-
6. Polynesian Feasting in Ethnohistoric, Ethnographic, and Archaeological Contexts: A Comparison of Three Societies
- The University of Alabama Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
6 POLYNESIAN FEASTING IN HNOHISTORIC, ETHNOGRAPHIC, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS A COMPARISON OF THREE SOCIETIES Patrick \I. Kirch What could be more visually evocative of a "classic" Polynesian scene than a feast? In the public mind. the Hawaiian lu'au has indeed become a potent symbol of Polynesian-ness. Yet the critical role of the feast in Polynesian societies is ethnographically and ethnohistorically verifiable (Bell 1931). not merely a late capitalist invention of the multinational tourist industry. Just as the last Hawaiian king. Kalakaua. llsed the lu'au as a political stage to entertain such international figures as Robert Louis Stevenson. so his chiefly (and priestly) predecessors ritually incorporated the first European explorer to the archipelago. Captain James Cook. in a symbolic act of feeding upon the temple platform of Hikiau (see Sahlins 1995). For generations before Cook burst through the boundaries of Kahiki. Hawaiian chiefs had elaborated the feast as a social nexus wherein the 168 POLYNESIAI~ FEASTII~G: A COMPARISON OF THREE SOCIETIES surplus fruits of production-extracted from the populace by cooperation or by coercion (both martial and ideological)-were put to work furthering chiefly political aspirations. To invoke the Marxist conception of a social formation, the feast occupies strategic terrain at the interface between infrastructure and superstructure . Through the complex act of feast giving, the structures of heterarchy and hierarchy were continually renegotiated. Douglas Oliver (1989:291-292), in his definitive comparative ethnography of Oceanic societies, advances several criteria differentiating feasts from ordinary domestic eating. First. feasts are quantitatively distinguished by larger numbers of participants. incorporating consumers from more than a single household unit. Second. feasts involve "larger amounts of food per intended eater." Third, there are important qualitative differences, such as the inclusion of delicacies or ritually marked foods in feasts. In Polynesian societies. these special foods include, for example . pork. dog. or fowl. prized species of fish (such as pelagic game fish). sea turtle, "fancy puddings" (usually incorporating an emollient such as coconut oil), or "well-aged fermented breadfruit." In some Polynesian societies. human flesh was also a component of feasts. 1 Fourth, there are spatial differences in the ways and places in wruch feast foods were consumed. further differentiating them from domestic eating. In many Polynesian societies there were spatially defined feasting places. although these vary in the extent to wruch they were architectonically marked by permanent structures. Finally. the disposal of the remnants of feasts sometimes differed from the ways in wruch ordinary household food remains were disposed of. The detritus of religious feasts might be given special treatment, for such ritually charged gdrbage could be dangerous to those who came into contact with it. One 01- the great strengths of the Polynesian ethnographic record lies in the opportunities for controlled comparison among a range of societies all characterized as chiefdoms, yet displaying a remarkable range of variability in degree of ruerarchy or stratification. in size of populations and scale of political units. in the levels of production intensification. and similar variables. The classic comparative studies of Marshall Sahlins (1958) and Irving Goldman (1970) exploited these opportunities to derive from the Polynesian record some general models of cultural evolution in pre-state, ranked societies. The ethnographic and ethnohistoric literature on Polynesian feasting is vast,2 grist for a monograph of its own. Here I limit myself to the role of feasts in three Polynesian societies. each representative of one of the categories in Goldman's sociopolitical classification (Table 6.1). These societies are: (1) Tikopia. a smallscale "Traditional" Polynesian chiefdom; (2) the Marquesas, an exemplar of midrange "Open" societies given to fluidity in their social structures; and, (3) Hawai'i, a chiefdom so complex and stratified that it is sometimes characterized as an "ar169 [174.129.93.231] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 13:56 GMT) Patnck V. KLrch TABLE 6.1 Key Contrasts between Tikopia, Marquesas, and Hawaiian Case Studies Attribute Tikopia i\13rquesas Hawai'! Goldman's class Traditional Open Stratified Island size (km') 4.6 1.057 16.692 Total population 1.250 50.000 300.000+ Population of maximal political unit 1.250 1.500-3.000 30.000- 50.000 Degree of Mimmal (2 levels. Intermediate High (ciass stratification little status marking) endogamy between chIefs and commoners) chaic state." I explore the extent to which variation in traditional feasting within these three Polynesian societies displays regularities or signal distinctionswith respect to differences in scale. stratification, or other indices of sociopolitical complexity. r do this by examining three aspects of...