Extraterritoriality and the Tikopia Chiefs Raymond Firth Man, New Series, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Sep., 1969), 354-378. Stable URL htp:/flinks.jstor-org/sicisici=( 125-1496%28196909% 292%3A4%3A3%3C3S4%3AEATTC%3E2 .CO%IB2T ‘Man is currently published by Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hup:/www,jstororglabout/terms.hml. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hupulwww.jstor.org/journals/rai. html ch copy of any part of'a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, ISTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @ jstor.org. hupulwww jstor.org/ Thu Feb 9 08:05:29 2006EXTRATERRITORIALITY AND THE TIKOPIA CHIEFS Raywonp Firrit University of Hawa This sa tudy of sovereignty on a small scale. Twenty years ago Texamined the authority system of Tikopiaasit operated in internal crisis, with particular reference to the roles of executive officers and the public in moderating the decisions of chief (Firth 1949). Here [examine the implications of an external crisis in which the decisions of the chiefs were of cardinal importance, and executives and public both played subordinate roles. In the earlier situation sovercignty over Tikopia was held by the chiefs, subject to the remote control of the government of the British Solomon Islands Protectorate. In the later situation, this conception of sovereignty—or sub-sovereignty—seemed for a time to be in question. Since about 1950, large numbers of Tikopia have gone overseas to seek employ- ment which would give them a cash income and relieve pressure on local resources. Tnevery case this has been done with the express approval of thei chic. Some have settled on the government station at Kirakira in the Eastern District of the Pro~ tectorate, others at Honiara, capital of the Protectorate others on or near planta~ tions operated by Levers Pacific Plantations in the Russell islands. Most of these people have been living in ordinary labour quarters, some with, others without their families, and not forming highly integrated separate Tikopia communities. But settlements of another type have also been established, inhabited solely by Tikopia, with considerable land for cultivation in Tikopia style. Of these setlo~ ments, which may be termed colonies, the most important is Nukuféro, in the Russell islands, established on land granted by Levers through the good offices of government. The Tikopia there, upwards of 20 as compared with the 1,000 or 50 fon the home island, work for the most part on the adjacent Levers plantations. Inthe crisis which I describe the main protagonists were the Tikopia chief and the government of the Protectorate. The outline of the situation at the beginning cof July 1966 when I arrived in the Solomons on my third visit is as follows? Problem of non-payment of tax” In recent years the administrative officals of the Solomon island inline with general British policy, have endeavoured to promote self-government in the terttory, beginning with the establishment of a system of lected local councils, and have devoted much careful work to this end, Efforts were made to institute such a counel forthe island of Tikopia, bu in discussions with the chief ifculies arose which finally decided the government not to pursue the mater for the time being. Ie was thought, with reason, that the allegiance of the Tikopia to heir chiefs was suflicent t0 provide for good order and, considering the lack of re~ sources on Tikopia, the residents might fairly be exempt from any immediate payment of the local rates which the councils normally | ‘But the position of Tikopia residents abroad was quite diferent. ince they wereBXTRATERRITORIALITY AND THE TIKOPIA CHIEFS 355 living in areas where local councils were in operation they were expected to pay the local rates, and such a council was in existence in the Russell islands. The demand for the Tikopia to pay the Russell Isnds Council rates (termed by the Tikopia takis, ‘tax') was opposed vigorously by the inhabitants of Nukufero. Their argu~ ‘ment was that their chiefs had forbidden them to pay, and had instructed them instead to pay their ‘tax’ to the Tikopia Development Fund.} This was a fund already set up and maintained by contributions from Tikopia overseas workers, ‘with the objective of providing cash for projects of public importance on Tikopia island itself. (In mid-1966 it amounted to over A$r,s00, afier about A$r,000 hnad already been paid out for materials for a rural health clini.) ‘The Protectorate government, naturally, found this atitude unacceptable. It had no objection to the establishment and support of the Tikopia Development Fund, and indeed had officially sanctioned it and asisted in its operation. But to regard this as a substitute for payment of local rates to the council in the territory of which people were normally resident, would be to go completely against the principles of local government which it had been trying hard to foster. So to~ ‘wards the end of 1965, when the rates were due, the District Commissioner (D.C. Eastern District spoke with three of the chiefs on the island (the fourth, the Ari ‘Tafua, being absent at his cultivations) and tried to get their agreement to the ‘Tikopia on Nakufero paying their rates to the Russell Islands Council. The chiefs ‘would not agree. They replied, it appeared, tha if the government insisted on such payment they would then give instructions forall Tikopia abroad to return home to the island, Tikopia at Nukufero did not pay their rates when these became due in 1966. Opinion among Europeans who were aware of this differed as to whether they ‘were bluffing to avoid payment or were really conforming sincerely to the views of their chiefs. After some time (for the government officials were very loath to force the issue) summonses were issued agains six ofthe leading men, including the recognised headman (‘boss-boy’) and the school teacher. These men did not appear in courtand were accordingly fined each for failure to pay, in addition toa rate demand of £4 per man. The alternative to the fine was one month’ imprisonment. ‘When in tum the fines were not paid an official effort was then made to bring the delinquents by boat to Honiara, the scat of government, for punishment. This was rendered abortive by Tikopia mass action. A crowd of Tikopia accompanied the delinquents to the launch side and began to get aboard with them, protesting that none of them had paid ‘tax’ either and that all therefore should be taken to justice. ‘The authorities, seeing the danger that the small vessel might be swamped, wisely did not press the matter. Faced by the prospect of secing a quantity of their best labour disappear into jail, the managing authorities of Levers Pacific Plantations, after various confer- ‘ences, paid the fine for cach of the Tikopia leaders, leaving them to meet the ‘tax’ demand. (Levers would have been prepared to deduct the sum due from cach labourer’s wages and pay it over to the council, but this did not prove necessary.) In the event the amounts of the fines were promptly repaid to Levers (somewhat to their surprise) through the ‘boss-boy’, and all Tikopia at Nukufero who were liable paid their rates. But the issue was still open for the future, for the chief" opposition had not been overtly withdrawn,356 RAYMOND FIRTH ‘The matter was taken up again by the D.C, Eastern with the chief when he visited Tikopia in August, 1966, in a meeting at which the anthropologists were present. The chiefs reiterated their objection to Tikopia abroad paying the ‘tax’. He restated the position of government and they agreed to think over what he had said. This official mecting took place in the open air, near where the Ariki Kafika, the premier chief, was living, Immediately after, there was a social gathering of the chiefs with the D.C. in the house of the Ariki. Gifts were exchanged and a meal taken together. Conversation was informal and very friendly. (For this social gathering I acted as interpreter; for the formal meeting a Tikopia served as oficial translator.) ‘The whole situation of non-payment of ‘tax’ was of interest to me in several ‘ways. Such a straight confrontation of chiefs with goverment was most speo- tacular and unusual, and suggested some deep-rooted cause of concer; it offered important clues to the contemporary politcal structure ofthe Tikopia; and it posed a serious problem in the adaptation of traditional institutions to moder require ‘ments. It also raised an interesting more abstract question about where sovereignty overall Tikopia, abroad as well as at home, might be thought to li. Established position of Tikopia chiefs In 1952, picking up the situation of a generation before, it was evident that the chiefs were a basic component of the structure of Tikopia society, a symbol ofits integrity and a prime factor in decision-making on questions of public policy (Firth 1950: 254 5qq) In 1966, despite the rise of new authority figures such as the school teachers—ofien given the title of Mr, applied to other Tikopia only on letters—the chiefs were still the acknowledged. representatives of the Tikopia people in all internal public affairs and in political relations with extemal powers. ‘Tikopia chief, installed in office by act ofthe people in general and not just of those of their own clan, had authority which extended through the whole community, though it was most specific and most stringent over members of their own clans, ‘Traditionally, all four chiefs were socially and politically equal, but were in a ritual order of precedence: Kafika, Tafa, Taumako, Fangarere. By 1966, now that all hnad been Christian for a decade, this precedence no longer had any insttutionalised ritual significance. But it had tended to crystalise into a general ranking order for public occasions. What was new was a kind of ‘office shorthand” way of referring to them. By Europeans, especially government officers, the Ariki Kafika was often written as or spoken of as "No 1 chief”, the Ariki Tafua as ‘No 2 chief” and so on. I found Tikopia themselves using these expressions, either in English or sometimes descriptively in the vernacular. A couple of my old ftiends said to me (in Tikopia) “The Ariki Kafika, we say he is the great chief, he isthe highest. We speak like this: napaivan, napatu, and so on.’ The Ariki Kafika was treated as the ranking chief since traditionally he had prime responsibility for the Tikopia community as a whole, and in 1966 he continued to behave as one entitled to speak for the body politic, But the offce of chief in itself seta person apart from the rest of the com- munity, and in 1966 as earlier, each chief was given the same tokens of formal respect. In practice, some differentiation of authority and influence was apt toEXTRATERRITORIALITY AND THE TIKOPIA CHIEFS 337 ‘occur on the bass of personality, seniority and tersitorial range—the Ariki Tafua, for instance, was in sole control in the district of Faea. Particularly noteworthy in 1966 was the continuance of the ideology of the taboo of chiefi—avoidance of bodily contact, of loud noise in their vicinity, etc. Conversely, chief were expected to behave in ways which conformed to their tapu: even by 1966 no chief concemed himself with oven work. Traditionally a ‘Tikopia chief should not bear burdens, but nowadays this custom has been dis- regarded to some extent. In 1966 I saw the Ariki Tafua carrying poles on his shoulder—but he shocked the more conservative Tikopia by so doing, and he was the only chief to do so. The Ariki Kafika told me how when he lived in Nukufero he planted food—traditionally a very proper occupation for a chief—but he did not ‘work for Levers, who however made him an allowance in view of his rank. By 1966 the Ariki Taumako was the only chief still to wear his hair really long in traditional style (Firth 1967b: plate 1) and to wear the kie pandanus mat as a kilt additional to his bark cloth—other chiefs wore calico kits asa rule; even he wore @ Jeather bele. But wearing calico or not, bearing burdens or not, a Tikopia chief was te ariki and as such was an object of special respect and credited with special powers. Even the most sophisticated Tikopia believed that a chief had a special mana and that in some undefined way he could affect che well-being of other Tikopia (cf. Firth 19676: 365). ‘The unique