Dr. Charles F. Urbanowicz / Professor of Anthropology
California State University, Chico / Chico, California 95929-0400
530-898-6220 [Office]; 530-898-6192 [Dept.]; FAX: 530-898-6143
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org / home page: http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban
[This Page is printed from: http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/1972TonganPaper.html]
15 August 2003 
© [All Rights Reserved.] This paper was originally presented on December 2, 1972, at the ASAO [Association for Social Anthropology in Oceania] Symposium that I organized for the 71st Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Toronto, Canada. It was placed on the WWW on August 15, 2003 as an "example" of ideas and writing of 1972. The text below is essentially unchanged from the original 1972 paper (with additions being indicated in [ ]'s below). In placing this paper on the WWW some 31 years after it was written I attempt to demonstrate to my students that life is, in fact, cumulative and ideas develop out of previous ideas; I also follow the 1963 words of Sir Karl Popper [1902-1994]: "we can learn from our mistakes [stress added]" (Conjectures And Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 1963, page vii). Several of my earlier papers have already been placed on the WWW for student use, such as Urbanowicz 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970a , 1970b, 1971, 1973, 1976a, 1976b, 1977, 1980 and1983 (all refeferenced below); in placing them on the WWW, I was often reminded of the words of stanza 51 from the 1859 (first) edition translation of The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám of Naishápúr by Edward Fitzgerald (1809-1883)
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
Please note the following: "The first Edition of the translation of Omar Khayyám, which appeared in 1859, differs so much from those which followed, that it has thought better to print it in full, instead of attempting to record the differences." W. Aldis Wright, n.d. [1932?], The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám And the Salámán And Absál of Jámí Rendered Into English Verse by Edward Fitzgerald (NY: A.L. Burt Company), page 119.
Please see the footnote below for the original March 24, 1972 Symposium submission. This 1972 paper dealt with my Ph.D. fieldwork concerning the Polynesian Kingdom of Tonga and several publications resulted from that 1970-1971 fieldwork, also referenced below. I was last in Tonga in 1971.
Historical footnote: Born in Jersey City, New Jersey in 1942, I graduated high school in 1960 and after attending New York University in 1960-1961, I enlisted in the United States Air Force (1961-1965), was Honorably Discharged, and eventually received the B.A. in Sociology/Anthropology in 1967 from Western Washington State College (now Western Washington University). I began Graduate Work in Anthropology at the University of Oregon in September 1967 and received the M.A. in Anthropology in 1969. In July 1970 I went (with my wife) to do fieldwork in the Polynesian Kingdom of Tonga and was awarded the Ph.D. in 1972. For a complete résumé, please see http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/resume.html). I taught in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota for 1972-1973 and joined the faculty of California State University, Chico, in August 1973 and have been happily here ever since! This December 1972 paper was written during my first-year of full-time teaching at the University of Minnesota when I was thirty years of age; incidentally, at this 1972 American Anthropological Association Meeting in Toronto, Canada, I was interviewed for the position at California State University, Chico!
ABORIGINAL CULTURE, DISCREPANCIES, AND MODEL
[ORIGINAL 1972] REFERENCES CITED
[APPENDIX I: SELECTED WEB PAGES PERTAINING TO THE PACIFIC AND THE POLYNESIAN KINGDOM OF TONGA]
[APPENDIX II: SPECIFIC URBANOWICZ PUBLICATIONS DEALING WITH TONGA (in reverse chronological order: 1972 -> 1994)]
[APPENDIX III: OTHER SPECIFIC URBANOWICZ HISTORICAL WEB PAGES (in reverse chronological order]: 1965 -> 1983]
Two concepts need explicit definitions for this paper: by "social structure" I am referring to a model which the ethnographer constructs from basic data. This, of course, is after Lévi-Strauss (1953), although I am not entering into a discussion of either mechanical-statistical or conscious-unconscious models. The model is a synchronic description of specific events of Tongan culture. Following Scriven (1989: 90), the term model is used since a model can deal with "an indefinite number of facts." The model I am presenting is not a theory, but a descriptive device developed at this time to deal with discrepancies in (a) factual and (b) theoretical statements about Tongan ethnographic data which are found in the literature.
By "ethnographic reconstruction" I am referring to an historical ethnography of aboriginal Tongan culture. The ethnographic reconstruction is an attempt at establishing a "base line" of Tongan culture in the past. Since the reconstruction is based on documents left by European observers in the past (vide Sturtevant 1966: 7; Fenton 1962: 2), an ethnographic reconstruction is more likely to be a description of cultural processes and one must make inferences from known descriptions to the unknown aboriginal (pre-European) past.
