Chapter 105
[60] J. B. Stair, _Old Samoa_, pp. 74 _sq._; G. Brown, _Melanesians and Polynesians_, p. 432.
[61] G. Turner, _Samoa_, p. 173.
The villages of the Samoans were practically self-governing and independent communities, though every village was more or less loosely federated with the other villages of its district. Each district or confederation of villages had its capital (_laumua_) or ruling town.
These federal capitals, however, possessed no absolute authority over the other villages of the district; and though great respect was always shown to them, the people of the district, or even of a particular village, would often dissent from the decisions of the capital and a.s.sert their independence of action.[62] Of this independence a notable instance occurred when the Catholic missionaries first settled in Samoa.
Under the influence of the Protestant missionaries a federal a.s.sembly had pa.s.sed a decree strictly forbidding the admission of Roman Catholics to the islands, and threatening with war any community that should dare to harbour the obnoxious sect. The better to enforce the decree, prayers were publicly offered up in the chapels that G.o.d would be pleased to keep all Papists out of Samoa. To these charitable pet.i.tions the deity seems to have turned a deaf ear; for, in spite of prayers and prohibitions, two Catholic priests and a lay brother landed and were hospitably received and effectually protected by the people of a village, who paid no heed either to the remonstrances of the chiefs or to the thunders of the federal a.s.sembly.[63]
[62] G. Turner, _Samoa_, p. 180; G. Brown, _Melanesians and Polynesians_, p. 333.
[63] Violette, "Notes d'un Missionnaire sur l'archipel de Samoa," _Les Missions Catholiques_, iii. (1870) pp. 119 _sq._
The population of a village might be from two to five hundred persons, and there might be eight or ten villages in a district. Throughout the Samoan islands there were in all eight of these separate districts. The union of the villages in a district was voluntary; they formed by common consent a petty state for their mutual protection. When war was threatened by another district, no single village acted alone; the whole district, or state, a.s.sembled at their capital and held a special parliament to concert the measures to be taken.[64] The boundaries of the districts were well known and zealously guarded, if necessary, by force of arms against the aggression of a neighbouring state. The wardens.h.i.+p of the marches was committed to the two nearest villages on either side, the inhabitants of which were called Boundary-Keepers.
Between two such villages in former days mutual ill-feeling constantly existed and border feuds were frequent.[65]
[64] G. Turner, _Samoa_, pp. 173, 180 _sq._ A third local division, intermediate between the village and the district, is mentioned by Stair, who calls it a settlement (_Old Samoa_, p. 83); but the other authorities whom I have consulted appear not to recognise such an intermediate division.
[65] J. B. Stair, _Old Samoa_, p. 83.
The form of government both of the village and of the district was parliamentary. Affairs were discussed and settled in a representative a.s.sembly (_fono_), composed of the leading men of each village or district. These representatives included the chiefs, together with the householders or landowners (_tulafales_) and the inferior gentry (the _faleupolu_). The more weighty affairs, such as declaring war or making peace, or any matters of importance which concerned the whole district, were debated in the general parliament of the district, while business of purely local interest was transacted in the parliament of the village. It was the privilege of the capital to convene the district parliament, to preside over its deliberations, to settle disputed points, to sum up the proceedings, and to dismiss the a.s.sembly. These meetings were usually conducted with much formality and decorum. They were always held in the large public place (_malae_ or _marae_) of the village or town. It was an open green spot surrounded by a circle of trees and houses. The centre was occupied by a large house which belonged to the chief and was set apart as a caravansary for the entertainment of strangers and visitors. Members of all the three orders which composed the parliament had the right to address it; but the speaking was usually left to the householders or landowners (_tulafales_). Each chief had generally attached to him one of that order who acted as his mouthpiece; and in like manner each settlement retained the services of a member of the order, who was the leading orator of the district. Decisions were reached not by voting but by general consent, the discussion being prolonged until some conclusion, satisfactory to the greater part of the members, and particularly to the most influential, was arrived at. One of the princ.i.p.al prerogatives of the king seems to have been that of convoking a parliament; though, if he refused to do so, when circ.u.mstances seemed to require it, the a.s.sembly would undoubtedly have met without him. The functions of these a.s.semblies were judicial as well as legislative and deliberative.