position of the Tikopia arti wa illustrated by that of the head man of Nukuféro. Titulaly, the authority of the leaders in settlements of Tikopia abroad was derived from the chiefs, who formally delegated such authority. When a chief came abroad he was treated by the Tikopia with the same respect as when he was at home, and very substantial gifts, including on occasion, {£100 or £200 in money, were made to him on his departure. In everyday matters the local leader acted on his own responsibility. Moreover, considerable respect was paid to him, even on occasions to his embarrassment. When in mid-1966 a marriage was celebrated in Nukufero, a present of food similar to that given toa clan chief was sade to the local leader Pa Taukuna (Arthur). This was referred to as fakaariki— the chiefly gift. People explained to me that this gift was made ‘because he is great inthis place’. When the carriers of the large mass of food arrived at his dwelling heard one of them jokingly call out ‘Chiefly gift to the chief Taukuna’—using the term arik. This was not said seriously. But when I commented on this to Pa Taukuna later he was upset and went into a long explanation. He said ‘Ie was wrong. It should nat have been termed fakaarite but fakamailonga’—an ‘acknow- ledgement” os ‘sign’. He suid that che four ariki in Tikopia were different, that the proper name for himself was ‘boss-boy’ (the pidgin English word), and that he obeyed the chiefs. He was clearly anxious to dissociate himself from the ariki tile, perhaps fearing a charge of boasting, a not uncommon Tikopia accusation, ‘which could have brought down on him the wrath of the chief. The fact chat the gift was made under the head of fakaariki indicated a significant trend of modern thought, of recognition of the status of the new leaders, who may hold no rank in the traditional society. Butit did not mean that the new leader was credited with the qualities, including the mystical attributes of mana and tapt, of a traditional chief. The Tikopia themselves were quite clear on this issue. Long before I myself ‘was in contact with the situation I was told that Pa Taukuna was sometimes called358 RAYMOND FIRTHE Te Ariki i Nukufero, but that his was only a manner of speaking; he had not been taken to be chief By this was meant that he was flfilling a role, he did not occupy an office. Such attitudes were linked with the Tikopia idea of their chiefs as representatives of the Tikopia community as a whole, as standing for its solidarity, as symbolising the set of values characterising the Tikopia way of life. With the abandonment of the traditional pagan religion one might have expected this special quality of chiefiainship to disappear, for the chiefs to retain their general social and political status, but to lose their mystical quality. That this had not been so [attribute in part to the remoteness of Tikopia and to the timing and intensity of the Tikopia con- frontation with the outside world. If Tikopia contacts with the outside world had been more massive at an earlier period they might well have let slip their peculiar institutions, including an effectively operational chicftainship, as did many of their Polynesian congeners. But their recent fairly sudden massive exposure to Western technology and industry came at a time when there was much more public consciousness of the values of contrasted cultures, when the Tikopia could look at their own institutions as something worthy of pride without having this claim derided, and could retreat into their own way of life when pressed too hard by the demands of modernism. Moreover, politically they were unified in a way in which ‘many other Polynesian cultures were not when Westem pressures became strong. Hence in this situation their chiefs could act as a point of focus for all Tikopia, abroad as well as at home. They were a rallying point for Tikopia sentiment, encapsulating Tikopia belief in themselves and the values of their culture. In continuing to assign mystical values to their chiefs Tikopia were really expressing {th in the significance of their own unity and way of life. (have the impression that modem stresses may even have heightened this assignment.) This process was asisted by two other circumstances. One was the relative lack of chiefs among the Melanesian Solomon islands peoples. The Tikopia had some- thing the others had not got. The coming of a Tikopia chief to Honiara was an event reported in the newspapers arousing a curiosity and even akind of unwilling respect from other Solomon islanders and Europeans. The other circumstance was the lack of any exploitable resource on Tikopia—except labour. If the islands had had extensive cultivable lands for plantations, or workable minerals, the claims of ‘Western commercial interests, with governmental oversight, would have tended to impose closer conditions on the status and powers of the Tikopia chief, as has happened elsewhere in Polynesia. But since the only resource the Western system ‘wanted from Tikopia was manpower, and in modern conditions labour has to be ‘wooed, not dragooned, the keynote of approach to the Tikopia has been respect. ‘As it was, by 1966 the large-scale use of a Tikopia labour force overseas had produced problems of distribution of earnings in which the government became inevitably involved, and which limited the decision-making powers of the chiefs. Bat the working-out of this situation also demonstrated the strength of Tikopia allegiance to their chief, and the manner in which the people regarded the chicfs as the prime decision-makers for the community. Control overland and manpower In Tikopia eyes what explains and justifies the economic and political authorityEXTRATERRITORIALITY AND THE TIKOPIA CHIBES 359 of their chiefs is their suzerain relation to the land (Firth 1959: 297). Common ‘Tikopia expressions in 1966, as earlier, were “This land is the land of the chiefs"; “Tikopia is the soil of the chiefs; “The orchard isthe orchard ofa man, but the soil is the soil ofthe chief” And the validating phrase was often added—'from ancient times’. ‘The chiefs were regarded as the ultimate owners of the land, with the right to dispose of it and its products as they wished, Ie was assumed that theie wish was in general the welfare of the community, though it was recognised that in particular ‘cases a chief might try to enlarge his own resources at the expense of other people. But public opinion was a powerfl check here, and the tradition of responsibility for communal well-being was s0 buile into the operations of chieftainship that chic’ decisions seemed to be taken very much with community welfare in mind. ‘The authority ofthe chiefs over land was paralleled by their authority over man- power. Broadly speaking, the actions of any ordinary member of the community were regulated with reference to the wishes of his can chief, and/or any other chief in his vicinity. This applied specifically to migration of Tikopia abroad. The convention in 1966, as earlier, was that before going abroad a man asked permission of his clan chief (A married man asked permission for his wife and children also, if he wished them to accompany him; likewise, a brother for his sister, Women proffered their requests only through their male kin.) Permission was sometimes refused, not arbitrarily, but on the ground of public policy, such as that the man concerned was aged and might die on the voyage, or that there would be no one left on Tikopia to care for the lineage lands. Chiefs were often reluctant to let men go abroad, lest it appear that they were careless about their people's fate or (hinted at rather chan outspoken) that they wanted them to migrate so that they could appropriate their lands In earlier times, before transport became so readily available and the pattems of emigration developed so clearly, young men who had been refused by their chief sometimes took canoes secredy and set out for other islands. Many were lost but some returned to tel oftheir adventures and fire others to-emulate them, In modern times, if chief refused a man permission to go abroad {ntally, the man often persisted until the chief yielded, In the sphere of pubic policy in 1966 the reaction of Tikopia was much the same asat earlier periods—they rarely if ever challenged a chief's decision. A chief could bbe spoken to sharply by his age-mates, he might be criticised in semi-private gatherings, he might be urged to come to a decision. But on critical issues the Tikopia were apt to say, if asked for a view, ‘It lies with the chief" It was the recognised right of a chief to make major decisions affecting individuals or bodies ‘of people, especially his clansmen, and such decisions were normally accepted ‘unguestioningly. Soin politcal terms, the legitimacy ofthe chiefs was unquestioned. But the situation was sometimes complex and even delicate. While a chief had a traditional right to exercise his powers arbitrarily he was usually very careful not to do so, He was responsible o his people as well as forhis people. Consequently in practice he was apt to consul with his maru (executive officals) a to the attitudes of his people before giving expression to a public view or instruction. Moreover, he tended to draw a line between matters of public interest, on which he would take decisions, and matters of private interest, on which he was often reluctant to express an opinion. So in mid-1966 at a public gathering addressed by Pa360 RAYMOND FIRTH ‘Ngarumea, the principal maru of Ravenga, speaking on behalf of the Ravenga chiefs, the people were ordered to refrain from plucking leaves of turmeric on the ‘mountain slopes—to make dance decorations—so that the turmeric might be conserved for the manufacture of pigment, an activity in which the chiefs took a lead. On the other hand, despite official prodding, no public view was expressed at any time on behalf ofthe chiefs about excreting om the beaches, a practice which the {government health authorities wished to abolish. The Tikopia did not see division between public and private interest in the same terms as did the health authorities; they were disgusted by excreta, but they saw personal hygiene and sanitation as essentially personal matters, backed by traditional custom. The government there fore did not succeed in getting the chiefs to issue an order about beach eliminations; the chiefs were obviously most reluctant to do so, saying that if they did the people would not obey it. So the conception of a Tikopia chief as an autocrat issuing ‘orders which his people would automatically obey was very far from the mark, (On some issues the Tikopia did obey with hardly a murmur, though the instruction might not be very poplar; on others Such an order if ued would have lle chance of being conformed to. This apparent paradox between blind obedience and calm disregard illustrates the key proposition for the understanding of Tikopia chieiainship—that despite the fact that Tikopia respected and often feared their chiefs and accepted what seemed arbitrary decisions from them, in the last resort both the chiefs and the people realised that the exercise of the chief’ authority was, a matter of issue timing and circumstance, based upon an implicit concession by the people of the right of the chiefs to take decisions. It was interesting to me to note that in 1966, though there was anxiety as to what the chief: might do, there seemed to be no talk about any rift between chiefS and commoners over lands in Tikopia, no fear that the chiefs might combine against the commoners and drive them out, to protect their own and their families’ food supplies (cf. Firth 1959: 266; 1967b: 141-61). Rather was there emphasis on the land being the land of the chiefs. ‘There may well have been jealousies beneath the surface, but the plausible reasons for this change seem to be these. r) With food supplies being plentiful through many good seasons, the fears of the commoners of being robbed of their land by the chief families had tended to subside. The 1952-3 period, when such fears were rife, was one of great anxiety because of famine, and this intensified the probably baseless fears of expulsion. 2) With new outlets for people overseas a man could go and make a life for himself and his family outside Tikopia if his lands proved inadequate, or supplement his Tikopia agriculeural income from his wages abroad. 