shepherd, pers.comm.).
Nor has reconstructing a term for obsidian been straightforward. As a
glance at the glosses will show, there is considerable variation in
meaning from place to place, with the obsidian term being used at times
for other sharp stones, for a razor, for the head of a spear or an
arrow, and as a cutting verb.
As one moves east, from N.W. Melanesia and the Solomons out into the
Pacific, the range of plant and animal life becomes less, with coral
atolls having the most restricted environments. Shell increases in
importance, while hard stone capable of taking an edge becomes rare.
Terms to do with mats and weaving and bark-cloth manufacture increase in
number and show increased specialization. Tattooing becomes more
widespread. These are most likely indicators of developing elaborations
after the break-up of POc.
Household artefacts varied greatly in the degree to which they were
manufactured. A few—coconut-shell containers and shell scrapers—would
have been functional more or less in their natural state. Most items
were manufactured to some degree, either with use of tools or through
skilful manipulation of the raw material. Axe and adze heads had to be
shaped and fitted with a handle; wooden bowls required tools that cut
and shaped and gouged, smaller versions of the tools used in canoe
manufacture. Mats and baskets ranged from the very simple to the
intricately shaped and patterned, serving not only as domestic items but
also as house walls and canoe sails. Cordage produced not only bags but
also a range of fishing nets.
Pottery would seem to be the household artefact requiring the most
complex stages of manufacture. There would have been little need of
tools beyond paddle (POc *tapi) and anvil (POc *patu
‘stone’). However, stages would include preparation of the clay
involving tempering with sand, moulding, decorating, drying, firing,
and, for some, sealing with a vegetable caulking agent.11
One would assume that this kind of knowledge would be accumulated over a
long period of trial and error, and probably passed down as an
integrated procedure. We know that in more recent times the skill of
making pots was a jealously guarded trade secret, not one that could
simply be copied by examining the final product.
One further point that can be made about POc artefacts is that at
least some of them demonstrated a desire by their makers to produce
something that was more than simply functional. Although this point is
illustrated most vividly by archaeological findings dating back to POc
times, particularly the early Lapita pots, the mere existence of such
decorative items as earrings, arm rings and combs points to a desire for
some sort of ornamentation, some kind of artistic expression.