Offenders were arraigned before them and, if found guilty, were condemned and punished.[66]
[66] H. Hale, _Ethnography and Philology of the United States Exploring Expedition_, p. 29; Ch. Wilkes, _Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition_, ii. 153 _sq._; Violette, "Notes d'un Missionnaire sur l'archipel de Samoa,"
_Les Missions Catholiques_, iii. (1870) p. 119; G. Turner, _Samoa_, pp. 177 _sqq._, 180 _sqq._; S. Ella, _op. cit._ pp. 632 _sq._; J. B. Stair, _Old Samoa_, pp. 84 _sqq._; G. Brown, _Melanesians and Polynesians_, pp. 286 _sq._, 288 _sqq._
It says much for the natural ability of the Samoans that they should have attained to a level of culture so comparatively high with material resources so scanty and defective. Nature, indeed, supplied them with abundance of food and timber, but she denied them the metals, which were unknown in the islands until they were introduced from Europe. In their native state, accordingly, the Samoans were still in the Stone Age, their princ.i.p.al tools being stone axes and adzes, made mainly from a close-grained basalt which is found in the island of Tutuila. Of these axes the rougher were chipped, but the finer were ground. Sh.e.l.ls were used as cutting instruments and as punches to bore holes in planks; and combs, neatly carved out of bone, were employed as instruments in tattooing. A wooden dibble served them instead of a plough to turn up the earth. The only skins they prepared were those of sharks and some other fish, which they used as rasps for smoothing woodwork. The art of pottery was unknown.[67] Food was cooked in ovens of hot stones;[68]
fire was kindled by the friction of wood, the method adopted being what is called the stick-and-groove process.[69]
[67] G. Brown, _Melanesians and Polynesians_, p. 319; G. Turner, _Samoa_, p. 158; J. B. Stair, _Old Samoa_, pp. 146, 149, 154, 159. As to the wooden dibbles, see Ella, _op. cit._ p.
635 (above, p. 166).
[68] G. Turner, _Samoa_, pp. 111 _sq._; G. Brown, _Melanesians and Polynesians_, p. 130.
[69] G. Brown, _Melanesians and Polynesians_, p. 129.
We now pa.s.s to a consideration of the religion of these interesting people, especially in regard to the human soul and its destiny after death.
-- 6. _Religion: G.o.ds of Families, Villages, and Districts_
The first missionary to Samoa, John Williams, was struck by the contrast between the religion of the Samoans and the religion of the other Polynesian peoples whom he had studied. "The religious system of the Samoans," he says, "differs essentially from that which obtained at the Tahitian, Society, and other islands with which we are acquainted. They have neither _maraes_, nor temples, nor altars, nor offerings; and, consequently, none of the barbarous and sanguinary rites observed at the other groups. In consequence of this, the Samoans were considered an impious race, and their impiety became proverbial with the people of Rarotonga; for, when upbraiding a person who neglected the wors.h.i.+p of the G.o.ds, they would call him 'a G.o.dless Samoan.' But, although heathenism was presented to us by the Samoans in a dress different from that in which we had been accustomed to see it, having no altars stained with human blood, no _maraes_ strewed with the skulls and bones of its numerous victims, no sacred groves devoted to rites of which brutality and sensuality were the most obvious features, this people had
[70] John Williams, _Narrative of Missionary Enterprises in the South Sea Islands_, pp. 465 _sq._
This account of the Samoan religion, written at a time when the islands were not yet fully opened up to Europeans, must be modified by the testimony of later writers, in particular with regard to the alleged absence of temples and offerings; but in its broad outlines it holds good, in so far as the Samoan ritual was honourably distinguished from that of many other islands in the Pacific by its freedom from human sacrifice and from the gross and licentious practices which prevailed in other branches of the Polynesian race. The notion of the Rarotongans that the Samoans were a G.o.dless people has proved to be totally mistaken. On closer acquaintance it was found that they lived under the influence of a host of imaginary deities who exercised their faith and demanded their obedience. Among these deities the most numerous and perhaps the most influential were the _aitu_, which were the G.o.ds of individuals, of families, of towns or villages, and of districts.[71]