3) With conversion of all pagans to Christianity a softening of the division between the two major sections of the island, Faea and Ravenga, had tended to promote Tikopia unity, at the same time as experiences of Tikopia abroad helped to promote their solidarity against Melanesians and other components of Solomon islands society. 4) Chiefs were {important symbols of this solidarity, in the religious body where they were no longer priest but members ofthe congregation, and inthe secular body, where they helped to distinguish Tikopia from others. s) By entering more and more into dialogue with government as administrative issues multiplied, and by opposing government on occasion in the name of all Tikopia, the chiefs strengthened their position as representatives of the Tikopia people and not merely of the higher statusEXTRATERRITORIALITY AND THE TIKOPIA CHIEFS 361 sector. The chiefs’ views might not always be fully shared by other Tikopia—in the tact leaving of decisions to them the expression ‘itis their mind” implied that there would be other minds; a wry face might be pulled, suggesting that the chief’ vview was unpalatable. But no open challenge was offered All this relates to the question of external authority. Directly, and through their control of the executive officers (mari), the chiefs on Tikopia carried out many of the recognised functions of local government, including certain public works and suppression of the grosser forms of violence. But the existence of such a strong regulatory structure tended to inhibit the formation of any other organs of social control. As the government of the Protectorate recognised, the social structure of Tikopia even in 1966 did not lend itself to the establishment of a local council and court on the ordinary model, though chiefs and people acknowledged the authority of government in the general sphere. ‘But over the last two generations the exercise of authority by the Tikopia chiefs hhad been complicated by the presence of the Church inthe shape of the Melanesian “Mission. By 1966, some years after difficulties over Tikopia secular customs had bbeen settled with the appointment of a priest who was Tikopia himself and sympathetic to local traditional practices (Firth 19674: 483), the division of auth- ority between chiefs and the Church was relatively simple, The chief were recognised as having the major responsibility for political and other secular ‘matters in the community, and for relations with the extemal government, The priest was recognised as having the responsibility for religious and moral matters. Jurisdiction over Tikopia overseas ‘On Tikopia itself the jurisdiction of the chiefs was nearly complete. On the gravest issues such as homicide the Solomons government was recognised as sure to intervene, but as far as I now there has been no such case (at least for several generations) and I think no Tikopia has ever been removed fom the island to trial or jail. On the other hand, as far 2s is known, no appeal agains the chief authority has ever been made formally by a Tikopia to the government. On issues of public order the Mission priest could use his authority and sometimes did so, but normally hae restricted his sphere of social control to matters of faith and morals, such a8 backiliding from church or getting an unmarried giel pregnant. But the mass migration of Tikopia abroad for work, especially of men with ther families, posed anew and important problem of jurisdiction. When Tikopia cultivate land abroad it is no longer the land of the chiefs; where they work for wages, conditions of employment and disposal of earnings are largely beyond the chiefs’ immediate control. The jurisdiction of the chief was then in an amorphous state. They themselves claimed or would have liked to claim control over all Tikopia in all conditions. Tikopia abroad acknowledged such control, partly by lip service to the general notion of the chief suzerainey, partly by a sincere acceptance of the deeper values of chieftainship, but in specific matters they operated to a high degree without reference to thei chief. A man got permission from his chief to leave the island, but he did not request permission to return, nor did he consult his chief at all in moving from one area or job to another in the Solomons. ‘The government too found itself in an anomalous postion. It recognised the362 RAYMOND FIRTH. ‘control of the chiefs over the Tikopia on the island, to the degree that it waived the normal requirement of establishment of a local council there (and on the related island of Anuta. It also recognised the influence of the chiefs over Tikopia abroad, and was willing to consult with the chiefs over problems of the new settlements, ‘But while willing to concede independent influence, it could not formally recognise independent power. What the chief were seeking in effect by demanding that ‘Tikopia in Nukufero pay the equivalent oftheir local rates tothe Tikopia Develop- ‘ment Fund, was a kind of extraterritorial privilege. And in threatening to with- draw Tikopia labour from the rest of the Solomons they were asserting in fact if not in principle the right to an imperium in imperio. Tr mu clear to me as an outide obverver chat the goverament could not be expected to tolerate a flat refusal of Tikopia ina colony abroad to pay rates to their local council on the basis of an order from their chiefs. In theory, ifthe issue were pushed so far, the government might have tolerated a withdrawal of Tikopia labour from the plantations and elsewhere on the orders of their chiefs, since this would not necessarily have inftinged any government instruction, although it could have involved questions of breach of contract and subsequent civil action. In practice, however, great confusion would have been caused if the Tikopia abroad had left their employment in wholesale fashion,* and relations between them and their employers, and their employers and government, would have been very seriously disturbed for a long time. One of the most satisfactory labour relationships in the Solomons would have been ruined. On the other hand, would the Tikopia obey? There was the possiblity that not al the Tikopia in Nukufero and elsewhere abroad would desert their employment on theie chiefs’ command, While this would preserve labour relations it would ruin the relations of those Tikopia with their chief, split the Tikopia body politic, and destroy that image of cultural unity and strength which was part of the Tikopia symbolic view of themselves, and which helped them to adjust to the new conditions they were facing. More immediately, persistence by the chief in directly ordering their people not to conform to government legal requirements could have had grave consequences for them personally, and consequent shock for the whole Tikopia society. Ie was with reference to these publicevents and possible developments from them that I conducted enquiries, sometimes in semi-public discussion, sometimes in private conversation. What I wanted to get at firstly was the underlying reason for the chief’ persistent refusal of co-operation with the government and secondly how far the Tikopia people were behind their chiefs in cis attitude, In this enquiry was concemed by the strength of opposition shown by a people who in normal relations were apt to listen with great respect to any governmental expression of view. I was also concerned lest the situation of deadlock, which might have been due to misunderstanding, develop through some hasty move into a more active hostility, from which retreat by either side might have been dificult. Aiud ofthe chiefs Superfically, the azguments given by the chiefs for their attitude were clea. ‘They claimed that when the move was made to settle Nukufero they had beenEXTRATERRITORIALITY AND THE TIKOPIA CHIEES 363 promised by the government officer principally concerned that all the ‘custom’ of ‘Tikopia should equally obtain in Nukufero. They argued that one of the customs of Tikopia was not to pay tax, therefore the residents at Nukuféro should be exempted from local rates. ‘Though apparently naive, this view seemed to me to bbe sincerely held. It was sometimes quite harshly expressed. One chief said bluntly that che government had deceived the Tikopia, and was lying to conceal its change of attitude. (I gathered that what the officer concerned actually told the Tikopia about the establishment of Nukufero, either in open meeting at the outset or on @ later occasion, was that the ‘custom’ of Tikopia should certainly obtain in Nuku- fero, but thatthe establishment of the new settlement would mean participation in whatever form of local government might later be set up there, with all its obligations.) There did seem to have been a genuine misunderstanding here, quite possibly due to imperfect translation, but more likely to a lack of realisation by the chiefs of the implications of being under a properly constituted local government authority. Ifthe Bs clement inthe reasoning ofthe chiefs was contingent ona promis the second was in terms of a principle. In their view the poverty of Tikopia was such that all moneys which expatriate Tikopia had to spare, especially those which ight go to taxation, should go direct to the public purposes of their island home. "They were reinforced in their view by perception of the very small evidences of government public works in most of the areas where Tikopia were settled, Other arguments advanced were that it was the government which had divided the people by inducing Tikopia to migrate to Nukufero, and so bore the responsibility for the controversy; and that elsewhere the government had superseded chiefs and might do so in Tikopia, if once its demands were conceded. Now while each of these ‘views was misconceived, it was not unintelligent. ‘Over the years I had built up relations of some confidence with the chief. I stood in a father-to-son relation to each of them, and was acknowledged to have a particular interest in the welfare of Tikopia.? So while in the beginning I ex- pressed no opinion on the merits of the isue, I later pointed out several aspects of the situation to try to clarify it for them: that people paid ‘tax’ in all countries; that che Nukuféro lands were not the lands of the chiefs so it was appropriate for ‘money-carning Tikopia to pay rates to the local council there; and that it was important for Tikopia that chiefs and the government should be in good relation. I prefaced my remarks to each chief inthis sense: “We are father and son; I'm just talking to you, my son; this is just my own thought’—emphasising my advisory, ‘consultative role. The Ariki Kafka in particular was keen to be satisfied that these ‘were my purely personal views. He asked: ‘No one has instructed you what to say?” and Iwas able to reassure him that these indeed were my own independent opin- ions. I mention this because it isimportant to realise the autonomous position ofthe chiefs in such discussion. My opinions were not sought by the chiefs: I volun- teered them. I was intervening in the situation, but primarily as a supplier of information and as a social analyst. It was not a matter of the Tikopia, chiefs or others, just wanting guidance and accepting the point of view of someone whom they knew well and presumably trusted. ‘The chief, on whom the burden of decision lay, obviously respected my opinion and were willing to listen to it, but ‘without committal. They also wanted to be sure that it was a new pieee of evidence364 RAYMOND FIRTH for their consideration, and not just a repetition of the government viewpoint. I ‘was carefil not only to let each of them know of the tenor of my conversations with the others, but aso to let some other leading men know what had been said, in order to try and avoid distorted rumours. This was appreciated. The Ariki ‘Tafua said: ‘It is good that the one speech be given to each’—that each should hhear the same opinions. Now what stood out in the general reaction of others than the chiefs to these talks was approval chat I should have given the chiefs my view, ‘but no expression of opinion as to whether the chiefs should accept i. ‘Ie is there in the chiefs’ was the response, “They have heard what you say; itis for them to ‘make up their minds,” With some people there was clearly anxiety about the out- come