FISH HOOKS OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS VOLS. I – by DANIEL BLAU AND KLAUS MAAZ

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:07 Uhr

Seite 1

Fish Hooks of the Pacific Islands

A pictorial guide to the fish hooks from the peoples of the Pacific Islands with introductions by Sydney Picasso and Anthony JP Meyer.

Texts and photographs by Klaus Maaz and Daniel Blau

Published by Daniel Blau, Munich and London Distributed by Hirmer Publishers, Munich

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:07 Uhr

Seite 2

Contents Forewords Anthony JP Meyer: 4 Danel Blau: 6 Essay Sydney Picasso: 8 Texts by Klaus Maaz Introduction: 17 Australia: 21 Melanesia: 29 Micronesia: 134 Polynesia: 191 Terminology: 353 Bibliography: 355 Index: 364 Thanks: 368 Impressum: 369

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:07 Uhr

Seite 3

To Maria, Clara and Hans To Gerd Koch (1922–2005)

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

Barracuda / Sphyraena qenie © Greenpeace/Axel Heimken

30.11.2011

18:07 Uhr

Seite 4

Ah… fish hooks. So many hooks in my tackle box and so few fish did I ever catch! But what a pleasure it is to go fishing. And the preparation – getting all the gear together, making sure that I have enough hooks of all sizes, enough line, the weights and the bait. Will I use lures, flies, shiny spoons or spinners? And on the baited hooks, will it be sand-worms, a small squid, a bait-fish carefully threaded onto the shank, a piece of crab or the inside of a mussel? Will I use the boat, or climb to the edge of the cliffs and rocks, or better yet, shall I brave the crashing waves and cast from the sandy beach? So many questions for what seems to be such a simple thing – throw a hook into the sea and pull out a fish. But no, fishing is an art; it is even a Fine Art, full of craft and knowledge, cunning and technology.

Those who live by and from the sea know how difficult it is catch a fish – especially the type of fish you actually want to catch. The people of the Pacific Islands were, and still are, amongst the world’s best fishermen. They have taught themselves over thousands of years and billions of fish how, where, why, and when to catch the kind of fish they needed at precisely that moment – or they would starve to death. They have developed a technological superiority over the fish, which leaves little to chance. From minute reef fish caught on ten-millimeter long hooks to sharks pulled up out of the deep on huge bent-wood hooks armed with a human-bone point, the Pacific Islanders can catch them all. Each fish is caught with a special type of hook with a hook-bait-sinker combination that is used only for that species. And all of this is done without metal. There were no steel hooks, no bronze hooks, and no iron ones. The hooks – all the hooks – were made from the local materials available to isolated societies that only discovered metal with the arrival of the first European explorers like Captain Cook and Louis de Bougainville in the last quarter of the 18th century. The pre contact fish hooks were made of shell, bone, stone, wood, turtle shell, coral, the leg segments of an insect, a thorny branch – all of this cut and fashioned with stone-age tools. Think about it – a

4

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:07 Uhr

Seite 5

simple hook – we can imagine how to carve one but what about the fishing lines?

The Ruvettus or oilfish swims at a depth of 200 to 500 meters! Hundreds of fathoms of fishing line were needed in all sizes and strengths. Most of it made from laboriously braided coconut fiber. Lines break, the fish is too big for the hook and the line snaps, or the rocks and seaweed catch the line and it parts – hooks are lost by the tens, by the hundreds, and they take time to make and are precious objects. They are also used as prestige items, for trade and commerce and worn as badges of rank and wealth. You couldn’t just go to the local tackle shop and buy ten hooks; you had to gather the materials and sit down and make them – or better yet trade for them from a specialized artist. Maybe a big important hook for shark fishing would cost a pig or several in trade. That is a lot of value to loose to a Leviathan that bites through your line and swims away.

So many hooks, so many fish and yet so few books about Pacific fish hooks. For the last thirty years I have sold many Pacific Island fish hooks to collectors and to museums and in doing so I have relied like all of my colleagues and friends on a few books but mostly on the comprehensive tome “Pacific Island Records: Fish Hooks” written by Harry Beasley and published in 1928 – in a limited edition of only 250 copies! Today, with the publication of the present book “Fish Hooks of the Pacific Islands” we finally have all the information gathered under one title. The hooks have been totally re-observed, re-researched, reattributed, re-identified and re-photographed. It is a publication incorporating all the corrections and new information that has surfaced in the past five or six decades.

This is a book produced by private collectors, people who have dedicated themselves to the art and knowledge of the old Pacific cultures for their own enjoyment – and ours. They have no formal training in this field, they have not taken anthropology classes, nor have they worked in museums yet they have amassed not only an incredible quantity of information and insight but they have also put together private collections of fish hooks that surpass most museum collections worldwide. Hats off to Daniel Blau and to Klaus Maaz for the remarkable job that they have undertaken and fulfilled!

Anthony JP Meyer, Paris May 2011 5

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:07 Uhr

Seite 6

Some thoughts on Pacific Islands fish hooks The silhouette of a simple fish hook (*1) can be interpreted as the two dimensional outline of a valley, a container or a canoe in cross section; upsidedown it looks like a mountain or a high bridge.

The fish hook is a true invention, so simple, pure and ingenious that plain one-piece hooks have been used for thousands of years all over the world. The elegance of such a simple device is fascinating and the variations in minute details are astonishing. The shape of the fish hook is part of our collective memory, it is so essential. Try to draw the hook on paper - let the pencil fall from the head's knob to be caught by the smooth curve of the shank and to finally stop at the point’s tip – the perfection of the drawn line evokes a subtle satisfaction if not ancient memories.

The canoe

(*2) The settlements spread from the west through the Pacific Islands, following Australia and New Guinea (c. 50 to 8 thousand years B.C.) through New Britain and the Solomons to New Caledonia, Samoa and Tonga (8,000 to 1,000 B.C.) and finally, about twothousand years ago, the remotest islands, the Carolines, Easter Island and Hawaii. (*3) The first settlers of the Marquesas islands, for example, had to completely reinvent methods developed specifically for reef-fishing.

The Marquesas have little reef, as the ocean floor drops off steeply. Accordingly, the pre-dominant fish types differ to those of Tahiti and the Tuamotu Atolls (the original home of the first Marquesan settlers). This explains the findings of odd hook shapes, of a seemingly experimental nature in the earlier archaeological layers. Quite rapidly however, the settlers developed usable hooks in the now familiar Marquesan forms.

6

A few thousand years ago (*2), the experienced fisherman, also a master in the manufacture of fish hooks, set out in the voyaging canoe from the western edges of South East Asia, fully equipped with hook and line to discover and populate the Pacific Islands. Without the fish hook there would be no fish - thus not enough food on the long and extenuating journey – actually there would be no journey at all without the fish hook. The Pacific Islands could not have been populated or conquered without the fish hook and its vessel – the canoe.

Usually the line was held in the hand, or possibly wound around a piece of wood or a finger, as the fisherman needed direct “contact” with the fish. The only exception is the bonito trolling hook which can only be used from the moving canoe and could well have been a hook type used during the great voyages of exploration and conquest.

Hooks in such conservative societies do not undergo radical changes. The minute alterations of details are the results of brave inventors – the sum of intensive testing, insight and experience. A minute variation of a shanks curvature or length, a differently shaped notch or barb are all we can find amongst hundreds of collected examples from one location. Once in a while a dramatically different hook is found, seemingly the sole testimony to an abandoned experiment (*3).

The bridge The Pacific world is divided in two - above and below the ocean surface.

The fish hook is the link between the upper and the lower world. It connects the fisherman and his people with the mystical world below. Every hook - to lure the fish out of the sea - from his world into ours - is a small work of art, a tiny piece of perfection. In looking through all the collections very few badly made hooks are found. In the workshops the abandoned hook blanks show that the master quickly discarded the unsatisfactory piece in the earliest possible stage of manufacture. But why should a badly made or ugly hook not catch fish as well as the beautiful and

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:07 Uhr

Seite 7

perfect example? Well, the skill, time, and effort to perfect the hook and its manufacture - using only files made of stone, coral or sea urchin spines, shows the fisherman’s respect for his trade and ultimately for the fish. Only a well made and good looking hook contained the good “mana” that tempted the fish to bite.

We learned from Polynesian mythology that great hooks were of highest value and traded, inherited or even fought for. The North Island of New Zealand was fished up from the bottom of the sea by the great Maui using a fish hook made from the jawbone of his ancestor.

We know from Hawaii how valuable the bones of mighty men were for the manufacture of hooks and other objects. A fish hook made from the long-bones of a deceased chief would promise greater fishing success then that made from a commoner. The long-bones of chiefs were commonly cleaned, wrapped in tapa and stored in a secret place. This shows that the raw material can contain magical powers which will enhance the finished product.

If a hook’s material can contain such good “mana” that the hook promises a better “catch” it also means that there is a spiritual connection between hook and fish.

To “catch a fish” is a misleading term when it comes to line fishing in the Pacific. Most of the hooks were not baited. The hook itself is the bait and a beautiful, attractive and mystical bait as such. The hook does not catch the fish, it entices the fish to catch the hook all by itself, mistaking it for a smaller fish. It is the powerful material and the sublime shape of the hook which encourages the fish to take it in its mouth and be caught.

(*1) A mother of pearl fish hook from the Solomon islands.

Daniel Blau 2008/2010 7

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:07 Uhr

Seite 8

QUANTUM OF SPECIES (Medley of Ones)

I All in One “Day after day, alone on a hill (...).”(*1)

(*1) McCartney, Paul, Album, Magic Mystery Tour, 1967. From the sea of words in the English language the Beatles conjured simple phrases which today stand alone, incisive, and universal. (*2) Levi-Strauss, Claude, Regarder Ecouter Lire, p. 157 ( Author’s translation). (*3) ibid.

8

Here before us is a panoply: a series of singulars, monads, units. A physical glossary. Many, differentiated, and yet, persistently the same. Setting aside their function for the moment, these fish hooks are testimony to the march of time.

They are the products of man’s contemplation of nature, the result of a long observation of events, sunrise to sunset: equal in their cadence of seasons, and the regularity of opposites, dry and humid, night and day. Given that the Tropics are also home to species (animal and vegetal) in myriad numbers, exponentially far more than in temperate regions, this global band has produced objects, families of tools, which stun: they are at once unique, numerous, and semblants. In traditional societies, pre-historic or post contact, one common denominator is time. Time to observe, to perfect, and to use nature in attempting to master it. Variation appears when the whole is redefined: basically we are observing the same phenomena reshuffled through geography.

Levi-Strauss, commenting on the decorative aesthetic cites the linguist Bénveniste. Benvéniste demonstrated that the Greek rhuthmos has an early interpretation: “characteristic arrangement of parts in a whole (...). The spatial connotation becomes temporal in Plato who extends the notion of rhythm to body movements in gymnastics and dance.” (*2) And he pursues: “One must validate the Pre-Socratics: in decorative rhythm, the idea of the “whole” dominates, as recurrence is perceptible only if the rhythmic cell includes a limited number of elements(...). This is true of material and of form, colours as periods, accents or pitches, of spatial or temporal orientation.” (*3) He insists on the role of periodicity, and that is why the notion of time passed (or watched passing) is so critical. The Pre-Socratics, and this is their brotherhood with the inhabitants of Oceania, observing nature, in often-remote places, with no patent education, created a thought system which is at once simple and profound. And who has not been overwhelmed by the number of grains of sand on the shore, or the number of stars in the sky? A fisherman is par excellence the true contemplative, a muser: he has only time, and observation. His hooks are forcibly manifestations of hours of practice and application.

And in this particular case the fisherman waits, but he must eat; therefore, the hooks must work, and the tried and true survive. In the declension of material, however, all sorts of variation enters the mix. The components abound: from abalone, to conch, human, dog, whale bone, teeth, turtle shell or even stalactite.

Viewing pre-historic and post contact society as a whole integral system, one imagines the significance of using human bone to catch fish: and although the

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:07 Uhr

Seite 9

theme here is “whatever works”, the added symbolism of giving “man” parts to a fish or dog, or even fish parts is a seductive idea. For the drinking of human blood or the consumption of one’s enemies insinuates that the practician, over time, is part of the whole in which “I” can truly be one and the same with nature, or “I” can truly be the walrus, and things integrate their natural equivalencies, sames and semblants. Tattoos give men resemblance to an animal, allowing them to blend into the shadow. The fish hook is merely the hand of man disguised as a fish, lurking in the depths, waiting to seize, to consume, and in a word become the other, to become part of the whole.

“What exists is now, all at once, one and continuous (...) nor is it divisible, since it is alike; nor is there any more or less of it in one place which might prevent it from holding together but all is full of what is (...).” (*4) From the Greek islands to Oceania, given that time is endless, this scenario is not a huge leap: one dares to sketch a series of ones: One on one, one as one, one in one, and one is one. Again Parmenides resounds: “the world is ‘one being’ Alethia, (truly) unchanging, ungenerated, indestructible whole.” (*5) From Italo Calvino’s “The Baron in the Trees”, we have a stunning example of this as man becomes one with his host: “Now it was a whole different world, made up of narrow curved bridges in the emptiness, of knots or peel or scores roughening the trunks, of lights varying their green according to the veils of thicker or scarcer leaves, trembling at the first quiver of the air on the shoots or moving like sails with the bend of the tree in the wind (...). But at every rise or fall of the wind every sound changes and is renewed. All that remains in the inner recess of the ear is a vague murmur: the sea.” (*6)

II One as One “I like to be, under the sea, in an octopus’ garden in the shade (...).” (*7) The hook lurks in the sea shiny, slipping through shadows, slightly curved, wobbling in the current. The hook is the fish, the lure and the bait. One could say – from an expression filtered into everyday language: “hook, line and sinker.” Enter the dramatis personae of variegated ingredients: from shell to bone to insect, to stalagmite – and further, from the huge wooden hook from Hawaii, to the tiny Pandanus thorn. Nature using nature. In a world where no component goes untried, it is a cosmos of semblants. When the hook is not enough, animal (pig) hair and teeth are added as hackle to lures and snoods. The lashings, of Olana (touchardia latifolia), Waoke (broussometia papyferia) or Hau oa (Pariteum tileaceum) specifically in Hawaii, fuse with the hooks in symmetry. Nature is a conjugation of similitudes, each being resembling each other, each seed being examined, tested and replanted, where time permits all, and everything is explored, dissected, used (...) and here again, whatever works, works.

Polynesian mythology is crammed with examples of this cast of semblants

(*4) Parmenides of Elea. From Proemium: Fairbanks ed. First Philosophers of Greece.

London 1898. K.Paul Trench p. 86-135. (*5) Ibid, p. 86-135. (*6) Calvino, Italo, the Baron in the Trees.

Random House, New York 1959, translated by Archibald Colquhoun. (*7) Starkey, Richard 1969, Album Abbey Road.

9

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

(*1) Von den Steinen, Karl, Mythes Marquisiens, Papeete. Haere Po, 2005. p. 31. (Translated by the author, S.P). (*2) ibid. p. 33. (*3) ibid. p. 39.

10

18:07 Uhr

Seite 10

(...) Maui, the leading figure in the dramatis personae, famed mainly because he fished the North Island of New Zealand out of the sea with a giant fish hook (other versions of this legend name Nuku Hiva (Marquesas) or the Hawaiian chain to be pulled from the ocean floor) has the particularity of being born twice.

“Maui came out of an egg which was laid by a woman by the name of Iiaoaoa behind the house of two elders. When one of the two elders heard a weak and tiny voice, he went to see and found the egg. He showed it to his companion and as almost-human sounds emanated from the egg, they decided to break it.

They were not a little stunned when a tiny little human came out and told them he wanted to be led into a house of two other elders, by the name of Ataana-I-Fenua and Maiutuatemau, his wife, who were clearing a field of kava in the upper valley.

In the middle of the night, on the moment of carnal union, Maui entered the belly of Maiutu.

The next morning, the elders came down from the valley, but half-way the woman had pains and gave birth to Maui. As he seemed still-born, they threw the child into a thicket of Pandanus trees, and it was only much later, when Maui regained his strength, that he went to the elders and said he was their son. The woman did not want to recognize him, until Maui related the story of the birthing on the road and thus convinced the elders.” (*1) Two other versions of this myth exist, one related by Vaikau, the chief of Hanavave, and another which confounds the fire Ahi, Maui and Mahuike. In the latter, Maui is engendered by the fire Ahi (Atea and Uevea) Light and Heat. In these narrations, there is always a cocktail of naturalistic events – as Maui searches for fire, and learns it is in the clutches of two Phaeton birds: their secretions hold the fire, and after killing the birds (and a few women who found themselves on his path) he proceeds to acquire fire in his toenails, then his toes, his knees his ears, etc.

And each time, as he advances in these acquisitions, he covers himself in mud, and appears as a new person. (*2) One follows the narrated adventures of Maui, as his wife is stolen first by a lizard, then by an eel, and lastly by a pearl oyster. He manages to wrest her from the grip of these beings, but finally he is cut in two by the oyster, as his mother, whose counsel he relied upon, decided there were too many violent acts, and retracted her help. (*3) This microcosm, animated by the multiple actions of its inhabitants is a coherent stage where each actor - animal, plant or human - pantomimes each other.

The personification of birds and fish, and the “living” nature of fire and water give a truly equilateral disposition to the events and persons. And the players, Maui, first and foremost do not fear the others. In one case, for instance, with no hesitation, he decides to slow down the sun’s progress so his wife’s belt can dry. To do this he takes a rope woven from the hair of tribal members: “In Fatu Hiva the mountain top was called Mouna Nui. He lassoed the sun’s neck and brought him home. There took place a battle between the sun and Maui.”

As he did not succeed, he took a weapon, hii a tapatapa, and broke the sun’s leg. He also took the sun’s hair, which, it is related perfunctorily, Maui’s wife distributed amongst her lovers after Maui’s death, and “thus (the hairs) were wasted.”

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:07 Uhr

Seite 11

These verbal descriptions, reunited by the eminent German ethnologist Von den Steinen, were collected from the tales of the tuhuna wisemen from the Marquesas Archipelago in 1897-8. They are probably the most telling vestiges of Oceanic lore, shining as some lost jetsam on the beaches of time.

III One on One “Lucy in the sky with diamonds (...).” (*7) When Maui threw his hook away, it went into the heavens and created the Scorpio galaxy. This conjunction of man and sea and stars connects the dots of this far from complete picture of the land of water, air, fish, and men. Bougainville remarked that although there were many exchanges of domestic animals, the people of Tahiti ate mostly fish and vegetables. His descriptions of the inhabitants in 1768 paint a far lovelier picture than his successors, who lament the degenerated health of the locals.

“I would not accuse them, nonetheless, of lower intelligence. Their skill and industry, in the few operations necessary in spite of the abundance of the land, and the beauty of the climate, is testimony. One is amazed at the art with which they make fishing instruments; their fish hooks are made of mother of pearl, as delicately worked as if they had access to our tools. Their nets are exactly like ours and wove with threads of pite.” (*4) Bougainville describes in great detail their longboats, outriggers, and their armament, and he marvels at their working and navigational skills.

When he returns to France he takes of his own will a “natural” named Aotourou to Paris, where he was to stay eight months. “Although Aotourou could only bluster a few words of our language, every day he went out alone, covering the entire city, and he never got lost. Often he did errands and never overpaid for things. The only one of our shows he enjoyed was the opera: because he adored dance with a passion. He knew which days they played, went there alone, and paid for his ticket just like anyone else, and his favorite place was in the corridors.” (*5) Is our world as complex as we imagine it? Or was Aotourou just capable of navigating in Paris as if it were an island in the South Seas transposing longboats for carriages, and finally drawing the essential components out of daily life? We are different, but we are essentially the same. As we fish, seek, wait and contemplate, do we yet become one and the same? Frank Gehry draws a fish on a blackboard, and somehow connects the structure to his latest building.

“Vegetables and fish form their principal diet; they eat meat rarely, children and young women never, and this regimen likely contributes to their lack of all our illnesses.” (*6) In this way William Bligh described “Fishing in Matavai” in 1789, giving an eyewitness account: “We received almost daily fish as presents, mainly dolphins, albacore and a few small rock fish. The inhabitants usually fish at night, lighting big fires on the reefs to attract the fish. When the weather is good, there

(*4) Bougainville, Louis-Antoine de, in Le Voyage en Polynésie, Paris 1994, p. 54. (*5) ibid. p. 56, 57. (*6) ibid. p. 49. This seems not to have been the case when Jack London visits Taipi valley, where he witnesses tuberculosis, consumption etc. (*7) John, Lennon, Album: Sargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, 1967.

11

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:07 Uhr

Seite 12

are sometimes such a large number of canoes outside that the entire sea seems illuminated. They fish from lines in the canoes, but on the reefs they strike the fish with a lance or a trident. There are some who use small fishnets guided by two men.

In the daytime, their boats go quite a ways offshore where they fish with lines and catch bonito and other species. When the fish appear, a flotilla of canoes set out immediately to sea. As their fish hooks gleam, they use them without bait, in the same way as we use an artificial fly. Their poles are made of bamboo; but when there are big fish they use a boat hook on the bow of their boat, which is often twenty-five feet long with two forks at the end, to which are attached a line and a hook, and when the fish has bitten on the hook, they lift it with two cords which are shaken by two men at the aft of the boat.” (*1) This description, by one of the most contested and controversial figures in marine history, demonstrates his strict attention to detail and attempt to penetrate the mentality of the South Pacific. His survival in a nine-meter dinghy over 6700 kilometers to Timor is one of the great marine exploits. (*2) He embarked two Tahitians aboard on his final return to England, and argued the case for King Pomaré, showing his true passion for and attention to the South Pacific.

These extremely special exploits and their narratives express the highly sharpened dichotomy between the “explorers” and the “explored.” Although their alterity is stressed, most of the descriptions note the sameness of these otherwise exotic peoples. Fishing is as old as the world, and it seems certain that the practices observed were recognition tabs which approached the visitors to the visited. The scientific goals of their expeditions seems to have influenced their opinions of these “naturals”, and the whole question launched by the church in the 16th century concerning the “humanness” of the natives of Central America seems totally superceded by the time Cook set out on his expedition. Thus I am you and you are me (...) and we are all (...).

IV One in One “I am the walrus, I am the eggman” (*3)

(*1) Bligh, William, (1789)Voyage in the South Seas, in le Voyage en Polynésie, op. cit. P. 873. (*2) ibid. p. 1132. (*3) Lennon, John: Album Magical Mystery Tour, 1967.

12

Imagine unity, imagine an island, or several islands or hundreds of islands where all is, was and will be the same. A cosmology of ones, where each element has its place, and the whole resembles the parts. Coconut fibers, sinnet, and human and animal hair blend into the assemblages and have their own place in the economy. Mats, sacs and foodwrappings: all contribute to the ongoing march of traditional societies. One cannot really speak of geographic unicity, as fish hooks found in pre-Incan sites in Peru and in other archeological sites resemble hooks found in the entire Oceanic zone, however these resemblances confirm their appartenance to traditional societies taken as a whole.

There is union, in that there is a unity of form in all of these specimens, of purpose and role. And these hooks are signposts: their function is visible.

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:07 Uhr

Seite 13

One observes tattoos of fish hooks on shoulders or faces, or representations of fish hooks over the eyes on carved clubs from Fatu Hiva in the Marquesas. (*4) Returning to Parmenides: “What exists is now, all at once, one and continuous (...) nor is it divisible, since it is aliki, nor is there any more or less of it in one place which might prevent it from holding together but all is full of what is.” (*5) Certain chronicles depict the “naturals” as having few social structures: “They have no clothes, neither of wool, linen or cotton, as they have no need; and there is no patrimony, all goods are common to all. They live with no king or governor, and each person is his own master. They have as many wives as they wish, and the son lives with the mother, the brother with the sister, the cousin with his cousin, and each man with the first woman who crosses his path. They break their marriages as often as they want and are not idol worshippers.” (*6) Although most of these observations are to be revealed fallacious by subsequent observers, such as the lack of kings, the absence of idolatry, there persist amongst the European perception of the “good savage”, certain traits which they must have shared, such as a non-attachment to possessions, and a lack of rigidity in their social intercourse. Von den Steinen’s monumental compilation of Marquesan mythology is testimony. Just as Maui’s wife is taken by an eel, a bird, etc, his death is related perfunctorily with not a tear of regret.

As impenetrable as seems the landscape: “As for the marae, it is the alleternal disillusionment of the past. A clearing with giant trees, of monstrous tamame, dessicated, to whistling aito. A short wall, low, with half-formed coral, and fragments of basalte pavement. That is all. As always, the reef rumbles (...). And beaten by the water itself, a second remnant, smaller, of another altar. Possibly skulls. Possibly nothing at all.” (*7) This mournful description of vestiges of the marae, doesn’t seem to surprise Segalen, as he notes the rapid recovery to nature of the stone constructions of Opoa on Raiatea, supposedly the most adored ceremonial site of Polynesia. It is however an attestation to the cyclic nature of the tropics, and it becomes easier to understand the notions of rejuvenation and of the cycles of life and death in this light.

Where elements meet to create the constant flow of life, opposites join.

Francois Cheng has aptly described the meeting of complementary forces which emerge from the “hun-dun” or original chaos to create one, which nonetheless remember their original meshing. “Concerning Heaven-earth I think of the ideogram “one” which is written with a single stroke, the primordial “breath”, which separate sky and earth; it thus signifies, at once division and unity.” From this letter, one must necessarily think of the “unique brush-stroke which was dear to the great painter of the 17th century Shitao. According to the latter, “the unique brush-stroke”, as basic component implies all other possible and imaginable strokes; it embodies at once one and many, taking its cue from the “primordial breath” which is the basic unit animating all beings. Having mastered the unique brush-stroke, the artist can thus go towards the multiple, the immense without losing his way; to the contrary, he is enabled to access a superior order which is the

(*4) Von den Steinen, Karl, Figures on P. 215. (*5) Parmenides, op.cit, ch. 1V. (*6) Vespucci, Amerigo, letter to Lorenzo de Medici, Mundus Novus, 1503, in. Scemla,ed. Le Voyage en Polynésie, p. XXV. Paris 1994. (*7) Segalen, Victor, Island Journal, 1903. in: Scemla op. cit. P. 469.

13

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:07 Uhr

Seite 14

unifying interaction. In the imagination of the Chinese artist, ink incarnates and embodies all the virtuality of nature in becoming, and the paintbrush, for its part the artist’s spirit which embraces and expresses this nature which is waiting to be revealed. Thus the paint-brush/ink which creates the yin-yun is inhabited by the carnal relationship between the artist’s bodily senses and the sensed body of landscape. (*1) Cheng concludes by saying that out of an artwork surges an interaction on multiple levels which compose matter, between the inspiration and this matter, and finally between man as subject and the living universe which is itself the subject. (*2) And in his inimitable manner, Cheng goes on to describe the “rhythmic breath” which unifies, and by a twist not really surprising, rejoins Lévi-Strauss’ suggestion of “rhuthmos.”

As we have seen, form engenders form, and ideas engender ideas. From the lonely philosopher Heraclites on a barren rock, to the millenary legends of the Oceanic myths, to modern musings on the harmony of nature and the rhythm of the spheres, man’s quest for understanding, whether it be in the simple expression of an ordinary tool, or a petroglyph, or a highly sophisticated representation seems to follow the same basic paths of inquiry. Wherein nothing that moves or breathes can be separated from the rest, and that we are perhaps moving parts of a highly oiled machine. And that finally, the fish hook is an Oceanic brush-stroke.

V One is One “Imagine all the countries, it’s not easy to do (...)

Imagine all the people, living for today (...).” (*3)

(*1) Cheng, François, op. cit, p. 153. (*2) ibid. p. 153. (*3) Lennon, John, Album Imagine, 1971. (*4) Melville, Herman, Typee, Chapter 7.

14

“Five foaming streams rushing through as many gorges, and swelled and turbid by the recent rains, united together in one mad plunge of nearly eighty feet and fell with wild uproar into a deep black pool scooped out of the gloomy looking rocks that lay piled around, and thence in one collected body dashed into a narrow sloping channel which seemed to penetrate into the very bowels of the Earth.” (*4) This scene from “Typee” resumes the Polynesian landscape (...) as vivid as a Chinese ink-drawing, or a cinemascope fresco of the sources of the Nile, it contains all the drama of the “unknown” expanses, of the pounding and the blackness of the water. It is at once the world’s beginning and end, and Melville’s sense of the blackness of the unknown enhances our sense that we are observing an original myth. We recall the Zen idea of two rivers flowing together as one, and the Platonic idea of two Forms in recognition.

François Cheng describes occidental art as an interaction between mimesis, and catharsis. Drawing on Aristotles’ “Poetics” he describes the action of imitating, or simulation. “The philosopher knows that art embraces form through matter, that the artist working on matter to give it form must duly master matter and form, and understand them. This allows him to affirm that the process of mimesis is a

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:07 Uhr

Seite 15

process of knowledge.” (*5) In the same way the word catharsis, linked to the theatre, is the Greek term for purge or purification. (*6) We have amongst us a corpus of fish hooks. They were created to work, thus their form follows their function. However it is almost impossible to deny that these forms, these arcs and flourishes, do not somehow exude beauty. This is often the case with traditional arts, a beauty that lies in the eyes of the beholder.

But here is the catch: one doesn’t look indifferently at these objects.

Whether one imagines a wonderful meal, or the pure magic visible in the components: the shining abalone, the fine turtle shell, or the engraved wooden crook, a notion, a flickering of beauty somehow filters through.

François Cheng, who has spent his entire career contemplating the meaning of Chinese poetry and art, seems just as puzzled on the notion of beauty.

He paraphrases Schelling, the student of Fichte, saying that human consciousness needs an accomplice and that, for Schelling, it would be Nature, in its potential and unrevealed depth - a primeval cosmic force. So by adopting a continual and demanding dialogue with Nature, man is assured of his place in the true way of life and creation.

Man places creation on the pinnacle of what is known, above pure philosophical speculation. “Thus, in the act of creation, the artist objectifies the idea which is in matter, and in this way subjectifies matter (...). In art are thus reconciled two apparent opposites, apparently irreconcilable, which are spirit and nature, subject and world, singular and universal.” (*7) In sum “The beautiful is the form of the finality of an object inasmuch as it is perceived without the representation of its end.” (*8) This somehow is not that satisfying, as when one sees a fish hook, its function is quite apparent. And beyond all metaphorical uses of the word, i.e. hooked on, hook-up, hooky, and the pre-cited hook, line and sinker, it seems clear that its primary role is catching fish especially in a society, which as we have seen, is highly dependent on fishing.

It would seem then, that the fish hook in its rank as one of the equivalent parts of Oceanic Societies, where we have also seen that it was thrown to the skies to become the galaxy of Scorpion, where objects inanimate and animate play their own roles in the intricate telling of founding legends, exists, on its own, as another “fact” or avatar of Nature. In one tale from Samoa, the daughter of a notable, vexed at the attitude of her family, follows him up the hill and turns herself into a mountain to protect the family from the oncoming storm. (“Night of the Hunchback Moon”) (*9) Given what is given, the omnipresence of Nature, the plodding passage of time, signalled by the planets, an overwhelming quantum of species, is it not natural that certain objects, certain “trophies” be singled out and if not displayed, at least kept, cherished. Simple good luck charms or worshipped objects, these hooks are called Pifao meaning sorcerer’s spell or simply “hook.” (*10) Sydney Picasso 2009/2010

(*5) Cheng, François. Cinq Méditations sur la Beauté, Paris 2008. p. 138. (*6) ibid. p. 140. (*7) Cheng. op cit. p.131,132. (*8) Kant, Immanuel, Critique de la Faculté de Juger, Paris, 1985. p. 139 cited by François Cheng. (*9) Von den Steinen, op. cit. p. 177. (*10) Scemla, Jean-Jo, ed. Le voyage en Polynésie, Paris 1994. p. 1229. In Tahitian. The word hook has been expressed differently in other dialects.

15

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:07 Uhr

(*) “Old Man of the Sea,” Yaleilei in a Satawal canoe house. (220): 770.

16

Seite 16

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:07 Uhr

Seite 17

Introduction We have little idea today of the extent of the cultural wealth and variety of the peoples of Oceania that the first European voyagers to this world of islands and vast expanses of water encountered, opened up, and ultimately changed forever as they discovered and rediscovered it over the course of a few hundred years.

Research on the all too quick to disappear (*3) cultures of Oceania has been done in a piecemeal fashion. Only a few traditional Polynesian objects survived the mass burning of idols by missionaries, and those that did now offer at best a very incomplete view of the cultural past they represent, in the collections of the museums and institutions they are now in. The fish hooks presented here are a part of this past.

Their origins date back to the settlement of various island groups, and some were used in the 18th century, most in the 19th. So it comes as no surprise that they are as foreign to today’s inhabitants of Oceania as they are to Europeans.

As the often extremely artfully produced fish hooks and weapons were well known to seafaring Europeans, many reached Europe and North America as coveted trading objects. Fish hooks are found in all museums with Oceanic collections. In many cases they are poorly documented, and attributed to an incorrect geographical location. Only a few authors have attempted to provide a complete overview of Oceanic fish hooks. A small number of copies of Harry G. Beasley’s work “Pacific Fish Hooks” (8) were published in 1928. The inspiring and abundantly illustrated monograph included examples drawn from important private and institutional collections of nearly every type of hook known from Oceania.

About a quarter century later, Bengt Anell’s “A Contribution to the History of Fishing in the Southern Seas” (19) was published. But the absence of a complete bibliography, of pertinent maps, and a layout that makes it a very time consuming process to look up illustrations, limit the usefulness of this monumental work.

Lastly, E.W. Gudger’s study, “Wooden Hooks Used for Catching Shark and Ruvettus in the South Seas,” (18) published in New York in 1927, is also worthy of mention. A difficult to access corpus of articles and special contributions to various archives and publications exists as well. The “Bulletins” (82) of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, the “Journal of the Polynesian Society,” (*1) and the accounts of the Hamburger Südsee-Expedition of 1908-1910 (*2) are the most important among these. While of course nothing can truly substitute for physically handling the objects, it is our goal in this publication to come as close to this as possible, inasmuch as the hooks are shown in colour illustrations and in almost all cases in their actual size. Close-up illustrations further enhance the presentation. In many examples, one observes an astonishing attention to detail, a testament to the mastery of the techniques of working very diverse materials with only the stoneage tools that the makers of these hooks had at their disposal. These technologically primitive means were sufficient for the Oceanic fishermen to elevate functional objects to the status of art works. With respect to the

(*1) Lit.: (80), (90), (128), (143), (170), (174-7), (189), (195), (201), (217) and (219). (*2) Lit.: (44), (52), (70-75), (78-79), (81), (83), (87/88) and (214).

17

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:07 Uhr

Seite 18

workmanship, a comparison can be made with the bone harpoon points that were produced by Cro-Magnon man 25000 years ago, which were similarly as useful as they were artful. The 3500 year old flint fish hook found in Denmark (*3, previous page) can also be cited as an example of how external shapes have in many cases survived for long periods of time, and into the 21st century.

This publication’s goal is to broaden our general understanding of the astonishing variety of Oceanic fish hooks, and to convey an impression of their artistic qualities, and their cultural significance.

(*1) Gordon Kalaniopio preparing to throw his net in 1986 near Manini Cave on the West coast of Hawaii.

18

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:08 Uhr

Seite 19

The Oceanic Environment Enormous expanses of ocean dotted with thousands of islands of varying size are the hallmarks of the geography of Oceania. The different marine environments that surround them provide a means to most of the islanders to satisfy a large portion of their nutritional needs. Fishing plays an especially vital role on coral atolls, where women and children gather bottom dwelling species on beaches and from reefs, also sometimes using cast nets (*1) and hand nets (*2) to catch small fish, while men take to the open seas in boats, and use various techniques to catch larger species.

The highly developed and very varied methods used for catching fish include the following tools and techniques: hooks, nets, traps, wicker basket traps, weirs, nooses, shark nooses with rattles, anesthetization with herbal poisons, spears, arrows, harpoons and kite fishing (*3). (202): Pl.2.

This publication deals exclusively with hook fishing, which is widespread throughout all of Oceania. No other area on earth comes close to having so many different kinds of hooks. There are countless variants and types. Tiny hooks, a few millimeters in size, are known from Hawaii, the Solomon Islands and excavations in the Marquesas Islands while some wooden types can reach a massive 50 centimeters in size. Some hooks are relatively simple, while others are very complex and ingeniously designed, and made from a wide variety of materials. These materials include plant fibers, seashell, snail shell, bone, turtle shell, wood, teeth and rarely stone, thorns and crab pincers. The result is an almost unbelievable number of hook types. In some cases, only one type of hook is known in a particular area, but more often, a given cultural area makes use of many different kinds.

(*3) Fishing Kite from the Solomon Islands made of leafs, wooden sticks, string and a bunch of spider web fibers as bait for the Flying Fish.