The validity and "truth" of an ethnographic reconstruction of any aboriginal culture "rests on an appeal to the evidence" which is contained within the documents of the past (Dark 1957: 232). The various descriptions recorded by European observers of early-contacted Tongan must be extracted from their accounts, compared with known ethnographic data, and only accepted as evidence after logical and critical analysis. My ethnohistorical research culminated in ethnohistorical facts of the past, and such ethnohistorical facts can be used as ethnographic facts of the past in constructing the reconstruction. (See Urbanowicz 1972 for a detailed explication of the documentary research.) The documents from which ethnohistorical facts of Tonga were culled were primarily unpublished manuscript materials of the Wesleyan Methodist missionaries who had arrived in Tonga from 1822 onwards. Ethnohistorical facts of aboriginal (and changing) Tongan culture were extracted from missionary Journals, Diaries, personal and business letters, and notes which the missionaries left behind. The Wesleyan documents (and appropriate published accounts) for the period 1822-1875 were read and examined for their ethnographic content.
Ethnohistorical research involves working from the present into the past and into the present once again. I did fieldwork in Tonga from July through October of 1970 and then proceeded to Australia where the archival research was conducted (primarily at the Mitchell Library). In Australia I extracted the ethnohistorical facts from the documents and then compared and discussed these once again in Tonga from August through October of 1971. Hence, some comparable data of contemporary and early-contacted Tonga were gathered over a period of sixteen months.
Ethnohistory is thus the combination of the anthropologist's ethnographic-ethnological knowledge and historical method. Ethnohistory is the application of historical method to a specific corpus of documents specifically chosen for a problem. The ethnohistorian focuses on the "ethno-" in the term, in presenting an ethnography of the past for a specific group of people; the "history" refers not to the writing of history, but to the applications of historical method to gather the verifiable ethnographic facts of the past. Ethnohistory is not a study of change per se, although it eventually contributes to studies of change when comparable data are gathered from a particular span of time (or when inferences are made from a known description or model to an unknown). The term ethnohistory as used by ethnographers is not synonymous with "culture history," as the distinguished Pacific historian H. E. Maude has written (1971: 21), although the process of change can be extracted from the product of ethnohistorical research.
ABORIGINAL CULTURE, DISCREPANCIES, AND MODEL
It must be stressed that in this paper I am explicitly referring to aboriginal (or early-contacted) Tongan culture, that is to say, a time when the total population of the archipelago of 256 square miles was approximately between fifteen and twenty-thousand indigenous inhabitants. A numerical "guestimate" for the year 1800, Goldman's "terminal date" for aboriginal Polynesian society (1970: xxviii), would probably fall within this fifteen to twenty thousand range. The most frequently cited figure for early 19th century Tonga is that of 18,500 recorded by Wilkes in 1840 from data provided by the local Wesleyan missionaries (Wilkes 1845 III: 29), but as McArthur accurately points out, this is grossly at odds with a Wesleyan "guestimate" of 50,000 for 1847 (McArthur 1967: 73; vide Lawry 1850: 245).
I stress the approximate figure of 15,000 (or less) inhabitants for aboriginal Tonga, since this is one of the reasons that I believe there have been discrepancies in interpreting aboriginal Tongan culture: I believe that various researchers have erroneously projected from the behavior, attitudes, and interaction patterns of 20th century Tongans to what they (the researchers) believe to have been the behavior, attitudes, and interaction patterns of aboriginal Tongans. Quite simply, there are more Tongans today than in the past, with an estimated Tongan population on 31 December 1970 at 86,055 (Tapa: 1971: 4).
I believe that this erroneous projection into the past to be inherent in some parts of Gifford's massive work (1929), as well as in Aoyagi (1966) and Kaeppler (1971). This is especially true when 20th century authors write of the Tongan concept of the ha'a. Gifford, who did his fieldwork in Tonga for nine months in 1920-1921, wrote of the ha'a as a "named lineage" (1929: 29), and Firth (1936; 1957) has discussed the ha'a in the context of ramage. Kaeppler, who worked in Tonga for eighteen months from 1964 through 1967, wrote of the ha'a as a group of individuals associated with a title holder (1971: 180), and stated that "Ha'a are societal divisions comprised of individuals associated with ranked titles" (1971: 188).