of this confrontation with government, but with all there was explicit recognition that the chief were sovercign; the final decision would be wholly theirs ‘That disagreement with the government on a matter of principle was not deemed by the Tikopia to be incompatible with the maintenance of good relations was illustrated by an action of the Ariki Taumako. When the ‘tax’ situation was stil acute, not having been smoothed over as yet by the visit of the District Commissioner, I was approached by the chief with a request, during a private conversation, Affer some enquiries abant the Royal Family in Britain— subject of great interest to the Tikopia, especially since the sovercign isa woman— the chief pulled from his belt 2 bonito-hook, of traditional type with pearl shell shank and turtle shell barb, and stated that he wished to give this to the Queen, as his token of sentiment (arofa). He wished to do this because he lived far away, she ‘was he Queen, and he could not look upon her. He enquired anxiously if this would bbe appropriate. I replied that I had no idea whether Her Majesty would wish to accept the gift or not, but that I was sure the thought would be much appreciated. Now many of the more traditionally-minded Tikopia still thought that affairs in England were regulated on the same general pattern as in Tikopia, in that after travel abroad a man on return home would go and report to his chief, with gifts. ‘The Ariki Taumako accordingly enquired if| would be reporting to the Queen on my return, and if would present the bonito-hook to her on his behalE. I had to explain that the British system was too extensive to provide for this, and that the proper person to take charge of the gift would be the High Commissioner in Honiara, as the Queen's representative. ‘The chief told me that the bonito-hook was an heirloom, property of his grand~ father and his father—whom he greatly respected. It was then not only ‘the property of chief’, worn as an omament by them and presented on occasions of ceremonial significance; this particular hook was an object of considerable personal sentiment for him. He explained that the hook was a pure gift; he did not wish for any re~ compense—as by Tikopia custom he could properly request. ‘My token of sympathy which I give to the Queen—not to be repaid.” He added that such a hook could be hung in the ear lobe or around the neck of a dead chief; to hang ordinary beads was taboo. A hook was sometimes buried with a dead chief, but he asked that on the death of the Queen this hook should not be buried with her but handed con to her son. (The chief pointed out that according to Tikopia custom no woman ‘ight wear such a hook as pendant; when I asked if this applied to the Queen he replied that ie was appropriate for her to wear it, since she was an Ariki.) [explainedEXTRATERRITORIALITY AND THE TIKOPIA CHIDES 365 that the value of the hook would be pointed out to her, but that if accepted the gift would be completely at Her Majesty's disposal. Should she decide not to retain it personally she might direct i to be placed ina treasure house (museu), a public building along with other objects from the Commonwealth which people in general would come to look upon. The chief declared himself quite satisfied with this. In due course the bonito hook was forwarded through the proper channels, ‘with explanation that it was offered by the Ariki Taumako asa token of his loyaley and devotion (the nearest translation of arafa in this context); and ehat chough of litle intrinsic value it was to the Tikopia a gift of very great symbolic importance. In.a gesture of sympathetic insight Her Majesty accepted the gift, and expression of her thanks was conveyed to the Ariki ‘Taumako through the District Com- ‘missioner. I gather thatthe other chiefs were rather taken aback a¢ this unexpected indication of Royal interest, and in terms of gamesmanship” the Ariki Taumako had certainly scored. But this was appropriate, since he was the oldest of the chief and had conceived of this loyal gift entiely on his own initiative. ‘What this incident illustrates was the ability of Tikopia chief to separate different types of political principle, within the same overall relationship. While in flat ‘opposition to the government over the ‘tax’ question, they considered themselves as acknowledging in a quite amicable way the structure of political authority. OF course a further interpretation of the Ariki Taumako’s action is possible. By this demonstration of loyalty to the Queen he by-passed, a it were, all local officials and made nonsense of any idea that he could be thought antagonistic to the régime. In common with hs fellow chiefs he was opposed to a particular policy of govern ment, not to the government as such. In a sense then his gift served as a general indicator of Tikopia attitudes. This is my own unsupported interpretation, but it is in keeping with the subtle way in which Tikopia leaders often differentiated and handled their political relationships (Firth 1959: 272). Fono with the District Commissioner ‘The sovereign position of the chief in Tikopia was illustrated very clearly in the formal meeting with the District Commissioner in mid-August 1966. This was held at the request of the D.C. primarily in order to try and clear away any mis- understanding about the attitude and acts of government, and if possible to induce the chiefs to reverse their instruction about non-payment of rates in Nukufero. Such a public meeting was termed by the Tikopia a fono (Firth 1959: 100-5, 268-9, 271-4). After the arrangements for this meeting with the government officer had been made the chiefs called a preliminary meeting the day before, at the same place. About 250 people assembled, including many women. They sat silent for atime, save for a few low murmurs from men and cries from children, The three senior chiefs sat on coconut grating stools in the centre of the gathering, the crowd (including the anthropologists) on the low stone wals or on the ground. This was a meeting for the purpose of instructing the people about the morrow’s proceedings, and the D.C. was not invited. The proceedings were opened by Pa Ngarumea, a5 the principal spokesman. After crouching down in consultation with the chiefs he366 RAYMOND FIRTH stood up and began: “The speech which the body of chiefs is making today, listen you listen to the speech which is made. This land is che land ofthe chiefs. Whatever they may say to us, follow it. You obey the speech which is made; whatever they ‘may say to go and do, we shall go and do it. lam making known the speech of the chief, listen to it correctly. My speech is finished.’ Then he went and sat down behind the Ariki Tafua, who rose and addressed the crowd, according to his traditional prvilege.® The chief had two themes. The fist was a rather surprising instruction about dress for the morrow’s meeting. Normally, while the Tikopia have a sense of style in costume for ceremonial gatherings, this is let to the individual’s discretion. On this occasion the Aviki Tafua said: “Tomorrow is the fono with the D.C. You will come but not one person may come in calico; ths is ‘white man’s clothings only the three white men [the D.C. and the anthropologists} may wear it. You dlothe yourselves completely in your bark-cloth. The idea is like this, to come in the “custom”. [He used the English word.] Calico is the mark of white people. We chief will adorn ourselves in the same way; the chiefs will adorn themselves in thet sinnet cord belts [i.e. in fine pandanus mats, which are gitdled with sinnt cord]. The body of chiefs will wear aso their bark-cloth. Have you heard? Isit correct?’ (This produced a shout of assent from the crowd.) He ‘went on: ‘Ifyou think well oft, then you follow; if you think badly, then follow. Do what the chiefs say.” After a short pause the chief then raised the second theme, ‘which was a straightforward matter of information about a BCG test for tuber culosis and an instruction to the people to co-operate since this would help to block. the disease. The crowd then dispersed, while the chiefs relaxed and engaged in general conversation. ‘What was remarkable about this gathering was the vivid sense of the symbolic value of uniform traditional clothing shown by the chiefs. I did not discuss this vwith them directly, but it was clear that they wished to have a gesture of solidarity made manifest to the government officer—that the people were pronouncing themselves to be Tikopia, marking themselves off from the white man’s world, and so indicating their support forthe chiefs in concrete fashion. As Pa Ngarumea said to me: ‘It’s a sign of respect to the chief-—it's not right to adorn oneself in things of the white man—they're white man’s things.’ There was also perhaps a touch of Polynesian pride—an assertation that ike Samoans and Tongans they had traditional clothing of their own, not like Melanesians of the Solomons, who according to the Tikopia used to go naked. ‘The meeting next day was very formal at frst. About 300 Tikopia had assembled, including all four chiefS and a large number of the other principal men of the community. Not every one had forswom calico, but neatly every man was in bark-cloth and those who possessed a fine pandanus mat wore it; I noticed how= ever that the Ariki Taumako stil kept to his favourite leather belt. The chiefs made a spectacular entry after everyone else had assembled, taking their seats in front of the crowd, with the D.C. and the interpreter facing them. (This day, seats hhad also been placed for the anthropologists, adjacent to that of the D.C.; we preferred however to dissociate ourselves from the proceedings and observe from the sidelines) The D.C. opened the proceedings by outlining the position of government on the ‘tax’ issue, among various points emphasising that no ‘tax’ ‘was expected from residents on Tikopia. Several leading men then addressed theEXTRATERRITORIALITY AND THE TIKOFIA CHIEFS 367 gathering, expressing their views or asking questions, to which the D.C. replied. ‘What gave general satisfaction was the unequivocal statement of the D.C. that ordinary residents on Tikopia need not fear that they would be asked to pay ‘tax’, and that workers abroad who returned to Tikopia for a spell might be exempt if they were away for the whole ofa ‘tax’ year. Gradually the chief thawed and after some quiet conversation among themselves and with the interpreter crouching before them (Firth in press a), they began an interchange with the D.C. This ‘was not at a public level, and I'am indebted to the D.C. for a résumé of the tall, The chiefs began by saying that they had just learned that the Tikopia of Nukufero had paid their ‘tax’ over which there had been so much dispute, The D.C. replied that perhaps this was because chey had not known of the opinion of the chicfi— because of poor communications. Perhaps if they had known of the chief views they would not have paid; what did the chiefs propose to do about it? The chief countered by asking the D.C. to get the money back! “You are our friend.’ He replied that it did not depend on him but on the High Commissioner (Nukufero lay in the Central District anyway) and that he had little hope ofits recovery. Then he asked about next year—perhaps they would like time to think about the problem, and he offered his advice. This they declined, but said they would think the matter over and discuss it among themselves. On this note the formal meeting ended. Although no concrete resolution of the situation of ‘tax’ payment had been obtained, it seemed that two aspects of the issue had been considerably clarified. (On the one hand the chiefs and many other leading people had been left in no doubt as to government policy on this issue, and much suspicion and uncertainty had been dispelled. On the other hand, the chiefs and people had evidence of the opinion of men of good will towards them, that the Nukufero ‘tax’ should be paid; they had more to consider than what they had regarded as the demand of a deceiving government. It was symptomatic of development, then, that the meeting ended notin a reafirmation by the chief of their former stand, but in a statement that they would like to chink the matter over. For practical reasons of transport the anthropologists had to leave Tikopia with the D.C. that same evening, and I was not able to pursue the matter further with the chiefs, People's views on the crisis T took the opportunity to discuss the ‘tax’ issue with men of different social status and different clans, both on Tikopia and in the various settlements overseas. Thad two major questions: did ordinary Tikopia approve of the position their chiefs had taken up; and if there should be a development in which the chiefs recalled all Tikopia from abroad, would they all return? These two questions ‘were obviously directed towards finding out how far change of occupation and environment had affected the Tikopia political structure, especially those elements of behaviour which may be expressed as loyalty to chiefs. ‘On Tikopia itself, as regards judgement of the action of the chiefs, I found ‘opinions which ranged from conservative and supportive to critical. On the more ‘conservative side, when I put the Nukufero situation to a brother of a chief, the368 RAYMOND FIRTH. ‘most influential maru on the island, in effect he refused to comment. He said: “Lsimply listen to the instructions given to me by the chief and make this known to the people. It is good that you should go and talk to the chiefs to see what their mind is, whether they agree or not’ It was very noticeable that this was not a situation in which any maru on Tikopia was moved to intervene. Their line seemed to be that this was an affair between chief and government, that it was not an issue in which they had to protect anyone from the chiefs or spur the chiefs to action; that whatever their private views might be—and in general they were careful not to express any—it was forthe chief to express a decision.? Other senior people took much the same kind of attitude. But an elderly Mission teacher of long standing was more analytical. He had worked in the Russell islands and said that many Tikopia abroad wished to stay there because of the schools which were much better than on Tikopia and which could prepare their children for higher education. He said he thought many people at Nukufero and elsewhere abroad did not wish to retum permanently to Tikopia. Land was scarce on Tikopia, and so also were consumer goods, and the work was hard. As Tikopia ‘would die and be buried abroad, so the attachment of people to their new homes, ‘would grow. He developed the argument that there was too much diversity of “tax’ paid by Tikopia abroad—to the Bishop (a contribution to the Mission); to the ‘Tikopia Development Fund; to the local council; there should be one tax only to bbe paid. He also complained that in relation to ‘Tikopia earnings the amounts ‘demanded were considerable; Tikopia had litte money whereas by contrast white men were wealthy. ‘As regards the chief attitude on the ‘tax’ question he said that no Tikopia ‘would oppose the chief—no one in Tikopia or in Nukufero. ‘We who live here, among us I have not scen one who has spoken in opposition to the chiefs. You remember, friend, our custom from of old. The commoners just obey the chief however they may speak. If they order a man to go to sea, he will go. If they order him to stay on shore, he will stay. So we will do as they say. We will simply obey the chief.” (ft must be noted that such statements are made without resentment; they are part of the ‘natural order’ of the Tikopia polity.) As regards the difference between government and the chiefs on the ‘tax’ issue, he stressed the importance of unity. “They should be of the one mind’, and he put his hands together to symbolise this. He spoke approvingly of government assistance to Tikopia in the past, asin the famine period of more than a decade before. ‘The Tikopia had no ‘money, he said, o if government and chiefs were on favourable terms the govern ‘ment would help the Tikopia in times of distress ‘More sophisticated views were expressed by some younger men who had had ‘more extensive experience abroad. One held that Tikopia should have a council like other parts of the Solomons, should develop the manufacture of copra, and then such issues would not arise. (In fact, copra production would need a radical reorientation of the agricultural system and would pose various problems of scale and transport.) He said that the chiefs were afraid lest the establishment of a council would lead to a loss in their power, but that with a council there was more likelihood of help being received from the government. On who should constinute the council he was not too specific and he admitted that Tikopia might not be keen to come forward as members, for fear of being accused of boasting or of wishingEXTRATERRITORIALITY AND THE TIKOPIA CHIEFS 369 to set themselves up as rivals to the chiefs. (Initially, the chief had expressed to government a wish to act as a council themselves.) Mor, he said, would not be suitable since they tended to give decisions in favour of their own kin—but there ‘were personal factors involved in this opinion. In reply to my query as to possible ‘women members ofthe council, a in other lands, he said glumly: ‘Tam of the mind that chis wll be in che time when you and Tare dead.” He also put forward the view, novel to me, that the existence of four chiefs of equal powers and not clearly de- fined fanctions made for difculty. He had a suggested distribution of roles among them, which bore some resemblance to their traditional ritual fumetions: chat the Ariki Kafika should sit and give general instructions; the Ariki Fangarere should care for clearing paths and other public matters; the Ariki Tafa should be generally responsible for lands and agriculture; and the Ariki Taumako for copra-making and general economic stimlation. It was a rather naive plan, but it was an example of how educated Tikopia were concerning themselves with ideas of economic and social betterment. But it was noteworthy that these ideas were put forward within the framework of a structure of political concepts in which the chief& were stil paramount, This man emphasised that neither he nor anyone else was going to ‘oppose the chiefs—they remained ‘on high’. ‘Another Tikopia of high rank, who had been abroad a great deal but had retuned to the island, was even more definite. He held that the Tikopia at Nuku- fero should certainly pay the ‘tax’; they were settled away from the island, the land was not the land of the chiefs, and they were among peoples who all had local councils. Moreover, in modern times, he held, Tikopia try to live more like white people, and everywhere white people pay taxes. He thought that the Ariki Kafika especially was affaid lest if the Tikopia in Nokuféro paid the ‘tax’ and joined che coun in the Ruse islands they would cease to contribute to Tikopia and the position of the chiefs would be threatened; Tikopia people could not pay ‘tax’ both to Jand and to the Russell islands, He suid that he had sug- gested to the chief that chey should follow the government regulation and allow Tikopia in Nukufero to pay, since they wanted schools, good roads, et. there, and the way to get them was to pay ‘tax’. But che chief did not agree with him, so hhe had not continued to speak his mind. No one spoke openly against the chiefs in Tikopia. As regards possible repatriation of Tikopia from Nukufero, he said that some people would wish it and others not; some had planted their food there and buried their relatives there and would want to stay. So on Tikopia, where to some extent the issue was a theoretical one, there was overtly overwhelming support forthe chiefs in the stand they had taken against the government. Even those more sophisticated Tikopia who disagreed with the attitude that the chieft had taken agreed chat the decision lay with them, and would take no steps to oppose them. On the other hand, they were in favour of ‘good relations between chiefs and government, and welcomed any move which right seem to lead in this direction. So far, I have presented the whole issue of controversy over the ‘tax’ as being in general a disagreement on principle following a process of logical argument, ‘based on a rational appreciation of che circumstances. For the most par this was so, But rumours were current also. One, which sounded to me quite unjustified, was that in argument between a government officer and the chiefs at an early stage the370 RAYMOND FIRTH officer exclaimed chat jail existed for people who caused trouble, and asked the chiefs point-blank: ‘Do you wish to go to jail?” Later, when a fono was held in Ravenga, it was alleged, the Ariki Tafua asked the asembled crowd: ‘If we chiefs are taken to jail who of you the people will follow?" All said: “We will!” This was in accordance with the traditional Tikopia principle of fakapere te ariki—cherish the chief; in any crisis the chief is surrounded by people who shicld him. So, it was alleged, the whole land had been waiting for a vessel to come to see if it would attempt to bear the chiefs away—not that it was thought that this would really happen, but such was the vague fear. In due course the government vessel came, but went away with no such dire consequences. Such fears tended to arise in analogous circumstances when for any reason the Tikopia thought they were out of line with government policy; ignorant of the proper procedure to be followed by government they allowed their imagination free play. Such emotional con- structions tended to exacerbate the situation and filler communication with government was required to dispel them. (OF course had the chiefs ultimately defied the government and continued to encourage their people to refuse to pay, such drastic action might have been taken, but the rumour was proleptic.) Views of Tikopia abroad Tikopia abroad were in a different position from their kin at home. They could not stay on the sidelines of the controversy, but had to make up their minds whether they were going to pay the ‘tax’ or not. There were two types of situation here. The Tikopia in Kirakira and Honiara were dispersed among other groups and hhad not been established as a colony by government with promise of retention of ‘Tikopia ‘custom’. So when the rate demand came they paid it, In Honiara the attitude ofthe leading man was quite definite, He said the views of the chief on the “tax’ issue were bad, that the Tikopia in Honiara would pay the ‘tax’ and continue to pay, even though the chiefs in Tikopia might object. The great point of difference between Tikopia and Nukufero was that on the island the land belonged to the chiefs, and there was no money, hence no ‘tax’, In Nukufero as in Honiara, the land was not that of the chiefs, and men earned money, hence there was ‘tax". He added that his view was supported by other leading men in both Honiara and ‘Nokufero. He said that he himself wished to live in Honiara and later in Waimasi, where he had land—he would like to die in Waimasi, not in Tikopia In Waimasi, which was a separate settlement of Tikopia on San Cristobal, people acknowledged their obedience to the chiefs on Tikopia. But they said they paid ther ‘tax” because representatives of the local council came and told them to, and not knowing (they alleged) that thei chiefs objected, they complied. (In fac, the chiefs never seemed to have raised the issue over Waimasi.) One man, brother of a chief, clearly had a sense of detachment from Tikopia. He had paid his ‘tax’ and intended to continue to do so. As regards any possible objections from the chiefs hae shrugged his shoulders and replied: “What does that matter?” He was in good employment at the government station at Kirakira, and said that neither he nor his wife wished to retum to Tikopia; they wished to stay in Waimasi. In Nukufero itself much the same views were expressed. People were dis- quieted by the attitude of the chiefs, whom they greatly respected, and whoseBXTRATERRITORIALITY AND THE TIKOPIA CHIEFS 370 authority they acknowledged through their own local leader, the ‘bose-boy’. But they were clearly for paying the ‘tax’ demand. A father's brother of one of the chief, an old man who might have been expected to take a conservative lin, said: “Tikopia is different and Nukulfero is different. The land here is not the land ofthe chiefs’ He sid that he himself wanted to return to Tikopia as soon as there was a ship, but he thought that the ‘tax’ should be paid. More sophisticated leading men all agreed that it was right for the ‘tax’ to be paid. Moreover, they said that some people wanted to stay in Nokufero and make their home there, definitely not ‘wanting to return to Tikopia. So abroad, the authority ofthe chiefs was not merely questioned verbally, but could be faced by concrete challenge in action. Subsequent events I was not able to follow the development of events on this ‘tax’ issue in any detail aftr I left the Solomons. But I understand that since the ‘tax’ crisis of 1966 the Tikopia paid the basic tate for that year and for 1967 without any coercive measures.'