The geographic division of Oceania into Australia, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia corresponds in some measure to the anthropological and cultural differences between these large areas, but the boundaries between them remain fluid because, with the exception of the Australians, Oceanic peoples had highly developed nautical and navigational skills, and succeeded in reaching even the remotest island groups. We nevertheless decided to use this division which is traditional to ethnographical literature and most conveniently understood.

(*2) Fisherman catching shrimp in Hawaii. Photo

by Davey, c. 1880.

19

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:08 Uhr

Seite 20

(*1) “A Native going to Dance - A Native of New South Wales, ornamented after the manner of the Country,” Drawing 55 by the Port Jackson Painter, 1788-1797, from the Wattling collection now in the Natural History Museum Picture Library, London.

20

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:08 Uhr

Seite 21

Australia Australian hooks are seldom seen in the literature or in collections. Already in 1878, Brough-Smyth illustrates several types and describes their use. (50): 391, Fig. 226-229.

He shows a hook from Rockingham Bay in Queensland, very similar to the two illustrated here (plate one) and states: “The material used is a section of the shell of a species of haliotis (in fact it is Turbo ninella torquata, Gmelin 1791, as has been kindly pointed out by Yosi Sinoto). It is beautiful in shape, highly polished, and has a very sharp point. It is securely and neatly attached to the cord with twine made of the fibre of some plant. This is in all respects a most excellent hook (...) and might be used now, I have no doubt, with success, in taking large fish.” (*1), (50): Fig. 229. “Another kind of fish hook – made of turtle shell – is also in use at Rockingham Bay. In form it is exactly that figured above.” BroughSmyth also illustrates a very similar hook made of bone. (50): Fig. 226. This old type of hook had already become scarce in Victoria by 1878, having been largely replaced by European hooks.

Brough-Smyth illustrates a small wooden stick, pointed on both ends, that might also have been made of bone (*2). An ingenious knot ensured that the stick would not slip from the line. “It was baited, however, and when seized by the fish and the line strained, the bone stuck in the jaws, and the prey was secured. This is a very simple but a very ingenious contrivance for taking fish.” (50): 391.

Another unusual type of double hook was used in Queensland (*3). It consists of a single piece of hardwood, pointed on both ends, and further equipped with two points turned inwards. (50): 391. This double-ended wood or bone hook is not only the oldest known type of Australian Aboriginal hook, but is possibly the archetype and original form of the fish hook altogether.

A very rare type of hook shown on plate two could only be compared to one similar reference example in the literature. Lewis illustrates this hook type, which was collected in the 19th century by the Spencer-Gillen expedition at the Daly River in the Northern Territory. (51): Fig. 166.

The hook and its rod illustrated on the following plate were collected on the Cape York Peninsula in North Queensland. A bone point is tied to a simple wooden shank with tree bast. Some traces of gum are still visible. The hook is attached with a plant fiber line to a simple wooden fishing rod.

To underline the significance of Australian hooks, we once again quote Brough-Smyth: “How it happens that their fish hooks are so well made, that their lines, if not always neatly twisted, are as good as ours (...) may induce new speculations in the minds of those who believe that the Australian is poor in invention.” (50): 289.

Pl. 1

(*1)

(*2)

(*3)

Pl. 2

Pl. 3

(*) Francois Peron, Voyage de Decouvertes aux Terres Australes, Paris, 1824, Atlas, Pl. XXII, Fish hooks of mother of pearl shell from NewHolland, drawn by C.A. Lesseur.

21

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:08 Uhr

Seite 22

Australia 22

1

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:08 Uhr

Seite 23

23

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:08 Uhr

Seite 24

Australia 24

2

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:08 Uhr

Seite 25

25

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:08 Uhr

Seite 26

Australia 26

3

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:08 Uhr

Seite 27

27

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:08 Uhr

(*) Fish traps (wup na tatakia) on the Gazelle peninsula, (23): 80/81, Pl. 6.

28

Seite 28

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:08 Uhr

Seite 29

Melanesia It is surprising that in this huge area, there appear to be large regions where no evidence suggesting that fishing with hooks existed. This is especially true of large parts of the coastal regions of New Guinea. Why it is that the typical two-piece hook form was widely adopted and used only in the Huon Gulf, while for the Northwest Coast all the way to Geelvink Bay there are in the literature only a few and vague references to hooks, without illustrations, is a question that future research and archaeological work might be able to shed some light on. The hooks illustrated on the plates 4 and 5 show all the variants of two-piece fish hooks, whose shank may be made of bone or Tridacna shell. Mother of pearl was not used. The upper ends of the shanks are either grooved or lightly crenellated to help secure the fiber snood that is tied around them. While not exclusively intended for use as bonito hooks, it can be assumed that bonito were caught with them. Finsch remarks: “These hooks were not used for fishing in the strictest sense of the word, an activity unknown to Papuans, but rather were used like hooks used for catching mackerel, that is to say they were attached to a line which was dragged behind a fast sailing canoe. (...) I have observed fish hooks of this type being used from the Huon Gulf to Friedrich-Wilhelm-Hafen (Madang) on many occasions. I saw none west of there, but suspect they do occur there.”

(15): 191 (*1). Finsch’s observations on the use of these hooks in the regions he describes are accurate, but as surprising as it may seem, his guess that their use extended westward was incorrect. The coastal inhabitants whom Finsch described and who used bonito hooks, were devoted fishermen, as the many representations of fish on their boats, their houses, and their bowls suggest.

A masterfully manufactured fish, also beautifully painted, collected at Astrolabe Bay by Krämer, and made from palm bast, a very difficult material to work, is illustrated in (*2), (37): Ill. 69.

(*2)

Pl. 4 Pl. 5

Siassi Islands, South of the Larger Island of Umboi These turtle shell hooks often show clear signs of having been heated at the points in order to facilitate bending them. The shank is lashed to a second piece, made of bone, mother of pearl, or Tridacna shell.

The first illustration of this type of hook can be found in: “Ethnologischer Atlas” by O. Finsch, (*3) without a description of how it was used. That two-piece hooks can display very artful workmanship is demonstrated by the example seen at bottom left of the plate, and by a very unusual example illustrated by Bodrogi. (38): Fig. 187. Here the hook appears to represent a hornbill. It compares to the Huon Gulf hooks on the previous plates. The bone and turtle shell points bound on to those hooks can indeed also be seen as representations of bird heads. In addition to these types, there are also simpler examples, made of single pieces of turtle shell, bent by heating.

Pl. 6

(*3) Ethnologischer Atlas, Leipzig 1888: Pl. IX,6.

(*1) Bodrogi refers to Biro and states: “Biro reports that in the Huon Gulf area fish hooks are made only on the Tami Islands and Tamigidu.” (38): p.129.

29

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

Pl. 7

18:08 Uhr

Seite 30

A type of two-piece hook made from palm wood is known from the extreme southeastern tip of New Guinea and the Massim area. The carefully made binding covers the entire shank and the snood is tied on very precisely.

Schlesier mentions a similar hook with a float. He states that its name is Yahuana, and gives the following description: “The method of use for this hook is especially conceived for the capture of the Mwalawe fish. The line is unwound and thrown into the sea. The float stays on the surface, and the hook sinks beneath it.

A bait fish is attached to the end of the line where it meets the hook and to the top of the hook itself with its head pointing upwards. When the Mwalawe fish bites, a rod about a meter in length that is placed in the bait fish’s mouth and reaches to the water’s surface, is set into motion, thus indicating that the bait has been taken.”

(39): 65. Other types of hooks are known from the Massim area, which Beasley describes and illustrates in several pages of his publication. (8): 78-82.

The Most Beautifully Formed Melanesian Shark Hook from the Trobriand Archipelago

Pl. 8

(*1)

(*) Turtle shell ornaments, Sabargorar, worn in Torres Straits, from specimens in the British Museum; photographed by Mr. H. Oldland. In: (41): fig.12, p.33.

(*2) First published in: Meyer, Anthony JP.: Le Pays Massim-Papua Nouvelle Guinee. Catalogue d'exposition. Galerie Meyer, Paris. 1987.

30

There is undoubtedly no region in Oceania where there is a greater variety of forms of shark hooks than in the Trobriand Archipelago. Two types are especially noteworthy: First, a large wooden V-shaped hook with a relatively undeveloped point, which Edge –Partington illustrates. (3): Series 3, Pl. LXXVIII. Its 54 cm length probably makes it the largest hook in Oceania. Beasley also illustrates this hook, and another as well. (8): Pl. CXXIII and CXXIV. He remarks: “The snood loop (...) is composed of numerous strips of rattan cane, bound together with the same material and strengthened with wooden wedges.” (8): 81.

There is another example of these impressive shark hooks in the Berlin Museum of Ethnology. Beasley shows three hooks, each with a distinctively stylized head at the end of its shank. The head’s offset chin serves to secure the line to the hook.

The shark hook illustrated here (*1) substantially surpasses those shown by Beasley both in terms of form and workmanship. A crenellated ridge runs down from beneath the stylized head along the outside of the hook. The ridge is meticulously carved into the heavy wood and adds to the wonderful sweeping sculptural movement of the piece. The hook is an example which testifies not only to its creator’s highly developed sense of form, but also to his unerring comprehension of the materials he used. The fiber binding which attaches the tip to the point is further evidence of this fact. The hook was collected on the island of Kiriwina in 1904. It shows signs of use, and it is consequently likely that it was manufactured at some time in the late 19th century (*2). There are two other shark hooks of hard and heavy wood from the Lawland Islands, now in the Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde in Munich, which measure 37.5 (*3) and 43 cm (*4) respectively, and which are probably the oldest hooks still in existence from the Massim region. They display countless bite marks and are quite different in form from other known types of hooks. One of them is unique in the way the head of the shank is designed. Both hooks were collected in 1885 by Max Thiel, and, on account of the extensive evidence of use they display, may be safely assumed to date from the early 19th century or even earlier (Inv. #B1700 and B1701).

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:08 Uhr

Seite 31

Examples almost identical to the following one-piece turtle shell hook on plate 9 are illustrated by Beasley. They were collected on the Daniels Pl. 9 Ethnographical Expedition of 1904-1906, and appear to be very rare, as there are no other examples known in the literature apart from those mentioned here.

The turtle shell hook illustrated here measures 9.3 cm and is the longest example known. It was cut from the turtle shell and not bent under heat. Its surface was meticulously smoothed. It has the same elegant form as Beasley’s hooks. A crenellated ridge is also present here, but only along the outside of the hook’s base.

Visually, the ridge seems to connect the shank with the point, the two being almost parallel with one another. Unfortunately there does not seem to be any information or explanation available with regards to the possible meaning of the crenellated ridges. Equally little is known about how exactly the hook was used, or what type of fish it was intended to catch.

Finsch, who had much first-hand knowledge of the north coast of New Guinea, stated the following: “Net and reef fishing are predominant, and hook fishing is of lesser importance. There are no fish hooks along the south coast or in (*3) the eastern portion of British New Guinea. But Moresby mentions some from the latter area (Possession Bay), apparently made of pearl shell (...)” (40): 129.

A simple bent turtle shell hook is known from the Torres Strait. Haddon states: “The fish hooks were used in pairs, each being tied at the end of a piece of thin string of sinnet but they admit of very little decoration.” (41): 35.

The decorated one-piece turtle shell hook illustrated here was not used for Pl. 10 fishing. It was made from the thick part of the edge of the shell. Haddon shows several examples of the Sabagorar hook ornaments, and makes the following observations with regards to their use: “The Sabagorar is a very interesting turtleshell ornament of varied form which was worn by the girls, and formed part of their marriage outfit. This certainly was the case in Mer; but I do not know how far the custom extended in the Straits.” (41): 33.

The one-piece hook on plate 11 is also made of a thick piece of turtle Pl. 11 shell. The shell becomes thinner near the head, in which a suspension hole is drilled. The fiber remains of the attachment string are very similar to those on the previous hook and indicate that the hook was used as an ornament. The shank part of the hook with the fin-shaped extension at the base can be interpreted as a stylized fish. A small label on this “fin” reads “purchased Febr. 12, 1838”, and this (*4) date makes this the oldest known Sabagorar (*5). Wichmann documents ships known to have moved through the Torres Strait in the 1830s. (30): 37-42. In 1836, Lewis visited various Torres Strait islands (including Mer, Waier and Erub) in search of survivors of the Charles Eaton, and made contact with the natives there.

The hook is similar to the example illustrated by Haddon (41): Fig. 12, E. The finlike extension is present in this case, but very rudimentary. The three V-like (*5) extensions, with hatch marks that extend onto the hook itself, present on the example shown in Fig. 12, K, can also be interpreted as representations of fish.

Four other Sabagorar hooks shown on this plate are similarly decorated.

There is no information available on the use of fish hooks by the peoples of the Papuan Gulf area. Williams observes: “There is a great variety of fishing 31

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

(*3) Detail of the mat illustrated in plate 12.

Pl. 12 (*4)

Pl. 13 Pl. 14

(*2) (46): Pl.XIV, illustrating the different materials used in fish hook manufacture.

Pl. 15 (*1a) A fishing pole with a one-piece bone hook is displayed in the permanent collection of the Ethnologisches Museum in Berlin. (*5) Hambruch calls them Awui (46): Pl. XIV. 11.

32

18:08 Uhr

Seite 32

methods in Orokolo Bay, and often mighty small results from any of them.” (42):18.

The Marind-Anim appear to practice hook fishing in only a very limited way. In his comprehensive publication, Wirz shows only a drawing of a composite hook fashioned from palm bast and remarks: “The Marind hook is in fact quite primitive, and of not much use. (...) The materials it is made of make it suitable only for very small swamp fish, and it is consequently seldom used.” (43): Part 1, 102. In the various recently published monographs on the Asmat and the Mimika, no mention is made of hook fishing.

A one-piece bone hook was in use in the Sepik River area(*1a/b). (45): 2223. Reche describes one-piece hooks made of both bone and mother of pearl. (44): 249. Two Sepik bone hooks with barbs, collected by Mead in 1933-34, are in the American Museum of Natural History in New York. (#80.0-8186B). HauserSchäublin states that hook fishing was a women’s activity on the Sepik, and that men did not practice it.

The islands of Wuvulu and Aua along the north coast of New Guinea are described by Finsch as “centers for the mass production of fish hooks”, and constitute a case apart. (40): 130. “On these isolated islands, one works however only to supply one’s own needs, and produces hooks that all have the same form, but may be of varying size and either entirely of turtle shell or entirely of sea shell.”

Hambruch describes the manufacture of these one-piece hooks in great detail. (*2), (46): 110. Plant fiber mats (for example banana leaf mats on Wuvulu, and coconut bast mats on Nukuoro) are made for hanging groups of hooks in rows. Plate 12 illustrates a mat of this kind, which displays all varieties of one-piece hooks, made of Burgos and Trochus shell, as well as of turtle shell. Artificial hackles are sometimes affixed to these little hooks. They are made of feathers, as in the case of the hook in the middle (*3), or of plant fibre, as may be seen on the hooks shown on the plates 13 and 14. Hambruch shows the unusual binding of the lines to the very carefully worked sea and turtle shell hooks. (*4), (46): 110.

Robust one-piece Trochus shell hooks, ranging in size from a few centimeters to as much as 9 centimeters, are a particularity of the Western Islands of the Bismarck Archipelago.

“They are used with or without bait, depending on what type of fish one intends to catch. Often the faint glitter of the mother of pearl that the hook is made of can be enough to substitute for bait, if the hook is cleverly thrown.” (47): 215. These hooks are made from the lower spiral of Trochus Niloticus or Turbo Marmoratus. “Fish hooks of this type (Awi) (*4) were an export item until a few decades ago, from Kaniet to Agomes and Ninigo.” (40): 130. A hook that is nearly identical to one seen in Thilenius is illustrated in the lower right of the plate 14.

(47): 245. It is different from it in that no groove is present for the tying of the line.

This carefully fashioned hook was once used by the fishermen of Ninigo for catching larger species of fish. Two classic shark hooks from Aua are shown on plate 15.

They are masterfully crafted with the simplest tools from the lowest spiral of a Trochus shell. The filed groove at the top of the shank around which the meticulously tied plant fiber line is attached, is readily recognizable. In order to

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:08 Uhr

Seite 33

make this line more capable of withstanding a shark’s bite, it was strengthened by winding a finer fiber line tightly around it.

The following hooks also present a certain particularity. Their lines are equipped with a wooden bite bar. This consists of a longitudinally cut wooden tube, through the middle of which a line is passed. The two sections of the tube are bound together at the top and at the bottom, and in the case of the longest one, also in the middle. (46): Pl. XV. There are hooks from the Admiralty Islands in many collections that have been debated intensely for over 100 years. They are made up of a wooden shank through which a piece of Trochus shell (*6) or a pig tusk is bored and secured with Parinarium gum. Thilenius describes these hooks as tools for picking fruit.

Nevermann states that these up to 40 cm long hooks were used in various ways: “There is probably not just one way of using these hooks, but they rather serve alternately as fruit pickers, fish hooks, or even suspension hooks, according to the custom of the location or, as on Pitilu, the need of the moment”. (48):161.

Ohnemus illustrates a shark hook from Andra that is made of a half pig jaw with only one tusk remaining in it. All the other teeth are removed, and the gaps filled with Parinarium gum. (49): Ill. 150. Finally, there is an example at the Linden Museum in Stuttgart, whose very long shank suggests rules out that it could have been used for anything but picking fruit.

The one-piece trochus shell hook (*7) from the Admiralty Islands (Manus Island) is similar to an example that Moseley illustrates in his account. In 1877, he wrote: “Fish hooks are used made of Trochus shell, all in one piece. They are of a simple hooked form without barb. The natives did not seem to care for steel fish hooks, and apparently did not, at first at least, understand their use” (209): Pl. XXI, fig. 12; 27-28.

Ohnemus presents a comparable hook, whose three stranded plant fiber line is attached to the hook with a resin paste as it is on this example (*8).

We learn from Nevermann that “The hooks (...) are 5 or 6 centimeters long, and at their tops (...) have a dense binding of finely made string, which is sometimes additionally covered by a layer of Parinarium gum paste (...) Parkinson (1907) already noted that the Trochus shell hooks were being replaced by iron ones. (...) Usually, three men fish simultaneously with rods from one canoe” (48): 162163. As is so often the case, there is unfortunately no indication given of what kinds of fish these hooks were intended to catch.

Nevermann illustrates only 3 to 4 cm long turtle shell hooks from the St. Matthias Islands, all quite crude and without barbs. (52): Ill. 31. These had been nearly completely replaced by metal hooks by 1908. Even from New Ireland, with its extensive coasts, there is only very sparse information on the practice of hook fishing. Beasley illustrates two Trochus shell hooks that probably come from the Western Islands. (8): Fig. 30. Neuhaus describes fishing on the reef as more of a pastime or a sport: “For fish hooks, the natives used a barbed piece of Rotang palm or Mumlanga. Mumlanga is a plant which is abundant along the coast, and has long tendrils and thorns. The barbs on the Rotang palm and the Mumlanga are small, and the natives could only catch very small fish with such hooks.” (53): 92.

Pl. 16

Pl. 17

(*6) Detail of the shank of the left hook on plate 17.

(*7)

(*1b)A bone hook from the Sepik. (*8) According to Ohnemus, the sap of the Piru palm is mixed with that of the breadfruit tree (Kuli) to make this paste on Andra (north coast of Manus Island). (49): Fig. 148..

33

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

(*1) (*2)

(*3) Powells plate of fantasies in: Allgemeine Völkerkunde, A. Heilborn, Leipzig, 1898, Ill.52.

(*4)

34

30.11.2011

18:08 Uhr

Seite 34

The hooks that the natives made of turtle shell and bent under heat were much stronger, but they were eventually replaced by the introduced metal hooks.

There is however a type of hook known in museums and mentioned in the literature. Beasley illustrates but misattributes it in (8): Pl. CXXX. Buschan briefly mentions a turtle shell hook from Siara in southern New Ireland. There are numerous records of such hooks in German ethnological museums. In Stuttgart’s Linden Museum, Buschan’s hook (*1), (54): Ill. 98 is shown alongside several other examples of this type. The half-circle shaped head, the widened and notched shank limb, and the point bent upwards under heat, are the hallmarks of this type of hook. Another variant of this type can be found in the Hamburger Museum für Völkerkunde (*2). (55): Pl. 5.14. It is of special interest because of a stone sinker that is artfully tied into the line. Unfortunately, no information is available as to how this hook was used. Was it cast from a reef or from a boat, and what kind of fish was it intended to catch?

Stephan and Graebner give an overview of fishing equipment from southern New Ireland. (56): Ill. 61. The authors attribute the importance of fishing to the scarcity of game animals on the island, and to the wealth of edible species of fish in the sea. “The original hooks were made of turtle shell. Nowadays, notably in Laur, iron hooks are already being used, but they are tied to a piece of mother of pearl in a traditional manner.” (56): 65. It is difficult to ascertain to what extent the aforementioned hooks were used on the large island of New Britain, due to the dearth of information in the literature on this subject. With respect to the Duke of York Islands, which lie between New Ireland and New Britain, Ribbe remarks: “Hook fishing does not appear to have been very widespread in the Duke of York Islands. Nowadays only European hooks are used. Fish hooks from the inland are said to have been made of mother of pearl, wood, and fish bones, but I have never seen such a hook on the Duke of York Islands”. (57): 443. While the hooks attributed to New Britain and illustrated by Powell in 1884 (*3) turn out to be mostly fantasies, some proper examples are illustrated by Beasley. (8) Pl. CXII. The composite hook he shows does resemble those seen in Stephan and Graebner.

(56): Ill. 61. Beasley says the following about Powell’s composite hook: “The shank is of mother of pearl, having a turtle shell barb, obviously shaped by heating into a pronounced curve.” (8): 73. Next to it, Beasley illustrates the earliest hook collected on New Britain (*4). He writes: “Fig. 29 is taken from Hunter’s Voyage (58): 233, and was obtained in 1791 from the Duke of York Islands. The material is obviously turtle shell, and (...) is reminiscent of those from Murray Island in Torres Straits.” (8): 73. Similar turtle shell hooks are known from the Solomon Islands.

It is possible to conclude that hook fishing was of very little importance on New Britain. Missionaries like Meyer and Kleintitschen, who spent many years on the island among the natives and investigated fishing very closely, describe hook fishing only peripherally. In the comprehensive chapter entitled “Hunting and Fishing” (59): 65-90, Kleintitschen does not even mention it, while Meyer describes it as being very primitive. The latter states: “Fish hooks made of shell were unknown here. The hook consists of a Rotang palm spine a few centimeters in length.

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:08 Uhr

Seite 35

Bait was attached to the end of the spine. The line was hand held, or placed in the water with a float.” (60): 1078-79, Pl. 10.

Solomon Islands The most artfully made fish hooks of Melanesia are from the Central and Southeast Solomon Islands. These composite hooks are used for catching bonito. In order to understand why these hooks are so carefully made, and why so much time is devoted to their manufacture, it is important to know a few basics about the bonito cult, which was most widely practiced in the southeast Solomons. “The chances taken in bonito fishing, the constant danger of bad weather and sharks generated a deep feeling of dependance on the spirits of the Ocean. The vision and worship of these godly beings dominated the religious and to some extend the artistic life of these peoples.” (221):209. The bonito cult plays a central role especially in the initiation rituals for boys. They move out to sea with experienced fishermen, in the sacred and richly ornamented boats, to catch the first bonito. By drinking some drops of its blood the mystical substance of the bonito is passed on to the initiated boy. (*5), (compare (136): 158, 312-314) Hooks were all the more valued when they had been successfully used, and were passed down from generation to generation.

The bonito (*6), which weighs up to ten pounds, was a highly coveted fish.

In the windless weeks from December through March, it was pursued by light and beautifully decorated three-man canoes, and caught with these hooks. The location of bonito swarms could be determined by the presence of seagulls and frigate birds hovering above them. The birds were attracted by the surface splashing of small fish being hunted by the bonito.

A paddle blade from Santa Isabel Island (*7) impressively renders the dynamic of the bonito hunt. Sea spirits lead the bonito swarms towards the coast.

A sea spirit is shown at upper right on the paddle blade. Everything that had to do with the catching of the bonito was of sacred character. Bonito hooks were not seen simply as functional tools, but as the prized objects that should tempt the desired fish to catch them. As a result, all of the component pieces of the hook – the Tridacna shell or mother of pearl shanks, the elegant turtle shell points, the bead hackles, and the finely worked plant fiber lines that artfully held the parts together – were made with meticulous care and attention to detail. When one considers the frigate birds that fly above the seagulls and steal their small fish, one is tempted to draw a connection between the shape of their elegantly formed beaks holding prey and the beautiful shape of the turtle shell hook points. Their inward curve seems to imitate the wonderful sweep of the frigate bird’s beak. The prey can find release from neither the frigate bird nor the hook.

The bonito hook (*8) has a turtle shell point which is probably unique, in that the head and beak of a frigate bird are clearly rendered on it. This of course supports the notion expressed above.

There are many different types of hooks from the Solomon Islands and

Pl. 18 Pl. 19 Pl. 20 Pl. 21 Pl. 22 Pl. 23 Pl. 24 Pl. 25 Pl. 26 Pl. 27 Pl. 28 Pl. 29 Pl. 30 Pl. 31

(*6)

(*7) Illustrated here is a rubbing made from the relief carving on the paddle.

(*8)

(*) A frigat bird amulet from New Georgia in the Central Solomons, carved from mother of pearl.

(14,5 cm max. length) (*5) H. Fischer-Harriehausen gives a comprehensive description of the bonito ritual in Central Melanesia, using all available bibliographical information.

35

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:08 Uhr

Seite 36

they are among the best researched in Oceania. The first illustrations appear in the Godeffroy catalog of 1881 (2). Edge-Partington illustrates nearly all the different kinds in 1890 (3). Additional illustrations and information are found in Woodford (1918) (4), Ivens (1927) (5), Blackwood (1935) (6), and Bernatzik (1936) (7). The first comprehensive overview of Oceanic fish hooks by Beasley, published in 1928 (8), describes nearly all known types from the Solomons. “To deal adequately with all the hook forms which originate from this group would be an almost impossible task. It is rare to meet with an example that is properly localised, and it is only by accumulating considerable numbers that one may arrive at even a rough deduction.

In this group the composite varieties are much in evidence, and vary from the crude shank of Tridacna shell down to the minutely carved form of some insect, attached to the turtle shell barb, which, in order to render the contrivance more effective, has changed into a complete hook.” (8): 67-68. Forty five years later, Cummings (9) investigated hooks used for bonito fishing on the basis of examples in Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History and other examples in the literature.

He distinguished five different hook types and assigned them to particular areas.

Three years later, Kaschko (10) studied hook types on Uki Island and observed the process of their manufacture. Bell/Specht/Hain (11) examined Cummings’ work in light of the 259 specimens of composite hooks in Australian museums, and came to both identical and dissenting conclusions, with regards to their locations of origin. Neither study includes information on the one-piece hooks in the UkiUlawa area or the hooks of Sikaiana. Kaschko (10) made important contributions to knowledge of the hook types on Uki. He obtained information on six types of hooks, including their indigenous names, methods of use, methods of manufacture and value.

(*) A typical C type hook.

Two-piece Bonito Hooks

(*) A typical E type hook.

36

Pl. 18

The four maps show the regional distribution of five hook types. Why some hook types occur in a very limited area, and others over a several hundred kilometer region is very difficult to ascertain. It is certainly true that in spite of cultural and linguistic differences between them, the islanders traded actively and groups had contact with one another. Fish hooks were among the commodities that thus traveled over wide distances.

These simply designed hooks (A) were restricted to the islands of Buka and Bougainville. We know from Blackwood that “The hooks vary considerably in size (...). No mention was made of choosing hooks of colour suitable to weather and water, as reported by Hiroa for the Samoans, or that one kind was used in the bow and one in the stern as reported by Ivens for the S.E. Solomons (...) bonito fishing is usually carried out from a plank canoe (mon), the smaller ones, with three seats, being used for this purpose (...). Two rods are taken in each canoe, one to be used from the stern and the other from the bow. The stern line is kept trailing behind the canoe, the bow line is cast. If there are more than two men in the canoe, the man in the bow does not paddle, but devotes all attention to playing for the fish.

The man at the stern must attend to the steering as well as to his rod and line. His

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:09 Uhr

Seite 37

(*) Chief Hopkins on Ulawa, holding two strings of spider web bait, raotai, to be used with a kite for catching mwanole fish. (see also p.19 (*3)) Photo: Amu Reiter

(*) A typical D type hook.

(*) A map, illustrating the regional distribution of bonito hooks of types A, B, C, D and E in the Solomon Islands, drawn after Cummings (9) and Bell, Specht, Hain (11).

37

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

Pl. 18

(*1)

Pl. 19

(*3)

38

Pl. 83 Pl. 84 Pl. 20

18:09 Uhr

Seite 38

rod is not held in the hand, except when landing a fish. (...) When a fish takes the hook, the paddle is thrown into the bottom of the canoe, the rod is caught up, and the fish jerked over the side. Only one hook is attached to each rod. No bait is used, the resemblance of the hook to the small fish on which the bonito feed being sufficient attraction. The first bonito caught after a period of bad luck is decorated with paint and put back into the sea. This is supposed to attract the other fish to the hook (...). In view of the importance attaching to bonito fishing in the native mind, it is natural that there should be a large number of “medicines” or magic, and an elaborate ritual directed towards ensuring a good catch. Bonito magic is not common knowledge, usually only one or two men in each village know it.” (6): 329331.

These type A hooks are the longest in the Solomons. “The leader (attachement knob) is simply a groove around the top (head) of the shank. (...) The point is lashed into place with the help of lugs or holes through it. Smaller fillersticks of wood on either side of the point serve as support.” (9): 10. This method of securing the turtle shell point with little sticks of wood is also widespread in Micronesia.

An examination of the distribution maps of composite bonito hooks reveals that Choiseul Island is the only island in the Solomons for which the literature provides no information on any type of hook. However, research in the Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde in Dresden uncovered the existence of some examples attributed to Choiseul (coll. 1897 by R. Parkinson, no. 32091), which are nearly identical to the hook illustrated here on plate 19. This hook consists of a wooden shank bound with plant fiber line to which a wooden point is tied at a sharp angle. The binding is often strengthened with an application of Parinarium gum. In the British Museum, there are also three V-shaped two-piece wooden hooks from the Beasley collection. They are attributed to northern Bougainville (the neighbouring island) and described as Irokokoito. Unfortunately there is no information on the method of use of these hooks. In the Museum für Völkerkunde in Munich, there are two bundles (*1) containing over a dozen of these hooks (12-43-33b), which are incorrectly attributed to the Admiralty Islands.

The description states that they are made of one piece of wood, notched and then bent back to form the steep angle, and finally bound tightly with strips of plant fibre (in the strictest sense of the word they therefore would have to be filed under “one-piece” hooks).

The following plates clearly show us the variety and beauty of Solomon Islands bonito hooks. The shanks are most often of mother of pearl, rarely of Tridacna shell (*2). The points are made of turtle shell. The hook (*3), which is clearly type C, has a highly unusual and striking shank, which is made from the lip of a cowrie shell. Samoan bonito hooks with similar shanks are known (compare plates 83 and 84).

The two examples on plate 20 display evidence of a complete understanding of the working of the materials involved. So do the bonito hooks on the following plates. The fishermen who created these objects unfortunately remain unknown. We can only refer to ethnographic literature to understand how

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:09 Uhr

Seite 39

they were manufactured, and the time it took to produce them. Like all bonito hook shanks, the Tridacna shell shank shown here on Pl. 20 u.l. and (*2) assumes the form of a stylized fish, but it is exceptional for its detailed work. The eyes, the fins and additional ornamentation are rendered meticulously, all with only stone age tools. The Tridacna shell fish appears to swim towards the elegantly shaped turtle shell point of the second hook. A fish hook of such virtuosic form is without peer in all of Oceania. For what reason did its creator summon all of his skills and formal ideas to make such a hook? Undoubtedly, the idea that the sacred bonito on a sacred fishing mission could only be caught with a “beautiful” hook played a central role in motivating him. The plates 21, 22 and 23 show all variants of types B, C and D. The compact hook (Pl. 22 t.m). is of type B, and widely distributed in the Solomons. The shank was particularly artfully constructed in the form of a stylized fish. Cummings states the following about this type of hook: “It is wide on the top, tapering towards the base, with the thick hinge part of the shell at the top to form the knob. The knob itself is carved to form two short projections which point downward and serve to hold the line in place.” (9): 11. The type B, C and D bonito hooks illustrated here show a great deal of variation both in the shape of the turtle shell point and the manner in which the knobs are carved to fit the snoods. Cummings states the following with regards to type C: “The knob of these hooks is carved on the shank near the head; it is triangular in shape and projects out from the inner surface of the shank. It is grooved to hold the line.” With regards to the point, he adds: “The point is attached using small carved lugs on the point without the help of the holes.” (9): 12. The two hooks (1 and 4) illustrated in the lowest row are classic examples of type D. Cummings describes them as follows: “Specimens of this type differ clearly from the other recognised stylistic forms in several respects. The dorsal side of the shank has a carved ridge (or, in a mother of pearl shell example, an incised central panel) with cross-hatch, zigzag, herring-bone, or transverse incised lines (...). The knob of all Type D hooks is a projection located on the inner surface of the shank, one-fifth of the way down from the head. The knobs have either a simple appearance, or are more or less triangular in outline, in which case they closely resemble those on Type C specimens. In addition, at the sides of the shank, on the same place as the knob, there are projecting fins or small transverse incised lines. The head of the shank comes to a point (...). In short, a Type D hook gives the appearance of a highly stylized fish.” (9):13. The earliest illustration of this attractive type of hook appeared in the Godeffroy Museum catalog published in Hamburg in 1881 (2), on Pl. XVII, Fig. 10.2. The smallest hook on plates 22 and 23 could be considered type C on account of its binding. It is first illustrated in Edge-Partington. (3): 209. On plate CIV of his monograph, Beasley shows other examples of this quite rare type of hook. Its place of origin is certain, as Codrington collected it on Ulawa. Beasley remarks: “Whilst conforming to the general type of composite spinner hooks, yet in outline and the use of a particular shell for the shank they are unique. These are cut from Trochus tesselatus and preserve the delicate colours of this shell.” (8): 69, Pl. CIV. Plate 23 illustrates the back sides of the shanks of type C and D hooks,

Pl. 20

Pl. 21 Pl. 22 Pl. 23

(*2)

Pl. 22

Pl. 22 Pl. 23

Pl. 23 39

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

Pl. 23 Pl. 22 Pl. 23

(*1) A type E bonito hook collected on the Korrigane expedition with a stylized fish made of stone tied to its shank.

Pl. 22 Pl. 24 Pl. 25 Pl. 26

Pl. 24

(*2a, 2b)

(*4)

40

Pl. 26

18:09 Uhr

Seite 40

most of which are decorated. The literature unfortunately provides no satisfactory explanation for the meaning of these ornamentations. The question as to whether they are marks of ownership remains open to question. The decorations usually consist of cross-hatching, applied to a convex strip that may run along the entire length of the shank, or only a part of it. These hatch marks also adorn the sides of the shank beginning at its middle. On plate 23, Hook 4 also shows this type of lateral decoration. Elegant cross hatchings are seen on the beautifully formed shank on plate 22 (u.r.). They run along the sides, from the area that represents the pectoral fins to the shank’s end, where they meet. Plate 23 of side views once again demonstrates the ingenuity with which various materials were used in the manufacture of bonito hooks. They are all type C. The varyingly shaped and elegantly formed turtle shell points are bound to the shanks with fine plant fiber twine, and the carefully worked side strip prevents the line from slipping. In the 20th century nylon line was also used because it was more resistant to corrosion from sea water. As early as the 19th century, finely worked shell beads such as those seen on plate 22 (bottom row) began to be replaced in many instances by imported European glass beads (Pl. 22 first and second rows).

A unique variety of type E bonito hook (*1), restricted to the island of Malaita and the small southeasterly islands of Ulawa and Uki, is shown on plates 24-26. Cummings says the following about it: “They differ from the other types recognised in that the shank itself is of turtle shell, bent in the shape of a conventional metal fish hook, rather than of mussel or pearl shell. A strip of mother of pearl or other shell, however, is tied on to the dorsal side of the singlepiece hook (...). The added strip is carved to resemble a stylized fish or a cuttlefish or squid or a reef worm (*2a). The shank area of the turtle shell hook is wrapped with native twine (...).” (9): 14. No comparable piece is found in the literature for the extremely small hook on plate 24. It appears to be unique. The hook in the lowest row at right is of exceptionally artful manufacture. (*2b) In order not to obscure the image of the wonderful stylized mother of pearl fish with the extremely fine plant fiber binding, tiny protrusions around the head and caudal fin areas serve to hold the line securely to the turtle shell shank. Cummings, Bell, Specht and Hain all maintain the type E hook occurs only on Malaita. However Kaschko found it on Uki as well (10): 194. The indigenous name for the hook is Ta’i Hinou.