These G.o.ds were supposed to appear in some visible embodiment or incarnation, and the particular thing, or cla.s.s of things, in which his G.o.d was in the habit of appearing, was to the Samoan an object of veneration, and he took great care never to injure it or treat it with contempt. In the great majority of cases the thing in which the deity presented himself to his wors.h.i.+ppers was a cla.s.s of natural objects, most commonly a species of animal, bird, or fish, less frequently a tree or plant or an inanimate object, such as a stone, the rainbow, or a meteor. One man, for example, saw his G.o.d in the eel, another in the shark, another in the turtle, another in the owl, another in the lizard, and so on throughout all the fish of the sea, the birds, the four-footed beasts, and creeping things. In some of the sh.e.l.l-fish, such as the limpets on the rocks, G.o.ds were supposed to be present. It was not uncommon to see an intelligent chief muttering prayers to a fly, an ant, or a lizard, which chanced to alight or crawl in his presence. A man would eat freely of the incarnation of another man's G.o.d, but would most scrupulously refrain from eating of the incarnation of his own particular G.o.d, believing that death would be the consequence of such sacrilege. The offended G.o.d was supposed to take up his abode in the body of the impious eater and to generate there the very thing which he had eaten, till it caused his death. For example, if a man, whose family G.o.d was incarnate in the p.r.i.c.kly sea-urchin (_Echinus_), were to eat of a sea-urchin, it was believed that a p.r.i.c.kly sea-urchin would grow in his body and kill him. If his family G.o.d were incarnate in the turtle, and he was rash enough to eat a turtle, the G.o.d would enter into him, and his voice would be heard from within the sinner's body, saying, "I am killing this man; he ate my incarnation." Occasionally, however, the penalty exacted by the deity was less severe. If, for instance, a man's G.o.d was in c.o.c.kles, and he ate one of these sh.e.l.l-fish, a c.o.c.kle would grow on his nose; if he merely picked up a c.o.c.kle on the sh.o.r.e and walked away with it, the sh.e.l.l-fish would appear on some part of his person. But in neither case, apparently, would the kindly c.o.c.kle take the life of the offender. It was not a bloodthirsty deity. Again, a man whose G.o.d was in coco-nuts would never drink the refres.h.i.+ng beverage which other people were free to extract from the nuts. But the wors.h.i.+pper who shrank from eating or drinking his G.o.d in the shape, say, of an octopus or of coco-nut water, would often look on with indifference while other people partook of these his divinities. He might pity their ignorance or envy their liberty, but he would not seek to enlighten the one or to restrain the other.[72] Indeed this indifference was sometimes carried to great lengths. For example, a man whose G.o.d was incarnate in the turtle, though he would not himself dare to partake of turtle, would have no scruple in helping a neighbour to cut up and cook a turtle; but in doing so he took the precaution to tie a bandage over his mouth to prevent an embryo turtle from slipping down his throat and sealing his doom by growing up in his stomach.[73]
Sometimes the incarnate deity, out of consideration perhaps for the weakness of the flesh, would limit his presence to a portion of an animal, it might be the left wing of a pigeon, or the tail of a dog, or the right leg of a pig.[74] The advantages of such a restriction to a wors.h.i.+pper are obvious. A man, for instance, to whom it would have been death to eat the right leg of a pig, might partake of a left leg of pork with safety and even with gusto. And so with the rest of the divine menagery.
[71] W. T. Pritchard, _Polynesian Reminiscences_ (London, 1866), pp. 106 _sqq._; T. H. Hood, _Notes of a Cruise in H.M.S. "Fawn" in the Western Pacific_, p. 141; G. Turner, _Samoa_, pp. 16 _sqq._; J. B. Stair, _Old Samoa_, pp. 211, 215 _sqq._
[72] J. Williams, _Narrative of Missionary Enterprises in the South Sea Islands_, p. 468; Ch. Wilkes, _Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition_, ii. 131 _sq._; T. H. Hood, _Notes of a Cruise in H.M.S. "Fawn" in the Western Pacific_, p.