° Moreover, the majority of Tikopia in the Russell islands appeared to have registered on the voters’ poll for the local government elections, and s0 indicated their readiness to participate in the work of the local council. They did not scem to have taken an active part in voting for the legislative council elections— perhaps through a misunderstanding, or perhaps not wishing to appear to be going too far without a specific instruction from their chiefs. But a statement from the Ariki Kafika to government officers at Kirakira when he was hospitalised there ‘was to the effect that there was no bar to Tikopia abroad paying the basic rate to a local council. It was not clear whether this was a genuine change of attitude on his ‘part, or a prudent recognition that persistent payment by Tikopia at Nukufero and elsewhere despite the chiefs’ ban might bring the chief’ authority into dis- repute. But al evidence indicates that in 1968 as in 1966 Tikopia abroad 2s at home hheld their chief in high respect, ‘cherished’ them and were ready to obey them on all ordinary issues. That the chief themselves did not view with dismay the continued settlement of Tikopia overseas has been shown by the active interest they have now shown in the promotion of a new colony on the southeast coast of Vanikoro. The problem of sovereignty ‘The action of the Tikopia chiefs in not simply claiming exemption from local council rates for their people sctted abroad but in flatly directing their expatriates to pay their ‘tax’ into a domestic Tikopia fund was a kind of assertion of sover~ cignty. It also has interesting broader comparative significance, e.g., with some similarities in authority claims of paramount chiefs over transplanted Marshallese and other Micronesian communities." Extrateritoralty involves being subject to the laws of one country while living in another. It is in effect an extension of the sovercignty normally associated with a particular political territory to people outside that territory who are deemed for some reason to share in the rights and duties of its members. Among the more common reasons given for such an attitude are that people of the same local and cultural origins as those in the sovereign-asserting territory morally should be subject to the same politcal372 RAYMOND FIRTH jurisdiction. Ie isa tacit statement of the principle that political identity is or should ’be detcrmined by cultural identity. So the Tikopia chiefs were in effect asserting that cher jurisdiction transcended geographical boundaries and took priority over that of cither local or central government. Now it is true that the conception of sovereignty is not rigorously limited to contiguous geographical teritores. On the other hand, the conception of sover- cignty as meaning absolute control over all persons within a defined territory is essentially a modem one, and even today there ate limitations to this theoretical absolutism. Citizens abroad never completely lose the tight to protection by their own states, unless these voluntarily renounce any interest in their nationals (see eg, Keeton 1928: 2, 155). Tn practice the jurisdiction ofthe chiefs in Tikopia was acknowledged to extend for some purposes to Nukufero. The local Nokufero leader had specifically received a delegation of authority from the chiefs when he visited Tikopia for the purpose. That the government too recognised this jurisdiction was shown by the fact that it did not ignore the instruction of the chiefs not to pay the ‘tax’ but tried co get the chief to reverse it. But whereas the government regarded the jurisdiction of the chief: as subordinate to its own, and exercised by favour out of expediency, the chiefs regarded it a in some sense equal to that of the government, or atleast having been conceded by the government, and so exercised as of moral right. Why then should the claim of the Tikopia chic, appearing so sensible from cone point of view, seem so absurd from another? From the alternative point of view the most important legal criterion for judge- rent is political autonomy: Tikopia is not a separate state, able to treat with the Protectorate government on equal terms, but isan integral pat of the Protectorate. And a part cannot expect to asert unchallenged a unilateral claim to sovercignty as against the whole. This lack of Tikopia autonomy is linked with other elements in the situation. Historically, extraterrtorialiy in one of its major applications has been concerned with commercial measures, as with the treatment of alien merchants, for whom «exemption from certain local obligations has been regarded as necessary to facilitate trade, Immunity of such aliens from local taxation and their exemption from local Jjndicil processes have been among the concessions obtained, eg. formerly for “Europeans in China. Apart from sheer power asertion, one bass for this was chat foreign merchants were of advantage to the country granting the concessions. ‘The Tikopia were not merchants, but they did offer an economic benefit, a labour supply, of advantage to all partcs to the situation, But already in their working conditions they had the protection of government. They did advance economic reasons for their claim to exemption fom tax, but chis claim was on grounds of the poverty oftheir own home teritory and not of the need of development inthe new. The basic argument of the chiefs for special sovereignty within the Pro~ tectorate was a cultural one—the right to pursue their own ‘custom’. Cases of extraterrtoriality have been admitted in the past on a cultural basis; people of different religious faiths have been treated as subject to different legal and moral rules from the mass of subjects of the state—e.g. Christians in Muslim countries of the Middle Bast. But asa rule such special treatment has operated in matters of personal law and not in fiscal matters.BXTRATERRITORIALITY AND THE TIKOPIA CHIEFS 373 Looked at in this comparative analytical way the Tikopia claim to a political society based not on territory but on culture seemed weak. The government had already conceded in principle their claim to special recognition in such spheres as {family law and land law—the major content ofthe notion of ‘custom’—though this hhad not been explicitly defined. In practice the government had shown itself disposed to intervene only in the most obvious cases of criminal offence, and occasion for this had hardly arisen. But abdication by government of its fiscal control—even in the diluted form of local council rating—would have been to create a precedent of far-reaching implication for all other communities of the Solomons. As it was, the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific had already ageced that the Tikopia need not have a local council, and therefore need not have to pay local rates on the island forthe time being. Sovereignty of the chiefs overall ‘Tikopia in culeural matters was acceptable to the government; their similar sovereignty in political matters, including overall disposal of taxable income, was not. ‘The Tikopia chiefs were stressing the group identity of ll persons who could be identified culturally as Tikopia irrespective oftheir residence. Put another way, they were also emphasising the small unit or parochial view of political control, the claim of the small group to lay down rules for the behaviour of its own members and not have them dictated by the larger entity, particularly by its central admini~ strative body, the bureaucracy. This a position with which in modem times there is great sympathy. But it is one thing when the small group is a cohesive local entity; it is quite another when the group is geographically dispersed over a wide area and interdigitated with members of other culeural groups. So here the Tikopia chiefs were claiming sovereignty over a dispersed small group in a tax matter which normally those officials acting in the name of the large group had reserved to themselves. The basic incompatibility in the chiefs’ claim was that they wished to dispose on a parochial level of an income which could be eared only on a terri- torial level. Their threat to withdraw all Tikopia from extemal labour, if carried ‘out, would have soon resulted in their having no income at all for disposal. ‘The matter can be looked at from another practical angle too—that ofthe power structure, Here the Tikopia were at a distinct disadvantage. If they had wanted to challenge the government to a show of force—which I am sure they did not—any cry of ‘Vive le Tikopia libre’ would have been about as effective as that of the Hawaiians three-quarters of century ago. In any power game the chiefs’ control of the labour force abroad was a most important counter—but how reliable would this have proved if they had arbitrarily ordered it to withdraw to Tikopia? Here the chief position was complicated by their own effective autocracy. Since their position rested on a system of cultural not territorial allegiance they tended to look askance at allowing their people to acknowledge any system of controls based on the recognition of local, ic tersitorial ties. But their negative attitude towards the principle of territorial allegiance was to some extent rendered suspect by the fuct that they themselves reaped benefit from the principle of cultural allegiance. They could be thought then to be acting not from principle but from sclfinterest. Conversely their postion might suffer from corresponding claims to self-interest by their people. Ifthe chiefs had insisted that Tikopia abroad should not pay ‘tax’ to local councils, and that all these Tikopia should accordingly return374 RAYMOND FIRTH hhome, then it was highly likely that considerable numbers of these Tikopia would hhave sactficed loyalty to their chief to protection of their own economic interest, and stayed abroad. This would have gravely damaged the whole conception of ‘Tikopia solidarity. In modem conditions of power control any attempt of the Tikopia chiefS to treat with the Solomon islands government as an equal power would have been bound to fail. But the issue did not quite assume this form; it rather took on a ‘moral complexion. In so far as there was a crisis between Tikopia chiefs and the government of the Solomons it was a crisis of communication and of confidence rather than a criss of authority. Tikopia chief: at times accused the government of misleading them and expressed resentment. But while for a time they lost con- fidence in the government on this particular issue, in their view the personal and structural relations with goverment remained unimpaired, Most important, they did not regard themselves as challenging the basic authority of government. They saw themselves as insisting upon a course of action which, they alleged and (L think) truly believed, the government had formerly promised to recognise. In these circumstances it seemed to me that the government pursued a course in not pushing the matter to extremes, but in treating it largely as problem of communication and of political education. Effective communication is difficult in the Tikopia situation, where distances are great and transport sparse, government visits are few and far beeween, and radio linkage is costly and very hard to main- tain, On government visits interpreters are necessary; no government officer has ever spoken Tikopia and no Tikopia chief has ever spoken fluent English. (This will be different in the next generation of chief.) Most Tikopia, including the chiefs, stil have a lack of understanding of the processes of modern government. In~ cluded under the general head of political education was the need for provision of more information about the structure, powers and procedures of government, including the purposes of ‘tax” payments and the uses to which they were put in terms of