Fully sculptural renderings of fish such as (*3) are rare among type E hooks. Edge-Partington shows a very similar example (3): 209, Fig. 6. The hooks shown give a good impression of the countless variations seen in the mother of pearl lures, which are always bound to their shanks with meticulous care. Their very special appearance can be attributed to their formerly sacred character, in the times when the hunt for the highly prized bonito was surrounded by taboos, and the techniques for the manufacture of hooks was transmitted from generation to generation.

Plate 26 illustrates well the incredibly accurate plant fiber lashings all along and around the shank (bonito hook type (E)).

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:09 Uhr

Seite 41

The One-piece Bonito Hooks from the Uki-Ulawa Area The earliest illustrations of these unique hooks are also found in the Godeffroy-Catalog (2). The hook appears in Edge-Partington (3) some ten years later. It is surprising that these hooks, once again representations of fish, remained confined to the islands of Uki and Ulawa north of Makira. Thanks to Michael Kaschko, who interviewed the then 65 year old Wilson Waisau in 1971, many interesting details on the use and manufacture of these hooks are known. For the hooks made of various materials shown on plates 27 and 28 we use Kaschko’s studies as a reference. (10). The fishermen call these hooks Ta’i on Uki. “The Ta’i is a one-piece bonito hook that is made of various forms of sea and snail shell. But turtle shell and bone are also used. Mother of pearl predominates, and bone Ta’i are fairly rare”. Kaschko gives a detailed description of the manufacture of mother of pearl hook. “A new shell is broken by burning and pecking with a piece of chert, and a piece is ground on the hau mea (grindstone) to make it flat and round. Then the haukala (stone file) is used to make a cut in the middle, and branch hau kau (coral) is used to expand the cut and shape the inside. The stone file is used to finish the shaping, the base, and the knob for attaching the line, and finally to smooth and shine the entire lure. A hau nati (chert flake) is used to drill small holes for eyes and make other markings on the body of the Ta’i. The burnt fruit of the talo tree is used to blacken the makings on the lure. It takes four days of full-time work to make a Ta’i, and each man should have at least three or four. ” (10): 195.

When a particular Ta’i had proved especially successful, it would often be handed down from generation to generation, and was both stored and used with greatest care. If such a hook broke, it was kept, so that similar Ta’i could be made subsequently, using it as a model.

The extent of the Oceanic fisherman’s inventiveness with introduced materials is made clear by one of the rows of the one-piece hooks on plate 28, which are inlaid with circular pieces of lead. Surprisingly, Kaschko does not allude to these long used hooks. On two of the Ta’i, the lead appears to represent eyes (nrs. 5 and 9), and on hooks nrs. 1 and 4, it reminds of the punctuate marks on the hooks called Toheo (compare plate 29). Nr. 2 is another variant with lead inlay, and also has a small piece of lead tied to the back of its shank with nylon line. The Ta’i on plate 28 (l.l). is unusual for its somewhat compact form, which results from the inlay, secured with Parinarium gum, on the back of its shank. Unfortunately no information is available on the purpose of these inlays, but it can be surmised that the lead adds the right weight to the very light turtle shell hook to facilitate sinking it to the optimal depth.

A few other unusual Ta’i hooks are especially noteworthy. (*4) On the previous page is an old mother of pearl hook with notches along its rim. The stylized fish on the back of the shank also has these notches on its belly side. The hook with shell inlay also appears to be unique. It was collected in 1865 and is among the earliest hooks known from the Solomons. The shank made from Turbo marmoratus shell was covered with Parinarium gum, into which two shell beads were inserted as eyes. Another unusual hook was in the Hooper collection.

Pl. 27 Pl. 28

(*3)

Pl. 28

Pl. 29 Pl. 28

(*) Shanks of type B, left made from Tridacna shell and right made from bone.

Pl. 27

41

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

Pl. 29 (*) A modern combination of an old shank with a small fish carved out of green plastic, from Ulawa.

Pl. 29

Pl. 29

(*3)

Pl. 29

Pl. 29 (*5) Sketch of Pl. 29

42

18:09 Uhr

Seite 42

Although of Tridacna and turtle shell, bound together with the very hard drying Parinarium gum, it must be classified as being of the Ta’i type. X-shaped pieces of cut Nautilus shell are pressed into the Parinarium gum on both sides of the shank.

(61): Pl. 141, 1120.

Two one-piece hook types, which Kaschko classifies as Toheo and Toraho, are, like the Ta’i, restricted to the islands of Uki and Ulawa, which lie between Malaita and Makira. Edge-Partington shows two of these small mother of pearl hooks and attributes them to San Cristobal (Makira). (3): Vol. 1, Fig. 10, 11.

Kaschko gives detailed information on this hook type. With regards to the Toheo on plate 29 he remarks: “The Toheo is a small U-shaped lure and is made from roa (pearl shell, usually of the black-lipped variety), wawahiu (an unidentified freshwater bivalve found on Makira), lauhi (Turbo marmoratus), and hato (Trochus shell). The Toheo is used on a bamboo pole from a platform made of sticks and branches over the reef. It is dipped up and down inside the water below the platform, and is meant to represent the movements of a tiny fish. The fish caught is the puma (mackerel). The puma appears seasonally in runs once a year, and in a good run a man can catch a great many. The Toheo can break in three places: The point can break off, in which case it can be resharpened. If the string breaks, the Toheo can be retrieved from the clear water. If a good Toheo loses its point limb, the shank may be retained as a model for making a lure. A good Toheo may last a long time and be passed through generations.” (10): 196.

Hook 3 on plate 29 (*5) differs from other Toheo in its almost naturalistic treatment of the caudal fin. On other Toheo, this part of the hook is used to fasten the line, and protrudes out from the shank at a right angle. The shanks of nrs. 7 and 8 are sculpted in the form of a fish, while the other hooks on this plate are more stylized representations of fish bodies.

Kaschko calls the very small hook nr. 11 Toraho. It took two or three days to make one. Neither the Toheo nor Toraho hooks were used from boats, but rather from platforms. The Toraho was used to fish for a particular species of sardine.

Kaschko offers the following very detailed information about Toraho nr. 11: “The Toraho is the smallest lure and similar to the Toheo. It may be made from the same shell as the Toheo. The sequence of steps in the manufacturing process to produce a suitable blank are the same as for the Toheo (...). It takes about two or three days of full-time work to finish one Toraho. Each man should have at least three or four Toraho or more. The Toraho is used on a bamboo pole from a platform over the reef, as the Toheo is (...). The fish that is caught is the Raho, a sardine. This fish appears seasonally in runs once a year. The Raho strikes the Toraho as it hits the surface of the water. The Toraho and Toheo are used at different times, as the raho and puma appear at different times. As with the Toheo, a good Toraho may last a long time if well cared for.” (10): 197.

Woodford says the following: “The lure is dropped about a foot deep into the water and drawn up to the surface with a jerking motion. When a fish is hooked it is skillfully dropped direct from the hook into a basket held ready for the purpose in the fisherman’s other hand.” (4): 132. Hook nr. 9 on plate 29 is an unusual turtle shell hook with a thickened shank. Just as the previously described hooks from Uki,

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:09 Uhr

Seite 43

it was undoubtedly used only to catch smaller fish. Comparable hooks are illustrated by Edge-Partington (3): Vol. 1, 209, Fig. 13, who attributes them to San Cristobal (Makira), and by Starzecka and Cranstone, who refer to them as being “probably Central Solomons” (12): 19, unfortunately with no further explanations.

Other hook types from the Solomons are on the plate 30. They are made of turtle shell. Except for the exceptionally well made hook (u.l.), which also has a very fine plant fiber binding, there are comparable examples in the literature.

Woodford illustrates this type and states: “This is a hook of turtle-shell, and appears a clumsy enough implement in itself, unless it is intended to be both hook and bait in one; it may be meant to represent a worm, (...) or it may be a portion only of a complete lure.” (4): 131. The hooks u.r. and l.l. have well sculpted shank heads. The second (u.m.) is an unfinished turtle shell hook, at a stage of manufacture where the sharpened point still needs to be bent with heat, before it assumes the shape of the one below.

Three One-piece Turtleshell Hooks and a Prehistoric Bonito Hook Shank from Guadalcanal (windward coast) The in-depth research done by Amu Reiter in 2007 and 2010 is to thank for the identification of the hook types shown here. The one-piece turtleshell hooks were collected in the area of Marau (on the east coast of Guadalcanal) (*1).

The triangular shape of the top of the shank distinguishes these hooks from other turtleshell hooks in the Solomons.

The prehistoric shank (*2a) is noteworthy for two reasons: firstly, because it is so far the only archaeological bonito hook shank known from the Solomons, and secondly because it displays a configuration of the shank top only found on a historic example (*2b) discussed below. The prominent cross ridge on the shank ensures that it can be bound to it to its line very securely. The very old and artfully shaped shank is probably made of Tridacna shell and has a binding which is unique not only in the Solomon Islands, but in all of Oceania. Future research and archaeological excavations on the so-called windward coast might bring other examples to light in the future. That the tradition of making shanks with this cross ridge for the attachment of the binding endured well into the 20th century, is demonstrated by the complete bonito hook with its mother-of-pearl shank. This hook was also collected by Amu Reiter on the windward coast, in Masi village.

A One-piece Turtleshell Hook and Two Sinker Stones from Ulawa (*3) One-piece turtleshell hooks are known from many regions in the Solomon Islands. Exactly how they were used, and what types of fish they were used to catch, is inadequately understood. No information could be obtained about this hook, nor about the two sinker stones, which were collected independently of it.

They are, and will probably remain, silent witnesses to a highly developed fishing culture that once existed (*4). It is possible that turtleshell hooks of this size were baited, and lowered to the desired depth with the small sinker stones.

Pl. 30

(*1) The two type E bonito hooks, with the stylized bound mother-of-pearl representation of a fish, which are typical of Malaita, were collected on the windward coast of Guadalcanal, and are readily recognizable by virtue of this triangular shape at the top of the shank.

(*2a; 2b) (*4) Hviding (1996) describes a large number of fishing techniques for tiny Marovo Lagoon alone: “More than seventy named and distinct fishing methods exist in ten main categories, and the number is much higher if further classification is made, based on subcategories of methods that are species-specific and adapted to narrowly defined micro-environments (...).

Hook-and line fishing (21 methods) is the most widely used category of fishing in contemporary Marovo.” (215): 212. It is moreover very probable that only a fraction of the many methods once used could still be identified in 2011.

43

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:09 Uhr

Seite 44

The old and unusually shaped turtleshell hook on plate 31 has a two-stranded twined plant fiber line, and a description tag written by Hans Nevermann (*1), identifying it as being from the Solomon Islands. Only one comparable hook, formerly in the Konietzko collection, could be found. Although identified as being from Choiseul, it is possible that it comes from a completely different part of Melanesia (New Ireland or New Britain). The very meticulously executed binding of the line to the shank, additionally covered by a 4.5cm long dense wrapping, was designed to make this hook, which was certainly baited, resistant to damage or breakage from a very substantial fish bite. That makes it safe to conclude it was used to catch larger prey. The several millimeter thick turtleshell shape runs out to an artfully formed point.

(*2a)

Pl. 31 Fishing Floats on Ulawa

(*2b)

(*2c)

44

Beasley illustrates very artfully made floats in the shape of a frigate bird from the Central and Southeast Solomons. (8): Pl. CI. They are decorated with Nautilus pompilius shell inlay, just like the stylized bird float here lacking the stone sinker. (29): 151.

Guppy’s remarks are interesting with respect to this: “It should be observed that these floats are used to catch only flying-fish, and that on account of their extreme shyness. In the Solomon Islands floats, on which the figure of a bird occurs (*2a, 2b, 2c), the line is wound round the hollow of the bird’s back and a projection below made for the purpose. For this the shape of a bird is certainly convenient, and the genius of those people leads them to ornamented forms.” (29): 151.

Illustrations of these interesting fishing devices appear in Codrington in 1891 (28): 317 and in Edge-Partington in 1890 (3): Vol. 1: 197, Fig. 2. Waite describes and illustrates the floats collected on Ulawa in 1865: “Floats from the Santa Cruz and Eastern Solomon Islands functioned similarly despite their different appearance. Both consisted of vertical pieces of wood to the bottom of which was attached a stone weight tightly enclosed in a little net-like bag of strips of cane. A long fibre line with a hook or gorge at one end was wound round the wooden shank of the float. In floats from the Solomon Islands, the line could be fastened around the spur that projects from the narrow stick-like portion of the float and might also be wound around the back of the carved image. Hooks were of pearl (*3) or turtle shell.” (64): 56.

Ivens gives a comprehensive description of the floats from the island of Maramasike just south of Malaita and the island of Ulawa east of Maramasike: “Flying fish are caught in the summer months, long wooden floats with stones attached being used, twelve floats forming a line. (5): 385, Fig. a. The floats are all different, and each has its name and its place in the line. The tops of the floats are carved to represent birds or fishes or other objects, or a legendary person like Kareimenu. Kareimenu is a hybrid human shark figure representing a shark spirit (a very similar figure in (12): Fig. 17). The line is fastened round a boss just below the carving, and is three fathoms in length. The bait consists of the flesh of the robber

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:09 Uhr

Seite 45

crab or of prawns.” (5): 385/386.

Mead makes the following observations with regards to the Star Harbour area at the southeast tip of Makira: “Fishing for garfish (marore) by the float technique in which a set of ten upright, wooden floats each decorated with fish or bird forms and each individually baited with small aigausu (goat fish) or aiganafui fish is set in the harbour and allowed to drift with the wind. In a demonstration that I witnessed a garfish was caught within seven minutes of the float being set.”

(65): 41.

An Unusual Hook Ornament from the Solomons The exceptionally beautifully shaped turtle shell hook (*4) reminds one of Polynesian forms. But the shell bead hackles, to which two dolphin teeth are attached at their ends, are more reminiscent of the southeast Solomons, where bonito hooks have similar shell bead hackles (compare plates 2123). According to Ivens, bonito hooks were used for ear piercing on Ulawa. He also writes of another use on the island of Makira in the southeast Solomons: “The hole in the tip of the nose is a convenient place for carrying a spare fish hook.” (5): 82. Ivens unfortunately does not illustrate such a hook, so its form can only be guessed at. A drawing (*5) by Alphonse Pellion from 1819 is interesting in connection with this. It shows dancers on the Caroline Islands in Micronesia, two of whom are wearing fish hooks pulled through their right ear lobes. There is unfortunately no further information on Pellion’s drawing, which is a unique document on the manner in which fish hooks could be worn in Oceania.

(*5)

Pl. 21 Pl. 22 Pl. 23

The Unique Rennell Island Shark Hook Like the small islands north of the larger Solomon Islands, Rennell Island is considered to be one of the “Polynesian outliers.” Polynesian navigators reached and settled these outer areas of the Solomons between 1200 and 1600AD. Where they found small existing groups of people, they mixed with them, and the result was that many elements of Polynesian culture are manifest in these places. Rennell and its smaller neighbour Bellona are the westernmost outposts of Polynesia.

Because its coasts are largely inaccessible, fishing played only a subordinate role on Rennell. The intimacy with the sea for which Polynesians are so well known is not present among the people of Rennell. It is therefore not surprising that only the monumental shark hook is known from there. Even it, however, is rare in collections.

Both hooks on plates 35-35 show signs of much use and great age. The very artfully made sennit bindings had to be redone from time to time. “Shark fishing was a religious and spiritual ritual. The shark hook, Guan’akao, is an artifact of these Polynesian fishing rituals. The hook itself was tapu. According to

Pl. 33 Pl. 34 Pl. 35

Pl. 35 Pl. 34 Pl. 35

(*4)

(*1) Hans Nevermann (1902-1982) must be seen as one of the most significant German ethnologists. After his graduation in 1924, he was active at the Berlin Museum für Völkerkunde from 1926 to 1928, at the Museum für Völkerkunde in Dresden in 1930 and 1931, and then again in Berlin from 1931 to 1956. He was on numerous research expeditions, and is the author of countless publications about Oceania. (*3) Mother of pearl hooks are not mentioned in the literature.

45

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

´

(*1)

Pl. 32

18:09 Uhr

Seite 46

d’Obrenan on the voyage of the Korrigane in 1939, “Fishermen took their places in the boat, leaving the centre seat free for a divine spirit; and special prayers were recited as the shark was bludgeoned to death.” (Quoted in Birket-Smith, (13): 7273.) Birket-Smith says the following about the hook: “It is made of one piece and has a rather butt point, slightly flattened and shouldered off from the rest of the curved limb, but without a barb. The shank limb is straight, terminating in a knob and flattened on the upper part of the inside (*1). The snood is of heavy sinnet wound around the shank in such a way as to form two lashings separated by a slightly projecting ledge except on the flat inside of the shank where a herring-bone pattern is produced. At the top the snood forms a large loop with a seizing of somewhat finer sinnet.” (14): 71-72. Successful shark hunters enjoyed great recognition. They hung the sharks’ caudal fins in their houses. (14): 71. Kuschel illustrates an example with a thin plant fiber line beneath the somewhat offset point. This line was used to tie the bait to the hook. (31): 74. Both hooks illustrated here show evidence of much use. Small pieces of broken shark teeth are found embedded in the hard wood. Birket-Smith suggests that shark fishing was abandoned with the introduction of Christianity, but was later resumed. (14): 73.

A rare Ruvettus hook from Nukumanu is illustrated on plate 32.

Only its slender appearence and the very simple snood attachement distinguish it from those from Ontong Java.

Four Bonito Hooks from Ontong Java

(*2)

Pl. 36 Pl. 37 Pl. 38

(*3)

46

The bonito hooks on plates 36/37 take us to Ontong Java, the northernmost atoll of the Solomons, with a gigantic lagoon. Only some 1500 people of Polynesian descent inhabit the over 100 tiny islands, which rise only a few meters above sea level. Parkinson writes: “In any case, the population of these islands comes from many different parts of Polynesia, and consequently has characteristics in all respects which testify to its connection with faraway places.” (16):108. Plate X in Parkinson’s work (*2) clarify his statement. It includes objects which show Melanesian and Micronesian influences as well. One-piece hooks of identical form to the one in Fig. 12 are known from Manus Island and from the Western Islands.

The Trochus shell hook from Nukumanu (*3) is also of this type. The hook in Fig. 10 could be from the Micronesian island of Ponape and the hooks in Figs. 7 and 16 show evidence of being of Polynesian origin. Surprisingly, the hook on Fig. 17 appears in neither Beasley’s nor Anell’s monographs. It is identical to the left hook in plate 38, which Parkinson unfortunately mentions only briefly, to state that it was used for catching smaller fish. On account of its length and compactness, such a hook could have been useful for capturing larger fish. The word “Choiseul” is written in pencil on the right hand hook. It is certainly possible that boats moving on documented inter-tribal trade routes between Ontong Java and the southeasterly Sikaiana atoll group might have gotten lost and reached Choiseul. So the hook could indeed be from there. A third very similar hook is in the American Museum of Natural History in New York (Cat.No:80.1/2228).

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:09 Uhr

Seite 47

Parkinson incorrectly designates the hook, lower left in Pl. X, as a shark hook. The misattribution can probably be traced back to Finsch (15), who describes a similar hook from the Ellice Islands as a shark hook.

Even thorough research often fails to identify undocumented bonito hooks. This is because there are many imprecisely identified examples in museums and the literature, and because only small details may differentiate hooks which come from areas very distant from one another, but which otherwise have a very similar overall appearance. These details include the drilling of the point, the use of materials, and binding techniques. The four bonito hooks shown here can be attributed to Ontong Java. In an informative report published by MAN (*4), Lazarus, an inhabitant of the atoll, and Beasley, illustrate four two-piece hooks that also have the same kind of multiple stranded twined line as the examples shown here. Lazarus gives a detailed account of a fishing expedition. Excerpts from that account follow: “It is carried out only in fine weather, and the fish caught are of three or four kinds, bonito called (...). He-pa by the local people; secondly a kind of mackerel He-abo and occasionally a few Makobo along the reef-edge on the return journey home. (...) The canoe used was of a small type, plate D1, called Pan-pan and the crew on this occasion consisted of four natives, a small boy and the writer. The equipment was composed of ten long bamboo rods, He-makila, five shorter ones and five sticks about 2 ft. long also used as rods; a coconut leaf basket, 8 ft. long by 1 ft. deep, with a rounded bottom and the top stayed out with sticks for holding the live bait was partly submerged (*5) (...). The canoe proceeded outside the reef, where Mr. Lazarus was instructed in the rules of conduct for such an occasion, which included abstinence from talking, smoking and the throwing of anything overboard (...). On sighting certain birds near the surface of the water, Hosivi (the headman of the canoe) gave a sharp order and all paddled fast (...). Seeing the bonito below he commenced throwing out live bait, one or two at a time and calling on his Kipua (in this case the spirit of his father) to make the fish bite (...). After fishing for some time, the canoe pulled for the passage in the reef, where, lifting the tabu on talking and smoking, Hosivi gave a demonstration of the catching of Makabo. No live bait was used except on one small hook which was thrown out against the tide so that it would have sunk by the time it could have drifted level with the canoe. (...) On returning to Leueneuwa the fish - 50 in all (...) - were carried to the house of the owner of the basket - the bonito first – and all laid across the bearer’s arms, which were first wrapped with a portion of one of the centre leaves of a coconut palm. Hosivi shared them out to everyone, including the owner of the house; the women then carried them to the recipients’ houses, which in one case of one individual was the house of his prospective wife.” (213): 57/58. Beasley makes the following remarks about these hooks: “The four hooks contained in the wooden pot, plate D3, are reproduced in plate D2B, Kie-kawa or Hep-pa. Each measures from 8.3 cm to 10.7 cm and is provided with a strong thick twisted line, Hoo-wa, 19 ft. long and of neat workmanship, having the ends tapering in the approved Polynesian style. (...) All the four hooks are strongly made, but lack somewhat the fine finish of those found further east. All are constructed in exactly the same way, and were probably made by the same hand. The barbs are of strong

Pl. 36 Pl. 37

(*4) Four bonito hooks from Ontong Java illustrated in: MAN, Vol. XXXVII, April 1937, Fig.2b.

(*) This very small bonito hook from the area of Ontong Java and Sikaiana differs from the Polynesian type in its slender shank and how the snood is tied on. The small shank head does not allow for the drilled hole. A notch around the head allows for a secure fastening of the snood to the shank and the point. The point attachement is further stabilized by slipping fish bones under the line attachement on either side of the point. A bunch of eight comparable bonito hooks (from Tobi and 3,5-5,5 cm long) is housed in the ethnographical Museum in Munich (Inv. nrs. 12-43-32 a-h).

(*5) Compare with drawing on page 207.

47

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:09 Uhr

Seite 48

turtle-shell, with the edges neatly rounded off. (...)” (*1 following page) The shank of one of these four hooks has a small groove filed into the the shank head. It therefore represents almost perfectly the head of a small fish with eye and mouth (*2).

Beasley comments on the similarity of these hooks to those of the Ellice Islands to the east. “It is obvious that similar types agreeing even in small details must have a common source of origin. (...) Weighing up the evidence it becomes clear that Ontong Java has experienced more than one culture influx, and from several distinct and far-away localities (...) very obviously these culture-elements have been introduced at different intervals and over a long period. Most would be chance arrivals by storm blown canoes. (...) The few survivors of one such canoe would have little difficulty in introducing new methods and customs among such a small population as Ontong Java is capable of supporting” (213): 59. Beasley also discusses the unique “domed wooden box koo-an on four short legs. These boxes (*3) are no longer in use, and the specimen illustrated (pl. D3) was obtained from the present chief Makaite, who had retained it as an heirloom.” (213): 59/60.

(*2)

An Unusual Hook for a Deepwater Fish, RUVETTUS PRETIOSUS Pl. 39 Pl. 40 Pl. 41

(*) Ruvettus fishing in the Ellice Islands (24): Pl.3, Fig.7.

(*1) The hooks shown here also support Beasley’s statements. (*3) Along with a number of two-piece hooks, Sarfert and Damm illustrate five very different wooden receptacles, all nonetheless very typical of Ontong Java and the neighbouring islands of Luangiua and Nukumanu (214): Ills. 79, 80. The authors also make the interesting assertion that two-piece hooks were introduced by way of a canoe from Sikaiana. “At the time Sarfert was there, the people of Nukumanu still went to Sikaiana to obtain mother-of-pearl hooks” (214): 116.

48

Pl. 67

The hook on plate 39 and those on plates 40 and 41 resemble the previous one in every detail. It is a Ruvettus hook, a type widespread throughout Oceania, but most commonly known from the Western Pacific. Anell corrects several errors made by Gudger, and clearly distinguishes this type from shark hooks. He gives exact information on its distribution and occurrence in all the island areas of Oceania. (19): 228-237. It is surprising that Hedley was the first to describe this hook type in 1897 (20). Either it escaped the attention of earlier explorers, or it is a form that developed late, like the New Zealand Kahawai hooks, which Cook would have observed and collected had they existed at the time of his visit, but which only begin to be documented in the early 19th century.

Ruvettus Pretiosus, the Oilfish, is variously described in the literature (21): 258, (18): 211, (19): 229, (17): 38. It reaches a length of about 180 cm and a weight of 60 kilos, and inhabits waters between 200 and 500 meters in depth. The fish is highly prized for its oily white meat, although its consumption has laxative effects.

The oil is used for medicinal purposes. On the Ellice Islands, according to Koch (17): 38, only the “designated master fishermen” were able to manufacture Ruvettus hooks. For the V-shaped shank and the V-shaped point, they used the hard wood from the crutches of the Pemphis acidula tree. The two pieces were bound together with bast line in such a way that the point descended at a downward angle back towards the shank, and slightly to the side, so that the Ruvettus could take it. Finsch describes the oilfish as having “wonderful large eyes” that see everything, so that fishermen only ventured out beyond the reefs to catch it in absolute darkness and in a complete calm. They baited the hooks with flying fish sliced open and tied to the point and around a part of the shorter side of the shank.

(15): 258. Gudger illustrates a hook on which the line for securing the bait fish is clearly visible. (18): Fig. 32. Few Ruvettus hooks in collections still have the stone

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:09 Uhr

Seite 49

sinker attached to the line (compare pl. 67), which was used to lower the hook quickly to the desired depth. Getting the hook to sink quickly also helped to keep other fish, sharks for example, from taking the bait before it had reached its destination. Becke states: “To sink the line, coral stones of three or four pounds weight are used, attached by a very thin piece of sennit or bark, which, when the fish is stuck, is always broken by its struggles, and falls off, thus releasing the line from an unnecessary weight. It is no light task hauling in a thick, heavy line, hanging straight up and down for a length of from seventy-five to a hundred fathoms or more (with a 6 foot Ruvettus struggling at the end of it)..” (22): 149. Ruvettus hooks whose stone sinkers are not detachable also exist. (23): Ill. 89. What was important was that the baited hook should float horizontally at the appropriate depth for the Ruvettus to be able to snap at the bait in its usual swimming pattern.

The wooden hook’s elasticity made it possible for the fish to get its lower jaw into the small space between the shank and the point. The point then pierced the jaw and thus prevented the fish from escaping. Kennedy documents the way in which this occurs with informative illustrations (*4, 5). (24): Fig. 7, 9, 11 and 12. A Tahitian fisherman describes an interesting variation, in which the positioning of the long hook in the fish’s mouth causes its neck to break (*6).

Note: According to Parkinson (23): 536-537 the Ruvettus hook was still in use on Luangiua and Nukumanu in 1907, while it had all but disappeared from Tauu and Nuguria. He also describes the dangers associated with the Ruvettus hunt. The fish can only be found outside the reefs, and if the fishermen lose sight of their island due to a sudden change of weather, they risk being lost at sea or being carried away to other areas. This may be how the only Ruvettus hook illustrated in the early literature reached the island of Nissan, west of the Mortlock Islands. (25): 126. Uhlig, who spent three years on Nissan and learned much about its people’s way of life, associates the hook he collected there with the capture of porpoises (Phocaena communis), and so was unacquainted with its true use. That could be an argument for the position that the Ruvettus hook was not used on Nissan at all. In his publication, Gudger repeats Uhlig’s information, and also indicates that the Ruvettus hook can be found on Buka. (18): 310. In Krause there is clearly a mix-up, and the Ruvettus hook is confused for the bonito hook. (25): 126.

The Santa Cruz Islands at the eastern end of the Solomons maintain developed trading relations between them. Melanesian population groups predominate on the largest island of Ndende, while Polynesians have settled on the Reef Islands and on the distant and tiny islands of Tikopia and Anuta. According to Koch, the manufacture of traditional hooks had all but disappeared in the 1960s, due to the import of steel hooks that by then had long been taking place. (26): 41.

Even on the remote Reef Islands, no one could remember the turtle shell, mother of pearl and wooden hooks described (but not illustrated) by Speiser and Foy (27): 188.

Pl. 42 An exceptionally fine bonito hook, somewhat different in details from the Solomon hooks previously presented, comes from the Reef Islands. The shank is very similar to those from the Central Solomons, but the rounded, long and very tapered point is very reminiscent of the beak shape of the frigate bird, who leads

(*4)

(*5)

(*) The rubbing marks from the Ruvettus’ teeth are clearly visible.

(*6) Remy Carbayol in personal correspondence.

49

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

Pl. 42 (*1a) The illustration from 1838.

Pl. 43 Pl. 44 Pl. 45

(*2)

(*) Luepe village at Graciosa Bay on Nendo Island, Santa Cruz and an experienced fisherman living there. (*1b) A very similar “anchor-shaped” hook is illustrated in an early publication on Polynesia, but without any additional information. (63): 539.

50

18:09 Uhr

Seite 50

the islanders to the bonito swarms. The very strong plant fiber binding to the shank, and the Parinarium gum applied over it, are also exceptional on this hook.

Parinarium gum occurs in nearly all areas of the Solomons, and is widely used in boat building and for decorating bowls. The question arises as to why, given the perishable nature of the plant fiber bindings, this universally present and so durable adhesive is not used for hooks in all areas – as it was on the Reef Islands for instance. Presumably because the hooks’ creators in certain cases chose to forego an optimal attachment method, deeming it preferable not to obscure the perfect image of the prey that the shank represented, with the application of the gum.

Koch illustrates a bonito hook from the Reef Islands comparable to the one on plate 42, but without gum (26): Ill. 29.

The anchor shaped hook on plate 42 collected in 2005 in Luepe on Graciosa Bay on the Santa Cruz island of Ndende has almost no comparables in the literature. (*1a, 1b) Such hooks were used for catching smaller sharks. The very robust plant fiber binding is treated and imbued with a reddish tree bark sap to make it more resistant to salt water corrosion.

The Santa Cruz Islands fishing apparatus known as Teu Malimba (*2), used for catching flying fish, has been documented for a long time. It has a wooden float variously decorated with ornaments, a stone sinker, a tree bast line and a toggle shaped turtle shell hook, and was still in use in 2005. Koch collected the illustrated fishing implements as well as the toggle shaped turtle shell hooks during his stay on the main island of Ndende. (26): Ill. 30. Fisherman Alfred Lea affirmed that he still used them. Koch states: “The fisherman goes out onto the high seas with several floats, baits the hooks with crab claw meat, and casts them into the water one after another. Weighted by stone sinkers, the floats are vertical in the water, and therefore the upper part remains visible above the water’s surface, to the fisherman.” (26): 41. The simple unweighted wooden cylinders that Koch did not observe were still used to catch flying fish in 2005.

The first illustration of the Santa Cruz Islands float appears in Codrington’s “The Melanesians” in 1891 (*2). The wooden float here is also decorated with engravings. Although it would appear obvious that the fishermen used these marks to identify their equipment, Beasley (8): 65 quotes a Santa Cruz mission boy saying: “that the marks upon them are not ownership marks, but serve to indicate the order in which they are placed in the sea, for they do not throw them in anyhow, but place them in proper sequence. The one with the human figure upon it, he supposed, would be the first, and probably represents the spirit who has charge of the flying fish.”

At the eastern extreme of the Solomon Islands, on the tiny island of Tikopia, a Polynesian population remained largely untouched and intact until well into the 20th century. According to Speiser (1913), it is one of the last islands in Oceania where ethnically pure Polynesians still exist. (32): 304. Firth studied the culture thoroughly. (33, 34). Hurst illustrates one-piece mother of pearl and turtle shell hooks that resemble examples from the Bismarck Archipelago, as well as a composite bonito hook that has all the characteristics of west Polynesian examples.

(13): 56. Rivers describes all the hook types from Tikopia, but does not illustrate

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:09 Uhr

Seite 51

any. He mentions one wooden shark hook, which he states was “baited with flying fish, the whole fish being put on the hook”. With regards to the bonito hooks, he says: “One of the most highly prized fish of the Tikopians is the atu or bonito which is caught with a turtle-shell hook baited with a white feather (...). When they come near the shoals of bonito the man in the stern moves the rod so as to draw the feather to and fro on the water.” (35): 331. Although Firth remained on Tikopia for an extended period of time, he had great difficulty obtaining any hooks through trade. “Though I tried on various occasions to substitute fish hooks these were refused. (...) The bonito-hook is one of the items of supreme importance in the native exchange system, as in the acquisition of a canoe, or indemnity for wrong, and cannot be replaced.” (34): 380.

A fish-shaped shell shank can be seen worn as a neck ornament by a man in a photograph from 1913, (*3), (32): Pl. 100. A 1973 photo shows an “Elder of Tikopia. In addition to his traditional tattoo patterns, his most prominent ornament is a pearl shell neck pendant in the form of a trolling fish hook lure.” (36):19. “Fish hook point neck ornaments” from Tikopia are illustrated in the same publication, but they are made of turtle shell, in contrast to those shown on plate 46, which are Pl. 46 mother of pearl. (36): 163. “Women of Tikopia often wore turtle shell fish hook (*3) points as part of their jewellery, usually as a single pendant on a cord around the neck or as a necklace with several attached to the neck cord. Occasionally they might also be worn on a cord around the wrist.” The turtle shell hook necklace shown here comes from Matilda Koroa of Nukukasi on the northeast coast of Makira. Many emigrants from Tikopia live there. She wrote the following about the necklace in 2008: “These are Tikopian traditional fish hooks. They were made from turtle shell. The double one is known as “Mangana”. They are no longer used for fishing but kept as ornaments to wear, especially during traditional ceremonies.

They are now quite difficult to find. Some are also made from other sea shells. Pl. 46 These shells go back as far as the 1960’s (*4).” The three mother of pearl hook ornaments were collected on Makira and on Santa Cruz in 2005. The stylized fish on Pl. 46 and the double hook were obtained in Nukukasi on the north coast of Makira, from Tikopian men who live there (*5). Nukukasi is a large village, which was founded by emigrating former inhabitants of Tikopia over half a century ago.

The very old mother of pearl point in the right of plate 46 belonged to Duddley (*5) Two fish hook shank pendants from Anuta, Melona, from Neo Island in the Santa Cruz Archipelago. Unfortunately no made from Tridacna shell. They are now in the information could be obtained about its origins, but it is likely that this point came collection of the Bishop Museum, Honolulu. to Santa Cruz from Tikopia as a result of inter-tribal trade.

Anell illustrates a noteworthy bonito hook from Tikopia. (19): Pl.VI.b. The aragonite shank resembles those known from Banaba Island, while the point is reminiscent of the west Polynesian form. This bonito hook incorporates a mixture of Micronesian and Polynesian cultural elements. To conclude, there are three types of ornament hooks from Tikopia, which are illustrated here.

(*4) Matilda Koroa in personal correspondence.

51

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 52

Vanuatu (New Hebrides) – Loyalty Islands – New Caledonia An Enormous Oceanic Area Without Significant Hook Fishing.

(*1)

(*2), (*3)

(*5a)

(*4) They come from the Loyalty Islands, which are just east of New Caledonia. The hooks’ numbers are: 71.1925.3.16, 71.1943.0.392x, 71.1950.30.486 and 71.1945.5.6. The British Museum posts an exactly dated one-piece turtle shell hook on the internet, which was collected

by James Hadfield on the island of Lifou, at the center of the Loyalty chain (Oc 1944.02.339).

Two one-piece turtle shell hooks from Lifou can also be seen in the exhibition of the Wereldmuseum Rotterdam.

52

It is surprising that here, just as on large parts of the New Guinea coast, in spite of the presence of the same favorable conditions which existed in the Solomons, no significant hook fishing took place. Perhaps more thorough archaeological research will broaden the repertoire of known hooks in the future.