141; W. T. Pritchard, _Polynesian Reminiscences_, pp. 106 _sqq._; Violette, "Notes d'un Missionnaire sur l'archipel de Samoa," _Les Missions Catholiques_, iii. (1870) p. 111; G.
Turner, _Samoa_, pp. 16 _sqq._, 40, 50 _sq._; J. B. Stair, _Old Samoa_, pp. 211, 216 _sq._; G. Brown, _Melanesians and Polynesians_, pp. 137, 218. The account of these deities given by Dr. G. Turner is by far the fullest and best.
[73] G. Turner, _Samoa_, pp. 67 _sq._
[74] W. T. Pritchard, _op. cit._ p. 107. Similarly some people had pig's heart for their G.o.d, or the embodiment of their G.o.d, and they scrupulously avoided eating pigs' hearts lest pigs' hearts should grow in their bodies and so cause their death. See G. Turner, _Samoa_, p. 72.
However, even if the worst had happened, that is to say, if the deity had been killed, cooked and eaten, the consequences were not necessarily fatal to his wors.h.i.+ppers; there were modes of redeeming the lives of the sinners and of expiating their sin. Suppose, for example, that the G.o.d of a household was the cuttle-fish, and that some visitor to the house had, either in ignorance or in bravado, caught a cuttle-fish and cooked it, or that a member of the family had been present where a cuttle-fish was eaten, the family would meet in conclave to consult about the sacrilege, and they would select one of their number, whether a man or a woman, to go and lie down in a cold oven and be covered over with leaves, just as in the process of baking, all to pretend that the person was being offered up as a burnt sacrifice to avert the wrath of the deity. While this solemn pretence was being enacted, the whole family would engage in prayer, saying, "O bald-headed cuttle-fish, forgive what has been done. It was all the work of a stranger." If they did not thus abase themselves before the divine cuttle-fish, they believed that the G.o.d would visit them and cause a cuttle-fish to grow internally in their bodies and so be the death of some of them.[75] Similar modes of appeasing the wrath of divine eels, mullets, stinging ray fish, turtles, wild pigeons, and garden lizards were adopted with equal success.[76]
[75] G. Turner, _Samoa_, pp. 31 _sq._
[76] G. Turner, _Samoa_, pp. 38, 58, 59, 69 _sq._, 72.
Apparently the Samoans were even more concerned to defend their village G.o.ds or district G.o.ds against injury and insult than to guard the deities of simple individuals. We are told that all the inhabitants of a district would thus unite for the protection of the local divinity.[77]
For example, it happened that in a village where the first native Christian teachers settled one of them caught a sea-eel (_Muraena_) and cooked it, and two of the village lads, who were their servants, ate some of the eel for their supper. But the eel was the village G.o.d, and when the villagers heard that the lads had eaten the G.o.d, they administered a sound thras.h.i.+ng to the culprits, and dragged them off to a cooking-house where they laid them down in the oven pit and covered them with leaves in the usual way, as if the lads had been killed and were now to be cooked as a peace-offering to avert the wrath of the deity.[78] When John Williams had caused some Christian natives to kill a large sea-snake and dry it on the rocks to be preserved as a specimen, the heathen fishermen of the island at sight of it raised a most terrific yell, and, seizing their clubs, rushed upon the Christian natives, saying, "You have killed our G.o.d! You have killed our G.o.d!" It was with difficulty that Mr. Williams restrained their violence on condition that the reptile should be immediately carried back to the boat from which the missionary had landed.[79] The island in which this happened belonged to the Tongan group, but precisely the same incident might have occurred in Samoa. In some parts of Upolu a G.o.ddess was believed to be incarnate in bats, and if a neighbour chanced to kill one of these creatures, the indignant wors.h.i.+ppers of the bat might wage a war to avenge the insult to their deity.[80] If people who had the stinging ray fish for the incarnation of their G.o.d heard that their neighbours had caught a fish of that sort, they would go and beg them to give it up and not to cook it. A refusal to comply with the request would be followed by a fight.[81]
[77] J. B. Stair, _Old Samoa_, pp. 216 _sq._
[78] G. Turner, _Samoa_, p. 58.