roads, schools, public health, Even in 1966 the benefits to be derived from local council rates were almost completely unrealised by the Tikopia, especially those on the island—and indeed were not always as concretely visible as they might have been. Part of such an educational process too was the need for a more adequate exposition of the conceptual difference between public and private funds in the context of tax demands and receipts. Many Tikopia, it seemed, were quite table to distinguish between moneys paid to the Russell islands local body as ‘part of public funds, and contributions to the leaders of that local body as indivi- duals (Larsen 1966: 70). This series of events relating to the ‘tax’ issue was part of the process of adapta~ tion of the Tikopia to new economic and political circumstances. It can be seen as part of a complex social situation involving a transformation of the Tikopia authority system. Heretofore, the authority of the chiefs had been based largely ‘upon economic and ritual sanctions. Now the ritual sanctions had been attenuated by a general conversion to Christianity, and the economic sanctions weakened by the removal of large numbers of Tikopia from a local to an expatriate income~ carning situation. Outwardly, the postion of the Tikopia chiefs in r966 was much the same as it had traditionally been. Their legitimacy was unquestioned, their influence was pre-eminent, their power was very great. But already some re-EXTRATERRITORIALITY AND THE TIKOPIA CHIEFS 375 definition of their jurisdiction had taken place, and some basic questions raised about the extent to which they could command the allegiance in economic matters Of Tikopia abroad. Indeed, the fears of the chiefs that payment of rates to local councils abroad would tend to lead Tikopia abroad to cease contributing to the ‘community back on the island did not seem groundless, nor did their view that 2 ‘council of any kind on Tikopia itself would open up the threat of their having to share power. In the long run Tikopia, especially Tikopia abroad, will inevitably tend to move from under the direct control of their chiefs to some broader-based authority structure in many spheres of practical afairs. In general terms one may regard this as part of the democratisation of a small- scale political system which traditionally has been ruled by hereditary leaders. However, it would be a mistake to regard this simply as another instance of the triumph of the people over an exploiting aristocracy. The processes involved are neither simple nor one-way. While the chiefs have been conservative, and have combined with their protection of the people some elements of self-protection against possible threats to their power and privilege, such power and privilege have continued to be regarded as appropriate by most Tikopia. This is not just blind obedience of those who know no better, but contains elements of deliberate choice. People may disagree with their chief, or criticise them, but they show no disposition to reject their sovereignty—so long as the chiefs operate within toler- able bounds. Economic pressures, acting through individual interests, are forcing the Tikopia to come to terms with the modem world. They have been learning that no community, however remote and however proud of its traditional values, ‘an opt out of the modern state system. By accepting and incorporating the con- sumption standards of the new social system they have compromised themselves, with it, and cannot withdraw. ‘Yor there is still a very strong sense of solidarity among Tikopia abroad and at hhome, and in a way the chiefs are being used by the people as symbols of this solidarity. In various contexts the chiefs appear as a kind of collective representation of the Tikopia, as visible tokens of a pattern of life different from that of other peoples, as the single voice which expresses the upshot of Tikopia deliberations on an issue. Sometimes they may appear as instruments of protest against unpalatable procedures—such as external administrative acts—which seem to threaten Tikopia solidarity. Bue th hilar active, not pasive symbols. on ocason they may exceed their brief, as it were, and take up an intransigent attitude with which the majority of cople disagree. In such eases, some process of rectification may occur, which again allows of the normal flow of confidence. It has for long been fashionable in anthropology to decry the notion of equilibrium in social systems, and with reason s0 long as this was taken to be a natural or inevitable state of the system. But cquilibrating processes can occur, and the popular notion of “feedback” in the form of rectification process can be used to describe a complex adjustment which results in the bringing together again of the ideas and behaviours of Tikopia chiefs and people ina situation such as I have described. As part of this process the threat of the chiefs to bring back all che labourers to Tikopia if their demands were not met ‘may have served asa kind of test oftheir control, atrial balloon to evoke a reaction, though I have no direct evidence for this.376 RAYMOND FIRTH People with a traditional hereditary leadership and moving towards a filler participation in a modem state have two major alternatives: they can destroy the authority of their chiefs or they can support and transform it. In the small-scale political universe of the Tikopia, the hereditary leaders, while taking decisions which serve their own interests 2s well as those oftheir people, are also being used by their people as instruments to help them to adapt more coherently and more vigorously to the novel conditions with which they are faced. In the process, by a kind of reciprocity, these leaders are continued in their position asa special category of socal beings, endowed with attributes of sanctity not shared by ordinary men, ‘Arthe same time they are being moved implicitly towards a more ‘constitutional’ position, As we know from many comparative examples, there are difficulties in such a conjunction, but itis by no means inoperable. And while, ifthe concept of extraterritoriality be used in its conventional legal and political sense the Tikopia hie do not exercise it, if the concept be extended to cover social and cultural control at a distance, then the Tikopia chiefs do have extraterritorial powers. ‘This may sound like an echo of Rousseau’s social contract, a transactional model of sovereignty as rooted in the people, with the chiefs operating by the people's consent. Superficially, the situation has been the exact opposite. But with the alteration in the economic substratum of the politcal structure, the significance of the legitimacy-conferring role of the people begins to emerge more clearly. Iam arguing of course that the Tikopia situation of sovereignty, though minute in scale, is more complex than that of Rousseau’s model. Moreover, itis controlled bby no assumption of natural justice—which for the anthropologist emerges only as a specific culturally defined ideal ora personal value preference. At the stat level it is the Protectorate government and the High Commission for the Western Pacific, acting for the British government, that is sovereign over the Tikopia."” At the local level, itis the sub-sovereignty of thei chiefs that is for them the real sphere of control. But in the development of their political system Tikopia chiefs and people have managed to work out a policy of mutual assistance instead of a surrender of rights, a profitable exchange without destroying each other, in a way which has obviously promoted a strong sense of social unity. In trying to establish the social processes involved in the maintenance of a particular variety of that intangible social phenomenon, leadership, the assumption of a tacit contractual or at least reciprocal relationship between chiefs and people helps to clarify the situation. So if, leaving aside the over-riding role of the Protectorate government, one asks where does sovercignty lic in Tikopia one has three possible answers: 1. If sovereignty consists in the formal right to take major policy decisions, it sill lies with the chiefs. 2. Ifsovercignty consists in the ultimate power to determine the decisions that will be taken it would seem to lie more and more with the people as time goes on. 3. If sovereignty, unlike Rousseau’s conception of it as indivisible, can be regarded as a composite, interdependent relationship of powers and decisions, then it lies with the chiefs and people together. Whichever of these is taken #0 be the answer, itis clear that political sovereignty in such a case is related to the changing conditions of the technical and economic environment.EXTRATERRITORIALITY AND THE TIKOPIA CHIEES 307 For ful in the preparation ofthis article Iam indebted to the Department of Anthro= pology ofthe Univensty of Hawa, where {have eld the Pactc Chai of Anthropology for Eh eon 1968-9. * Avery informative account of this colony hasbeen given by Dr Eric H. Laren (1966) who swith his wife spon nary year in Nukufto in 2964+5. The population was then £6, ith Another 250 Tikopi elsewhere inthe Russland, a this tile goes to prs {have jst seen another valuable contribucon to our knowledge of overscs Tikopia (Larsen 1968). "'Tspent wo month in the Solomon sands in 1966, nckuding 4 month on Tikopia and four days 3 Nalo. My graf thank are de wo he Reseach, Commies of fe Lodo Schoo! of Economics snd Poicl Scion and to tie WeanerGren Foundation for Anthro- ological Reseach, for providing the grants which made my research posible. My companion fn te vist to Tikopia wat Profesor Torben Monberg, of Copenhagen ans indcted fo im for mach help on the expedition, inloding dicsson of many ofthe iaucs taxed in this arte. [owe hosptaligy and much help alo in the analysis ofthe station here described to De. 6. Cocheane, ten Distict Commissioner, Eastern Distt. Lam geal too to MT. Roscl then Acting Chief Secretary, Wester Pace High Commision; Me J. Tedder, District Commisioner, Central Disticy and Mr J. Walt, Managing Direcior, Lever Pacific Plantations, for help information and hospitality "This ie as been dieasedparculnly fom the point of view of Nukufero by Larsen (196628870), Se alo Fie in prs *"hs that ofthe Ari Taumako inthe Sydney Marning Herald of March 26 2965. (Lowe this reference to Dr HLL Hogbin) "The unique status of a Toa chief, and the special personal attention which his people devote fo him in time of trouble is usrated by an indent of which Lwas told in 1966 by tone ofthe mission teachers; happencd not mihy yeas before: On a aly Day ofthe Church ST great fase was prepared in Ravenga, andthe food was cari to Fac where dancing was tovake place. The Ariki Tsumako wat not prsene when the Bearer departed from the ovens Side with thr hardens Late he came onthe scene nd wat very angry tnd that he Food hnad been borne off while he had been sting in his hous, wichout his being notified. He ‘ture toi hoe, 0k outs dy bonged nrg and ated the ath oan tary way of showing angry protest, He dug his toes nto the ground —a sign ofa man about to fo berserk. He said he was ashamed to beso ignored. People thn came to him in distess, litt him up in thee arms, cased him into thc house and pressed nose to his ke and to the sole ofhis foot in apology ad lactone. ath 1949; in press) kn the end, by this basement Sd humble pleading ey got him to agree that he wold pas the matter over and attend the dance, All ese procedures followed she traditional pattern which sill marked in a dramatic ‘vay the alleviation ofa ers between chick and people. "Since the Tikopis had no ship of thsi own, epetation would have been atthe discretion of government and/or commercal intersta. According Latesen (1966: 128) there scems to have lien some government suggestion thatthe original seventy-five acre at Nekoi shouldbe desde collesively to the Tikopia ‘hi, buritisuncerain this was done. Tkopia there crtsnly made no mention of hit tome. The Aki Taumako sid on one occasion You, ther, ae the man of chic che mant of the chit abroad” of as Pa Nearumenexpresed tthe mart of the chit towards the Ins sense I wat rgatded ae 3 foreign represcrative of the Tikopias “You are Tikopa" Cas sometimes ol sea compliment Las sometimes addressed a ai, “chit, bt more ofa Simply a "Gther’ ot sgrandtather” or —onore racy in recent timer atthe Older generation