The few publications that mention hooks describe a one-piece hook of roundish form, without barbs, and usually of turtle shell. Beasley says about Vanuatu: “I have not been able to discover any authentic examples; in fact, one recent writer (N. Hardy: “The Savage South Seas,” London 1907, p.180) goes so far as to say that “Neither lines or hooks are used in the New Hebrides for fishing. They scorn this method in spite of the demonstrations by the whites.” Beasley could not find any hooks from the New Hebrides in British collections. Likewise, no mention is made of them in Speiser’s comprehensive monograph on the New Hebrides. He states: “It is very questionable whether the natives actually ever had any fish hooks. I myself occasionally found a mother of pearl hook(...). Such hooks were identical in every detail to those from the Solomons, and if they actually were a part of New Hebridean native culture, they would not be so rare(...). Fish hooks from the New Hebrides in European collections are so seldom seen, that one can assume that those few that are so identified, are either misattributed or came from somewhere else. I believe that indigenously manufactured fish hooks were absent from the New Hebrides.” (66): 156/157.

Hadfield gives the earliest information available on the one-piece mother of pearl and turtle shell hooks from the Loyalty Islands (*1). 1920. (67): 83/84, Ill.p.83. The author says the following: “Fish hooks were cut from pearl or turtleshell. They were beautifully pointed and curved, but never barbed, and they varied in size and shape. In examining these exquisite hooks (...) one marvels that the men, with their big clumsy fingers and without the aid of any carving tools save the bits of sharp stone or rock they used, could do such delicate work. The making of these hooks certainly involved a great amount of patience and labour; and one cannot wonder that the native-made fish hooks have long been superseded by the European variety. I doubt whether one specimen of the shell fish hook has been seen on the island for a great number of years, with the exception of those in my own collection.” (67):82/84 Beasley illustrates further examples. (8): Pl. XCVI. The three hooks published by Sarasin from the island of Mare in the Southern Loyalties are unique and cannot be compared to any others in Oceania. (68): Fig. 147.

The form of the hook is determined by the shape of the thick portion at the opening of the shell of the Placostylus land snail (*2 and *3) of which the hook is made. This portion of the shell can be quite easily separated from the rest of it.

Unfortunately, Sarasin does not discuss how these hooks were used, or what kind of fish they were intended to catch. He writes: “These were used as fish hooks in the past – Nowadays, they have been nearly or entirely replaced by steel hooks – They are very attractive devices, made from the thick portion at the opening of the

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 53

shell of the land snail.” (68): 242.

A few museums have posted their fish hook collections on the internet, and although provenances given for them are often either imprecise or incorrect, at least interesting photos of hooks are now available for comparison.

The Musée du Quai Branly shows several hooks mistakenly attributed to New Caledonia, which match examples illustrated given by Beasley and Hadfield (*4).

A unique fishing device in its collections, attributed to New Caledonia, probably comes from the Loyalty Islands as well. It consists of a triangular piece of mother of pearl shell with rounded corners, from which four one-piece turtle shell hooks hang at the end of plant fiber lines of varying length. The binding of the lines to the hooks is executed with meticulous care. As is so often the case, no additional information is available on this very interesting fishing apparatus. (#71.1962.72.43).

Seven One-piece Hooks Made from Fish Bones (*5a, 5b) These hooks are made from fish bones or stingers, which were notched and then bend over at a 30° angle from the shank. At the bend the point position is fixed with plant fiber bindings. This line continues inside and up along the shank to serve as snood. At the shank head it is tied on with additional fibers around the shank. No comparisons can be found in the literature for these hooks. They could be attributed to New Britain, if one follows the statements made by Finsch, Parkinson and Ribbe, that fish bones and spikes were used here for the manufacture of hooks. Finsch illustrates a hook which was made from a fish spine-stinger (Ageo) which “is fixed by a fine string also serving as the line.” (15):I:108, pl.IV, Fig.11. (*6) Parkinson states: The fish hook was made from a bone of a certain fish and quite primitive; due to the unimportance of line fishing here, this device was never further developed or perfected.” (23):101. Ribbe, who stayed in the late 19th Century in the northern regions of New Britain on the island of Neu Lauenburg (Duke of York Island), only saw European hooks, but had heard of mother of pearl and fish bone hooks having been in use previously.

(*) “Among the Natives of the Loyalty Group” (67): Frontispiece.

(*5b) (enlarged)

(*6) A very interesting tablet (St-946) of small hooks collected by Finsch is housed in the American Museum of Natural History in NY. The hooks and lines were collected on Matupi Island in the Blanche-Bay (north New Britain).

It illustrates hooks made from fish stingers similar to the one illustrated in his publication (15): fig.11.

53

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 54

New Guinea, Huon Gulf 54

4

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 55

55

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 56

New Guinea, Huon Gulf 56

5

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 57

57

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 58

New Guinea, Siassi 58

6

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 59

59

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 60

New Guinea, Massim 60

7

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 61

61

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 62

New Guinea, Massim, Kiriwina Island 62

8

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 63

63

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 64

New Guinea, Massim 64

9

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 65

65

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 66

New Guinea, Torres Strait 66

10

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 67

67

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 68

New Guinea, Torres Strait 68

11

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 69

69

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:10 Uhr

Seite 70

New Guinea, Wuvulu and Aua Islands (Bismarck Archipelago) 70

12

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 71

71

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 72

New Guinea, Wuvulu and Aua Islands (Bismarck Archipelago) 72

13

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 73

73

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 74

New Guinea, Wuvulu and Aua Islands (Bismarck Archipelago) 74

14

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 75

75

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 76

New Guinea, Wuvulu and Aua Islands (Bismarck Archipelago) 76

15

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 77

77

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 78

New Guinea, Wuvulu and Aua Islands (Bismarck Archipelago) 78

16

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 79

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite I

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite II

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 80

Admirality Islands 80

17

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 81

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite III

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite IV

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 82

Solomon Islands (Buka and Bougainville) 82

18

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 83

83

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 84

Solomon Islands (Choiseul) 84

19

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 85

85

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 86

Solomon Islands 86

20

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 87

87

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 88

Solomon Islands 88

21

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 89

89

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 90

Solomon Islands 90

22/23

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 91

91

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:11 Uhr

Seite 92

Solomon Islands (Malaita) 92

24

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 93

93

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 94

Solomon Islands (Malaita) 94

25/26

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 95

95

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 96

Solomon Islands (Uki, Ulawa) 96

27

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 97

97

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 98

Solomon Islands (Uki, Ulawa) 98

28

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 99

99

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 100

Solomon Islands (Uki, Ulawa) 100

29

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 101

101

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 102

Solomon Islands 102

30

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 103

103

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 104

Solomon Islands (Ulawa) 104

31

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 105

105

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 106

Nukumanu 106

32

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 107

107

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite V

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 108

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 108

Rennell Island 108

33/34

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 109

109

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 110

Rennell Island 110

35

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 111

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 112

Ontong-Java 112

36/37

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:12 Uhr

Seite 113

113

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 114

Ontong-Java 114

38

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 115

115

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 116

Ontong-Java 116

39

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 117

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite VII

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite VIII

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 118

Ontong-Java 118

40

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 119

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite IX

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite X

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

120

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 120

Ontong-Java (illustration is 1/2 natural size)

41

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 121

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 122

Santa Cruz (Ndende) 122

42

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 123

123

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 124

Santa Cruz 124

43

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 125

125

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 126

Santa Cruz 126

44

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 127

127

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 128

Santa Cruz 128

45

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 129

129

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 130

Tikopia 130

46

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 131

131

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

132

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 132

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 133

(*) Fishing canoes outside Yap. A plate from: Louis Claude de Desaulces de Freycinet, “Voyage Autour du Monde, fait par l’ordre du Roi, Sur les corvettes de S.M. l’Uranie et la Physicienne, pendant les années 1817-1820. Atlas Historique par MRS Js Arago, A Pellion & ca. Paris, 1825

133

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:13 Uhr

Seite 134

Micronesia Life on Coral Islands – Dancing on Knife’s Edge

(*) George Keate, “An Acount of the Pelew (Palau) Islands (...) Composed from the Journals of Captain Henry Wilson,” London, 1788, Pl.2

(*) An unusual turtle shell spoon from Palau, decorated with a handle in the shape of a fish.

(15,5 x 5,2 cm)

134

An endless stream of images of coconut palms, sandy beaches, light blue seas and scenes of apparent paradise belie reality. Flat coral islands and atolls are among the harshest environments on earth. Extremely difficult living conditions challenge their inhabitants.

Living space is very restricted, and the sandy, calcified and often salty soil is infertile. Fresh water is scarce as there are no streams or wells, and there are often long periods of drought. Moreover, typhoons and tidal waves frequently hit these archipelagos that extend no more than a few meters above sea level, and with disastrous consequences. The exception are a few high volcanic islands over 700 meters, like Pohnpei or Kosrae, which supply fertile ground and sweet water.

The settlement of this island world would never have been possible without extensive exploitation of the sea’s natural resources. The first settlers to arrive must already have had founded knowledge of various fishing techniques.

Their skills evolved to a level of efficiency and mastery that made Polynesian and Micronesian fishermen without peer anywhere in the world. According to Heintze (69), in addition to the simple collection of marine life on the reefs, fishing techniques included herding, the use of spears, traps, poisons, weirs and nets, and hook fishing, torch fishing and kite fishing, among others. Worms, crabs, many kinds of fish, snails, shellfish and the larger prey on the high seas – sharks and bonito for example – were among the great variety of animals that were sought after. The simpler kinds of fishing and manual methods of collection on the reef were the province of the women and children. Men had the responsibility for the more difficult and dangerous fishing tasks. There was a differentiation of status among the men. As a result of age or sickness, some were excluded from fishing. Moreover, specialized knowledge of specific techniques was not equally shared by all of them. But because the catch was always appropriately distributed among members of a family, a relatively stable and equitably apportioned supply was available to the islands’ populations. In bad weather, the boats could not venture out to sea. In general, the open sea was richer in fish life than the lagoon.

Neither fishing nor collecting on reefs are activities without peril to the atolls’ inhabitants. Certain species of sharks and barracudas can be dangerous to man. The sting of the Conus snail can be fatal.

As the sea is the atoll inhabitants’ primary food source, poisonous fish are the most present danger. The consumption of many species at certain times in various areas can cause poisoning, while at other times or places not. Occasional poisoning epidemics are one of the risks associated with life on coral islands.

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 135

A Turtleshell Hook from Palau (*1) According to Kubary, the fishermen of the Palau Islands were the best in all of Micronesia. (*2) “Only on the Palau Islands (...) is there commercially developed fishing, which satisfies not only local needs, but also produces a regulated quantity of fish for sale” (208): 123. The appearance of Europeans in the 19th century brought rapid cultural change to most Micronesian island groups. Palau was very much affected, and the turtleshell hook shown here was already a rarity in the last quarter of the 19th century.

European metal hooks had by then already largely replaced traditional ones.

We learn from Kubary that “In the old days, the Palauans used hooks made of turtleshell, which are still used nowadays for certain types of fishing and fish(...). But for most fishing, which takes place in the passages between reefs and near their edges, European iron hooks with sinkers are used exclusively.

The traditional hooks are highly valued. They are feared and regarded with superstition, and handed down from generation to generation. But they are used only on the open seas, for the so-called Hanoaol, the purpose of which was to catch Coryphaena (dolphin fish), and especially sharks.

Even to the most experienced Koreomel (*3), this represented the most important of all fishing assignments.” (208): 125/126.

(*1)

Caroline Islands Group It consists of some 2000 mostly small coral islands and atolls, which are strung like a pearl necklace through the western Pacific. Tobi, the small and westernmost island of the Carolines, has produced several noteworthy hook types, which are illustrated on plates 47 and 48.

According to Eilers (70): 182, the islanders used the one-piece turtle shell hooks (above the label on Pl. 48) on the open seas. They were baited with crab meat and dropped to a depth of three to four meters to tempt the kio to bite. These hooks were made with and without barbs. A very distinctive knob in the form of a double crescent, which enables a very secure binding of the hook to the snood, is observed at the head of the shank. These turtle shell hooks have the downward pointing barbs which are typical of Tobi. According to Eilers (70): 148, these one-piece hooks were also much loved as pendants. Both men and women wore real hooks tied on to necklaces (*4). (70): Ill. 40.

Eilers says further: “In former times, the pendants mostly had the shape of fish hooks and were made of turtle shell or shell. Often the shape was only suggested. (*5a) shows a piece of this type, which was worn together with four others. (*5b) shows an aberrantly formed hook. It was worn alone on a string that extended down to the chest, and is made of a piece of turtle shell nearly 10 millimeters thick.” (70): 148.

There is also an illustration of a tattooed dancer adorned with coconut palm leaves and wearing a fish hook necklace in this authoritative

(*4)

Pl. 47 Pl. 48

(*5a, 5b)

(*2) R.E. Johannes gives a comprehensive survey of the incredibly sophisticated knowledge of fishing of the Palauans in his “Words of the Lagoon. Fishing and Marine Lore in the Palau District.” (Berkley, 1981) (*3) Koreomel means “master fisherman.” Using long hand lines in deep water, the Koreomel could only be successful if he had in depth knowledge of the fishing area and the habits of the fish he sought. He also has to know countless magical rituals and oaths, to satisfy the gods of the sea.

Kubary calls the Koreomel “the priest of the fishing religion.”

135

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

Pl. 49

(*1)

Pl. 48

Pl. 48

(*2)

(*3) That these hooks were used for bonito fishing is difficult to imagine. Bonito hooks had no barbs, in order to facilitate removing the fish from the hook quickly.

136

18:14 Uhr

Seite 136

publication on Tobi Island (*1). (70): Ill. 30.

Neich/ Pereira illustrate a turtle shell hook from Tobi, that resembles the hook on plate 49 in shape, but the latter was collected on the faraway Ulithi Atoll, which lies north of Yap. (36): 34. The Tobi hook is called a “fish hook necklace”.

The observations the two authors make are interesting: “As an atoll society with limited natural resources, fishing is very important to the maintenance of their culture. If a foetus or baby died at birth, a special fish hook was buried with the body at the birthing house. Elders wore a fine quality fish hook like this turtle shell one on a delicately plaited pandanus cord as a sign of rank and as a protection for their ultimate journey into the afterlife. In many Oceanic cultures, fish hooks were transformed into neck ornaments of a deep cultural significance.” (36): 34/35.

Eilers mentions another use for the simple turtle shell hook. “They also use the simple and larger hooks with a stone sinker. Several hooks are tied to a single long line with short strings, and spaced apart from one another. The stone sinker is at the end of the long line. Small fish are used as bait. One drops the line to the water’s bottom, and catches one to two foot long red bare, which is probably the Pomocentus species. They call this kind of fishing Eau Tsio (*2). (70): Ill. 141.

According to Eilers, the simplest way to fish is from the reef ’s edge as the water is rising. “For this they mainly, if not exclusively, use a composite hook called Bari Fetür. With it they catch the flying fish for example. The line is usually made of hibiscus bast. The lure is made of Tridacna, Conus, Cassis, Meleagrina or slate.”

(70): 180/181. Plate 48 shows one of these rare hooks (top row second from right) whose shank is made of black stone. Krämer calls this hook, which was reportedly used for bonito fishing, Sobotor (*3). Since there is no naturally occurring stone on Tobi, the only stones available would have been those lodged in the roots of driftwood. The hackle on the illustrated hook is made of human hair. The composite Bari Fetür with a mother of pearl shank and a turtle shell point was used for catching bonito. A white feather was used as a hackle, and its remains are found tied securely to the back of the shank. Krämer observed a nearly identical hook: “Such lure hooks from Palau are extremely rare in collections, and we found no more in situ. One looks in vain for illustrations of them in publications.

Fortunately, the Leipzig Museum für Völkerkunde has five examples from Palau(...), which, because of the pair of always opposing barbs they possess, are distinguishable from Polynesian hooks. I assume that it was these hooks that were used for catching the Dorado, the Albacore and the bonito.” (71): 79.

The lure without leader in plate 48 consists of a Conus shell shank, and a typically Tobi turtle shell point. The small pieces of wood on the sides of the hook ensure that it can be securely bound to the shank. The little white feathers at the base of the shank are completely intact. Eilers maintains that the composite hooks usually have small turtle shell points, but that they may also be made of bone or a silvery gray mother of pearl. A length of bamboo serves as a rod. A rod in the Hamburger Völkerkunde Museum is 3.64 meters long. It is five centimeters in diameter at the handle end, and one centimeter at the tip. (70): 181/182.

Beasley illustrates some frankly bizarre points from Tobi, which are bound to bone and mother of pearl shell, on plate CXLIX. They had already been

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 137

accessioned by the Peabody Museum in 1887 and no comparable examples appear to exist. Beasley calls these exceptionally well worked turtle points “two-needle-like points”. (8): 99.

He says the following about the binding: “All the points are joined to their shanks by finely twisted lashings passing through one or more holes bored in the point; the attachment of the leaders is curious, being placed some way down each shank and not at the end - usually the sides are notched, and a simple turn taken round them (...). All the leaders are of twisted fibre, and are continued down the inner side of the shank and pass through the upper hole of the barb, a method generally in use among Polynesians.” (8): 99.

Two Published but Unidentified Bone Hooks The plate 50 illustrates two large whale bone hooks, which are surprisingly only mentioned peripherally in the literature. The very old compact hook with the sennit line comes from Yap in western Micronesia, and the somewhat longer hook from the Marshall Islands in eastern Micronesia, some 1000 kilometers away (*4).

No comparable bone hook of this type is known from anywhere else in the vast island world of Micronesia that lies between these places. The second of these hooks was already presented by Finsch as a whale bone hook (*5). (15): Pl. III, Fig. 13. Beasley illustrates the hook as a “curiosity,” but shows some indecision in his judgement, and writes: “Had the writer (Finsch) been less famous as an ethnologist, I should have been tempted to pass it by.” (8): Fig. 38. Even the highly meticulous Anell fails to give this important hook type any further attention, and remarks: “It is without parallels and one may with Beasley doubt its genuineness.” (19): 95. He nonetheless re-uses Beasley’s illustration in his own publication. (19): Fig. 4, Ill. 10.

A very good drawing of this hook type had been prepared by Dascha Detering for Anell’s monograph (55): Pl. 5.14. But Anell chose not to publish it, presumably for reasons already given, and because no exact location of origin had been determined for the piece. Beasley and Anell must both have been familiar with the large bone hook from Yap that is identical with the left one illustrated here, and was presented in Krämer’s significant nearly century old monograph on Yap. But both authors fail to refer to it. Another very similar and very old hook from Yap is in the Museum für Völkerkunde in Munich (*6) (#26-T-2318). Müller describes it as a hook for the high seas, called Gorum or Tav, that was used to catch fish that followed the swarms of flying fish. “The approximately 50 meter long line was cast from the stern of a fast-moving boat and held by hand. A flying fish was tied to the inside of the shank (not to the hook’s point) as bait.” (73): 73.

A Marshall Islands Ruvettus Hook

Pl. 50

(*6) 16,5 x 5,5 cm

Pl. 50

(*5)

This hook on plate 51 is fashioned from a naturally formed crutch, where Pl. 51 a limb meets a tree trunk, and is forked at a sharp angle. It is made of the very resistant wood of the Calophyllum tree. A wooden piece of the hook is secured to (*4) This is approximately equivalent to the the somewhat shorter fork with a sennit binding. Its point is directed towards the distance between Portugal and the Caspian Sea

137

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 138

longer fork, the end of which is very sturdily lashed to sennit line. In these respects, this hook resembles the Ruvettus hooks known from neighbouring island groups.

What distinguishes it from them is the form of its lower part, which is normally either rounded or runs to a point. The lower part here appears unfinished because it is level and horizontal. Yet both sides of the hook have been carefully smoothed, and carved to run out to ridges along their edges. It is a unique example. As long as no comparables for it are known, it will be impossible to know whether the use of hooks like this one was widespread, or whether it represents the one-off creation of a clever fisherman for whom it had proven successful.

Composite Bonito Hooks from the Western and Central Caroline Islands Pl. 52 Pl. 53 Pl. 53 Pl. 54 Pl. 55

Pl. 53 Pl. 48 Pl. 52

Pl. 47 Pl. 48

(*1) German ethnologists also use the term “spinner.”

138

These hooks illustrated on plates 52–55 have many characteristics in common. First of all, the turtle shell points lack barbs (unlike those from Tobi on plate 48), and secondly, the binding of the hook, with the line extending along the inner side of the shank, is executed in the typical Polynesian manner.

Anell also points out the similarities between Polynesian and Micronesian composite hooks. Beasley and Anell, like most authors on the subject, both use the term “spinner” to designate this hook. But Skinner, among the most highly recognized Polynesian ethnographers, criticizes this usage: “An error which goes back a long way in time is widely spread in English ethnographic literature is the use of the word “spinner” (*1) which has been taken over by ethnographers from English trout-fishers. The trout-fishers used it originally to describe a minnowshaped hook having propeller-shaped fins, with a swivel line-attachment so that the minnow spun freely in the water, hence the name (...). Present practice among firms catering for trout-fishers is to use the word “spinner” to cover a multiplicity of devices, so that it has lost, if it ever possessed, the precision essential in scientific terminology (...). It would be better to drop the term “spinner” from ethnographic literature altogether.” (80): 336-358.

Human hair hackles are bound onto both the hooks from Merir (plate 53) and Tobi (plate 48 left and top middle). The bonito hooks from Hog Island (plate 53 top and left) have short hackles made of Hibiscus bast. Plate 52 showing the outer faces of the shanks once again demonstrates the sensibility and attention to form the Oceanic fisherman gave to shaping the shanks into stylized fish, using various materials and only the most rudimentary stone-age tools (coral rasps, shark teeth and skin, sand, string, water etc.). The variations in the manner in which the line is tied onto the shank are surprising. Only the tiny island of Tobi, represented here by a number of composite hooks (plates 47 and 48), surprises with the variations in use, which are determined by the different materials. On four examples on the right of plate 48, the line is bound onto the shank without the use of holes, while on the two on the left, there are two holes in the keel-shaped convex inner face of the shank head. A line with a finer line wound around it is passed through these holes, to the turtle shell point. This point has holes in it too, and is securely fastened to the shank. The hackle, which consists of a tuft of human hair, is pushed in beneath the bottom hole and the binding that runs through it. The

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 139

very similarly made hook on plate 53 (lower right) comes from Merir Island, Pl. 53 northeast of Tobi. Eilers illustrates this type of hook, and says the following about it: “The composite fish hooks, Parupi, are used to catch larger fish. The shank is made of mother of pearl (*2), and the point of turtle shell. A human hair hackle is attached at the base. The leader is made of two strands of hibiscus bast, twined together.” (72): 388.

In 1893 Finsch illustrates one of these composite hooks (15): Pl. III; 2, which comes from the island of Satoan in the Mortlock Group. Kubary observed “the very same ones occur or occurred on Ruk (Truk, now Chuuk).”

Bonito hooks from the Mortlock Islands can be distinguished from those of the Truk Islands by virtue of the extremely elegant manufacture of their shanks and points. The two hooks illustrated on plates 56 and 57 provide eloquent testimony to Pl. 56 Pl. 57 this assertion. Krämer illustrates other hooks from the Mortlocks (78): Pl. 11, c.

Documentation for other bonito hooks in the Central Carolines, and for nearly all Micronesian regions, can be found in “Ergebnisse der Südsee Expedition 1908-1910”. Damm illustrates two examples from Ifaluk (74): Ill. 91/92. Of another composite hook from Sorol (Ill. 308), he states: “Ba is the usual composite hook. It is made of Meleagrina or Cassis rufus shell, or of turtle shell. These hooks are mounted on triangular wooden frames that normally hang in the boat houses, and are taken along on the canoes.” (74): 239. Damm and Sarfert write the following about the composite hook from Satawal: “(...) larger hooks for catching bonito. The fishermen set out at dawn with their sail boats, and go far out to sea. (*) A hook from Yap in the collection of the Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde, Munich.

The bamboo fishing rod, that is large and strong – up to 3 meters in length – for catching these fish, is propped up against the hip, and the hook is allowed to skip along the water’s surface. The prerequisite for this fishing method is a good fresh breeze, which enables the boat to move along swiftly.” (79): 50, Ills. 112/113.

This composite hook, generally made of iridescent mother of pearl shell and equipped with a hackle, was mainly used for catching bonito. Many variations on this basic form spread throughout Oceania. It possibly first appeared in Micronesia, then passed to west Polynesia, where this hook type is known from nearly all islands, and thence to more eastern island groups such as the Marquesas and Hawaii. Beasley says the following about it: “I can but think that such a specialised form must be of very ancient origin. Nowadays these have become greatly degenerated, and all sorts of European odds and ends are thought good enough to form the complete article; but in spite of an iron nail, or an end of wire displaying, the well worked pearl shell or human bone barb, or the trader's calico ousting the fibre hackle, the shank must still be laboriously cut out of a piece of mother of pearl shell, for nothing has been found so eminently suitable for this purpose. The method of manufacture was not an easy task, and when the poor tools, mostly rasps of hard Montipora coral, are considered, the result is (*) Petroglyphs on a Kanada (small stone extraordinary.” (8): 27. currency to purchase fish) from Yap. (85): 87 Further archaeological evidence from Micronesia will hopefully one day help to discover the birthplace of the bonito lure. (*2) Eilers is probably mistaken in her

identification of the shank material. All three of the shanks of hooks on Plts. 47 and 53 l.r. are made of white shell, possibly Tridacna, but not mother of pearl.

139

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 140

A Turtle Shell Hook Necklace Pl. 58

(*2)

The very old necklace on plate 58 with eight one-piece turtle shell hooks is an extreme rarity. The single closed turtle shell hook (*1) is very similarly shaped, and was probably part of a necklace as well. The origin of these pieces is not clearly established. As previously mentioned, they are known from the West Carolines, from Tobi (70): ill. 30, Yap (73): ill. 25, and as far as the Ulithi-Mogemog Atoll, and from the Central Carolines (75): ill. 89 and the Woleai Group. Kubary illustrates a similar necklace in the Godeffroy Journal (*2), (76): Pl. 4, Fig. 6. Treide shows one in the Leipzig Museum für Völkerkunde (77): Ill. 70, and Lautz one in the Rautenstrauch-Joest Museum (85): Ill. 144. Further examples of these necklaces may still be found in public ethnographic collections, most likely in Germany.

Müller calls them Gap, and describes them as belts worn for dancing, that were also used as forehead ornaments, and states that they were already very rare at the time of the Hamburger Südsee Expedition of 1908-1910.

Krämer says the following about these turtle shell hooks: “Ceremonial fish hooks cut from a piece of turtle shell were among the objects used as earrings and chest pendants.” He (Hellwig) calls them Gau Bodj. To be usable as fish hooks the connecting part between shank and point must be removed, so that the opening between the point and the shank is readily available, and the suspension hole is too.” (75): 224/25, ill. 90.

A Fish Hook Container from Woleai in the Central Caroline Islands

Pl. 59

(*1)

Pl. 59

Pl. 48 (*3) The two hooks on plate 60 with their leaders still attached were collected in the 1830’s

by Vincendon-Dumoulin on the Dumont D’Urville expedition.

140

The very meticulously made wooden container in plate 59 is of particular interest, and very rare as well. It seals tightly, and contains a number of small composite hooks, a length of finely made plant fibre line, and a triangular piece of turtle shell, for the manufacture of a replacement for a point that might be lost.

Only one comparable wooden receptacle, which likewise contains several composite hooks, is known in the literature, but it is significantly larger and less elegant. (61): Pl. 121.

These hooks stand out for the exceptional workmanship they display.

Their shanks are mostly of Spondylus, a highly prized type of shell, and are as ever made into a fish form, and the outer edges appear polished. The turtle shell points often have an outer barb, and are additionally fixed to the shank with two small wooden sticks. A short black plant fibre hackle is tied in as well. These small hooks appear to have become rare by the second half of the 19th century. Finsch did not observe any in 1880, and they are hardly ever seen in collections.

The composite hook from Ifaluk in plate 59 compares favorably to those from Woleai. Its mother of pearl shank has readily recognizable notches on it.

These help to secure the line to the shank, which is not equipped with holes, and is consequently comparable in this respect with hooks from Tobi (plate 48 top middle and right). Only very precisely made notches along the edges of the shank ensure the secure lashing of the turtle shell point and the leader to it. In fact such artful bindings can only be found in the Caroline. Comparable hooks may be seen

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 141

in Krämer (75): Ill. 23, 102 a-c, Damm (74): Ills. 93-96, 203-206, and Damm/Sarfert (79): Ill. 111.

Mother of Pearl Hooks from Nukuoro (*3) “Nukuoro abounds with Fish” The variants of these compact one-piece mother of pearl hooks were first Pl. 60 mentioned by Finsch (*4), (15): Pl. III. He describes the stages of their manufacture and the binding techniques. According to Kubary, the larger hooks were called Maimoni, and were used to catch larger bottom-dwelling fish. The first in-depth study of fishing on Nukuoro was done by Schmeltz and Krause, wherein they frequently refer to accounts given by Kubary, who lived in these islands in 1873 and (*4) again in 1877. “Fish abound in the lagoon as they do on the outer reef, and fishing is so developed that the natives must be considered, along with those of Palau, as the best fishermen of the Central Carolines.” (2): 330. The two authors are also the Pl. 61 first to mention the coconut bast mats for fish hook storage. “A natural piece of coconut bast 17 centimeters long and 8 wide is sewn through with three sennit strings. Each of the strings has a row of many turtle shell hooks tucked under it, and each hook is approximately 18 millimeters long. The hooks are flat-sided and the point portion of every hook is bent back sharply toward the inner face of its (*5) A shell one-piece hook from Nukuoro shank. They are called Pelu-pelu and Kina, and are used only to catch small fish.” (*5), These small one-piece hooks appear to be very rare. Kubary schematically shows two small (2): 344. hooks called “Matau Pelu-pelu” and “Matau Kina.”

Eilers and other authors refer to them. For There is however conflicting information concerning the attribution of further comparative study see: (217) and (218). the coconut bast mats. Beasley illustrates two of them, identified as being from Tahiti, and says: “In no other instance do I know of a similar pad being in use, although in the Caroline and Gilbert Groups small plaited satchels are commonly made for the same purpose.” (8): 40/41. It is surprising that the sizes he gives for these mats are nearly identical to those described by Schmeltz and Krause. Anell illustrates a coconut bast mat with one-piece mother of pearl hooks on it, which he attributes to Tahiti (19): Pl. III, but notes that the “hooks bear a striking (*7) resemblance to the pearl shell hooks of Nukuoro, while the round specimens remind one in the same way of the small hooks occurring on Kapingamarangi. To each hook, furthermore, belongs a bait-line fastened to the middle of the pointlimb.” (19):101. A comparison with the coconut bast mat on plate 61 which has two Pl. 61 small Kai-nipiti mother of pearl hooks, raises the question as to how such similarities can exist. Since the population of Nukuoro is Polynesian, it is certainly possible that both the hook types and the coconut bast mats are carry-overs from Polynesia (*6).

An Unusual Hook from Kapingamarangi In addition to the small round coconut shell, mother of pearl and turtle Pl. 62 (*8) shell hooks known from this atoll – whose population is also Polynesian – larger and stronger hooks are also documented. According to Eilers, there are two forms. (*6) Verification of the circumstances and dates The hook illustrated on plate 62 “is characterized by the angular shape of

of collection for these mats would be very useful.

141

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 142

its cross section, and the hook’s outline is almost square.” (81): 74. It has a small unpronounced barb. Eilers illustrates hooks made of Meleagrina called Ti matau (*7 previous page). (81): Ill. 27/28.

Buck, who did research on the culture of Kapingamarangi several decades later in the late 1940’s, could no longer find this hook. But he showed Eilers’ illustrations to an elder he encountered, who was able to demonstrate on a model example the very complex and artful way in which the hook was bound to the line (*8 previous page). (82): Fig. 142. There is probably not another hook in Oceania with such complex lashings. The line consists of three strands of breadfruit bast twined tightly together. It is made with extreme care, and a large portion of it is tightly wrapped again with yet another fine line. Buck gives details on the painstaking way in which an elder named Tukohi manufactured this line: “The cord was made by the taka process of rolling the three plies just as readily as two plies.

He gradually thickened the cord from 3 to 4 mm by adding thicker strands of bast as he progressed to the length of two feet. Here he stopped leaving three long untwisted plies with which to form the lashing.” (82): 233.

Beasley illustrates only one large wooden hook from Kapingamarangi, comparable to the wooden shark hook presented by Eilers (8): Pl. CLIV and states: “For crudeness of outline and inferior workmanship, it would be hard to surpass, and it strongly bears out Mr. Ray's statement that these people produce practically nothing beyond what is furnished by nature.” (8): 101. His statement would have been less harsh, had Beasley known the Ti matau hooks.

(*1) Length of lower hook: 11,8 cm

A Fish hook Used as Currency (Marshall Islands) Pl. 63 Pl. 64

(*4) This hook is possibly now in the collection of the Vienna Museum für Völkerkunde.

(*) An unusual Marshall Island fish hook point with an inner barb. (length: 4,2 cm) (*3) These two hooks are the earliest known Marshall Islands examples. They were already in the Academy of Natural Science in Philadelphia at the beginning of the 19th century. Marshall Islands composite hooks that were also collected early, and accessioned between 1850 and 1860, are in the National Museum in Copenhagen.

142

Pl. 65

The composite hooks illustrated here (plates 63 and 64) are made in a very particular, if not especially artful manner. They come from the Marshall Islands, which are made up of the western Ralik Islands and the eastern Ratak Islands. This unique type of hook has also been found on the Mokil Atoll near Ponape, and on Kusaie Islands, although only the shanks are known from the latter location.

According to Sarfert, these examples all came from the Marshall Islands, and were called Jibon money (Jibon = Marshall Islands). (83): 215. Schneider further affirms that the complete hooks had monetary value, and refers to Poehl in support of this contention. He states: “This is (...) the only kind of shell currency that falls into the category of truly functional money, rather than into that of jewelry currency.” (84): 10.

According to Lautz, the Marshall Islands hooks were especially valuable objects. “Besides the mother of pearl shell kitchen knives on Palau and Yap, this was undoubtedly the only real currency in Micronesia that was derived from a utilitarian object and not a piece of jewelry. Indeed, this “currency form” was not only used for payment and purchase, but also for catching bonito. This type of mother of pearl fish hook appears to be the only one in all of Oceania that also had a currency value. All other hooks were really used exclusively for fishing, and not as money.” (85): 193/194.

The composite mother of pearl hook bound with a long ihrik line (*1), illustrated on plate 65, is an unusual and rare object of value. This 5 millimeter thick

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 143

cylindrical black and yellowish line is braided around a sennit line on the Marshall Islands. It is used as a belt for men, and also as currency. The combination of hook and line might have had special value (*2). Beasley was unaware of the hooks’ function as currency. He says of two hooks: “Those shown in Pl. CXLVI (*3) are illustrative of what native ingenuity can produce from a piece of rough pearl shell, since both barb and shank are of this material, and though as hooks they display but little artistic merit, yet their coarseness is at the same time an accession of strength. Moreover, I am of the opinion that, were these rough excrescences reduced to a flat surface, the nacre would be destroyed, and the hook as a lure become less efficient.” (8): 95.

The bonito hook on plate 63 (lower right) must be considered a rarity among the hooks presented here, in that it has a carefully crafted and beautifully formed whale bone point. We know from Erdland, who lived as a missionary on the Marshall Islands for many years around 1900, that in earlier times, sperm whale teeth were sometimes used for the fabrication of hooks. “But,” he says, “not anymore.”

(86): 48. Only Finsch illustrates a nearly identical example. (*4), (15): P. III, Fig. 1.

Erdland takes exception to the opinions of Chamisso and Finsch, who maintained that the Marshall Islanders were never “eager and clever” fishermen.

He writes: “They have always relied on fish as a main food source, and they like it so much, that they have a real craving for it if they have to spend a few days without it (...). They keenly observe the “temperaments” of all the fish varieties, and how certain species gather at certain times of the year. Useful and effective tools for fishing were the results of their observations (...). Even nowadays, the hook made from the hinge portion of the mother of pearl shell is the best there is for catching larger fish. It is made of a shank and a curving bone or mother of pearl point.

For fishing, a piece of light pandanus leaf or a bundle of hibiscus bast is attached to the knot in the line, in such a way that the leaf or the bast are aligned at an angle next to the mother of pearl shank, and mimic the wings of a flying fish.

To catch bonito, the line is attached to the sailing canoe and pulled with short tugs.

The bonito are attracted by the gleaming of the mother of pearl shell, attack what they think is the flying fish, and with a quick jerk, the fisherman gets the hook into the fish’s palate or the side of its mouth.” (86): 47/48, (*5).