[79] J. Williams, _op. cit._ p. 469.
[80] G. Turner, _Samoa_, p. 57.
[81] G. Turner, _Samoa_, p. 75.
Accordingly, when the Samoans were converted to Christianity, they gave the strongest proof of the genuineness of their conversion by killing and eating their animal G.o.ds. Thus when a chief named Malietoa renounced heathenism, he caused an eel to be publicly caught, cooked, and eaten by many persons who had hitherto regarded the eel as their G.o.d. His own sons had a different sort of fish, called _anae_, for their private deity, and to demonstrate their faith in the new religion they had a quant.i.ty of the fish caught, cooked, and served up in the presence of a large party of friends and relations. There, with trembling hearts, they partook of the once sacred morsel; but, their fears getting the better of them, they immediately retired from the feast and swallowed a powerful emetic, lest the divine fish should lie heavy on their stomachs and devour their vitals.[82] As nothing particular happened after these daring innovations, the people took heart of grace, and concerted further plans for the destruction of their ancient deities. Among these was a certain Papo, who was nothing more or less than a piece of old rotten matting, about three yards long and four inches wide; but being a G.o.d of war and, in that capacity, always attached to the canoe of the leader when they went forth to battle, he was regarded with great veneration by the people. At the a.s.sembly convoked to decide on his fate, the first proposal was to throw him into the fire. But the idea was too shocking to the general sense of the community, and by way of making death as little painful as possible to the deity, they decided to take him out to sea in a canoe and there consign him to a watery grave.
Even from this mitigated doom Papo was rescued by the efforts of the missionaries, and he now adorns a museum.[83]
[82] J. Williams, _op. cit._ pp. 373 _sq._
[83] J. Williams, _op. cit._ p. 375.
But even when the career of one of these animal G.o.ds was not prematurely cut short by being killed, cooked, and eaten, he was still liable to die in the course of nature; and when his dead body was discovered, great was the sorrow of his wors.h.i.+ppers. If, for example, the G.o.d of a village was an owl, and a dead owl was found lying beside a road or under a tree, it would be reverently covered up with a white cloth by the person who discovered it, and all the villagers would a.s.semble round the dead G.o.d and burn their bodies with firebrands and beat their foreheads with stones till the blood flowed. Then the corpse of the feathered deity would be wrapped up and buried with as much care and ceremony as if it were a human body. However, that was not the death of the G.o.d. He was supposed to be yet alive and incarnate in all the owls in existence.[84]
[84] G. Turner, _Samoa_, pp. 21, 26, 60 _sq._ Compare W. T. Pritchard, _Polynesian Reminiscences_, pp. 110 _sq._
The offerings to these deities consisted chiefly of cooked food,[85]
which was apparently deemed as essential to the sustenance of G.o.ds as of men, and that even when the G.o.ds were not animals but stones. For example, two oblong smooth stones, which stood on a platform of loose stones near a village, were regarded as the parents of the rain-G.o.d, and when the people were making ready to go off to the woods for the favourite sport of pigeon-catching, they used to lay offerings of cooked taro and fish on the stones, accompanied by prayers for fine weather and no rain. These stone G.o.ds were also believed to cause yams to grow; hence in time of dearth a man would present them with a yam in hope of securing their favour.[86]
[85] G. Turner, _Samoa_, p. 20.
[86] G. Turner, _Samoa_, pp. 24 _sq._
At the feasts the first cup of kava was dedicated to the G.o.d, the presiding chief either pouring it out on the ground or waving it towards the sky. Afterwards all the chiefs drank from the same cup according to their rank; then the food brought as an offering was divided and eaten there before the G.o.d.[87] Even within the circle of the family it was customary to pour out on the ground a little kava as an offering to the family G.o.d before any one else drank of it.[88]
[87] G. Turner, _Samoa_, p. 20; W. T. Pritchard, _Polynesian Reminiscences_, pp. 121 _sqq._