You might also like

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5794)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brené Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1090)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (838)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (599)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1713)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (895)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1103)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (588)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (537)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2104)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (345)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1016)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (821)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1839)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (121)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (440)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Tóibín

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1937)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (400)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4610)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4200)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (806)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2322)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1891)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3811)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (74)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (104)
• Multiplication Under The Sea: Name: Class: Date: Score

  

  Document2 pages

  Multiplication Under The Sea: Name: Class: Date: Score

  Srene Ying

  No ratings yet
• SUN MON TUE WED Thurs FRI SAT M M M M M M M

  

  Document2 pages

  SUN MON TUE WED Thurs FRI SAT M M M M M M M

  Srene Ying

  No ratings yet
• Rujukan Bisnes Plan 1f1s Bakeri Jalinan Bumi. (2015) - Rancangan Perniagaan Bakeri. Retrieved 3 April, 2017, From

  

  Document1 page

  Rujukan Bisnes Plan 1f1s Bakeri Jalinan Bumi. (2015) - Rancangan Perniagaan Bakeri. Retrieved 3 April, 2017, From

  Srene Ying

  No ratings yet
• No. Nama: PISMP Ambilan Jun 2016 (SEM 2) Kelas: Matematik

  

  Document1 page

  No. Nama: PISMP Ambilan Jun 2016 (SEM 2) Kelas: Matematik

  Srene Ying

  No ratings yet
• BIL Nama Markah

  

  Document6 pages

  BIL Nama Markah

  Srene Ying

  No ratings yet
• Book - Calender

  

  Document2 pages

  Book - Calender

  Srene Ying

  No ratings yet
• Pengajaran Makro Tajuk 2: Zaman Air Batu: Yap Kim Hon Wong Ai Li Wong Yin Yong Goh Soo Woon Loh Joe Ying

  

  Document1 page

  Pengajaran Makro Tajuk 2: Zaman Air Batu: Yap Kim Hon Wong Ai Li Wong Yin Yong Goh Soo Woon Loh Joe Ying

  Srene Ying

  No ratings yet