Erdland mentions another method of fishing, used to catch flying fish, which is widespread throughout Oceania in many variations: “In earlier times, the natives caught flying fish with a device made of coconut shell.” (86): 48. Krämer and Nevermann illustrate this device with a float, variants of which are knownfrom the Marshall and Caroline Islands (*6).

They say the following about it: “The coconut shell fish hook used to catch flying fish consists of an angled cut piece of coconut shell. Each of the legs is about 3.5 to 4 cm long. This hook is attached to a thin twined line that is kept in an empty coconut shell, which has a stopper plug made of leaves. The coconut shell serves as a float for the hook when fishing.” (*7). (88): Vol.I, 141. According to Hambruch, the fishing is best when the weather is calm. “Hundreds of flying fish are taken in a short period of time in this manner.” (88): 141.

Pl. 63

(*2) Two Marshall Islands hooks, firmly tied together with a carefully twisted plant fibre line, certainly had currency value. They are in the collections of Stuttgart’s Linden Museum (Inv.Nr.53571). Another hook in the Museum für Völkerkunde in Dresden (Inv.no.22283) is kept in a small bag made of coconut fibres. Kept in this unique “package” it was probably used as currency as well. (length of each hook c. 10 cm)

(*7) (*5) Such a complete bonito hook can be found in the Museum für Völkerkunde in Munich under Nr.: 26-T-2364. Most other hooks have lost the fragile plant fibres. (*6) Flying fish are caught with similar floated hooks in Nauru, Faraulip and Namonuito.

143

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 144

Nauru – No Survival Without Fishing

(*) Festival attire of participants in the fish dance on Nauru; in: Peoples of all Nations, Vol.II, p.

966/967.

Pl. 67

Pl. 66

144

There are no other islands for hundreds of kilometers around Nauru. Its inhabitants had to rely on fishing, especially since they had no systematic agricultural systems and only pandanus and coconut trees to supply them with fruit.

As drought often brought down these trees and whatever plants they had, or because the yield they produced had been used up, the ocean and its resources were all that remained for the islanders. “On more than one occasion, when the situation was desperate, the sea has helped to prevent mass famine, and even the extermination of the population. When there was need, the Nauran fished(...). The native cannot be long without fish (...). All of the islanders are fishermen, the men as well as the women. The latter tend to the preparation of the fish as side dishes(...). The men fish on the high seas and deal with the heavy tasks. There are average and expert fishermen. The latter must prove to witnesses their proficiency in certain techniques relating to the capture of a particular species. Some fishermen master the techniques for only one species, others master them for several. I only met one fisherman, the elder Tedabage from the Menen district in the south, who could successfully catch all 300 of the fish species known on the island. He was therefore known on the island as Aman Ian Ar (master fisherman).” (89): 95.

The large V-shaped hook shown here is made of hard and resistant Callophyllum wood. The surface of the unevenly long sides is smoothed. The longest side has a knob at its end which prevents the sennit leader from slipping off. The point is on the shorter side, and is an L-shaped piece of hardwood inserted in a notch and attached to the longer piece with a tight plant fibre binding. The tip of the point is sharpened, and directed inwards at a right angle to the point limb.

The stone sinker is a piece of coral rock, and attached to the line between 50 and 100 centimeters from the hook. The sinker is wide at the base and tapers to a point.

A piece of sennit tied around the stone sinker keeps it secured to the line. Kayser, who was a priest on Nauru over a hundred years ago, provides very interesting information on the use of the stone sinker: “As its name implies, its purpose is to bring the hook and its line to the desired depth. But it also serves as an orientation point on the line, which can be very useful to the fisherman when he is catching dangerous animals that can inflict bites. It could happen on dark nights, when the fisherman is hauling up his dangerous and heavy prey, that his hand would get too close to it, and it might injure him in its rage. But when, while pulling up the line with his hands, the fisherman gets to the stone sinker, he knows exactly what distance remains between him and the animal, and so can avoid coming to harm. He stops pulling when he gets to the sinker, and grabs it tightly with his left hand, maintaining control of the animal. He then uses a wooden hammer with his right hand to kill his prey by beating it on the head. When the animal has been rendered harmless, he uses the sinker to pull it onto the canoe.” (89): 108. According to Hambruch, this hook is used for catching sharks, Ruvettus, and other fish species.

(88): 127.

Plate 66 illustrates an old and rare composite hook, that shows a strong influence from Banaba (Ocean Island), which is far to the east. On this example the

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 145

shank is made of what is probably fossilized Tridacna shell, which has been masterfully polished and worked into its fish-like shape. The head has a hole drilled through for the attachment of plant fibre line. The point is made of human bone.

Bone from around the eye socket was preferred for this purpose, because it was deemed to be indestructible. It can be assumed that the bone point was inserted into a notch at the base of the shank as it was on Banaba. This bonito hook has a hibiscus bast artificial hackle tied in at the shank base, again just like on the Banaba examples. The bone point is secured to the shank with human hair and tree sap.

Hambruch mentions notched shanks made of aragonite, as well as of mother of pearl, coming from Banaba. He also illustrates one-piece hooks made of both coconut shell and mother of pearl. (88): Ills. 211/212.

Kayser relates that at the beginning of the 20th century, fishermen were making inwardly curved one-piece hooks primarily out of the steel spokes of broken umbrellas (89): 107, ills. 4c. Kayser had thorough knowledge of fishing on Nauru, and we quote him in closing: “Fishermen were not allowed to eat the fish they themselves had caught. Strangers were in principle allowed to eat them, but were not to consume any other food at the same time. Europeans were often denied fish, because it was deemed that their habit of eating many things together would have adverse consequences on the fishermen’s future success. Because the Ani (spirit) of the fish was Egirow (evil) and did not play games (...). After they had been cooked, the fish had to be consumed immediately where they lay(...). Any leftovers – ribs, scales, etc. – and even entire fish were brought back to the open sea packed in baskets, and lowered down.” (89): 129/130.

(*) Hook shanks used in a family crest from Nauru. (88): Pl. 99

The Stalactite Fish Hooks of Ocean (Banaba) Island This is the title of a paper by Maude and Lampert that deals thoroughly Pl. 68 with a remarkable and distinctive type of hook that is known only from this tiny island. (90). Like Nauru, Banaba is similarly isolated and lies in an arid zone extending north and south of the equator. Its inhabitants can be very adversely impacted by persistent drought, just like those of the Gilbert Islands some 500 kilometers to the east. Despite the fact that these islands lie in one of the most inhospitable regions of our planet, they have among the highest population densities in Oceania. This can only be explained by the inhabitants’ exceptional ability to adapt to the hostile environment around them. “Lacking the fertile volcanic soil of the high islands, the coconut-bearing coralline flats of the low islands, or even the relatively productive coastal rim of Nauru (...) the inhabitants were reduced to a virtually exclusive diet of fish.” (90): 415. Because the sea’s resources could be relied on consistently, fishing methods and techniques evolved to a very high standard. “Necessity has made the natives perhaps the most expert fisherman in the Pacific, and this in spite of the difficulties which the formation of the islands offers to the exercise of this craft.” (91): 574. “For the Banabans (...) one of the most popular types of fishing was trolling for the surface-feeding bonito with a composite lure hook known as Kaneati. Among the Gilbertese the shank of the Kaneati was made out of pearl shell. (...) The Banabans, however, whose skill in

(*) An chest ornament from Nauru in the shape of a fish hook shank made of mother of pearl, covered with weaving of Pandanus and Hibiscus bast. (88): Pl. 36a/b

145

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

Pl. 68

(*1)

(*3)

Pl. 68

(*2) “(...) when the taboo was removed in my favour”

146

18:14 Uhr

Seite 146

bonito fishing, perhaps from dire necessity, surpassed that of the Gilbertese on their home islands, could seldom use pearl shell, which was unable to find a congenial environment on the narrow reef of the island or its steep sides plunging almost vertically to the ocean floor. (...) As for tridacna shells, they were scarce both on Ocean Island and Nauru. (...) The traditional raw material for making bonito hooks being, therefore, either absent or too scarce for general use it was fortunate that the geological structure of Ocean Island resulted in its being honeycombed with caves (bangabanga) and that in them were found stalactites and associated stalagmites (*1) formed of carbonate and phosphate of lime.” (90): 418. As the hooks illustrated in plate 68 clearly show, this rare material was perfectly suited for the manufacture of shanks. Only women were allowed to collect it from the family owned caves. “Any man found in the caves, or hiding near them, being liable to be killed. This tabu was said to be due to the fact that, owing to the intense heat in the deeper caves, the women were accustomed to shed their clothes.” (90): 417.

Aside from the precious material used to make the fish hooks, the caves also contained fresh water reservoirs. We know from one of the few white men (*2) to have visited the caves in 1900 how intensively they were used: “Small pools of water were soon in evidence, and at these the women filled their baskets of coconut shells. The sides of the cave were more or less begrimed with the smoke of torches used by generations of Banabans. (...) Very few stalactites were to be seen, the native having removed them for the purpose of making their useful bonito hooks.” (92): 23. According to Mahaffy, who visited Banaba in 1896 and 1908, these hooks were very highly prized. They alone were used to fish for bonito, although European metal hooks were already in use for catching other kinds of fish. The first illustration of this type of hook is probably the one which appears in Finsch in 1893 (*3), and he states the following: “These shanks or rounded shanks are slightly tapered at the head, where a hole, used for the attachment of the line, is bored through them. A lengthwise groove is ground into the inner face at the base of the shank. The point is inserted into the groove, and then fastened to the shank with a fine twine. Holes are not bored into the shank, but a groove around it (in fact it is a raised band just around the edge of the base) helps to fix the line securely to it (*4). The very neatly worked point is made of bone, very probably sperm whale tooth (*5). Some of these hooks are equipped at the base with the usual hackle of hibiscus fibres. The main line is finely braided from Hibiscus bast.” (15): 55, Pl.III,3. Finsch states that around his time – 1880 – these bonito hooks could no longer be found. During a several months’ stay on Banaba in 1931, Maude made the acquaintance of a village chief named Eri, who made one of the last bonito hooks. Probably the most thorough study ever made of the process of the manufacture of an Oceanic fish hook thus became available. (90): 419/420.

Despite the fact that different materials were used for the lines, the hooks on plate 68 share many similarities. The line used to secure the bone point to its shank on the hook on the right is particularly fine and strong. Human hair is braided with hibiscus fibre. This very resistant line is called Nimaerere. This hook has another particularity. It has a second hole, which is filled with a black substance,

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 147

and which in all probability represents the eyes of the stylized fish (*6). Only Beasley illustrates a similar hook with two holes. (8): Pl. CXLII. Even when this unusual hook is found on Nauru or the Gilbert Islands, it originates from Banaba. “Drift voyages between Ocean Island and Nauru were common and many of the immigrants would have engaged in fishing when blown away from their island.” (90): 421.

Maude and Lampert raise the interesting question as to why these fascinating hooks developed only on Banaba. “When one considers the degree to which the Nauruan culture, and in particular the material culture, has been influenced by Ocean Island and Gilbertese castaways, who formed one of the twelve tribes on Nauru, it seems surprising that the art of making stalactite hooks did not become established there, where there were both caves and stalactites.”

(90): 421. This could be explained by the scarcity of the materials needed to make the hook shanks which were so vital to the catching of the bonito and to the islanders’ survival. The beautifully crafted hooks shown here, and the mastery of the various materials they display, are undoubtedly the product of centuries of experience and evolution. The high level stone age workmanship observed on these and many other Oceanic hooks is reminiscent of that seen on Danish stone battle axes from the time of transition between the stone and bronze ages. Metal blades eventually replaced these masterfully made stone ones, just as industrially produced metal hooks eventually replaced the fascinating stone age fish hooks over Oceania’s vast area in a relatively short period of time.

(*4)

The Gilbert Islands (Kiribati) Just as it is for the peoples of Nauru and Banaba, the sea is the main food Pl. 69 source for the inhabitants of the Gilbert Islands. According to Koch, the natives have names for 80 to 100 kinds of edible fish, which are caught in over 50 ways.

“Totemic beliefs forbid many families from catching certain kinds of fish. Sharks, rays and moray eels are among these varieties.” (93): 22/23. By the time of Koch’s stay on the islands in 1964/1965, most traditional hooks had long been replaced by European ones. Bonito fishing was still practiced, as in many parts of Oceania.

Only a few men remained who could make the bonito hook (Kaneati) with the fishshaped mother of pearl shank. Koch successfully collected 19 bonito hooks. Three of them had stalactite shanks, and had been imported from Banaba. The points on the remaining 16 hooks are made of coconut shell, mother of pearl, ancestors’ bones, puffer fish spines, and even of copper, and are mostly tied to the mother of pearl shank in the eastern Micronesian manner. As in other parts of Micronesia, the mother of pearl shanks are highly valued, and are worn as neck ornaments by men while dancing.

Both pieces of this bonito hook (Kaneati) (*7) were collected together a hundred years ago. The shank is made of mother of pearl. It is perforated at one end for the attachment of the fishing line. The human bone point is attached to the shank in the East Micronesian manner (see (*1) on the following page). The shank has a notch on either side of it. What is evidently the earliest illustration of this type

(*7)

(*5) Finsch is mistaken here. According to Maude and Lampert (90): 420 this point was made of human bone. (*6) The shanks of bonito hooks are made in the shape of a stylized fish in all regions of Oceania.

147

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

Pl. 69 (*2)

18:14 Uhr

Seite 148

of hook appears in Klemm’s book, published in 1854 (105): Fig. 96 (*1). It displays a very artful binding of the point to the shank. Klemm mentions the use of human hair as a hackle, while similar hooks from Koch have hackles made of pig bristle.

The two hooks collected by Koch and illustrated here (*2) display significant differences. (*2(b)) illustrates a hook type mentioned above related to the ones we know from Banaba, insofar as the point is attached without a drilled perforation. However (*2(a)) shows another type of attachment by aide of one hole drilled through the point and a small knob at its base. The hooks on plate 69 compare favorably to Koch’s drawing and illustrate further how the leader line which is looped around the point base is held down by the the two lines attaching the point to the shank.

Gilbert-Islands. An „Intermediate Hook“

Pl. 70

(*1)

This ancient hook, covered with bite marks, fits in Gudger’s category of “intermediate hooks.” The tree root or branch was trained into the right shape for a fish hook. Only the grown wood gives suffient strengh to withold the powerful bite and pull of Ruvettus or shark. The meticulously carved and polished point is fitted on the inside of the point limb and artfully and safely attached with twisted coconut fiber. Also the snood attachment is notably strong. A thinner twisted coconut string is wound around the sturdy coconut line at the head of the shank, thus giving additional strength and protection from the fish bite.

Unfortunately all collection history has been lost and only by comparing this hook to others in literature and collections with confirmed locations can we safely attribute this hook to the Gilbert Islands, yet without being able to give a specific island. Gudger illustrates several hooks most of which are housed in the Bishop Museum and were originally collected in the Gilbert Islands. (18):fig. 26, 26 He describes these hooks as follows: “They may fairly be designated as intermediate between undoubted shark hooks and undoubted Ruvettus hooks (...).

It plainly belongs among the intermediate forms since its rounded U-shaped base is that of a normal shark hook, while its horizontally placed palu barb allies it to the Ruvettus hooks.” (18): 238,240 Finally he refers to Finsch quoting him thus: “At the Gilberts, where in 1841, Wilkes was offered hooks in numbers, I found (1880) no specimens save the huge wooden hooks for catching sharks and the Ruvettus fish.”

(40): 132 He continues: “This we may take as an undoubted reference to our intermediate hooks.” (18): 242 (*3) An Enigmatic Shank from the Marianas Archipelago

Pl. 71

(*3) Further examples for intermediate hooks are illustrated in Beasley (8): pl. CXXXVII, CXXXVIII, CXL

148

This shank illustrated in plate 71 was masterfully made from very hard Tridacna shell, and meticulously ground and polished. The circular protrusions on either side of the tapered shank and its gently arched shape convey the impression of a diving or jumping fish. In this respect, this example is different from all other shanks of stylized fish form, which are more or less straight. This example has a distinctly sculptural feeling. Only the notch for the insertion of the point and the

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 149

groove around the shank’s base betray its identity as a part of a fish hook. What the complete hook looked like remains open to question, as long as a complete example does not surface. The V-shaped notch is very similar to the one observed on several of the stalactite shanks from Banaba. It is possible that the method of tying the shank to the point on the Marianas was comparable to that used on Banaba. The tying of the line to the circular protrusions was undoubtedly executed very artfully, perhaps using crossover techniques. The word “Marianen” is inscribed in pencil on the inner face of the shank. This attribution would be questionable, were it not for the fact that an example of identical form, 2.6 centimeters longer than this one, is illustrated in YAP – Volume 1, with the caption “Jewelry ornament.

Probably an old hook from the Marianas. Length 10.5cm (Slg. Müller 123).” (*4), (73): Ill. 117.

There is unfortunately no information concerning its collection history. It may be assumed that fishing with traditional hooks had not been practiced on the Marianas for a long time. With the exception of the shanks described here, no examples of traditional hooks are known in the literature or in collections. But the question of why a Marianas hook apparently appears in a publication on Yap is one that should be pursued. Because the former population of the Marianas was already under Spanish and missionary influence in the 16th and 17th centuries, and consequently nearly exterminated by disease, the traditional culture disappeared as well. The famous ruins on Tinian, already illustrated in 18th century voyage accounts, are all that remain of earlier times. Treide writes: “Regular contacts existed with the Carolines in the 19th century, most notably with Yap and Chuuk (Truk), from which ships’ crews intent on trading arrived.” (77): 26. It may thus have been one of those crews that brought the only other known Tridacna shank to Yap. Müller possibly collected it there, and included it in his publication. The origin of the second example remains unclear. It could have been used as a pendant ornament as well. It is interesting to note in connection with this that an also very perfect Tridacna shell pendant ornament is in the Museum für Völkerkunde in Berlin, but it shows no indication of having had anything to do with a fish hook.

(94): 138,VI 49735 and (85): Ill. 160/161.

In closing, we cite the following remark made by Meinicke: “Fishing among the former Chamorro was considered one of the most honorable occupations and was actively pursued. For this they needed hooks of mother of pearl, coconut shell or bone.” (95): Vol. II, 401. No reference is made to Tridacna shell shanks in this work either.

(*4) The line attached to the base indicates the re-use of the shank as an ornament. Originally the point would have been attached here and the leader at the heavier end (head) of the shank.

149

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 150

Caroline Islands (Tobi) 150

47/48

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 151

151

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 152

Some of the Caroline Islands seen from the air. The second photo shows a look at the heavy surf beating down on the reef.

Photographs by Gerd Kühnen, c. 1985

Caroline Islands (Ulithi Atoll) 152

49

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 153

153

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 154

Marshall Islands and Yap 154

50

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 155

155

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 156

Marshall Islands 156

51

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:14 Uhr

Seite 157

157

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 158

Caroline Islands 158

52/53

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 159

159

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 160

Caroline Islands 160

54/55

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 161

161

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 162

Caroline Islands (Mortlock Group) 162

56/57

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 163

163

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 164

Caroline Islands 164

58

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 165

165

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 166

Caroline Islands (Woleai) 166

59

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 167

167

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

168

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 168

Nukuoro The two hooks with their leaders still attached were collected in the 1830’s by Vincendon-Dumoulin on the Dumont D’Urville expedition.

60

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 169

169

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 170

Nukuoro 170

61

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 171

171

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 172

Kapingamarangi 172

62

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 173

173

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 174

Marshall Islands 174

63/64

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 175

175

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 176

Marshall Islands 176

65

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 177

177

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:15 Uhr

Seite 178

Nauru 178

66

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite 179

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite 180

Nauru 180

67

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite 181

181

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite XIII

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite XIV

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite 182

Banaba 182

68

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite 183

183

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite 184

Gilbert Islands 184

69

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite 185

185

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite 186

Gilbert Islands 186

70

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite 187

187

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite 188

Mariananas Archipelago 188

71

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite 189

189

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

Fish weirs on Huahine, Society islands.

Fish pond in the Hawaiian Islands.

Photograph by Alonso Gartley, c.1900

190

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite 190

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite 191

Polynesia The several thousand Polynesian islands with varying but generally small land areas extend over a huge part of the Pacific Ocean. Hawaii, Easter Island and New Zealand are the three corners of what is referred to as the “Polynesian Triangle.”

The use of the sea’s food resources led to the creation of highly perfected and beautifully made fishing equipment. This is clearly demonstrated by the fish hooks presented here, which in both form and function are precisely designed to match the characteristics of the numerous species which occur in Polynesian waters (*1).

In some areas Polynesian fishermen sought to enhance the efficiency of their hooks by using the bones of high ranking individuals, celebrated warriors or especially successful fishermen for their fabrication. Such bones were believed to contain a force called mana that could be transmitted to the hooks. Since this force could also be dangerous, the handling of objects imbued with mana required compliance with defined rules.

The manufacture of fish hooks combined knowledge transmitted through generations about the habits of the various fish species with a similarly acquired understanding of the ways to use and work the many materials involved. The hook had to fit the jaw of the fish it was intended to catch. It had to hold the prey securely. The materials had to be suited to the pressure applied by the biting and pulling fish, and finally, the line had to be secured to the shank and be strong enough to withstand the animal’s struggles.

Ellice Islands (Tuvalu) This tiny island group consists of nine atolls, which together have an area of barely 25 square kilometers but which are densely populated. Life on these islands is more difficult than it is on Polynesia’s volcanic islands, which are covered with luxuriant vegetation. The Ellice Islanders were remarkably successful at adapting to their meager environment. But just as on the coral islands of Micronesia, the population could not survive from what the land alone would yield, and the food resources of the sea were vital to its survival.

“Like their lifestyle as a whole, the Islanders’ ways of fishing are a mixture of very primitive methods and other very thought out and complex ones, the results of long experience and a precise understanding of the natural world around them.” (17): 19. According to Koch, the master fishermen of the Nukufetau Atoll have 47 methods of catching the many species of fish they hunt in the sea and in the lagoon. Bonito fishing is especially well loved, as is fishing for Ruvettus, which might take all night, and requires special patience. Koch makes the interesting observation that a boat does not always set out to fish in one particular way, but rather that the method used is subject to change according to the prevailing circumstances and opportunities. To acquire the needed abilities, little boys begin to help with certain aspects of the work at a very early age, and by the time they reach the age of 15, they are trusted with a majority of the difficult tasks and

(*1) Titcomb, M: Native Use of Fish in Hawaii, Honolulu 1972. The author describes the many species of fish that played a role in beliefs, and the worship of fish gods (152).

191

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

Pl. 72 Pl. 73 Pl. 78

(*1) Detail (Museum für Völkerkunde Dresden, Inv.Nr. 17621

Pl. 72 Pl. 73

(*3)

18:16 Uhr

Seite 192

methods. Only a few however, will attain the status of the Tautai (master fisherman), who is well versed in even the most complex techniques.

Plates 72, 73 and Koch’s drawing (17): fig. 21 illustrate bonito hooks with bone points. The hook illustrated in plate 78 (bottom right) is similar to the threeholed points illustrated by Koch (17): Ill. 21a. Two similar hooks with bone points pierced in three places have been housed in the collection of the Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde in Dresden since 1903 (No’s.: 17619 and 17620). (*1) Kennedy mentions turtle shell points attached to mother of pearl shanks on Vaitupu in the Central Ellice Islands (24): 39, and according to Hedley there were mother of pearl shanks with bone, mother of pearl and turtle shell points on Funafuti (20): 39. The remains of a feather fly hackle are apparent on the hooks on plates 72/73. Beasley and Koch both illustrate complete hackles. Like Kennedy, Koch examines bonito fishing in detail. We learn from him that: “The bonito hook was attached to a tree bast line some five meters in length, which was in turn tied to a somewhat shorter rod. Most often, several lines with hooks were spaced along this rod. In this way, with the various colours and tint of his hooks at his disposal, the fisherman could be prepared for any situation, and also had plenty of hooks in reserve.” (17): 41.

Koch (*2) illustrates an extremely rare necklace made of 34 stylized fish mother of pearl shanks of varying length. (17): plate XII (*3). It had been handed down through eleven generations. Koch remarks: “The eldest sons of the master fishermen of Niutao wore 20 to 30 mother of pearl bonito hook shanks (paa) around their necks. These were strung on a thin sennit line (kolokolo). Four or five of these mother of pearl shanks were similarly considered a valuable family heirloom (pakasoa) on Nukufetau.” (17): 91.

One-piece Hooks

Pl. 74

(*2) Gerd Koch was the director of the Oceanic collections in Berlin from 1957 to 1985, and spent nine months conducting research on the Ellice Islands. (*4) The words “Phoenix Islands” are inscribed on a tag that hangs from the hook, and on the shank as well. (*5) The one-piece hooks from Kapingamarangi also have a similar shape.

192

The one-piece turtle bone fish hooks on plate 74 are among the unmistakable types from Oceania (*4).

Beasley calls them the “earliest types of primitive hooks to be found anywhere in the Pacific. (...) None offer less practicable outlines combined with unsuitability of material. (...) The use of these is now long obsolete, and they are highly valued by the natives, though more as heirlooms than as being imbued with magical powers.” (8): 25 (*5) Anell illustrates nine hooks of varying sizes from the Pitt Rivers Museum, one of them even with its complete leader. He states it is “undoubtedly very archaic in form” (19): 95, and that it is the most common type in the Ellice Islands. It is however seldom seen in public collections, and is probably also scarce in private ones. The notches on these nearly 9 centimeter long hooks were generally very carefully made, in order to ensure that the line remained well bound to the hook.

There are unfortunately no indications in the literature as to what kinds of fish they were used to catch.

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite 193

Ruvettus Hooks According to Koch, only the Tautai (master fishermen) were permitted to manufacture Ruvettus hooks. “They carve both the shank and the point out of Pemphis acidula wood (which is denser and therefore heavier than water), and tie the two pieces together with a kafa binding. Tree bast line is used to secure the bait (to the point) (*6). It was only at night, in a complete calm and the absence of rain, that this hook was lowered to a depth of 150 to 200 meters from a boat about a mile from the island’s shore. The hook was baited with a half or entire flying fish and tied to a sennit line (kafa), to which a stone sinker was attached some 30 centimeters above the hook. (...) One might be alone in the little boat, or one of several, in which case there would be two lines, and if one had success other boats would soon follow. As many as ten crews, far from one another, might be fishing for Palu at one time. A larger boat might bring home nine or ten of these large fish after a successful night’s hunt.” (17): 38. The plate 75 shows a particularly sturdy binding. Koch publishes a very similarly made Ruvettus hook. (17): Ill. 20.b.

Pl. 75 Pl. 76

Pl. 75

Futuna With regards to fishing, little is known about this island of volcanic origin.

It has neither reef nor lagoon, rises abruptly from the sea, and so offers only limited possibilities for fishing. “In fishing the people of Futuna are less advantageously situated than those of Uvea. On the whole fishing is a less important industry than in most Polynesian islands.” (96): 298.

The hooks on plates 77 and 78 were used for bonito fishing. We know from Pl. 77 Burrows, who did research on Futuna in the 1930s, that: “Trolling for bonito and, Pl. 78 probably, for other deep-sea fish was formerly an important fishing method (...) and composite bonito hooks with shell shanks are not uncommon. (...) Pa is the general name for composite hooks for trolling, with shell shanks. (...) Whole hooks are called Pa tofe. The shanks, called ika (fish), are of pearl shell (tofe) (...). They are of the usual western Polynesian form. All the complete specimens have hackles (henga) (...).” (97): 107/108. Burrows further gives a detailed description of the bonito hook (*7).

According to Burrows, a row of fish hooks, whose mother of pearl shanks vary in colour, are taken along. This prepares the fisherman for any weather conditions. The Tautai at the stern of the boat gave instruction to the two or three (*6) Not present on any of the published hooks other fishermen, who also paddled. “When the boat approached a school of except (3): vol. II, plate 96, fig. 1. bonito, the fishermen took his pole from a rest on the outrigger booms and sat in (*7) The point was attached to the shank by a cord run through holes in the point base and fishing position behind him, to the right side. The butt end was caught under his around the shank. (...). Separate pieces of seat (...). The pole was at such an angle that the hook skimmed along the surface of lashing line were used for each hole. The fishing line was run through the proximal hole in the the water. The paddlers made their best speed to get into the midst of the bonito base and doubled back to form a snood (...) the two ends were joined by seizing, all the way school. When a fish took the hook the fishermen pulled it inboard by swinging the from the point to the hole in the proximal end of the shank. The doubled line was (...) attached pole around to the right and in front of him, at the same time raising the tip so the at two points by lashing with the cord used for fish swung clear of the water and came in above the sides of the canoe. Frequently seizing the snood.” (97):107/108 it struck the fisherman in the chest. It might be knocked off the hook by this blow (*8) Kennedy documented all the phases of the bonito hunt with photographs over 80 years and fall into the bottom of the canoe.” (97): 109 (*8). ago. (24): Pl. 7-10.

193

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite 194

Tokelau Islands Pl. 79 Pl. 80 Pl. 81 Pl. 82

(*1)Tokelau hook, detail.

Pl. 82 Pl. 81

(*2) a drawing from Gudger illustrating how a Ruvettus hook point is fit into the shank tip.

(18):Fig.38

Pl. 81

Pl. 81 Pl. 79 Pl. 80

194

The group consists of three atolls in the border area between Micronesia and Polynesia. Meinicke states in 1875: “Agriculture is unknown to them, which is why they fish assiduously with nets and cleverly made hooks, made of wood, shell and bone. (...) They show a great deal of cleverness in the manufacture of fishing equipment.” (95): Part II: 130. He mentions the primitive tools, including stone and shell blades, drills with stone bits, shark skin files, and “especially the very handsomely carved wooden boxes with lids.” (95): 130.

The most complete account of fishing in the Tokelau Group is given by MacGregor, who spent two months doing research on Atafu in 1932, and who was able to learn a great deal from a native man born in the middle of the 19th century.

Plate 82 shows a beautifully formed hook made of coconut shell, with a complex and perfect attachment to the leader (*1).

Plate 81 shows a wooden box for hooks mentioned above, called Tuluma, along with two of the very distinctive one-piece hooks (upper row) and two small Ruvettus-type hooks (lower row). They rank among Oceania’s most perfectly shaped hooks. It impresses with its combination of great elegance and complete functionality. The beautiful work on the thin and brittle coconut shells is also remarkable, given the rudimentary tools available to execute it. These hooks are seldom seen in public collections, even though Beasley illustrates a whole series of them. (8): Pls: XLVI/XLVII. An example of a bone hook very similar to the one on plate 81 also appears in Beasley, along with the information that it is unique. His contention that these one-piece hooks were manufactured in imitation of similarly shaped Ruvettus hooks seems plausible because their points are also directed inwards towards the shank. With regards to the secure and artful method of attaching the leader, he states: “a strong lug projecting from the back affords a firm hold for the leader, which may either be plain or looped.” (8): 33. These characteristics of the binding of the hook to the line are apparent on the two purposefully crafted small Ruvettus hooks on the plate. The very exact fit of the wooden point into its shank is also noteworthy. MacGregor describes the difficult process of making the grooves for the point: “A V-shaped groove is cut along the outer part of the upper end of the point limb, and a deep notch is cut in the tip. The inner part of the point tip has an angular face to fit this groove, and the angular under side of the point fits into the notch.” (98): 103. (*2) The drawing above shows how precisely these complex fittings were made. The second Ruvettus hook (lower left of plate 81) has an aberrant shape, which is due to the shape of the tree limb it was made from. The large Ruvettus hooks on plates 79 and 80 are significantly different from the previously described example. They also differ from comparable hooks from the Ellice Islands in that coconut bast is added to protect the lashings on the hooks. The bast is covered with an additional sennit binding in three areas, and the meticulously made coconut bast line is also wound with sennit, which protects it against damage from fish teeth. In light of the care and attention to detail with which these Ruvettus hooks were made, it is quite surprising that MacGregor states that Ruvettus fishing was of only minor importance to the Tokelau Islanders. “Only

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite 195

two Palu-fishing expeditions took place during the 10 weeks of the field trip to Atafu.” (98): 105. According to him, the methods used by the Atafu fishermen to catch the Ruvettus are identical to those described by Kennedy for the Ellice Islanders.

MacGregor describes various composite hooks from the Tokelau Islands in detail, which he indicates are manufactured like the bonito hooks. (98): 106/107. These bonito hooks are identical to those from the Ellice Islands and Futuna, and examples lacking reliable collection data cannot be attributed with certainty to any one of these places specifically.

“In fishing and techniques of manufacturing fishing equipment, the Tokelau and Vaitupu (Ellice-Island) cultures are almost identical. The fishing culture of these atolls is also closely parallel to the Samoan.” (98): 169. MacGregor observes that each bonito hook is made with the greatest attention to detail, and that the mother of pearl shanks are variously coloured. Which colour will be most likely to tempt the fish to bite is determined by the prevailing weather conditions. “A fisherman has three or four lines to his pole, each with a bonito hook having a differently coloured shank. (...) The only variation in the construction of this bonito hook from the Samoan hooks is a third hole at the base of the point in the Tokelau hook, which is used only for the attachment of the shank. In this characteristic it corresponds to the hooks of Vaitupu, Ellice Islands.” (98): 109.

Samoan fishermen setting out for bonito.

Pl. p.175 in: Flaherty, Robert J.: Samoa, Berlin, 1932 (photographed by the author).

Samoa The following observations primarily cite the work of Demandt (1913) and Te Rangi Hiroa (1930), as it was they who did the most complete research on fishing on the Samoan Islands. (99), (100). Krämer, who begins a chapter entitled “Hook Fishing” in his monograph published in 1902/1903 by stating that “The Samoan hooks, called Matau, are not so artfully made as those of neighbouring island groups,” is criticized by Demandt for his failure to become acquainted with most of the hook types present. Beasley did not know Demandt’s monograph, and wrote: “The Samoan, as judged by his hooks, must have been both a poor fisherman and an (*) “Bringing In” of the bonito. (99): Pl. II indifferent maker of hooks.” (8): 22. Even Herdrich and Armstrong’s “Historic Pl. 83 Fishing Methods in American Samoa,” published in 2008, ignores the most Pl. 84 Pl. 86 important source, and quotes Krämer instead.

According to Demandt, the Samoan fished mainly in the lagoons, as the high seas had much fewer fish to offer him. He wrote: “Because the native fished primarily in the lagoon, he adapts his fishing methods very closely to the rise and fall of the tides, and is forced to fish in certain ways and for certain species according to their movements. The ebbing tide (...) is the right time for fishing smaller fish and sea creatures. The rising tide, which always brings in a large variety 195

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

(*1) A very small, 3,1 cm long, composite hook with a two colured mother of pearl shell shank.

Pl. 83 Pl. 84

Pl. 83 Pl. 84

(*2) Pearl shell shanks are rarely seen, because the shell does not occur on the Samoan coasts, and had to be imported from other islands. (*3) Only Demandt, the most knowledgeable ethnologist on Samoan fishing methods, points this out. (99):77 (*4) Beasley: “These lines are always a work of art. The light brown colour of the fibre is in itself pleasing, but what is so remarkable is the wonderful evenness of the plait.” (8): 24.

196

18:16 Uhr

Seite 196

of fish, also offers opportunities, while high water is the best time to use fishing methods designed to catch larger prey.” (99): 11. According to Demandt, the Samoan fished with both the one-piece hook called Matau, as well as with the composite hook, called Pa. There is no indication that Ruvettus fishing was practiced.

Demandt presents a variety of composite hooks, and describes their use in detail. He distinguishes three groups: The small Pa laiti (*1), the Pa ala, and the bonito hooks, Pa atu. The Pa laiti have flat shanks made of various sea or snail shells (*2), which are wider at their heads and drilled with two holes. There is a groove at the base of these shanks which helps keep the plant fibre line securely bound to the point. It is vital that “the line or its leader should first be tied to the point, and not the shank. The line and point can only be attached to the shank once this connection has been made.” (99): 29. From the edges of the reefs, as the water was coming in, one fished for smaller fish using these small hooks, pulling them across the water by means of a rod. (*1) is a hook of this type.

The Pa ala are the second composite hook type. They are in many respects similar to the Pa atu bonito hooks. But the Pa ala always have feathers of the Tropicbird (Phaeton aethereus) tied to their bindings from the head to the base of the shank (*3).

The hooks illustrated on plates 83 and 84 are of the Pa ala type. According to Demandt, the Pa ala is the only Samoan hook “that has, since a long time ago, had a leader. It consists of a thin and spun meter long Soga bast (Pipturus) line, while the main line itself (Ta’a) is made of specially braided sennit (Afa).” (99): 31.