What causes the discrepancies in the Tongan analyses are the projections into aboriginal culture that 20th century writers make, for the ethnohistorical data suggest that the ha'a were more than lineages, or ramages, or societal divisions--the ha'a were not only a basic factor in aboriginal culture, but every individual knew of his of her ha'a affiliation. Thus I believe Kaeppler only to be partially correct when she writes:
"Most Tongans today (and probably traditionally) do not know the relative ranking or origin of the various ha'a, because these are the affairs of the chiefs and do not concern them. (Kaeppler 1971: 188)
Kaeppler is only partially correct because some 20th century Tongans do have difficulty in tracing their own ha'a affiliation--my criticism comes from her inclusion of "traditional" (i.e. aboriginal?) Tonga into the statement.
The model which I am suggesting for an analysis of the ha'a in aboriginal Tonga (i.e. traditional) takes its impetus not only from Lévi-Strauss, but also from Silverman's "blood and mud" hypothesis (Silverman 1971: 72). In this instance, for Tonga, "mud" stands for the aboriginal land system and related title system associated with the land, and "blood" stands for an individual's title and personal rank based on genealogical position. Mud and blood interaction culminated in the activities of the ha'a in aboriginal Tonga. I am here defining the ha'a in aboriginal Tonga as being a corporate descent group, existing at any one point in time (on the land with titles) and through time (through the titles and rank of the individual).
In speaking of the ha'a as a corporate descent group, I am following Fortes who writes:
"Reduced to its bare essentials, therefore, corporateness, where it exists as a jural category, considered from within, means the perpetuation of an aggregate by exclusive recruitment to restricted membership that carries actual or potential equality of status and mutuality of interests and obligations in its internal affairs. For the corporation sole, it reduces to perpetuation by preordained rules of succession. Considered from without, however, the critical feature is the capacity allocated to corporate group or office, primarily in the politico-jural domain, to exercise specified rights and fulfill specified duties and responsibilities, either through representatives, or collectively, as a juristic person." (Fortes 1969: 306)
In aboriginal Tonga, with a reduced population, it is my contention that every person (1) had a ha'a affiliation and consequently (2) knew of the ha'a and were able to rank them.(A reflection of this rank ordering of the various ha'a is indicated in aboriginal seating arrangements of the kava ceremonies and in the 20th century taumafa, or King's, kava ceremony.) It is also my contention that in aboriginal Tonga, as contrasted to 20th century Tonga, kinship affiliation was an important part of ha'a affiliation for an individual. Thus I believe Kaeppler to be in error when she writes the following, and wishes to project it back to aboriginal Tonga:
"A chief's 'people' need not be related to him by blood, but rather are associated with him by virtue of living on the land (tofi'a) which goes with the title." (Kaeppler 1971: 188)
Kaeppler is writing of 20th century Tonga and this is apparently the case as Morton also point out (1972: 52), but it is not an accurate representation of aboriginal Tonga. I believe Kaeppler has placed undue emphasis, as Mead has pointed out for Fiji-Tonga-Samoa work in general (1969: 220), on "the tendency to look to territoriality as the basis of the kind of complex social organization which underlies the development of the state." The ha'a was not only a concept of land, in that every ha'a had a specific area of land on an island and this land was known to belong to a specific ha's, but the ha'a in aboriginal Tonga was settled by kinsmen of the title holder (who was the spokesman of the ha'a). Part of the problem of discussing the ha'a, if not the major problem, was that Gifford merely wrote of 13 "recognized" ha'a (1929: 33) in 1920-1921 and in aboriginal Tonga there were numerous others.
In aboriginal Tonga the three major title were those of the Tu'i Tonga, Tu'i Ha'a Takalaua, and Tu'i Kanokopolu. From these three title all the ha'a eventually developed. When the various missionaries arrived in the archipelago, some realized part of the Tongan system of ranking. The Wesleyan missionary Lawry recorded in his Diary for September 13, 1823, that
"the following is the order in which the present Chiefs of the Friendly Islands, rank, viz:-- 1. Tooitonga [Tu'i Tonga] 2. Tooihatacalaow [Tu'i Ha'a Takalaua] 3. Tooicanacabooloo [Tu'i Kanokupolu]."
Another Wesleyan missionary, John Thomas (in the archipelago from 1826 to 1850 and again from 1855 to 1859) wrote in one of his manuscript accounts:
"Formerly there were three ranks of nobles in Tonga to which the term 'Eiki or Lord applied, of these the Tuitonga stood first, then the Tamaha, and next the Hau or civil ruler." (J. Thomas, MS. No. 5: 1)
The Tamaha was the title given to the child which Thomas said could have been male or female (J. Thomas, MS. No 4: 30), of the sister of the Tu'i Tonga, who herself had the title of Tu'i Tonga Fefine. The different ranking of Lawry and Thomas result from the fact that there were Tamaha before there were hau. Included in the hau at various points in time were the titled individuals Tu'i Ha'a Takalaua and Tu'i Kanokupolu.
The Tu'i Tonga was the embodiment of the sacred and the secular in aboriginal Tonga and the nominal leader of all Tongans. In approximately the 15th century, however, a division was made between the sacred and the secular and the Tu'i Tonga Kau'ulufonua delegated his secular authorities to a brother and the Ha'a Takalaua was begun and Mo'ungamotu'a was the first Tu'i Ha'a Takalaua. A description from a manuscript account, ostensibly "written by [the last] Tamaha Amelia, and begun in the 27th. day of the year 1844" (Collocott, MS. No. II: 19) provides some basic ethnohistoric information. The Tamaha, who was described as "the living oracle of the Tongans" (Thomas, MS. No. 6: 59), probably dictated the account since she was well over sixty years of age in the 1840s. The Tamaha spoke of the Tu'i Tonga Kau'ulufonua and how "he portioned out to each of his brothers an island to be king over" and how Kau'ulufonua:
"appointed Mougamotua Tui Haatakalaua, and he was to reside at Fonuamotu as he was to be protector of the Tuitonga (as the Tuitongas were apt to be assassinated), and the Tuitonga was safe because his younger brother kept guard over him." (Collocott, MS. No. II: 21)
In approximately the 17th century a Tu'i Ha'a Takalaua, Mo'ungatonga, delegated some of his secular responsibilities to a son and the Ha'a Ngata Motu'a was begun, with the son Ngata becoming the first Tu'i Kanokopolu and also receiving the "royal estates at the West end of Tonga[tapu] called Hihifo" (Thomas, MS. No. 5: 1). The Ha'a Ngata Motu'a, for example, was thus composed of the individual Ngata and all of his sons and their kinsmen. The sons of Ngata all received titles and specific areas of land in Hihifo. When Lawry was in Tonga in 1823 this specific area of land was still intact and Lawry wrote in his Diary for the expansion of the mission that "The next District proper for a Mission Station is that of Heefo" (W. Lawry, Diary entry of 28 April 1823); Anderson, who was with Cook in 1777 when he visited Tonga, wrote of the district "Hee'heefo" and that Tongatapu Island:
"is divided into many districts of which we have been able to procure the names of above thirty each of which has a chief who may be considered as Lords or barons." (In Beaglehole, 1967: 951).
The point I am trying to stress is that (1) the Ha'a Ngata Motu'a existed as a corporate descent group in a specific area of land; and (2), although it requires elaborate genealogical work which I do not show at this time, the Ha'a Ngata Motu'a was a working entity (recognized from within and without) as a result of kinship links. Mud and blood were combined together to form the ha'a.
There are numerous examples from the manuscript accounts, describing the 19th century warfare, where the ties of kinship between the ha'a went between island group and island group. The need for manpower for the 1837 and 1840 wars on Tongatapu Island had men going from Ha'apai and Vava'u to Tongatapu. Early in 1837, the Wesleyan missionary Thomas wrote in his Journal at Vava'u that he had attended "the Fono this morning" and learned that the Tongan King George "has sent for as many men to go [to Tongatapu] as wish to fight, [and] upwards of 130 stood up as being ready to go" (Thomas, Journal entry of January 17, 1837). During the 1840 war, the Wesleyan Missionary Rabone wrote from Tongatapu:
"This morning it was announced that a canoe was in sight. We went to the shore and it proved to be Kelebi Havea (Tuihateiho) from Tugua [in the Ha'apai group] & upwards of 100 men on board." (S. Rabone, Journal entry of February 14, 1840.)
If one overemphasizes territoriality to the detriment of kinship ties in aboriginal Tongan culture, one has difficulty in "explaining" why the Tongan chiefs were able to call in support for specific battles from various parts of the archipelago.