The hooks with leaders and lines (*4) on the plates are outstanding examples of Pa ala, even if only fragmentary remains of the white Tropicbird feather hackles are still present. The shanks are made of various kinds of sea and snail shell, while the points are always made of turtle shell. The peppered shanks made of Conus virgo and called Pa ala lau are especially appealing (first in plate 83), as are those made of Cypraea Mauritania (third in plate 83 and first in plate 84), on which the lip area of the shell displays beautiful colour contrasts. They demonstrate how artfully the colourful lip and its serrated edge are made into shanks. These hooks, called Pa ala foafoa, are to be counted as among the most attractive in all of Oceania. Hiroa went into great detail on the fabrication and bindings of Samoan composite hooks, and illustrated the phases of manufacture very clearly. (100): 495-503. He writes: “The making of hooks was expert work and a master fisherman (Tautai) was not always a good hookmaker. A certain amount of ceremony is observed in making bonito hooks (...). The tools were the drill, rubbing stone and cutting implement. (...) In ancient times stone flakes must have been used for cutting the shell.” (100): 495.

The illustration “bonito hook (...).” is fascinating (*5), (100): Fig. 286.

Herdrich and Armstrong (2008) emphasize the meaning and importance of the bonito hook and its correct binding. They refer to Krämer, according to whom failure to observe very strict rules would bring bad luck and cause the hunt to be unsuccessful. (102): 19.

We learn that: “Bonito fishing was so special that there were many taboos, or restrictions, regarding it. To begin with, bonito was considered a fish for chiefs,

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:16 Uhr

Seite 197

and even the supreme god, Tagaloa, wanted a bonito (...). The first bonito of the season (...) should be given to the high chief; the first bonito in a new canoe is called Tagaloa's fish; sopoliu means to transgress the laws of bonito fishing by stepping over the canoe, and so on.” (102): 19. Demandt’s remarks on bonito fishing are of interest: “Although one would be hard pressed to find a Samoan who did not practice fishing in the lagoon, the opposite is true of deep-sea fishing. (...) At least half of the people, however capable they might be of doing so, do not go on shark and bonito hunts, (...) because they simply have no experience or training for it. (...) The best times for the bonito hunt are the beginning and the end of the rainy season, that is to say April and May, and November. These are the times at which the sea is very calm, and that is a prerequisite for success.” (99): 71.

Two further fishing methods described and illustrated by Hiroa need to be mentioned here: “Fish gorges (...) with sharply pointed wooden gorges (...) also made of fish bone were used.” (100): Fig.280, p. 490. Hiroa also describes the phases of the manufacture of the eel hooks called Matau tuna, which are made of hard wood (100): Fig. 281. Eels up to 2 meters in length live in the mangrove swamps that form where waters run into the sea. They also occur in the rivers in the mountainous areas.

The octopus lure on plate 86 (O le ma’a ta’i fe’e) resembles the examples illustrated by Demandt and Hiroa. The body of the lure consists of a very meticulously ground conical piece of calcite (*6). The gleaming brown speckled Pule shells (Cypraea tigris) are bound onto this stone with sennit, in such a way that the entire top of the shell is covered by it. The Samoan term Pule ta’i fe’e for the lure is derived from the name of the shell. “A sort of tail, made of flexible twigs with feathers and fringes attached to it, is secured to the shell. (...) The line is tied to the binding on the upper part of the shell in such a way that the Pule ta’i fe’e hangs in horizontally balanced equilibrium, with its tail extending from it, when suspended from the line.” (99): 88/89. The fisherman moves the Pule ta’i fe’e around when it drifts in the water, and its dancing motions are supposed to entice the octopus to attack. Herdrich and Armstrong describe this attraction as follows: “This motion was said to look like a rat, and when the shells click the stone, it was said to sound like the squeaks of a rat (this method is still used). The octopus was attracted to the lure and as the lure was drawn away, it held onto it even more with its tentacles. The fisherman drew it out of the water and (...) the octopus was bitten between the eyes to kill it. This fishing method, perhaps more than any other, is accompanied by a mythological story, which explains the style of the lure and why it should resemble the actions of a rat. Hiroa gives a version of the tale.” (100): 438, (102): 25.

(*5) Bonito hook in the position for lashing the snood and head. The craftsman sits cross legged on the floor. If the snood is short, a long cord (1) is tied to its end. With the point of the hook to the craftman’s left, the long cord (1) is passed over the right tight (2), brought back under the knee to pass across under the the left knee (3), and over the left tight to the middle line where it is hooked around the curved point of the hook (4). The cord is returned over the left tight under the left knee and across the right big toe (5) around which it is twisted.

Pl. 86

(*) Tasman’s ships lie at anchor at Tongatapu in the Tongan Islands, greeted by islanders in threeman canoes. This is the earliest illustration of fishing in all of Oceania, published in 1643, and showing Tongan fishermen engaged in bonito fishing and using the hook described below.

(112): 296.

(*6) We learn from Demandt that calcite was imported from the neighbouring island of Niue.

He did not observe the use of endemically occurring Samoan stones for the manufacture of the lures.

Tongan Islands The octopus lure from Tonga on plate 91 differes from the Samoan type only in not having any Pandanus leaves tied on to the stick. In all other aspects it is made and used in the same way. (*7).

The “classic Tongan hooks” are among those which were already collected

Pl. 91 Pl. 85 Pl. 87 Pl. 88

(*7) Koch tells us the Tongan octopus lure (Makafeke): (...) is made from a c.10 cm long stone, ground to a conical shape, to which are tied: two pieces cut from the Tiger cowrie (“back”), a piece of coconut palm root and a few strips from it’s leaf as “tail” (about 50cm long) and a few leaf pieces as “legs” so that the whole looks similar to a “rat.” Early in the morning and during low-tide one moves with the outrigger canoe over the reef, lowers the lure 20 to 50 cm down into the water holding it by the string, with jerking moves. The octopus grabs the “rat” and is taken and killed.” (216): 178 The illustration on page 53 shows a boy from the Loyalty Islands fishing with an octopus lure.

197

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

Pl. 89 Pl. 90 Pl. 91

(*4) A Tongan composite hook collected on Cook’s second voyage. (108): Pl. XII.

Pl. 85

(*) (113): Pl.32, Fig.27.

(*1) Abel Tasman mentions a trade in his 1643 journal, involving a bonito hook that was brought by three Tongans in a canoe. He writes: “In return for our gift, the people tied one of their fish hooks to the stick. The hook was made of a piece of mother of pearl shell in the shape of a small sardine.” (112). (*2) The shanks are made of whale bone or wood and mother of pearl, the points of turtle shell, all tied together with plant fibers. (*3) Hooks with early collection dates were often erroneously attributed to Otaheite. So, for example, five of the six hooks on a plate are attributed to Tahiti, when they are actually of Tongan origin. (107): Fig. 49.

198

Pl. 85

18:17 Uhr

Seite 198

and published in the 18th century (113): Pl. 32 (*1). Plate 85 shows noteworthy examples of these composite hooks, each assembled from four different materials (*2). The first and third of these have special characteristics that will be examined.

The fabrication of a hook like this requires experience, thorough understanding of the materials involved in making it, a developed sense of form, and consummate skill in the use of the simple stone-age tools that were available. All parts of it had to be manufactured with great precision, and then bound tightly together with plant fibre line. The hooks, called Ipa or Aipa, impress with the finely polished surfaces of all their parts, and the precision with which the shanks, the turtle shell points and the mother of pearl overlay pieces are drilled. These very distinctive hooks are not only highly functional and efficient, but testimonials to the highly developed aesthetic sense of their makers. Duff explains why it was usually necessary to make the shank out of whale bone: “Because pearl-shell was not thick enough to shape into the “minnow” lure, this was shaped from dense whalebone, faced with an inlaid base plate of shell.” (104): 53.

The hooks are frequently described as bonito hooks in the literature, but there can be doubt as to whether this is correct. They are markedly different from other bonito hooks in terms of length and weight, and because they have barbed points. Duff states: “The Tongan lure hook was twice as large as the standard bonito lure (Pa atu) from other Groups where also the recurved point on the tail was unbarbed to enable the fisherman to swing the bonito in-board in one dextrous motion. Intended to hook large tunny or kingfish too large to swing in-board, the Tongan hook was provided with a barb to hold the fish in deep water until it tired and could be drawn alongside.” (104): 53. Back to the first hook on plate 85: This Ipa is the oldest of this group and has a wooden shank. It has numerous bite marks from long and repeated use. The use of wood instead of whale bone as a shank material is extremely rare. Klemm was probably the first to mention a wooden shank in 1854: “The fish hooks of Otaheiti are worked with admirable meticulousness (*3). Their shanks are made from the middle portion of a bone, or of wood, and a piece of mother of pearl is laid onto the backs of them.” (105): 58.

Despite the fact that shanks made from wood, in some cases even decorated wooden club fragments, can be found in collections, the only hook with a wooden shank illustrated in the literature is in the Cook/ Forster collection at the University of Göttingen (Oz213), (106): 238b. It appears to have been little used, if at all. That easily accessible wood was replaced by whale bone, which was very difficult to obtain, as the material of choice for the manufacture of shanks might be because the light coloured bone together with the mother of pearl overlay were more attractive to the tunny and kingfish, and thus more likely to be taken.

The third hook differs from the others in that it has a two-piece turtle shell point. It is likely that the absence of a single piece large enough made it necessary to use two pieces, carefully made to be joined neatly to one another and “sewed together” with plant fibre line in two places. The joint is so well made that the point’s two-piece construction is only obvious upon close examination. Three other examples with two-piece points are known in the literature. Those in Stockholm (*4) and Vienna can be traced to Cook. The third, illustrated by Klemm, is apparently in

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:17 Uhr

Seite 199

the Leipzig Museum für Völkerkunde. (108): Pl. XII, 4; (109): Ill. 50; (105): Fig. 98.

This hook type could also be found on neighbouring island groups, because the Tongans were extraordinary navigators and maintained regular relations even with very distant islands. A hook in the Fiji Museum is identified as a “fine example of a Samoan type of lure”. It is further stated that: “Samoan in origin, these lures were also used in Tonga, whence they probably came to Viti in the late 18th century, when Lemaki craftsmen from Manono in Samoa settled in Lau.” (110): 147.

Bonito Hooks These composite hooks are about half the size of the classic Tongan hooks, and consist of a mother of pearl shank and a turtle shell point. Both examples on plate 89 are typical of this type, which appears in a very similar form in Samoa as well. Different in a few aspects (for instance that in most cases the upper part of the shanks are pierced twice), these hooks, which are exclusively for bonito fishing, are also found on Futuna and the Tokelau and Ellice Islands.

Illustrations of hooks of this kind collected on Cook’s voyages appear in Göttingen’s Cook/ Forster collection catalog (*5a/b). Krüger remarks: “Such composite fish hooks correspond to the Western Polynesian type and occur in such a similar form especially in Samoa.” (106): 322. Tongan hooks were very highly prized, and were also presented to people of high rank. Ma’afu, a prominent Tongan notable, gave the Governor of Fiji “a splendid large fish hook made of turtle shell, pearl and sinnet”, and said to him: “You have got the land, I bring you the water, as land without water is useless. Here it is with all the fish and living creatures in it.” (111): 120.

It should also be mentioned that what is probably the earliest illustration of fishing in all of Oceania, published in 1643, shows Tongan fishermen engaged in bonito fishing and using the hook described above (ill. p. 197). (112): 296.

Pl. 88 Pl. 89

(*) Drawing by John Clevely of two bonito hooks collected on Cook’s second voyage.

Tongan Ruvettus Hooks Like the west Polynesian bonito hooks, similarities between them make the Ruvettus hooks difficult to attribute to any specific island group. In his thorough (*5a) A bonito hook collected on Cooks 2nd voyage, now kept in the Ethnological museum in work on the subject, Gudger shows several examples from Tonga. (18): Fig. 43, 44.

Vienna (length 9,7 cm).

The one illustrated on plate 90 is similar to those, but also shows some resemblances Pl. 90 to hooks from Tokelau and the Ellice Islands. Anell doubts the occurrence of the Ruvettus hook on Tonga, because it is not used on Samoa, Fiji or Futuna, but forgets to mention that its use is widespread on Niue, east of Tonga. Gudger writes: “there is one account of Ruvettus fishing in the Tongas. However, there is every reason to believe that Ruvettus could be taken in all of the Tongas for they are low, steepsided, coral atolls (...). Indeed Becke says that while Ruvettus is found at Tonga it is reported as rare.” (18):263.

Our hook, and the hook illustrated on Gudger’s Fig. 44, show a notch in Pl. 90 (*5b) Two further bonito hooks collected on the bend, resulting from the rubbing skin and teeth of the hooked Ruvettus.

Cook’s 3rd voyage are now kept in the Historisches Museum in Bern (Inv. Nr. Tah28, Labillardière, who presents the Tongan composite hooks described above, 29; length 9,5 cm and 7 cm).

199

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:17 Uhr

Seite 200

as well as a octopus lure very similar to those from Samoa, illustrates a wooden hook on plate 32 of his atlas (*1), which Gudger (*2) and Anell (*3) discuss. It was very likely used for catching shark and Ruvettus. (113): Pl. 32.

Niue Niue, the largest raised coral island in the world, lies east of the Tonga Islands. It was first settled by Samoans about 1000 years ago, and Tongans followed in the 16th century. Few hook types were passed on. Good examples are seen in Beasley (8): Pls. L/LI. Anell states: “Niue Ruvettus-hooks (*4) are well known.

These have a rather wide base with long parallel shank and point-limb. At the base they end in a pointed peg projecting under the base (...). As on Ontong Java, the natives here used the stick-device, to which the line was tied fast. It sometimes happens that they arrange whole series, with the main line running from stick to stick, downwards ending with a big stone sinker.” (19): 232/233. Gudger, Loeb and Miles demonstrate this with good illustrations (8): Fig.60, (114): Pl. XI, A; (115): Pl. XIX. Loeb writes: “Fish hooks (Matau), made from the roots of the maile tree, were usually on a line of banyan root, five or six to a line, with stone sinkers attached.”

(114): 96. He also illustrates an octopus lure very similar to those from Samoa, and writes that it was first imported by a missionary from Samoa, just like the bonito hook. (114): 96.

(*) Shark fishing illustrated on a wooden club from Tonga.

Northern Cook Islands Pl. 92 Pl. 93 Pl. 94

Pl. 92

(*4) Ruvettus hooks from Niue, illustrated in: Ethnologica Cranmorensis; Chislehurst, 1938, No.3, Pl.XIX. (*2) “Its chief peculiarity is that the barb is lashed on with the interlaced binding so often found on Tongan work.”(18): 20. (*3) (19): 223. (*5) This hook type is hardly ever seen in German collections. The ethnographic collection of the University of Göttingen houses a few examples, up to 5.8 centimeters in length. (Oz 559, 562, 566, 567, 568, 569).

200

The Northern Cook Islands lie at the intersection of the great Polynesian cultures. The northern island group, which includes the atolls of Pukapuka, Manihiki, Rakahanga and Tongareva (Penrhyn), belongs to the western Polynesian cultural area. The Southern Cook Islands, over 1200 kilometers away, are of volcanic origin. Among them are Aitutaki, Mitiaro, Rarotonga and Mangaia. They were most probably settled about 1500 years ago by Society Islanders, although connections with the Austral Islands to the southeast are also apparent.

The tiny and isolated island of Pukapuka, with its population of only a few hundred inhabitants, produced several noteworthy types of hooks. Plate 92 shows three of these elegantly shaped mother of pearl hooks, which are readily identifiable due to their sickle shaped barbs. (*5). Beasley illustrates an impressive group of these appealing hooks, whose barbs have no comparables in Oceania, but erroneously attributes them to an island in the Tuamotu Archipelago with the same name. (8): Pl. XLIX a/b. Beaglehole calls this hook type Matau and Wakavae. He says: “The first man to make the barbed hook is said to have been Te Upe, a man of Loto who lived (...) twelve generations ago.” (116): 19.

The hook (*6) illustrated alongside also displays perfect workmanship of materials and mastery of form. Another very similar hook from the Emerson collection is housed in the Bishop Museum in Honolulu (BPBM 3755). It is wrongly attributed to Kauai (Hawaii). Along with another mother of pearl shell hook it originates from the tiny island of Pukapuka in the Northern Cook Is. (163): Fig.142.

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:17 Uhr

Seite 201

According to Beaglehole, the one-piece mother of pearl shell hooks were manufactured in great numbers and in varying sizes “to catch all the varieties of lagoon fish and most of the smaller deep-sea fish. The hooks are named according to their size and shape. For accurate classification, the name of the fish which the hook is made to catch is usually added to the type name of the hook. The hooks are made from black- or gold-lipped shell and usually provided with leaders of wao cord. They may be classified by shape into three types: a U-shaped hook, a circular hook that is usually barbed, and a slanted U-shaped hook that may be barbed.”

(116): 194/195. Hook (*6) is of the U-shaped type, called Tope on Pukapuka.

The three bonito hooks on plates 93 and 94 show clear signs of being Pl. 93 related to west Polynesian bonito hooks. The mother of pearl shanks and the two- Pl. 94 holed mother of pearl points (*7) are carefully worked and artfully shaped. The points run essentially parallel to the shanks, but are curved slightly outward at their tips. Presumably this makes the bonito somewhat easier to remove from the hook.

Beaglehole says: “The point of the bonito hook is shaped from shell cut from the lip edge of the pearl shell. One side shows the inner surface of the shell, the other side the black or gold outer surface.” (116): 199. The bindings are made with equally great care. The shank and the point are firmly tied together with fine plant fibre. On the top one, the point was additionally secured with filler sticks of coconut leaf midrib inserted on either side of the binding (*8). The line, drawn through the upper hole on the point, was further wrapped with very fine plant fibre line to prevent slippage and was additionally strengthened by the addition of yet another fine plant fibre binding, clearly distinguishable from the original one. The one in the middle has a hackle which is found only on Pukapuka bonito hooks.

Beasley says of it: “The hackle is peculiar, consisting of nine or more lengths of twisted fibre, each ending in a knot.” (8): 34. The shank bases on two of the hooks (*6) also have a particularity that Beasley remarks upon: “The base of the shank on the outer face is cross-hatched to prevent the point-shank lashings from slipping.”

(116): 198. This is clearly visible in plate 93.

Pl. 93 Since references in the literature to the care and maintenance of hooks, which are so laborious to manufacture, are so rare, Beaglehole’s observation is interesting: “After use, the bonito hooks and leader are detached from the bonito rod and soaked in fresh water to wash out the salt from cord and lashings. The hooks are hung to dry in the shade.” (116): 202.

Bonito hooks from Manihiki, Rakahanga, and the northeasterly Tongareva Atoll (Penrhyn) are also of the west Polynesian type.

Hiroa gives very detailed information on the bindings. (117): Fig. 89-100.

“The line or leader is looped around the base of the point where it is included under the point lashings. The leader is also attached to the shank by a lashing passing through a hole pierced through the thick head of the shank.” (*1 next page), (117): 172. He also describes the manufacture of the mother of pearl shanks and points very thoroughly: “The shank is cut from the pearl shell in a long, narrow strip so as to include a part of the hinge to form the head, while the thinner base includes some of the coloured part toward the lip of the shell. (...) The shell was

(*1) The first illustration of a Ruvettus hook (Tongan Islands), (113): Pl.32, Fig.29. (*7) Beaglehole also mentions bonito hooks with mother of pearl shanks and turtle shell points.

(116):197. (*8) This way of stabilizing bonito hooks is widespread throughout Micronesia.

201

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

Pl. 95

(*5) (29,3 cm)

18:17 Uhr

Seite 202

originally cut with thin pieces of hard coral rubbed along the lines of the section and assisted with a little water. (...) The shaping was also done by rubbing with coral.” (117): 172-73. Since the iridescent colour of the shank is important, it is repeatedly dipped in water during the process of its manufacture to be examined for its tint (*2). The hooks are very similar to those from Pukapuka, Tongareva (Penrhyn) and West Polynesia. Hiroa writes: “All the hooks I have seen from Manihiki and Rakahanga resemble the Tongarevan hooks in having the points made from the outer part of the pearl shell. One side of the point is thus white and nacreous and the other side, which corresponds to the outer surface of the shell, is dark. The outer surface is not ground down sufficiently to bring out the iridescent colours of the shell, as it is unnecessary in this part of the hook.” (117): 176.

Our hooks correspond in every respect to those illustrated by Hiroa. But since there are no significant differences between them and examples from Tongareva, they could also be from this island (*3). An attribution for this kind of bonito hook, except to Pukapuka, will always be problematic in the absence of collection data. In our case the place of origin is inscribed on the shank: Manihiki.

Ruvettus hooks from the Northern Cook Islands are described by Beaglehole for Pukapuka, and by Hiroa for Manihiki, Rakahanga and Tongareva.

(116): Fig. 36, 37c; (117): Fig. 77; (118): 208, Fig. 61. With regards to the Tongarevan hook, Hiroa remarks: “The typical hook is now used in Tongareva, but the inhabitants think it was introduced. None was seen (1932), but they are said to be made of ngangie wood (Pemphis acidula) and shaped like those used in Rakahanga and Manihiki.” (118): 208.

Southern Cook Islands

(*) Bonito hook from Manihiki.

(10,4 x 2,4 x 2,2 cm) (*1) This binding is seen on bonito hooks from all of the northern Cook Islands. (*2) According to Hiroa, this practice is ubiquitous in Polynesia. He observed it on Samoa, Nordhoff on Tahiti, and Kennedy on the Ellice Islands. (117): 175. (*3) These hooks show an amazing resemblance to examples illustrated by Hiroa from Fagatau, over 2000 kilometers away in the Tuamotu Archipelago. (117): 192 and Fig. 106, b. (*4) Hiroa refers to this hook which Beasley also illustrates (8): Pl. LIII: “Mr. Drury Lowe collected two similar hooks on the island of Mauke (...).

Lowe states that his hooks (...) were used for catching kura vena (Ruvettus). Though conveniently regarded as shark hooks, they were used for catching other large fish as well.” (120): 239.

202

Only a few hooks are known from these islands, which were already visited

by European explorers in the second half of the 18th century. The rare large onepiece wooden hooks, elevated to the status of art works by their beautiful shape, surface treatment and exceptionally artful binding, have been published often. The most perfect surviving example of this type was first illustrated by Edge-Partington in 1895, and could be admired on display in 2006 at the outstanding “Pacific Encounters” exhibition (*4). (3): Vol. II, plate 18, fig. 4 and (119): Fig. 220.

Another hook collected very early on, which Beasley considers one of the most beautiful from Oceania and gives a full-page illustration – (8): Pl. CLXXV – has similarities to the preceding one “but from below the shank knob it is carved in transverse narrow panels with the pattern characteristic of Mangaia (...). There is no definite information regarding the use of these hooks but they were possibly symbols retained by chiefs or head fishermen to bring success into fishing.” (*5), (120): 242.

Surprisingly, bonito hooks, which occur in nearly all regions of Oceania, are not known from the Southern Cook Islands group. According to Hiroa, the inhabitants of the volcanic Southern Cook Islands never hunted the bonito, and that of course would explain their absence. People from Manihiki living on Rarotonga supposedly used their own hooks to catch bonito. But Hiroa states: “It

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:17 Uhr

Seite 203

is probable that the Cook Islands were too far south for bonito schools to visit them frequently enough to excite the interest of the Cook Islanders, though their ancestors must have acquainted this form of fishing in the Society Islands.” (120): 243.

Hiroa also mentions the Ruvettus hooks, and calls attention to their similarities to those from the Northern Cook Islands. He describes a method for sinking the hook into the deep sea waters that is probably unique in Oceania: “the hook was bound to the stone by a series of turns with a slip knot that was released by a jerk of the line at any required depth.” (*6), (120): Fig. 151, c.

Society Islands For the European explorers of the 18th century, Tahiti (or Otaheite, as the most important island of the archipelago was Pl. 96 called at the time) was a vital stopping point for the replenishing and taking on of Pl. 97 needed supplies, and the refreshment of their crews. During the often months-long Pl. 98 stays there, it was possible to make useful observations and to collect many Pl. 99 ethnographic objects. A considerable number of fish hooks of various types were Pl. 100 thus obtained by Cook between 1768 and 1779 in the course of his sojourns there. Pl. 101 In 1928, Beasley wrote: “Old and authentic specimens are fortunately fairly Pl. 102 common in our Museums, although but rarely encountered elsewhere.” (*7), (8): 38.

There are few Polynesian island groups for which detailed information on fishing, fishing equipment, and its manufacture and use, is as abundant as it is for the Society Islands. Descriptions from the 18th century are typically fairly precise.

Unfortunately, the artists of Cook’s voyages only occasionally drew ethnographic objects. Only a few sketches were actually made in situ during the expeditions. The objects collected, which included many fish hooks, were brought to England, drawn there, and then printed as copper engravings illustrating the voyage accounts (*1a, 1b next page). Plate 96 and (*2 next page) show two unusual and elegantly Pl. 96 shaped one-piece hooks from the times of the earliest Western voyages of discovery. They are among the earliest historic examples of Tahitian hooks, and testimonials to the native fishermen’s ability to achieve amazing results with the simplest of tools. Dr. Sinoto kindly pointed out that they are made from the black shell of the Giant Mussel and not “black-lip pearl shell as stated in most ethnographical descriptions of these hooks (Arina Vexillum (Pinidae familiae), “O’ota” in Tahitian.) The quality of the very fine but solid binding of the hook to its line is further evidence of an enduring tradition of hook making. Unfortunately, the early reports on these artfully formed hooks, whose sizes varied substantially, add little concrete information as to how they were used (*8). Anell says: “To give an accurate account of the Tahitian modes of fishing with simple hooks is not

(*4) (Hight of hook: 22,7 cm)

(*6)

(*) A stone anchor in the shape of two Ti’i.

(27 x 18 x 14 cm) (*7) Beasley’s statements are based on British collections. In the 80 years that have passed since he made them, a number of important publications on Cook’s voyages (104), (109), (119), (107), (106), (121), (122) have appeared and make it possible to expand on them substantially. The following Society Islands hooks are now known to exist in these collections: 17 in Göttingen, 8 in Cambridge, 7 in Florence, 4 in Vienna, 2 in Rome, 4 in Oxford, 2 in Leningrad, 2 in Wellington, 1 in Sydney, 1 in Berlin, and 1 in London, where there are probably more examples. (*8) The best overview of the one-piece mother of pearl hooks from the Society Islands collected on Cook’s voyages is in Göttingen University’s monumental three-volume work on the Cook/Forster collection. (122): Vol. II: 214-217.

203

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

(*1a)

Pl. 97 Pl. 98

Pl. 97 (*2) (Hight of hook: 6,2 cm) (*1b) Pl. XIII in Parkinson’s A Journal of a Voyage to the South Seas in his Majesty's Ship, the Endeavour, London 1773 illustrates eight hooks from the Society Islands with noteworthy accuracy. (*3) Wernhart refers to Morrison (123), who lived on Tahiti for several years at the end of the 18th century, when he writes: “To make their fish hooks, they used water and sand for rubbing, with a stone as a working surface. They also used a shark tooth as a drill. The hook’s shape was obtained through drilling and later filing with a piece of coral. The hook had no barb, but the point reached so far inward that it actually pointed downward, and Morrison remarks that they rarely lose a fish.” (124): 130. (*4) Examples do not appear to exist in German museums, even those with comprehensive Oceanic collections.

Pl. 97 Pl. 98

Pl. 97 Pl. 98

(*5) These can be readily recognized on the large hook in plate 97. They ensure a secure fastening of the snood. (*6b) There are several smaller one-piece mother of pearl hooks from the Tuamotu Archipelago in the University of Göttingen’s collection, that have a similar binding around the base of the hook, possibly for attaching a small stone sinker (examples can be found in the Hawaiian section of this book), and a further binding under the tip of the point for attaching the bait. (Oz 558, 571, 572, 573, 574). The additional line in this location can only be for the attachment of bait.

204

Pl. 98

18:17 Uhr

Seite 204

possible. In old sources we have accounts of a number of different methods; but the hooks used in this connection are not described.

In modern sources, again, there are descriptions and reproductions of various types of hooks; but nothing is known as to the way in which they were used, since for at least a century all fishing has been done with metal hooks. There is thus no connection between the preserved hook-types and the descriptions of the actual fishing methods, a lack that is felt all over Polynesia, though nowhere so strikingly as on Tahiti.” (19): 100.

Anell’s comments also apply to the hooks on plates 97/98.

These examples, undoubtedly among the most beautifully shaped of the large Polynesian shell hooks, were made in the 18th century with stone-age tools (*3) and are rarely seen in collections (*4).

Barrow illustrates one of the two largest of these hooks (the other being illustrated on plate 98) measuring 15.5 centimeters, and juxtaposes it with one of the smallest examples of its type, only 2 centimeters long (125): Fig. 60/61. Both of these examples were collected on Cook’s first voyage and are in the collections of the Cambridge University Museum in England. Anell also illustrates the large hook with three smaller ones of the same type, and adds: “The leaderattachment consists of one or several projections on the back of the shank (*5).

The leader to these hooks is as a rule tightly twined throughout the whole of its length, and they were doubtless used for catching the bigger and more rapacious fish, possibly dolphin and albacore.” (19): 101. The largest hook on plate 97 has a vellum label with the words “O’Tahite hook” written on it. Its binding is in perfect condition, which Beasley calls “an uncommon occurrence with these hooks.”

(8): 40.

A comparison of all of the hooks in the literature reveals that there are two ways of tying the leader: the loop shaped braided and plaited type (Pl. 97 middle and 98 ), and the double-twisted line type (Pl. 97 left and right). For both varieties, the binding to the shell shank consists of a tightly wound fine plant fibre line.

Another noteworthy mother of pearl hook is in Copenhagen’s National Museum and is the only known example of a hook with a fine plant fibre line that, after extending from the head/leader lashings down to the base of the hook, is slung multiple times around the hook’s base, and ends in a splayed fringe. This line was either used to attach a small sinker stone or the bait to the hook (*6a, 6b). The large hooks on plates 97/98 are exceptionally old and rare mother of pearl hooks.

Masterfully crafted from a very compact piece of shell, the one on Pl. 97 is 1.4 centimeters thick at its thickest part. Two small protrusions stick out at the head of the shank, which assure a solid connection between the hook and the plant fibre leader. Beasley shows a similar example (8): Pl. LVIa. He mentions that it is unusually massive and that there are “two lugs at the back of the shank for fixing the leader.” (8): 40. With a length of 15,5 cm the hook on Pl. 98 is the largest pearl shell hook published to date.

Giglioli already wrote about the Tahitian one-piece hooks in 1893: “Gli ami da pesca di madreperla sono senza dubbio tra i più belli ed eleganti che si conoscano,

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:17 Uhr

Seite 205

Cook dà loro il nome di Wittee-wittee, ma Ellis forse con maggiore esattezza, scrive il nome tahitiano Aviti” (“The fish hooks of mother of pearl are without doubt among the most beautiful and elegant known; Cook calls them Wittee-wittee, but Ellis, possibly more precisely, gives the Tahtian name Aviti.”), (*7), (103): 226, Pl.V 31.

There is a drawing by John F. Miller of several hooks collected on Cook’s first voyage. Next to a Tahitian hook, which very much resembles the hooks on plate 96, there is another compact and circular mother of pearl hook on the drawing that clearly has the protrusion at the head of the shank, and whose leader is bound on in very similar manner. (126): Vol. I: 219, fig. 3. With hooks this sturdy, larger fish could also easily be caught (*8). (*9) is one of the small excellently worked mother of pearl hooks of which Beasley illustrates only one (8): Pl. LVIII 3. Anell says: “As regards to the lineattachment, it may be pointed out that they have no projection on the back of the shank like other shell-hooks from here. Instead, the shank tapers upward in a point.

They may possibly have had fine grooves on the outside to keep the lashings of the line in place, the latter being obviously laid along the inside of the shank.” (19): 101. (*9) has a fine line binding beneath the point, comparing favourably to the one illustrated by Beasley. The bait was attached with this line. There is unfortunately once again no information in the literature as to how these hooks were used and what fish were caught with them. Lavondes makes a few vague remarks, using Morrison (123) as a reference: “The small pearl-shell or shell hooks were reserved for lagoon or shallow water fishing. Lines were ballasted with small grooved stones or stones with a hole. Small pearl-shell lures with a point, resembling the large lures for bonito fishing were used to catch ‘i'ihi (Myripristis sp.), or squirrel fish that conceal themselves in the intricacies of the coral.” (127): 31.

Unfortunately there is some confusion in the attribution of hooks to their geographical origin in the chapter on the Society Islands in Beasley’s book. The mats and many hooks illustrated in plates LX and LXI originate most likely in Micronesia, specifically the island of Nukuoro. The typical sharp angle in which the point limb swings away from the shank in some of the hooks on the mats points clearly to that island. Further on he illustrates some hooks on plates LXII and LXIII which definetely originate in the Hawaiian Islands.

Hooks for Bonito Fishing “It seems to me that the bonito hook reaches its highest development in the Pl. 99 islands from Samoa eastward (...). In design, construction, and all round efficiency, Pl. 100 I think that the hooks of the Society Islands are second to none,” (128): 233, (*10) Pl. 101 writes Nordhoff, who on account of his many years of experience with Tahitian Pl. 102 fishermen is considered the leading authority on fishing in the Society Islands. The full range of the bonito hooks from the Society Islands is shown on plates 99-102.

A number of these have barbs. They also occur in collections that were made at the time of Cook’s voyages. Consequently contentions that only examples without barbs were used for bonito fishing cannot be supported (*11). Bonito hooks from the Society Islands always have a mother of pearl shank, while the

(*6a) A hook in the National museum, Copenhagen. (131): 364.

(*7) A one-piece shell hook in the collection of the Ethnographical museum in Rome.

(*9)

(*8) Gudger illustrates a compact rounded mother of pearl hook 7 centimeters in length, which, due to its point being bent sharply inwards and the protrusion which is present for the attachment of line, he considers “an undoubted Ruvettus hook.” (18): Fig. 53. If one accepts Gudger’s contention, then this would be the only known mother of pearl Ruvettus hook. (*10) Nordhoff was most probably unaware of the phenomenal variety of bonito hooks from the Solomon Islands. (*11) (129): 159

205

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

(*1), (*4)

Pl. 100

Pl. 100 Pl. 101

Pl. 100

(*5) A Tahitian Shark hook collected on Cook’s Pl. 102 first voyage, now in the Ethnographical Museum in Vienna, 34 cm long w/o binding.

(*2) Nordhoff mentions 61 varieties, considered only a small selection, which all had individual names known to the fishermen.

206

18:17 Uhr

Seite 206

point can be made of bone (*1) or mother of pearl (*4). “It has only one hole through which the loop of the leader as well as the upper lashing are drawn. The point base generally has a projecting part intended to prevent the lower lashing from slipping off.” (19): 176. All of the hooks illustrated on the four plates (plates 99-102) clearly show these characteristics. Some still have their hackles attached to them. Referring to Cook (First Voyage, 1773), Beasley states: “To these hooks a tuft of white dog's or hog's hair is fixed as somewhat to resemble the tail of a fish.” (8): 43. Nordhoff makes important remarks about the bonito hooks’ shanks: “The shank of the hook, in the fisherman’s eyes, is the only really valuable part (...). Every first-class shank has (...) a generic name for the class of pearl-shell to which it belongs (...). The names of the different kinds of pearl-shell suitable for bonitohooks are curious, and seem to be very old; (...) a real bonito-fisherman knows the names of every kind of shell from every district of every island in the group, and it is said that such a man will recognize nine out of ten of them at a glance (...) In addition, each successful shank was given an individual name by its proud owner (*2). All of these kinds of shell are local varieties of the black-lipped pearl “oyster,” differing slightly in appearance after the dark outer surface of the valve has been ground away to expose the full lustre of the nacre.” Nordhoff goes on to say, that after eight years of fishing with the natives, he is convinced that the bonito distinguish between the various shadings of the shank colours, and can react to them. For this reason, the fisherman generally carries about a dozen hooks with him, and selects the appropriate one according to weather conditions and the time of day. “There will be only one at which the fish will strike freely; yet all twelve have been chosen by an expert fisherman.” (128): 241-243.

Plate 100 shows two old bonito hooks, whose barbed bone points have been very carefully executed. The barb is only present in a very rudimentary way on the top one. The varying shapes of the barbs on the mother of pearl points in plates 100 and 101 are interesting. They are extremely rare in collections, and hardly ever mentined in the literature. Nordhoff refers to a “fine old barbed Aviti” in the Museo Etnografico in Rome (*3). Hooper illustrates the longest of these hooks (16.2 centimeters), and says: “The purpose of these barbs is not to retain the fish after the point has penetrated its jaw, but the exact reverse; they are designed to prevent the point penetrating too deeply and to permit the hook to fall free the moment the tension on the line is relaxed.” (128): 246. The long hook on the left of plate 100 was made in the 18th century, and has a vellum label inscribed: “Fish hook O’Tahite (flying fish).” The mother of pearl shank and the bone point are masterfully worked, and meticulously and very tightly bound together with fine plant fibre line.