The "induced" in the section heading of this part of the paper refers to the fact that as a result of Western influence, the numerous ha'a in Tonga were eventually consolidated; the ha'a were already in the process of being consolidated by 1800, but I believe the process was accelerated as a result of the missionary influence on the islands. "Induced" changes in Tonga truly came with the Constitution of 1875--a landmark for any studies on Tongan culture. With the Constitution, a great deal of the inherent consensus and flexibility of Tongan culture was removed: where before a Tongan chief was a chief because of the consent of the ha'a, now a chief was a chief because of the law. A rigid system of patrilineal inheritance was introduced, which cannot be elaborated upon at this point.
In aboriginal Tongan culture, in many respects politics was kinship writ large. When a chief sent an individual to look after/rule a specific village, district, or island, the individual thus sent was more often than not a kinsmen of the chief. Thomas wrote in one of his manuscript accounts:
"It may be noticed that all the principal offices of the government, were filled by members of the Hau family as the Governors of Islands at a distance as well as those near at hand, Chiefs of Districts, and heads of Towns and villages, they were the relations and the professed friends of the King, whom they appeared to wish to live to serve, and to know." (J. Thomas, MS. No. 5: 5)
The Wesleyan missionary P. Turner provides corroborating evidence in his Journal entry of August 24, 1851: "The King has sent his eldest son to be the head ruler here [at Vava'u] and may be called a king under him."
Thus the Tongan system of titles connected the "mud and blood" of the ha'a.
One further induced change must be mentioned, even if in passing: in aboriginal Tongan the "personal rank" of a man was more important that his "title rank." With European contact, this has been reversed and "title rank" is more important than "personal/blood/genealogical rank." This is too lengthy to be expanded on at this time (but see Urbanowicz n.d.).
The most important thing to stress is that aboriginal Tonga is definitely not 20th century Tonga; and numerous projections made from faulty 20th century data and interpretations as to what aboriginal Tonga was like can be misleading. Ethnohistorical research, when there is a sizeable corpus of documents, can provide us with some basic ethnographic facts of the past. The obvious limitations to ethnohistorical research is the fact that if the data (or descriptions) were not recorded in the first place, no amount of reading will ever produce them. But this limitation is one of ethnohistory's greatest strength: if one calls documents "informants" then those "informants" never die--they are available for future researchers to check on. Not only can future researchers evaluate my ethnographic facts of the past (and my brief model of "mud-blood-ha'a"), but the identical "informants" will still be available for certain hypotheses of the future.
Finally, this paper must be considered a "working paper" prepared for the Toronto ASAO Symposium and circulated prior to the meeting to all participants to facilitate discussion. The paper simply cannot be considered a final statement on Tongan culture--if indeed a final statement is ever plausible or desirable.
[ORIGINAL 1972] REFERENCES CITED
Machiko Kitahari Aoyagi, 1966, Kinship organization and behavious in a contemporary Tongan village. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 75: 141-176.
John Cawte Beagblehole, 1967, The Voyage of the resolution and Discovery 1776-1789 (Volume III Part Two) (Cambridge: Hakluyt Society).
E. E. V. Collocott, n.d., Papers on Tonga, 1845-19??, I-V (Sydney: Mitchell Library ML MSS. 207).
Phillip Dark, 1957, Methods of synthesis in ethnohistory. Ethnohistory, 4: 231-278.
WIlliam N. Fenton, 1962, Ethnohistory and its problems. Ethnohistory, 9: 1-23.
Raymond Firth, 1936, We the Tikopia (London: Allen & Unwin, Ltd.).
Raymond Firth, 1957, A note on descent groups in Polynesia. Man, 57: 4-8.
Meyer Fortes, 1969, Kinship and the Social Order: The Legacy of Lewis Henry Morgan (Chicago: Aldine).
Edward Winslow Gifford, 1929, Tongan Society (Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 16, Honolulu).
Irving Goldman, 1970, Ancient Polynesian Society (University of Chicago Press).
Adrienne Kaeppler, 1971, Rank. in Tonga. Ethnology , 10, No. 2: 174-193.
Walter Lawry, n.d., Diary (February 1818 - February 1825) (Sydney: Mitchell Library A1973 [copy also under M.O.M. No. 134]).
Walter Lawry, 1850, Friendly and Feejee Islands: A Missionary Visit....Edited by Rev. Elijah Hoole (London: Gilfin).
Claude Lévi-Strauss, 1953, Social Structure. Anthropology Today (Chaired by A.L. Kroeber), pp. 524-553 (Chicago: University Press).
Henry Evans Maude, 1971, Pacific history--Past, present and future. Journal of Pacific History, 6: 3-24.
Norma McArthur, 1967, Island Populations of the Pacific (Canberra: Australian National University Press).
Margaret Mead, 1969 (2nd edition), Social Organization of Manu'a (Reprint of First Edition of 1930) (Honolulu: Benrice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 76).
Keith L. Morton, 1972, Kinship, Economics, and Exchange in a Tongan Village (Eugene: Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon).
Stephen Rabone, n.d., Journals (1835-1849) (Sydney: Mitchell Library ML MSS. 47).
Michael Scrivem 1968, The philosophy of science. International Encyclopedia of the Social Science Volume 14, pp. 83-92 (NY: MacMillan).
Martin G. Silverman, 1971, Disconcerting Issues: Meaning and Struggle in a Resettled Pacific Community (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press).
William C. Sturtevant, 1966, Anthropology, history, and ethnohistory. Ethnohistory, 13: 1-51.
Sione Tapa, 1971, Report of the Minister of Health for the Year 1970 (Nuku'alofa: Government printing Office).
John Thomas, n.d., Journal 6 (October 1834 - March 1838) (Sydney: Mitchell Library Microfilm FM4/1434 reel 43, original in London).
John Thomas, n.d., MS. No. 4, History (Sydney: Mitchell Library Microfilm FM4/1439 reel 48, original in London).
John Thomas, n.d., MS. No. 5, Ranks of Chiefs (Sydney: Mitchell Library Microfilm, FM4/1439 reel 48, original in London).
John Thomas, n.d., MS. No. 6, Names of Islands (Sydney: Mitchell Library Microfilm, FM4/1439 reel 48 (original in London).
Peter Turner, n.d., Journal (June 1, 1851 - July 8, 1853) (Sydney: Mitchell Libary B310).
Charles F. Urbanowicz, 1972, Tongan Culture: The Methodology of an Ethnographic Reconstruction (Eugene: Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon).
Charles F. Urbanowicz, n.d., Change in rank and status in the Polynesian Kingdom of Tonga. Submitted for consideration for publication for the IXth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (Psychological Anthropology Volume/Session), Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, September 1-8, 1973. [AUGUST 2003 Note. This paper was eventually published, twice: see 1975a and 1979a below.]
Charles Wilkes, 1845, Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition...1838-1842, Volume III. (Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard).
[Tongan Visitors Bureau} Welcome to the Kingdom of Tonga]
http://www.fikco.com/kingdom.htm [Tonga} Includes Audio]
http://www.royaltonganairlines.com/ [Royal Tongan Airlines]
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/pacific/tonga/index.htm [Lonely Planet World guide} Tonga]
http://gohawaii.about.com/cs/tonga/index.htm [Various Tongan Articles and Links]
http://www.pacificforum.com/links/Countries/Polynesia/Tonga/ [Pacific Islands Web Directory} Tonga]
http://pidp.ewc.hawaii.edu/pireport/[Pacific Islands Report} Up-to-the-date news]
http://coombs.anu.edu.au/WWWVL-PacificStudies.html [Australian National University} A massive Pacific Site]
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ [CIA World Factbook} 2002]
http://www.govt.nz/ [New Zealand Government On-Line]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/ [ABC News (Australia)]; finally, check out:
http://www.123cam.com/ [Web Cams around the world, including many in Oceania!]
1994 Review of Islanders of the South: Production, Kinship and Ideology in the Polynesian Kingdom of Tonga (1993) by Paul Van Der Grijp (translated by Peter Mason). Ethnos (Stocklhom), Vol. 59, No. 3-4: 276-278.
1991a Another Look at Tourism With Regards to Tonga. Hosts and Guests, edited by Valene Smith (Tokyo: Keisó Shobo), pp. 147-164 [Japanese Translation of 1989].
1991b Tonga. Encyclopedia of World Cultures, edited by D. Levinson (Boston: Hall-Macmillan), pp. 336-339.
1989 Tourism in Tonga Revisited: Continued Troubled Times? Hosts And Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, edited by Valene Smith, 2nd Edition (University of Pennsylvania), pp. 105-117.
1988 Review of Early Tonga as the Explorers Saw It: 1616-1810 (1987) by E. N. Ferdon. The American Anthropologist, Vol. 90, No. 4: 1021.