Plate 102 shows three bonito hooks, whose shanks and points are made of mother of pearl. The line drawn through the hole in the point, the way a second and thinner line is passed over the first, through the hole in the point and around the shank base and the fine wrapping of a twisted string around the main leader line are clearly seen in the detail illustration (*4). As with all Polynesian hooks, the leader is attached to the hole in the head of the shank. According to Nordhoff, all of the bonito hooks on hand were extremely valuable: “An old and highly

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:17 Uhr

Seite 207

successful bonito hook is property almost beyond price, cherished not only for its utilitarian value, but because in the course of forty or fifty years it has acquired in the catching of countless fish a tremendous charge of mana.” (128): 239.

The bonito was hunted during nine months, from October through June.

As in west Polynesia and other areas, a long bamboo rod was used, whose held end was attached to a heavy grip. “This was then fitted under the stern thwart of the canoe, and it had a second support in the stern itself, so that it stood at an angle of about 45°. It was movable and could be swung sideways and lifted.” (19): 176.

Ruvettus fishing was not practiced in the Society Islands area. For shark fishing, large elegantly shaped wooden hooks similar to those from the southern Cook Islands were used (*5). A method of catching larger fish, especially the albacore, caught the attention of early explorers. Oliver mentiones three methods of catching the albacore: “Smaller ones were often caught with pearl-shell hooks in connection with bonito fishing. A second method, usually employed by a single fisherman in a small canoe, involved deep-line fishing in an albacore “hole”, using stones to sink the long lines, baited hooks and chum. The third was by means of tira, which Ellis described.” (200): Vol.I, 297. There is an early but inaccurate illustration of it in Ellis (1829), (130). A much better one is published by Dreyer in 1898 (131): Fig. 238 (*6). Perhaps large hooks such as those seen on plates 97, 98 or in (*7) were being used here. Lavondes offers the following description: “Two special types of canoes with an oblique rear board were tied together with two beams; the front beam was very solid as it also served as a support for a long pole (tira). (...) This movable mast (...) consisted of several elements joined one to the other. Its base was (...) engaged between the forward beam and another partially mobile beam. To its forked extremity were fastened two lines and a bunch of feathers destined to attract the fish, when the mast was lowered into a fishing position. A large floating basket containing quantities of “ouma fish” that served as live bait, was hung between the two canoes. The head of the fishermen (Tahua), who observed the movement of birds above the shoals of fish directed the double canoe by giving orders to the paddlers. When the moment had come he threw some live bait into the water, then the baited hook.” (127): 31. Lavondes further writes: “This is how James Morrison described the method of fishing: “The man on the bow who attends to bait the hooks keeps throwing now and then a small fish while the other with a scoop keeps a constant shower about the hooks; the fish soon fly at their prey and get hooked when the men who attend the crane rope, having notice given them, haul up and the fish swing in to the man who attends to receive them and bait the hooks afresh.”

(123) “The pole was then raised almost vertical by means of a rope pulled from the stern and with the help of the men who were on the forward platform of the canoe.

While the fish slid to one side and was immediately knocked out, the hook of the other line was baited and tossed into the water. In this way the two lines were worked alternatively at a very rapid rhythm.” (127): 31.

Oliver writes: “Tira fishing was highly productive and much more efficient, apparently, than ordinary rod or hand-line trolling, for the large fish were landed more easily and more quickly by means of the tira device. On occasion an individual deep-line fisherman might get a large catch for himself, but on the

(*3) John Fredrick Miller’s drawing in Bank’s Journal I, of a Tahitian bonito hook collected on Cook’s 3rd voyage, now in the collection of the Ethnographical museum in Rome. (Left a photo of the same hook) Other examples are in the Cook collections in Göttingen (Oz380, 391) and Vienna (#46).

Pl. 97 Pl. 98

(*6)

(*7) An unusual shell hook from Tahiti. Comp.: (126): Vol.I, Pl.1.170, p. 219.

207

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:17 Uhr

Seite 208

average the cooperative tira fishing crew probably brought in better shares all around.” (200): Vol.I, 298.

Tuamotu Archipelago Pl. 103 Pl. 104 Pl. 105 Pl. 106 Pl. 107

(1*) This detail illustrates the very fine fiberwork on a bonito hook from the Tuamotus.

Pl. 103 Pl. 104

(*) Tuamanu, an old warrior of Tereia Island, Tuamotu group. (from: National Geographic Magazine, Vol.XLVIII, No.4, 1928, p.384). (*2) The Ethnologisches Museum in Berlin displays a Tuamotu hook in its Oceanic collection purportedly collected by Forster on Cook’s second voyage. Another 18th century hook is in the Pigorini Museum in Rome. It is illustrated in (107): Fig. 184. There are undoubtedly other unrecognized examples attributed to “the Society Islands” in private and public collections. (*7) These hooks are apparently not present in German Oceanic collections, but do exist in French ones: The Musée du Quai Branly has a 7.9 centimeter long example with the typical meticulously worked shank knob (Inv.No. 72.1987.2.36), and a second with the line still present (Inv.No.71.1960.112.17). Hiroa illustrates other examples from the Mission Museum in Braine-le-Comte, Belgium, and the Musée de la Pl. 105 Propagation de la Foi in Lyon.

208

This enormous archipelago consists of over 60 coral islands and lies at the eastern edge of Polynesia. Neither Anell nor Beasley offer a satisfactory overview of fish hooks and fishing techniques from this area. Emory conducted studies on the islands in 1929-1930 and again in 1934. He found a relatively intact culture there, and with the help of available existing literature and drawing on museum collections, it was he who was first able to piece together a fairly complete account of the hook types from the archipelago. (132): 187-223.

In 1876 Meinicke mentions the dearth of natural resources on the islands, saying: “All the more reason they are so meticulous about fishing, which they have developed to a very high level, and at which they excel.” (95): Vol. II: 217. In Pacific Islands, one reads: “In contrast to the limited agriculture, fishing is well developed.

The ramifications of the reef waters offers an abundance of fish, taken by hook and line or with spears, as well as in the fish weir traps.” (96): Vol.II: 203.

The hooks shown on plates 103 and 104 are exceptional examples of very old bonito hooks. They are the products of an uncommon level of technical skill, coupled with a highly developed sense of aesthetics (*1).

Anell maintains: “All Polynesian bonito-lures have holes drilled in the base (of the point).” (19): 188. He mentions the different regions in which one, two, or three holes are present. But he overlooks the fact that the points from the Tuamotu Archipelago are not drilled at all, but instead have carefully worked protrusions that allow for their secure binding to the shank. Hiroa, comparing Polynesian bonito hooks, concludes that the shanks are largely alike, and therefore concentrates in detail on the points whose shapes make it possible for even undocumented examples to be quite accurately attributed to a particular island group. He writes: “It is quite probable that originally the proximal prolongation was grooved instead of pierced (...). The grooved proximal prolongation happily survives in the Tuamotus.” (117): 192.

Emory attributed these hooks, seldom seen in collections, to the Tuamotu Archipelago (*2). They have artfully made hackles. He says: “The hackle consisted of the wider vane of a frigate bird’s long wing or tail feather, stripped from the shank and then clipped, or clipped close to the shank and rolled into a bundle 2 to 2,5 cm long, and tied to the distal end of the shank by the middle.” (*3), (132): 212.

According to Emory, hooks of more recent date were equipped with hackles made of white horse hair. Horses were common and widely distributed in the Tuamotus in the 1930s when he was doing his research.

Another characteristic that is unique to the Tuamotu bonito hook: the very compact shank head has a trapezoid shaped cross-section. According to Emory, the bonito hunt is the same as it is in the Society Islands, as so thoroughly and impressively described by Nordhoff. (132): 213.

The plates 105 and 106 show six one-piece hooks. One hook (1st on Pl.

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:17 Uhr

Seite 209

106) is made of mother of pearl (*4), the others of turtle shell. These old and much Pl. 106 used hooks with their beautifully preserved leaders do not support Anell’s and Emory’s contention that the most common one-piece hooks were made of oyster shell. “As on Tahiti, pearl shell (oyster) is the predominant material of which hooks are made in the Tuamotus, though both turtle shell and bone are also mentioned (...).” (19): 102. Emory writes: “Of the simple hooks, the most common was a pearl-shell hook of the form known as Tangoro throughout the Tuamotus. They had a well-rounded outline and ranged from 3.8 to 8 cm in height. The point was lower than the head and curved inward, but not at an angle. The head had a backward flange to facilitate attaching to a line (...). The leader, from 12 to 20 cm in length, was made of coconut fibre, generally a heavy two-ply cord, but examples of a large loop of braid are known. The leader was bound on with a wrapping of fine sennit braid or a fine cord of vavai or ongaonga fibres.” (132): 198. Members of the Wilkes expedition collected four Tangoro hooks on Napuka in 1839, including some very fine examples (132): Fig. 162f. The hooks on plates 105 and 106 are remarkable for Pl. 105 their perfectly preserved leaders. They have an artfully shaped length of looping Pl. 106 braided sennit, further strengthened with a fine plant fibre line wrapping. Such bindings are also seen on the one-piece hooks from the Society Islands. According to Emory, the Tangoro hook was supposed to catch Kito and Hoka (sea bass), (*5).

These are presumably fish that occurred in the lagoons.

Shark fishing (*6) played an important role. Beasley illustrates three hooks collected by Beechey on Vairaatea in 1826. “In all three cases the excellence of the lashings is remarkable, both in the even quality of the plaiting and the method of attachment.” (8): 45. The largest hook measures 25.9 centimeters, the smallest 15.3.

Emory maintains that the small hooks were used to fish for small sharks on the reefs and in the lagoons. On larger hooks, the meticulously attached points are made of wood. On smaller examples they are made of mother of pearl or of bone.

The Ruvettus hook is not used in the Tuamotu Archipelago.

Emory illustrates a very singular type of hook with a mother of pearl point. He writes: “An important class of hooks, called Reke (heel) on account of their shape, are eel hooks of pearl shell, which were mounted in a piece of hard wood or between two long splints to protect the line from the eel’s bite.” (132): 204.

(*3)

(*6) A Tuamotu Islands Ruvettus or shark hook in the collection of the ethnographical museum in Papeete, Tahiti. (length c. 35 cm)

Mangareva Group There is little information in the literature on hook fishing in this island Pl. 107 group, which lies some 1800 kilometers southeast of Tahiti. As for many Polynesian regions, the most reliable and complete source is Hiroa, who offers detailed descriptions of the unmistakable one-piece mother of pearl hooks from this area. (133): 290-293.

Plate 107 shows classic examples of these hooks, which are only rarely Pl. 107 seen in collections (*7). Hiroa writes: “The U-shaped hooks have a characteristic shank knob in the pronounced outward projection with upper and lower curved notches which undercut the ends of the knob and make them acutely pointed.”

(133): 291. He further says that the hooks on this plate are “perfect U-shaped

(*4) Another hook missing the line.

See also (132): fig.168 a,b. (*5) Kito = Epinephelus maculatus Hoka = Variola louti (135): 245.

209

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

Pl. 107 (*) A young man posing in a studio photograph from c.1900 with Tahitian or Tuamotuan hooks on a string around his neck. He is also wearing a bark belt from New Guinea. At the time it was common to use ethographical “props” that came handy without considering their origin.

(*3)

(*1) The only other Oceanic hooks whose points extend higher than their shank heads are the mother of pearl hooks from Nukuoro, but their shanks are shaped differently (see Pl. 60). The one-piece hooks from the Tokelau Islands also display formal similarities to these hooks, but are predominantly made of coconut shell (see Pl. 79/82). (*5) Emory, Bonk and Sinoto call this fish hook head form “pointed with protruding knob”.

(172): 12.

210

Seite 210

hooks (...) showing point limbs longer than shank limbs.” (133): 291. This characteristic makes these hooks markedly different from similar one-piece mother of pearl hooks in neighbouring island areas (*1). The hooks are of varying size, but show “the constant feature of the greater length of the point limb than the shank limb. The direct attachment of the leader to the shank knob without the use of a separate thread to keep the leader turns in place, has so far not been observed in any other part of Polynesia and is hence unique (*2). The greater projection of the shank knob with curved notches above and below was thus influenced by the technique of direct attachment.” (133): 293. The Mangarevan mother of pearl hooks are extremely meticulously worked and highly polished. According to Hiroa, a piece of shark skin, or of Ume fish skin, was used for this purpose.

The largest hook on the plate still retains a fine line wound around the point limb, which was used for the attachment of bait. “Bait (mounu) consisted of shellfish or other fish and was tied to the hook with a bait string (takara).” (133): 293.

It should be mentioned that bonito fishing did not occur in the Mangareva area.

A Unique East Polynesian Bone Hook

Pl. 108

(*2) Detail illustration of a hook collected in the 1830’s by Vincendon-Dumoulin on the Dumont D’Urville expedition.

18:17 Uhr

The hook presented here is impressive for its unusually elegant shape. It is made from whale- or another large sea mammal’s bone. Its prominent knob at the shank head, which is artfully integrated into the contour of the hook as a whole, would have ensured the secure attachment of the line. It must be considered one of the most beautiful one-piece Polynesian hooks in existence. The powerful shank thickens almost imperceptibly as it descends towards the base of the hook, and then tapers again as it rises and approaches the perfectly shaped point. The fisherman who long ago created this work of art, must have had an unerring feeling for how the brittle material he was working with could be transformed into a fishing tool that embodies a perfect marriage of form and function. Attribution for this hook is difficult, because comparable hooks can be found neither in the literature nor in museum collections. Heyerdahl illustrates a hook from Rapa Nui that has some similarities to this one. (*3). He writes: “The material is probably whale bone. The hook is unbarbed and of the rotating type with straight shank and incurved point (...) the bend and point have flattened sides which converge slightly outwards. The rounded outer edge of the shank narrows and assumes a gradually increasing tendency to keeling towards the point, whereas, in contrast, the inner edge simultaneously becomes increasingly flat. The esthetic effect is remarkable.

The tip is pointed and sharp.” (134): Fig.106, 429.

Unfortunately, the shank head, essential for positive identification of the hook, is absent, and all known comparable bone hooks from Rapa Nui have somewhat different shank heads (*4). Likewise, comparison with other one-piece bone hooks from other Polynesian areas yields some generally similarly shaped examples, but all have differently shaped shank heads. Much smaller bone hooks from Hawaii, mostly from archaeological sites (*5), have similar shank heads, but these are not seen on the larger hooks produced in this island group in the 18th and 19th centuries. Our hook is however not the accidental creation of some

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:17 Uhr

Seite 211

fisherman, but clearly the result of a long evolutionary process, and would have to have had many predecessors. The old label on the shank reads in French: “Hameçon deterré dans l'ile de Bora Bora,” a somewhat questionable statement.

Therefore, for as long as no comparable hook appears, its place of origin will remain a mystery.

Marquesas Islands The Marquesas Islands have fewer fish hook types than the Hawaiian or Pl. 109 Society Islands. No hooks attributed to these islands were collected there by the Pl. 110 navigators of the 18th century (Cook visited the island group in 1774), presumably Pl. 111 because they were not as common there as in other island areas. Hauser-Schäublin writes: “Fishing was undoubtedly very important” (106): 228, but then goes on to cite Krusenstern: “Fishing is an occupation which is disdained by anyone who has a sizable piece of land. It is thus only the poorer classes of people who busy themselves with it, and who so obtain their livelihood.” (137): 233.

Anell also refers to Krusenstern: “Hookfishing seems not to have been very common on the Marquesas, and the fisherman’s occupation, contrary to the conditions on e.g. Tahiti, was not held in any great esteem.” (137): 233. Other remarks to this effect about fishing and fish hooks are made by other authors.

Meinicke, for instance, speaks of “clumsily worked hooks made of mother of pearl or bone.” (95): 24. This raises the question of why a fishing culture comparable to that of the Society Islands apparently did not develop on the Marquesan Archipelago. Anell says: “One contributory cause of the poor fishing was doubtless the steepness of the coast on these islands, as well as the absence of reefs.” (19): 177.

The bonito hooks seen on plates 109 and 110 are rarely seen in collections Pl. 109 (*6). Those on pl. 110 have a characteristic that seems to be unique in Polynesia: a Pl. 110 double mother of pearl shank (*7). The outer and stronger shank has another smaller one laid on it, which ends at the base of the bone point. The stronger shank is vertically drilled at its head, the weaker one is transversally drilled. Both are tied together with a plant fibre line that runs from the bone point up the inner face of the shank. Marquesan bonito hooks can be distinguished from Hawaiian or Tahitian ones by the presence of two drilled holes in the human bone point, used to fasten it to the shank. Another characteristic feature of the Marquesan bonito hooks is the presence of four to six deep grooves on the side of the shank at its base, which make an especially strong binding to the bone point possible. Both the lateral grooves and the vertical hole at the head of the shank are clearly visible on the outside view of the bonito hooks on plates 109 and 110 (*8) Fragments of the Pl. 109 pig bristle hackle fastened to the outside of the shank’s base are also visible in this Pl. 110 illustration. In spite of all the criticisms made of Marquesas Islands’ hooks, it remains true that its bonito hooks are among the best in Polynesia. This is undoubtedly the result of a long tradition relating to the hunt of the coveted fish, which takes place in the “Offshore Habitat” described by Reinman. “Regular use of this region in aboriginal times seems to have been limited to a relatively few techniques – some of these rather specialized – involving the use of different kinds

(*4) Only one archaeologically excavated stone hook from Pitcairn, which is in the Otago Museum in Dunedin (Inv. #D.34.1006), has a somewhat similarly shaped shank head. (135): Fig. 74. A drawing is illustrated in: StephenChauvet, L’Ile de Paques et ses mystères, Paris, 1935, p.34, Fig. 71bis.

(*8) A close-up photo showing the notching on the base of the shank of a bonito hook from the Marquesas.

(*6) The earliest examples, collected in 1802 and 1817, are in the Peabody Museum in Salem, Massachusetts. Beasley illustrates these four hooks. (8): plate LXXVI. The Musée du Quai Branly in Paris has two bonito hooks (No. Inv.: 71.1930.22.13. 1-2.

Other examples probably exist, most likely in French collections. (*7) Beasley illustrates a double-shank hook on plate LXXVI, III, and an equally old doubleshank hook was sold at auction in Paris in 2009.

211

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

(*3) This sketch refers to the hooks on plate 111. Pl. 111

Pl. 111

(*7) The other side of the ceremonial hook in: (139). Vol.II, P. 111, Fig. 4.

(*1) Two further mother of pearl hooks, which were collected by von Langsdorff on the Krusenstern expedition, are now in the Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde in Munich (Inv. #89). (140): Fig. 2 (*2) Linton expresses the following opinion: “Simple shell hooks were laboriously ground out of a thick pearl shell. The gleam of the nacre served as a lure and made bait unnecessary.”

(141): 398.

212

18:17 Uhr

Seite 212

of fish hooks in trolling for various kinds of fish such as the bonito and dolphin, Shark fishing with the hook (...) and the catching of very deep-dwelling species of fish such as the Ruvettus.” (138): 115. There is no indication in the literature that Ruvettus fishing was practiced in the Marquesas. Von den Steinen illustrates two large hooks “from more recent times.” (139): Vol. III, #8/#10). Both hooks with tied on wooden points resemble shark hooks from the Society Islands, and were very possibly imported from there. Simple mother of pearl hooks that were collected very early are also worthy of mention. They are similar to those from Tahiti “but lacking its graceful curves and ill fitted for retaining the fish when caught.” (8): 47. Von den Steinen illustrates three hooks of varying size that were collected by the Krusenstern expedition of 1803-1806, and the mother of pearl hooks shown by Beasley were collected in 1802. (139): Vol. III, #9, and (8): Pl. LXXIV (*1).

A bait line is conspicuously absent on these examples with early collection dates. Perhaps the glitter of the mother of pearl surface was sufficient to attract the fish to bite (*2).

Unfortunately no observations were made as to how this type of hook was used, or what kind of fish it was used to catch.

The following plate 111 also shows one-piece mother of pearl hooks, which however, have only been known for about half a century. From 1956 through 1958, Suggs performed the first archaeological digs on several islands of the Marquesas Archipelago and found a series of fish hooks. His chronology was substantially improved seven years later as a result of further archaeological research conducted by Sinoto (142), (143). The hooks on the plate 111 and (*3) show similarities with those unearthed by both archaeologists. Nos.1-4 and 6-8 were published for the first time in 2008, (144): 139 #1-7. Hooks 2 and 6-8 come from Uahuka (the Hane sand dune site) an assumption which has kindly been confirmed by Dr. Sinoto. They date from the initial Settlement Period (300-1000 AD) and are consequently among the oldest hooks known from the Marquesas Islands. The very unusual Y-shaped hook is of great rarity, as only a few have been found. The unusually shaped mother of pearl hook no. 5 also comes from the Hane sand dune site, but dates from the Developmental Stage (1000-1300 AD).

(145): Fig. 5.5. It is a “compound-shank hook” from which possibly the double shank bonito hooks with two shanks tied together side-by-side and again later on top of each other were developed. Sinoto says the following about this hook (no.

5:) “At this time appears, in incipient form, the typical Marquesan compound-shank hook, which later developed into a double shank fish hook. There are two parent forms: on one the single shank has a rounded stem (Fig.5.5 k-m), which does not provide for the fastening of a second shank stem (side by side); on the other the back of the shank is flat (*4), (Fig. 5.5m-p). These unique Marquesan compoundshank hooks of early type have been uncovered recently at the Vaitootia site Huahine.” (Sinoto 1976). (145): 117.

It is also noteworthy that in the Marquesas Islands these compound-shank hooks, whose two shanks could be tied together side by side, survived in a slightly modified form in the historically collected bonito hooks, whose two shanks rest on top of one another.

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:17 Uhr

Seite 213

The remaining hooks on plate 111, nos. 1, 3 and 4 date from the Expansion Pl. 111 Period (1300-1600 AD) and were probably found in Hanamaimai on Tahuata.

Sinoto gives very detailed information on all of these predominantly onepiece hooks, which display amazing similarities with archaeologically excavated hooks from the Hawaiian and Society Islands. He writes: “The usual form was the rotating type, either the shank or the point was incurved. Two other forms were significant to this phase. (Initial Settlement) One was a jabbing type of hook with a straight shank and point. The cross sections of the shank and point of this hook were round, that of the shank being much thicker than the point (*5). The line-lashing device was a single, horizontal groove just below the flat, blunt head.” (145): 112.

Ceremonial Hooks Just as the fish hooks from the Marquesas Islands appear unimpressive when compared to the elaborate wood and stone sculpture and jewelry ornaments from the islands, so do they when compared with the very few remaining “ceremonial hooks.” In both size and shape, the latter have their place at the summit of Marquesan artistic achievement.

The “fish hook of the hero Maui, with which he fished the island Tona’eva” (*6) and (*7), (148): 211, which Karl von den Steinen procured for the Berliner Museum für Völkerkunde with great difficulty in Atuona on Hiva Oa Island in 1897, goes beyond the boundaries of the imaginable. It was apparently lost or destroyed during the Second World War (*8). Von den Steinen was able to record the myth of Maui. (150): 110/111. He says the following about this ceremonial hook: “It was used as a sacrificial hook in the world of the living, placed into the mouths of the human sacrifices, when the bodies were hung from a tree on the Marae (*9 ), to designate the victims as the “fish of the gods.” According to another visually interpreted account, one speaks of “the hook of Tapa,” Te Metau a Tapa, the horrible old woman of the heavens, the cannibal, who cast her fishing line down to earth, to catch and haul up victims for her cooking pit. She is the large Tiki at right, to whom the small seated Maui Tikitiki figure belongs, while the Tiki at left remains unidentified. The two faces at the base, at either side of Maui’s head are Heana, sacrificial heads.” (150): Vol. II: 112.

The very artful shape of the turtle shell hook is complemented by the meticulously made braided sennit lashing, similar to those seen on the ceremonial axes from Rarotonga and Mangaia in the Southern Cook Islands.

A hard-wood ceremonial hook with a similar lashing and a representation of a Tiki beneath the lashing is in the Musée d’Ethnographie in Neuchâtel, and is illustrated and described by Beasley in great detail. He gives no information concerning its use. (8): Pl. CLXXVII, 118/119. A photograph of this hook can be found in the Pacific Arts journal (146): Fig. 3.

Beasley illustrates a further turtle shell ceremonial hook, collected on Tahuata, which is held by the Academy of Sciences in San Francisco. According to Edge-Partington, who was the first to illustrate this hook in 1898, it was called Matau-Reana. A fourth published hook, which like the previous example has no

(*4) The back of hook 5 on plate 111 and (3*).

(*6) (139). Vol.II, P. 111, Fig. 4.

(*5) Hooks nos. 2, 7 are of the “jabbing” type. (*8) “This is how a number of old Polynesian treasures were lost, for example the beautiful “Fish hook of Maui” cult object, and (...)” (149): 153. (*9) A Polynesian place of worship; the location for religious ceremonies. It has stone terraces and seating areas.

213

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:17 Uhr

Seite 214

representation of a Tiki on it, is in the collection of the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle in La Rochelle (Inv. H 2861.1) and was recently displayed for the first time at the Chartres Marquesas Islands exhibition. (144): 143.

Lastly, a turtle shell ceremonial hook with a perfectly preserved and typical lashing is on permanent display at the Ethnologisches Museum in Berlin (Inv. #VI. 155.47). This example also lacks a Tiki representation, which further underscores and makes clear the exceptional nature of the hook von den Steinen collected, and the very important role it must have played.

Hawaiian Islands – A Cosmos of Polynesian Fish Hooks Pl. 112 Pl. 113 Pl. 114 Pl. 115 (*) A Marquesan fisherman’s charm, made of Pl. 116 stone, in the shape of a fish-lizard. Sculptured stones, sometimes only vaguely representing a Pl. 117 fish shape, were dug into the beach sand facing the ocean, to attract a rich catch for the Pl. 118 fisherman. (25 x 6 x 6 cm) Pl. 119 Pl. 120 Pl. 121 Pl. 122 Pl. 123 Pl. 124 Pl. 125 Pl. 126 Pl. 127 Pl. 128 Pl. 129

(*) Another Marquesan fisherman’s charm made of stone in the shape of a fish.

(28 x 6 x 8 cm)

Pl. 112

(*1) Beasley illustrates a bonito hook with two holes in the shank to attach the leader, an exception possibly dictated by the fragility of the shell it was made of. (8): Pl. 87, II).

214

“In my opinion, no people ever lived who had a more intimate knowledge of fish and their habits, and knew so well how to catch them as the Hawaiians (...).”

(151): 9. This assertion of Kelly’s may seem exaggerated, but it is similarly corroborated and concurred with by other authors on the subject of fishing.

These Polynesian islands of volcanic origin, partly surrounded by coral reefs, were discovered late. They offered their seagoing settlers excellent possibilities for establishing good living conditions. Because of the richness of the marine environment that surrounded them, and the varied nutritional resources it made available, the Hawaiians developed and used a large number of methods and devices for fishing. As the following plates demonstrate, fish hooks played a prominent and central role in their fishing activities. We begin by quoting Hiroa, one of the foremost authorities on Polynesia: “Fishing was the most varied and extensive food-producing occupation of the Hawaiians. Agriculture, though of great importance, did not require the varied tools and methods necessary for fishing. The agriculturalist knew well the limited plot of land he had for cultivation, but the fisherman had to know the character of the bottom of the sea both within and beyond the reef (...). The fisherman relied on his experience, inherited knowledge, and skills. He knew the use of various types of hooks for different kinds of fish and the kind of bait best for each (...). Like other fields of activity, fishing had it gods or ’aumakua, who brought luck to the respectful fisherman who paid homage to them by some offerings (...). Fishing shrines (Ko’a) consisted of heaps of stones on the water’s edge, and men going out to fish contributed a stone to the shrine. It is evident from the remains of hooks found on these shrines that they also were given as offerings. On returning from a successful fishing expedition, the fisherman made offerings of fish on their local altars (...). Respect having been paid to the gods, the catch was distributed among the people.”

(153): 285-287.

The composite hooks shown on plate 112 were used for bonito fishing. The meticulously worked pearl shell shanks are drilled (*1) at the head for the attachment of the plant fibre line. “Here, as elsewhere, the particular shade of the lure is important for the fishing. We thus find mention of white-shining lures, Pa hau which are used especially in the morning, and Pa anueanue (rainbow Pa), which are used in the middle of the day when the water is clearest.” (19): 177/78. According to Arning, these hooks are especially highly valued, because fish will take them at any

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:17 Uhr

Seite 215

time of day. Hooks with darker shanks were used in the afternoon.” (154): 51.

The points of most lures are made of bone (*2). One preferred points made from the bones of prominent people or accomplished fishermen, who during their lifetimes had bequeathed them to their friends. The fisherman sought to increase the efficiency of his hooks through the mana (*3) that was contained in these bones. The point has a drilled hole at its base, which is used for attaching the Pl. 112 fine plant fibre line to the shank. A binding of two or three strands of twisted Olona fibre (*4) line with a thinner line wound around it is also passed through this hole, and runs along the slightly concave inner face of the shank to the hole at its top.

The point is secured in this manner. “The point base is generally without any projection, and in this respect the Hawaiian bonito lures are without counterparts in Polynesia.” (19): 178. The second hook on plate 112 being the exception to the Pl. 112 rule. Black or white pig bristles were most commonly used as hackles. “It was peculiar in that it was lashed crosswise to the long axis of the shank, instead of trailing directly behind, as in the bonito hooks of other Polynesian islands.” (153): 336. Arning, who lived in Hawaii between 1883 and 1886, and had a thorough understanding of traditional culture, makes an interesting remark about bonito (*2) Two prehistoric bonito hooks, with shell points, from the island of Hawaii. fishing: “While fishing with these composite hooks, smaller fish (iiau) were thrown into the water by the handful.” (154): 51.

One-piece Hooks A comment Beasley makes applies especially well to these three one-piece Pl. 113 hooks: “Hooks from this group are extremely varied in form and material, and Pl. 122 particularly noteworthy in view of the excellence of their finish. The old-time Pl. 123 Pl. 125 Hawaiian workman was decidedly skilful.” (8): 48/49.

The upper hook on the plate 113 is made of whale tooth, and was called Pl. 129 Makau palaoa (*5). Hiroa discusses the barbs in detail: “To prevent easy extraction the barbed point of a fish hook should completely pierce the lip or throat. This is possible with inner barbs; but with outer barbs, it is only possible with the high and medium-high barbs. These then comply with the function of barb in preventing easy extraction.” (153): 327. Dr. Sinoto suggests further that the outer barb could also prevent bait which has been put directly on the hook from slipping off in the water (*6).

The left hook on the plate 113, which is made of turtle shell like the one Pl. 113 beneath it, has its barb at the level of the hook’s base. Hiroa writes: “The low outer barb is below the inner level of the bend; and as further penetration would be prevented by the bend, or bottom, of the hook, so to speak, it could not penetrate the lip. A recognition of this is implied by the fact that all hooks with a low outer barb are provided with an inturned point. The low outer barb probably served as a cleat for tying on the bait with a bait string (mali).” (153): 327. (As can be seen for comparison on the upper left hook on Pl. 134 in the section on New Zealand). Pl. 134 This turtle shell hook is also noteworthy for its very elegant form, and its perfectly Pl. 113 intact 135 centimeter line. The three-stranded line is made from lengths of the bark fibres of the Mamaki tree, and is additionally wound by a spiraling winding of Olona

(*3) Mana represents a kind of extraordinary power, which can be seen as a life force, and can reside in people, animals, nature, as well as inanimate objects. Hooks made of bones imbued with mana had greatly increased value, and were used by fishermen for their entire lives, and passed on through inheritance. (*4) Olona fibre is obtained from the bark of the Touchardia latifolia shrub. The bark is softened and worked on a wooden surface with a turtle bone or mother of pearl scraper until the fibres are extracted. The fibres are then twisted into string by rolling them across the thigh with the ball of the hand and subsequently either twisted or braided. (*5) Makau = hook Palaoa = whale This hook is illustrated in (55) (*6) Personal correspondence

215

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

Pl. 113

(*) Detail of a photograph from c.1880 showing fishing canoes on Waiakakea-River in Hilo on Hawaii. The gourds containing hooks, bait and line are stored in the hulls.

(*7)

(*1) The Bishop Museum in Hawaii not only houses the largest collection of Polynesian material in the world, but also has the most comprehensive collection in existence of the many types of Hawaiian fish hooks. Especially noteworthy is the large number of whale tooth and turtle shell “barbed rotating fish hooks” described above. It can be surmised that large turtle shell hooks are a very late development in Hawaii. The vast majority of them compare in shape to the whale tooth hooks, which are all of historic manufacture. However, six examples comparable to this type, but made of mother of pearl, were collected on Cook’s voyages: Inv.Oz 225 and 226 in Göttingen, #104, 105, 106, 107 in Vienna, illustrated in (106): 331; (155): Fig. 200. (*2) Ea = turtle shell (*3) Ahi = Hawaiian tuna, especially the yellowfin (Thunnus Albacares) (157): 103.

216

18:17 Uhr

Seite 216

fibre along its entire length. A 35 centimeter long bait line, also of Olona fibre, is loosely wound around the line at the head of the shank. A reddish brown substance used to treat the line is readily recognizable, and according to Arning, was applied to make the line “less visible in the water.” (154): 50. The secure attachment of the bone or turtle shell shank to the line was made possible by the clearly visible protrusion worked into the hook on the outer side of its shank head. Also interesting to note is Arning’s observation that the fisherman crushes the heads of smaller and medium sized fish with his teeth in order to kill them. (154): 51.

Examination of the large one-piece turtle shell hook leads one to conclude that only a very capable fisherman could have created such a perfect and timelessly beautiful object, one that is truly a masterpiece of pure form, utterly free of extraneous elements. It is the embodiment of an unbelievably developed feeling for material and form, and the culmination of the experiences and skills of many generations of fishermen. This hook differs from comparable examples in the shape of its shank head, but we refer to Arning, who received a turtle shell hook that had been a treasured heirloom from a family in Waimea and by his description could be our hook: “Later I obtained other fish hooks of this type that had only minor differences between them. But one of these hooks (1,341), which comes from Kalapapa (Molokai), differs from the others in that it has its barb carved onto the inner face of the hook’s bend. At the top of the shank of this 10 centimeter long and 5.5 centimeter wide hook, there are three grooves for the attachment of the line.” (154): 50. This hook is now in the Museum für Völkerkunde in Berlin.

Turtle shell hooks of this size appear to be very rare, while the smaller examples are “the most numerous in the Bishop Museum collections (*1).” (153): 328. Archaeologically excavated turtle shell hooks are only rarely medium sized, and much more frequently small. Beasley gives a good overview of the different sizes and shapes of the turtle shell hooks (8): Pl. LXXXII and says: “They are invariably beautifully finished, and unlike those from some groups where the natives have discovered that the shell can be shaped by being heated, are cut from the solid.” (8): 51. These turtle shell hooks are called Makau ea (*2). They were baited and, according to Arning, were used to catch Ahi (*3) in Kailua (Kona). The hooks that were used had “outward facing barbs.” (154): 50.

It can be inferred from Arning’s remarks that these hooks were very highly valued: “When King Tembenuku of Apamama (Gilbert Islands) entrusted Kalakaua’s envoy with the gift of a whale tooth in September 1882, Kalakaua reciprocated with the gift of a turtle shell hook. (...) And added that he hoped Tembenuku would always wear the hook when going to war.” (154): 50. Kalakaua was a fond collector of Hawaiian art and may have spurred fish hook production in the 19th century with his interest.

Hooper also mentions the importance of the turtle in the life of the Hawaiians: “Turtles were closely associated with chiefs and divinity, and were a highly valued sacrificial offering. The shell of the carapace (...) was adapted to a variety of purposes, including the manufacture of fish hooks.” (119): 113.

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:17 Uhr

Seite 217

Two-piece Bone Hooks The three two-piece hooks on plates 114 and 115 are rare and outstanding Pl. 114 examples of their type (*4). These hooks are made from the bones of high-ranking Pl. 115 individuals. Both pieces are made with such great precision, that once they have been bound together with Olona fibre, the hook appears to be a single piece of bone.

Hiroa mentions the protrusions on the base of shank and point, which ensure that the binding cannot slip off. He also writes: “A constant feature of the complete hooks was the use of small wooden wedges, driven in between the lashing and the hook to tighten up the lashing, which were used on both sides of the hook.” (153): 332. Only Giglioli, in his description of the Cook collection in Florence, gives a name for this type of hook: “These fish hooks are called Makau (hook) iwi (bone) kanaka because it seems that the bone used in making them was human.” (107): 149.