1981a Review of The Nobility and the Chiefly Tradition in the Modern Kingdom of Tonga (1980) by G.E. Marcus. Pacific Studies, Vol. 5, No. 114-116.
1981b Pacific Women: Some Polynesian Examples. Discussion Paper 81-1 in Discussion Paper Series (College of Behavioral and Social Sciences, California State University, Chico).
1979a Change in Rank and Status in the Polynesian Kingdom of Tonga. Political Anthropology: The State of the Art, edited by S. L. Seaton and J. M. Claessen (Mouton: The Hague), pp. 225-242 [identical to 1975a].
1979b Comments on Tongan Commerce, With Reference to Tourism and Traditional Life. Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 20, No. 2: 179-184.
1978a Brève note sur l'inflation, le tourisme et le Pétrole au Royaume polynésien des Iles Tonga. Journal de la Société des Océanistes, Vol. 36, No. 60:137-138.
1978b Review of A Polynesian Village: The Process of Change In the Village of Hoi, Tonga (1977) by P. Tupouniua. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 87, No. 3: 288-289.
1977a Integrating Tourism With Other Industries in Tonga. The Social and Economic Impact of Tourism on Pacific Communities, edited by B. H. Farrell (Center for South Pacific Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz), pp. 88-94.
1977b Tourism in Tonga: Troubled Times. Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, edited by Valene Smith (University of Pennsylvania), pp. 83-92.
1977c Motives and Methods: Missionaries in Tonga in the Early 19th Century. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 86, No. 2: 245-263.
1976a John Thomas, Tongans, and Tonga! The Tonga Chronicle (July 15, 1976), Nuku'alofa, Tonga, Vol. 13, No. 7: 7.
1976b Tourism in The Pacific. The Asianist (California State University, Chico), Vol. 1: 17-22.
1975a Change in Rank and Status in the Polynesian Kingdom of Tonga. Psychological Anthropology, edited by T. R. Williams (Mouton), pp. 559-575 [identical to 1979a].
1975b Drinking in the Polynesian Kingdom of Tonga. Ethnohistory, Vol. 22, No. 1: 33-50.
1974a Capt. Cook's Club. Pacific Islands Monthly, April.
1973 Tongan Adoption Before The Constitution of 1875. Ethnohistory, Vol. 20, No. 2: 109-123.
1972 Tongan Culture: The Methodology of an Ethnographic Reconstruction. Copyrighted Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon; also available from Ann Arbor, University Microfilms 73-7972); CSUC} GN/671/T5/U7/1972a]. [And please see} http://www.uoregon.edu/~anthro/dissertations.html]
1983 Christian Missionaries in The Polynesian Kingdom of Tonga: Late 18th & Early 19th Century Activities. (For the Symposium entitled "Missions and Missionaries in the Pacific: An Overview" for the Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association, San Francisco, California, December 28.)
1980 Women in the Pacific: Some Polynesian Examples. (For the "Asia and Pacific" Section of the 28th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Ethnohistory, San Francisco, California, October 23-25, 1980.)
1977 Evolution of Technological Civilizations: What is Evolution,Technology, and Civilization? (For the Symposium on "The Search For Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence at NASA/Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California, February 24-25.)
1971 Tongan Culture: From The 20th Century to the 19th Century. For the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New York, New York, November 17, 1971).
1970a Discussion. Current Direction in Anthropology: A Special Issue [Bulletins of the American Anthropological Association, Vol. 3, No. 3, Part 2], edited by Ann Fischer (Washington, D.C., American Anthropological Association), pages 55-56.
1970b Mother Nature, Father Culture. (For the 28th Annual Meeting of the Oregon Academy of Science, Eugene, February 28).
1969 A Selective View of the Intellectual Antecedents of Claude Lévi-Strauss. (For the 68th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, November 20-23, 1969.]
1968 Comments on Bronislaw Malinowski (For a University of Oregon ANTH 507 Graduate Seminar, October 29).
1967 The Classical Maya. Honors Papers (Bellingham: Western Washington University), Vol. 6: 26-32.
1965 Darwin - 1859: An Important Historical Event. (For SPEECH 100, Western Washington State College [now Western Washington University], Bellingham, Washington, June 30).
[~ 5,574 words]} 15 August 2003
to the Department of Anthropology;
to California State University, Chico.
[This Page is printed from: http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/1972TonganPaper.html]
Copyright © 2003; all rights reserved by Charles F. Urbanowicz
15 August 2003 by cfu