The hook on the right of plate 115 is unique as the point is made of pearl Pl. 115 shell and not of bone. Hooper illustrates a two-piece bone hook with an extremely unusual point (*5), and states: “Hooks of this kind have been found as offerings at temples.” (119): 113. This assertion is further evidence that the mana laden hooks were valued especially highly. The black shank on plate 114 is a rare surviving Pl. 114 example of a shank made from black-coral (part of the base is broken off, revealing the inner growth rings). (*6) It is surprising that the two-piece hook type shown here occurs with some differences, but many unmistakable similarities, on Rapa Nui at the extreme eastern edge of Polynesia. Métraux writes: “The point is made of human tibia, the shank suggests the human femur.” (158): 180. The points of these hooks curve sharply inwards, and do not have barbs. Métraux illustrates several hooks of the two-piece type. Hook C illustrated in Fig. 11 is a typical example from Rapa Nui (*7). (158) Whether this hook and its Hawaiian counterpart evolved separately and independently of one another is a question that cannot be answered. It is relatively certain however that seafaring Marquesas Islanders (*8) settled both the Hawaiian Islands (*9) and Rapa Nui possibly as early as 2000 years ago. The most recent literature suggests dates as late as 800 AD.

(*6) A two-piece hook shank from the Glaisyer collection on Kauai made of black coral.

(*8) A very early hook from the Marquesas Islands.

(*9) A very early hook from the Hawaiian Islands.

Shark Hooks When comparing the hooks with wooden shanks shown here with Pl. 116 examples collected on Hawaii on Cook’s third voyage (1778-1779) and by Pl. 117 Vancouver, who visited the islands three times between 1792 and 1794 (*9) it must Pl. 118 be borne in mind that the two hooks here were archaeological finds rather than Pl. 119 historically traded, and consequently may be older than the examples collected in Pl. 120 the last third of the 18th century. The latter give the impression of never having Pl. 121 been used. The wonderfully shaped and polished shark hook in Vienna has five grooves around the head of its shank that would probably have been insufficient for the secure attachment of a line. They could not have withstood the pull of a large shark. Comparison with the notched and stepped head on the two hooks in the plates and (*1) (following page) confirms this assertion. These deeper grooves

(*4) During Cook’s stay on the Hawaiian Islands (1778 and 1779), about 25 hooks were collected, of which five were of this type: Cambridge #1922.926, Göttingen Oz 228 and 229, Florence (no number), and Rome #1193. (*5) Further variants are in Beasley (8): Pl. LXXX, with a wooden shank and a pearl shell point; and in Kaeppler (107): Fig. 229, with a turtle shell shank and a bone point. Hooper illustrates a bizarrely made bone point with two outer barbs and one inner one, and a bone shank.

(119): Fig. 43. A drawing of this hook is found in Anell (19): Fig. 7, #6. (*9) In Bern HAW 5 (107): Fig. 115, in Vienna #45 (155): Fig. 196, in Leningrad (St. Petersburg) #505-24(155): Fig.197. The shark hook collected on Vancouver’s voyage is in the British Museum in London VAN 316 (119): Fig. 42.

217

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

(*) A shark hook point from the Glaisyer collection with visible bite marks (6,7 cm long).

Pl. 119 Pl. 120

Pl. 117

(*4) A shark hook collected in Hawaii on Cook’s third voyage, 23 cm tall and made of whale bone is now housed in the British Museum. (Inv. no.: Oc, HAW.62) (21,6 x 10,7 cm)

(*2) makau = general term for fish hook mano = general name for shark (*3) “Uhiuhi. An endemic plant (Mezoneuron kauaiens), a tree with pink or red flowers and Pl. 117 thin, broad, winged pods. The wood is hard and heavy and formerly was used for holua (sleds), Pl. 119 tapa beaters, spears and digging sticks.” (157): Pl. 121 106.

218

18:18 Uhr

Seite 218

would have allowed for a binding strong enough to resist such a pull. Hiroa describes the process of lashing the shank head with several illustrations (153): Fig. 232a-d.

It can thus not be ruled out that some of the hooks collected by Cook and Vancouver are examples that were made for other purposes than fishing.

King, who accompanied Cook on the third voyage, speaks of this impressive hook type: “Those with which they fish for sharks, are of a very large size, being generally six or eight inches long. Considering the materials of which these hooks are made, their strength and neatness are really astonishing; and in fact we found them, upon trial, much superior to our own.” (159): 150. The hooks were called Makau mano (*2), and were made from pieces of uhiuhi, a particularly hard and resistant wood, “which were specially trained to the elegant curved shape (*3).

This provided strength which a hook cut from a wood block could not provide. A bone point with a ridge to stop slippage is bound into the end.” (119): 112. While most wooden shark hooks are 20 centimeters or more in length, like the two illustrated in plates 118-121, significantly smaller ones of similar form (plate 117) are also known. The shark hook in the Hooper collection (#288) measures only 12.7 centimeters. (61): Pl. 35. All three of the shark hooks illustrated here lack the recess for the introduction of the bone point. An excavated archaeological bone point was attached to the small hook on plate 117 to demonstrate what a complete hook looked like. The shark hooks found in caves which Kirch illustrates (162): Fig. 151, 179 are likewise incomplete. One-piece shark hooks made of whale bone are known, but very rare. The most impressive example is that collected on Cook’s third voyage (*4), which has both an inner and an outer barb, and which is published by Beasley (8): Pl. LXXVII. It must have been the property of a highranking individual. Beasley says: “Hooks made for the use of the Chiefs are remarkable for their fine workmanship and high polish.” (8): 52.

Many authors have discussed shark fishing. Titcomb states that the up-to9 meter long niuhi were hunted exclusively for their highly coveted teeth. These were used as tools for the carving of weapons and utilitarian objects. (152): 108.

She refers to Beckley, who wrote: “that catching the niuhi was the game of kings; it was a dangerous sport (...). Favoured persons were given the right to fish for niuhi; it was tabu for others to fish for it, breaking of this tabu punishable by death.” (161): 19. Brigham refers to a large shark hook called kiholo, and writes: “(...) he was always baited with human flesh (...). A human victim, usually a slave, was cooked and left to decompose for several days, then (...) carried to sea in a double canoe. The hinu or oil which was allowed to drip into the water attracted the sharks, and the trail thus laid drew them into deep water where the king and alii (chiefs) fought them with great courage and skill.” (160): 68.

How important a role in fishing these impressive shark hooks still played in the second half of the 19th century is difficult to determine on the basis of existing literature. One notes that neither the shark hooks with bone points nor the one-piece whale bone hooks appear in collections that were assembled on the Hawaiian Islands during that time (*5). The three hooks shown in plates 117-121 were found in caves, like the ones in Kirch’s publication. (162): Fig. 151 and 179.

Titcomb goes into great detail in her description of the special role that shark

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:01 Uhr

Seite 219

fishing played in the life of the Hawaiians (*6) and of the taboos it was connected with. (152): 106-109.

Although Titcomb maintains that Ruvettus fishing was known in Hawaii “It was caught off Kona, Hawaii, a favourite place for deep sea fishing.” (152): 159 - there is no illustration in the literature of a typical Ruvettus hook. Only in Gudger, one finds a drawing of an enormous 43 centimeter hook “of intermediate design” that could be used for catching both shark and Ruvettus. (18): Fig. 23. Anell’s comments are interesting in connection with this matter: “The Ruvettus hook thus has a more restricted area of distribution than the shark hook, and it is, moreover, quite coherent. The eastward spreading is clearly discernible, and in certain cases also historically documented. Proceeding from these two factors, the distribution and the variation of form, it is not hard to decide which of the two types is the elder. The truth seems to be, as a matter of fact, that the Ruvettus hook is a relatively recent invention which has doubtless developed from some of the older large wooden hooks chiefly intended for shark and presumably used already by the first Polynesian immigrants.” (19): 236.

Eel Hooks These fishing devices, which Arning calls eel hooks, are rarely mentioned Pl. 124 in the literature, and appear to be very uncommon in collections. Beasley, Buck and Anell do not mention them, and only Arning goes into some detail about them.

The hooks in his collection (nr. 1,432) seem to resemble the one shown on plate 124. Arning writes: “An eel hook in the collection consists of a 33 centimeter long line which is attached to two spindle shaped little pieces of wood 8 or 9 centimeters long, extending outward to either side of a lashing around the center where they meet. The wooden pieces are sharpened to a point at their ends. A small piece of line just above the little pieces of wood is used for the attachment of bait.” (154): 52. There is another hook in the Arning collection on which the two spindleshaped and sharpened pieces of wood are tired together in such a way that they cross in the middle (*7).

Other eel hooks made of bone and wood are illustrated by Sinoto and Emory. They were found during excavations on Oahu (Kawekiu and Kuliouou shelter). Noteworthy is a small eel hook of only 20mm length; all others are between 100 and 120 mm long. Emory and Sinoto quote from Emerson's manuscript in the Bishop Museum: “An arm of the squid is the favorite bait for this kind of fishing, being wrapped about the forward end of the haoa. The other sharp end of the stick is thrust into a split end of another stick which is the handle.” (168): 53, fig.47.

According to Titcomb, there are a large number of eel and moray species.

(152): 144-147. She calls them puhi. The term appears to apply to the moray family of eels as well as to other species. The morays are wild, prone to bite, and feared by the fishermen. Catching them is associated with dangers. Titcomb writes the following about the puhi paka (fierce): “One of the best liked; found throughout Hawaii; teeth very sharp, a ferocious eel.” “They remain in their haunts at night and venture out when enticed by bait (...). When lured out in this way they will catch at

(*1) The tree branch from which this hook would later be fashioned was trained to grow in a “U” shape lengthways as well as an “S” shape sideways.

(*5) Arning (154) and Emerson (163) were collecting at the same time in the 1880s. (*6) Malo explains: “In the kahala method, a net of very strong cord was used to take the shark; called also the hihi-mano.” He mentions another method: “Ku-mano was taking the shark with bait and a noose.” (164): 213. (*7) There is an illustration in the new publication on the Arning collection, which is in the Ethnologisches Museum in Berlin. (165): Fig 156. Other examples made of bone and wood were found by Emory and Sinoto on Oahu in the course of archaeological excavations.

219

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

Octopus Lures (Leho He’e) Pl. 123

(*2) Brigham gives a comprehensive overview of “Hawaiian Squid-Hook Sinkers” with 79 examples, which also includes discussion of the material of which they are made. (166):Pl. XXXVI-XXXIX. (*3) Usually Cyprea tigrina, which is a favorite bait for squid”. (166): 19. (*4) “The spots on the back must be very small and red, breaking through a reddish brown ground, such a shell would have the strongest attractions for an octopus, and is called ipo (lover).”

220

Seite 220

hooks with any kind of bait.” (Kinney). She further quotes M.K. Pukui of Lanai: “(...) one (eel) is a terrible fellow. (...) He often baffles the efforts of the fisherman(...). This dangerous eel, the puhi paka, inspired terror among the Hawaiians. He will take off a toe, or snap off an exposed naked foot, if he gets a chance.” (152): 145. Titcomb also cites Mary Kawena Pukui (*1): “Eels were highly prized as food. The eel was a fish of which chiefs were fond.” (152): 146.

According to Titcomb, eels were not only caught with hooks and lines, but also with scoop nets and basket traps. To catch baby eels, the manual technique of “eel pinching” was used.

(*) A Hawaiian “Fish God” made of lava.

Such stones, sometimes sculpted into the shape of a fish, but usually left in their natural shape, were thrown into the ocean from the beach or the canoe to attract a good catch. It is said that the fisherman would find his “Fish God” on his return at the beach. (29,5 x 5 x 7,8 cm)

(*1) Titcomb wrote her essential book in collaboration with this native Hawaiian woman.

(152).

17:01 Uhr

This fishing device consists of a coffee-bean shaped stone weight (*2), and a cowrie shell of almost equivalent size, which are tied to a piece of wood inserted between them by means of an Olona fibre line. A wooden point (more commonly bone), also secured with Olona fibre, is tied to the lower end of the piece of wood.

The usual fibre bundle hackle is not present. The three stranded twisted fibre line is drawn through a hole in the point and secured to it. The line then runs upwards nearly parallel to the piece of wood, through a hole in the bottom of the cowrie shell and emerges through a hole on its opposite side. A small toggle is often used here to hold the string with which the cowrie is attached to the shank, allowing for swift replacement of the cowrie with a differently coloured one, better suited to the weather and water situation. The line is knotted once passed through the upper hole in the cowrie, thus holding the device together, and continues on above the knot. Brigham informs us that: “Among the products of the sea few were more generally acceptable to the Hawaiians than the squid or hee. Both fresh and dried it was a favourite concomitant of poi the national dish. To capture it on the reefs where it abounds, a peculiar hook was used. (...) When lowered to the bottom the stone falls beneath and is hidden by the shell (*3): the hook is partly concealed by the blades of grass bound to the spindle near it. When the squid grasps the coveted shell, the fisher pulls the line and if all goes as planned, the hook enters the soft body of the mollusk which is then drawn in through the ink which it emits.” (166): 19.

The bound cowrie shell has special significance. Hiroa says: “It is evident that the fisherman carried a number of shells with the lifting cord attached so that he could change them on the lure to suit the different periods of the day.” (153): 361. Arning’s comments are also worthy of note: “In order to be useful, the Leho shells had to have certain fabled characteristics: They had to be large, very shiny, and dark reddish brown on the back. Their white dots, called Maka (eyes), could not have too harsh a glare, as the octopus did not tolerate a “staring gaze.” The reddish brown colour (and also the odor of the shell) could to some extent be altered by a process involving smoking the shells over sugar cane husks. Good Leho were so valuable that violence and murder in connection with their possession was not unheard of. (...) The Hawaiians thought of the Leho shell as the octopus’s lover, whom he embraced as soon as she approached him (*4).” (154): 52. Young adds another interesting comment: “Selected for colours, the Leho was considered the

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 221

“female” and was “married” to a handsome stone sinker, the “husband”, to form a lure.” (157): 68. He refers to Kamakau for this observation. (167): 67.

Pre-historic Hooks Yosi Sinoto established with Kenneth Emory in the 1950’s that fish hooks Pl. 122 are a very important migration and dating tool for the prehistory of Hawaii and Pl. 125 subsequently most other Pacific Islands. The book: “Hawaiian Archaeology - Fish Pl. 126 hooks” published in 1959 and the additional texts by Sinoto: “Solving a Polynesian Pl. 127 fish hook riddle” (1959), “Chronology of Hawaiian Fish hooks” (1991) and “A Pl. 128 revised system for the classification and coding of Hawaiian fish hooks” (1991) are Pl. 129 the essential standard texts on the subject. Sinoto’s questioning curiosity has encouraged the study of fish hooks throughout the Pacific and resulted in many answers and more questions and last but not least this publication.

The following plates show the incredible variety of hooks that are known from the distant past. This time frame extends from the earliest settlements of the Hawaiian Islands, estimated to have taken place 2000 to 1200 years ago, to the arrival of Europeans in 1778. About two dozen hooks can be traced back to Cook’s last voyage (*5). They are the first pieces of evidence of the fascinating fishing culture that existed in 18th century Hawaii. In his introduction to the Archaeology of Hawaii, Kirch writes: “The Hawaiians of Cook’s day practiced a wide range of fishing strategies. (...) Some of these techniques had been developed by ancestral Polynesians thousands of years earlier and were carried to Hawaii by the early settlers. Others were local developments, reflecting experimentation with unique aspects of the Hawaiian environment. (...) While ethnographic and historical accounts reveal much about Hawaiian fishing and aquaculture at European contact, only the archaeologist can determine how Hawaiian fishing techniques and strategies developed over time.” (162): 199. It can be assumed that as a rule the parts of fishing devices made of perishable materials such as wood and plant fibre, among others, would not have survived for extended periods of time. But under certain exceptional conditions, for example in dry caves, even items as fragile as the finest plant fibre lines did in fact remain intact for centuries. This is evident from looking at the hooks in plate 129. The two shark hooks already discussed were also Pl. 129 able to stand the test of time. As a result of these exceptional circumstances, archaeologists, who generally only have hooks made of resistant materials like mother of pearl and bone available to them, can reconstruct a more comprehensive picture of fishing techniques. Extensive archaeological excavation work throughout Polynesia included intensive work on the coasts of the Hawaiian Islands. According to Reinman, the fish hook is a very frequently found artifact in these digs.

In 1959, Emory, Bonk and Sinoto published the first major study on archaeological hooks, using 4159 examples found at 33 sites on the Islands of Hawaii. They distinguish three main types: The one-piece hooks, which are further divided into two categories. Those in the first category are “jabbing hooks,” whose shanks and points run more or less parallel to one another, and those in the second are “rotating hooks” whose rounded points turn back inwards towards the shank

(*) An archaeological Hawaiian Fisherman’s Aumakua, in the shape of a shark, made from a sea urchin’s spine. From the Glaisyer collection on Kauai. (BPBM neg. nr. K166 - K. P. Emory letter to Dr. A. R. Glaisyer, Sep.18, 1959) (length 6,6 cm)

(*) Hawaiian fishermen sometimes had personal “Fish Aumakua (Charm or God),” which were stones vaguely shaped like a fish by nature or sculpted by hand. Such “Fish Gods” could be worshipped in the seclusion of a cave or out in the open. Upright stones surrounded by offerings (shells, plant leaves or food) can frequently be seen along the Hawaiian coasts.

(39 x 9 x 6 cm)

(*5) Archaeological evidence has shown that certain types of fish hooks had already been abandoned before the time of the Pacific explorations by Europeans and that such types of hooks were not represented in the ethnological collections. Archaeological evidence has also shown, conversely, that certain types of hooks which were developed in the late stage are not found in the early archaeological collections.”

(170: 58).

221

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

Pl. 128

(*1)

Pl. 125 (*2)

(*3)

(*4) Sketch of plate 125.

222

Pl. 128

Pl. 122 Pl. 125

18:18 Uhr

Seite 222

(*1). The authors also distinguish between two types of “two-piece fish hooks”: a) those whose shanks and points are separate pieces, lashed together at the base, and b) crescent shaped bone points (*2) that are tied to a large wooden hook or a shank (plate 128). According to the authors, the first type of “two-piece fish hook” (*3) was found at all of the investigated sites, and “appears to be a local Hawaiian innovation, probably an adaptation to the lack of large pearl shells and the need to substitute bone for hooks. (...) Of special importance in the classification of twopiece hooks is the form of the bases of both point and shank, which were carved with either notches or knobs to aid in the lashing process. These notched and knobbed styles appear to have chronological significance. The crescent type of two-piece hook is relatively rare in Hawaiian sites. (...) There is considerable geographic variation in the styles of one and two-piece fish hooks. Kaua’i sites, for example, yield distinctive one-piece fish hooks with barbs on the inner sides of both point and shank.” (Two examples may be seen on plate 125 (*4 nos. 5 and 19).

“Likewise, the multiple-notched base type of two-piece fish hook appears to be confined to South Point on Hawaii (Big Island).” (Examples are on plate 128).

“Composite fish hooks are also of two types: a) trolling hooks for bonito and tuna; and b) octopus hooks. (...) Material used for fish hooks include mammal bone (commonly pig and dog, and also human bone), mother of pearl shell, cowrie, bird bone, turtle shell, wood, and even teeth. Mother of pearl was prized for hook manufacture, but was not readily available on all islands. Kaua’i and Oahu (...) were the major sources for pearl shell. (...) On Hawai’i Island, mother of pearl hooks are only rarely found. At South Point, the large pieces of pearl shell used for trolling lures were imported from one of the easterly islands. (...) The largest one-piece and two-pieces hooks were made from human long-bones. (...) The use of human bone for fish hooks seems to have greatly increased in the late prehistoric period, and was relatively uncommon earlier in Hawaiian prehistory.” (162): 200-204.

A glance at plates 122 and 125 shows the astonishing variety of shapes and sizes these hooks can have. Their unknown makers did not make them so varied simply out of an over-exuberance of creativity, but rather each hook’s form is the result of the fishermen’s extensive knowledge of the species of fish it was intended to catch. This knowledge included an understanding of species’ behavior, of the times at which they would appear, and of their eating habits. The different hooks allow inferences to be made about the fishing strategies that were practiced hundreds of years ago. In places where fishing for smaller species near the coast was predominant, archaeological excavation turns up mainly smaller hooks. Fish bones were also found, which inform on what species were preferred. At the southernmost tip of Hawai’i Island, numerous large and compact hooks were found, because it was here that fishermen hunted the larger species that were particularly abundant on the leeward side of the island. (162): 205. The Hawaiian fisherman’s vast repertoire of forms is as fascinating to behold as it is difficult to explain. While relatively simple hooks, with points turned sharply inwards towards their shanks (*4 nos. 28, 32, 35, 36 and 38) are known from the early settlement era, their shapes changed over the centuries, sometimes resulting in seemingly bizarre looking examples with inner and outer barbs (*5). There are also unique examples,

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 223

such as the narrow bone hook with the unusual knob on the outside of the shank below the head (*4 no. 1) or the small hook (*6) with a finely worked protrusion at Pl. 125 its base, presumably for the attachment of a stone sinker, as illustrated on plate 129. Pl. 129 The Hawaiians developed a large array of methods for the optimal exploitation of the resources in each ocean zone. Since these zones are often very unlike one another, and best exploited in different ways, the devices used for fishing are similarly very varied. But even within a single zone, many differences between hooks can be observed, even though the type of fish that occurred in it presumably did not. In a further study Sinoto analyzes the differences in shank heads and their connections, and elaborates a typology and a chronology according to which shank heads terminating in a notched or squared off end are the oldest (*7), (the lower rows on plates 122 and 125), and those with shank heads ending in a pointed head Pl. 122 with a knob protruding below the outside are a later development. (*8) (seen on the Pl. 125 upper part of both plates). (170): Fig. 1/2. Already in the early 1950's Sinoto came up with the idea of using fish hooks as a dating tool in Hawaii, since pottery cannot be found archaeologically here. The abundance of fish hooks in archaeological digs favored this possibility.

As earlier mentioned, the two-piece hook owes its existence to the fisherman’s need to find a way of making large hooks without having large and strong enough shells available. “Because of its cross-laminated structure, shell is much stronger than bone, which tends to break at weak points (such as the bend of a hook) when stress is applied. By artificially “breaking” the hook into two parts, and replacing the weak section with a strong and flexible lashing of fine cordage, the Hawaiians ingeniously overcame this raw material constraint and were able to manufacture bone two-piece hooks of sizable proportions.” (162): 201.

With regards to the complexity of two-piece hooks, Kirch writes: “The most striking chronological change in the South Point fish hooks occurs between the two forms of two-piece hook points and shanks, those with notched bases and those with knobbed bases (...) the notched base form preceded the appearance of knobbed bases in the early H1 site (c.1240 A.D). In Site H8, the relative frequency of the two styles changed regularly over time, with an early emphasis on notched bases gradually giving way to a predominance of knobbed bases.” (162): 206. So while for the period 1230 AD to 1650AD the archaeological record shows that both types of hooks existed, only hooks with “knobbed bases” existed after 1650AD. The hooks on plate 126 date likely later than 1650AD. Kirch further states: “Unfortunately, the notched/knobbed fish hook sequence has not proven to be applicable outside the South Point region, probably because the notched style was a local geographic variant (...). Thus, while the South Point chronological sequence seems valid for that area, it is evidently not useful as a general relative dating tool for other areas in the Hawaiian Islands. (162): 206.(*9) Here again, on plate 127, the special circumstances previously described Pl. 127 allowed for the preservation of the otherwise perishable wooden shanks. Only the string had deteriorated, and is here replaced with new string. Such wooden shanks with bone points are extremely rare. A comparable bone shank in the literature is seen only in Emory, Bonk and Sinoto. (172): plate 3, #25. Beasley also illustrates

(*5) The first illustration of this type of hook is in: Dalton’s paper (169): plate XVI, 17.

(*6)

(*7)

(*8) Detail of a large hook made from the bone of a human shoulder blade.

(*9) The later type of two-piece hook in which point and shank are fit together on their flat (or slightly convex/concave sides also existed on Easter Island.

223

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

Pl. 3 Pl. 126 Pl. 127

(*3) Sketch of plate 128.

Pl. 128 Pl. 116

(*1) Dr. Sinoto recognized the misattributions of Pl. 129 such Hawaiian two-piece hooks in the British Museum, the Royal Scottish and the Peabody Museum. Dalton had attributed it to the American North-West Coast (169): 225-245.

Skinner attributed them to the Murihiku region on the South-Island of New Zealand (177): 256.

Sionto says: “After classifying several thousand fish hooks recovered in the recent archaeological excavations of the Bishop Museum in the Hawaiian Islands, both Dr. Kenneth Emory and I were struck by the similarity of certain bone Pl. 129 points of two-piece hooks with the bone points lashed to long wooden shanks in question. The hooks in the British Museum were collected by a member of Captain Vancouver’s voyage (179095) which touched Hawaii, and so could certainly have come from Hawaii.” (219): 23. (*2) A comparable bone point is in Emory, Bonk, Sinoto (172): Pl. 2, #83.

224

18:18 Uhr

Seite 224

some old Hawaiian hooks with straight wooden shanks in his chapter on Tahiti (8).

Pl.LXII/LXIII (*1). The Australian wooden shank on plate 3 is also similar to the ones on the hooks seen here in plates 126 and 127. The lightly bowed bone shank in plate 127 is possibly made from a dog’s rib and typical of what Sinoto calls the “slender type” (171): Fig. 4, A/B. Similar shanks are illustrated in Emory, Bonk and Sinoto on plate 3, numbers 23/24. “Dog rib bone” is cited as the material of which they are made. Bone points without shanks appear in great numbers at archaeological dig sites. They were without a doubt once tied to wooden shanks which rotted away over the centuries. The extent to which Hawaiian fishermen prized and were skillful at using bones and teeth for the manufacture of their hooks is especially obvious on the points made of teeth, the hardness and natural shape of which they took full advantage of. The large bone point with the inner and outer barbs (Pl. 126, l.r.) is rare (*2). Most bone points only have inner barbs. The small barbed bone shank without a point (Pl. 126 l.m.) is again a testimony to the great skill of the fisherman who created it, and who was able to combine such elegance of form with such great functionality. Even the most minute details of its manufacture are flawlessly executed. It is a masterpiece worthy of admiration!

The bone points illustrated in plate 128 are mostly typical examples of “crescent points”, which Sinoto considers to be among the “slender and massive points”. “Massive points” are illustrated on plate 116. They have no notches at their bases, and according to Sinoto were used exclusively as points for shark hooks.

Sinoto classifies the “crescent points” as being among the “shark-hook type hooks”, but adds: “The type name is based on the similarity of its shape to that of examples of ethnological shark hooks, but these hooks are not necessarily used only for fish such as tuna (ahi) or yellow Jack (ulua) (...). Bone point tips for sharkhook type hooks are called crescent points as their profiles indicate.” (171): 88.

According to Sinoto, all “slender type points” have inner barbs. He distinguishes between “4 types of lashing devices at the base. High notches (...) are cut halfway up or higher from the base.” (*3 no. 12) “Lower notches appear usually about 1/3 up from the base.” (*3 no. 7) “Base end notches are cut on the lower portion and on the end of the base.” (*3 nos. 13 and 15) “Plain points do not have any special feature.” (*3 no. 3), (171): 90. Emory, Bonk and Sinoto illustrate a large number of hooks for comparison on plate 2. (172).

The particular circumstances that allowed for the preservation of even the finest fibre lines over a period of centuries have already been discussed. We are fortunate enough not only to be able to examine tied hooks, but also the still present stone sinker and the bundle of line that was attached. That nearly identical hooks were lashed with many different kinds of thick plant fibre lines is as interesting to note as the various materials of which the hooks themselves were made. A hook made of a pig’s tooth is seen at the center of plate 129, and three very thin jabbing hooks made of bird bone are at the lower left. Three somewhat triangular hooks made of dog teeth, with their points very far from their shanks, are to the left and below the large hook with string. There are six small turtle shell rotating hooks at the right center edge of the plate, and beneath them are three larger turtle shell examples. Anyone wishing to gain a fuller understanding of the

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 225

archaeologically excavated hooks from the Hawaiian Islands, of the locations and circumstances they were discovered in, and of their chronological sequence, will necessarily have to refer to the works on the subject by Emory, Bonk and Sinoto (172), Sinoto alone (170) and (171), and Kirch (162).

New Zealand The waters around New Zealand, the largest Polynesian island, team with uncountable fish and other sea animals, an important food resource to the Maori. But artistic references to fish and the ocean in general are rare in their art (*4).

In order to understand the variety and uniqueness of New Zealand’s fish hooks, it is useful to have some information on the settlement of its two major islands, which lie at Polynesia’s southwestern extremity. Pl. 130 As the last of the major Polynesian areas to be settled New Zealand was probably Pl. 131 first reached by East Polynesian seafarers some one thousand years ago (*5). The Pl. 132 much cooler climate of these islands, landscapes very different from the tropical Pl. 133 ones to which they were accustomed, and the in many respects very different flora Pl. 134 and fauna, made it necessary for the first settlers to make significant changes to Pl. 135 their way of life. Fishing had traditionally played an important role in the nutrition Pl. 136 of the first migrants, which was partially supplanted by the meat of the 3.5 meter Pl. 137 tall flightless Moa bird, present on the islands until it became extinct a few hundred Pl. 138 years later. Moa bones were the preferred material for the manufacture of fish Pl. 139 hooks. Archaeological digs on both North and South Island resulted in the Pl. 140 excavation of a very large number of Moa bone hooks and points (*6). Duff coined Pl. 141 the term “Moa hunter period” (*7) to describe this initial period of settlement.

Golson calls it the “Archaic Phase (1350 AD) and later Classic Phase (...) which ran through to European contact.” (173): 134.

Plate 130 shows six beautifully worked one-piece hooks made of various Pl. 130 materials. The hook in the upper left, probably made of human bone, embodies what Hjarno calls the “serrated one-piece hook” (*8). (179): Pl. IX. He states: “it is quite remarkable that all sites which on midden content appear early, have a very high percentage of one-piece hooks, whereas the percentage of one-piece hook material in the three Classic sites is very low (*9). A similar high proportion of onepiece hook material in early sites seems general for the whole of New Zealand.”

(179): 37. Hjarno considers the “serrated one-piece hooks” to be a variant of a later date. While they are found occasionally in sites of varying age, they occur only in those which also include “some late material”. “It is not found in the big assemblages from Shag River, Papatowai and Pounawea.” (*10), (179): 32.

Further examples of bone one-piece hooks with serrated edges are discussed in Skinner’s important work (177): Fig. 4 and 5), and in Beasley (8): plate XIIA. Skinner and Baucke both illustrate another one-piece hook from the Chatham Islands east of New Zealand, and remark: “An interesting specimen of a whalebone hook decorated with notches along the shank and with a rectilinear

(*4) “The two fish are very unlike barracoota, kingfish, and proper, the commonest of the largerscaled fish in South Island waters (...). But the closest likeness seems to be with the tunnies, either scaled or scaleless (...). I think it probable that the fish of fig. 69 are a traditional rendering of the bonito or the Albacore.” (201): 310/311 Dark Serpentine pectoral, Banks Peninsula.

Canterbury Museum No.E.148.79. Horizontal diameter, c. 17,8 cm. (201): Fig.69.

(*8) (*5) Bellwood says: “The origins of the Maori have never been established with certainty, but archaeological, linguistic and geographical considerations make the Cook, Society and Austral Islands the most likely candidates.” (173): 133. (*6) They were published in many articles and works, several of which appeared in the Journal of the Polynesian Society, for example (174), (175), (176), and (177). (*7)Skinner states that “The book is a fundamental contribution to anthropological research in Polynesia.” (178): VII. (*9) This assertion by Beasley is supported by the hooks with fine bait lines seen in this and many other publications. (*10) Hjarno’s research refers to hooks that were excavated in the southeastern part of South Island. The hook on Pl.130 u.l. is also attributed to this area (see map 1, Murihiku sites (179): 4)).

225

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

(*) “Various kinds of Instruments Utensils &c, of the Inhabitants of New Zealand”, Pl. XXVI in Parkinson (1773), (detail). (191).

Pl. 130

(*1) The remains of the bait string are still tied around the base of the hook.

(*2) The 17 New Zealand fish hooks known to have been collected on Cook’s voyages are in the University of Göttingen’s collections. A wooden one-piece hook in Göttingen (inv. Oz 206), illustrated in the most recent publications (122): Vol. I: 221 and (181): 94 as #205, should be attributed to New Zealand on account of its flax binding, even if Kaeppler attributes it to the Society Islands (122): Vol. II: 82. The inventory numbers of the other hooks from New Zealand in the Göttingen collections are: Oz 327, 328, 329, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342 and Hann. #35. Göttingen thus has the most comprehensive collection of New Zealand fish hooks with early collection dates.

226

18:18 Uhr

Seite 226

pattern at the bend is shown in plate LII, A.” (180): 347.

Beasley also illustrates a whale bone hook with a serrated edge from the Chatham Islands whose point tip, like on Baucke and Skinner’s example but unlike on our hook, runs parallel to its shank. (8): Pl. I. He makes reference to many similar Maori hooks and sees the serrated edge as essentially decorative, but adds: “it may owe its conception to the necessity of having some irregularities on the otherwise smooth surface as a means of providing a hold for the bait string. It is, I believe, a fact that the bait was never impaled on the hook as it is with us, but was tied on with a special cord.” (*1), (8): 3.

The three one-piece shell hooks seen on the plate 130 are rarely found in collections. Beasley illustrates six variously made hooks (8): Pl. XIIA, of which all but one have a notch at the base, presumably for the attachment of the bait string. In two of the examples illustrated here a fragment of the bait string is still visible. A comparable hook to Pl. 130 t.r. in the Cook/Forster collections (in the University of Göttingen), also has a complete line, but the bait string extends from the head of the shank, where the leader is tied on. (*2), (Inv. Oz 330).

One-piece shell hooks have been found in certain layers in the course of archaeological excavations on the south coast of North Island. These “Black and Crescent middens” are dated to 1300 AD. (182): Fig. 3. “In the Black midden were (...) fragments of bone and stone trolling lures, while the Crescent midden mainly contained fragments of shell and bone rotating hooks. The shell hooks were all fashioned from Haliotis australis and the lure shanks in moa bone.” (182): 56.

Leach illustrates a series of hooks, including examples in various phases of manufacture. He writes: “Fragments belonging to 13 one-piece shell fish hooks (Fig. 21) and a further 11 in the process of manufacture (Fig. 22) were found in the Washpool site (...). The fish hooks are of very uniform size and design with moderately incurved points (...). Apparently, shell fish hooks were present in Palliser Bay from about 1180 A.D. through to about 1350 A.D., and illustrate conservatism in manufacture throughout this time.” (183): 109. Leach also indicates that “shell fish hooks” are rare on South Island, and more common on North Island. He takes issue with Rowlands’ explanations (184): 8, according to which the earliest fish hooks from the Coromandel Region (northern North Island) were made of moa bone, and shell hooks followed later. “On the contrary it might be expected that the first settlers in New Zealand would have attempted to copy the shell fish hooks, so entrenched in the cultural assemblages of tropical Polynesia, in local shell. Green (185): 26 has raised the interesting point that in the process of conversion from pearl shell to moa bone, these early inhabitants were required to produce counterparts with more substantial bases to offset the inferior material.

The Palliser Bay evidence suggests quite the reverse.” (183): 111. We further cite Hiroa on this hook type: “Most of the Murihiku hooks were made of moa bone and some of human bone. In the North Auckland area, numbers of small hooks

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 227

were made of paua shell (Haliotis australis) in the U-shaped and sub-circular forms.” (186): 218. The bone hook illustrated on this page (*3) is an extraordinarily well preserved hook showing many bite marks and scratches from fish teeth. Like those on plate 130 it still has its complete snood attached. An in all respects very Pl. 130 similar hook is located in the Cook/Forster collection at the University of Göttingen (Oz 327), which is illustrated in (122): Vol. I, 224. Hjarno illustrates a bone hook with a stylized head comparable to ours (*4) at the edge of its base. He calls it a “bait knob carved to represent a human head.” (179): 33.

The very artfully made and most probably unique jade Hei Matau (decorative hook) (*5) can be seen as the predecessor of the bone hook illustrated here (*3). Armytage says the following about this hook, which is in the Wellington National Museum (ME 2157): “One of the most remarkable Maori jade artifacts in existence (...). The boss for holding the snood is in the form of a so-called “manaia” head and this head is repeated twice on the lower part of the hook. Possibly these latter represent lugs for holding the bait string. This specimen conforms to early types of Maori hooks (...). There are similar types in bone (...) but this is the only specimen I know of in jade.” (187): 68. It is in any event certain that the one-piece hook form can be traced back to New Zealand’s earliest settlement period. While complete one-piece bone or shell hooks were rarely found in the course of archaeological excavations, the large number of fragments that were unearthed made it possible to reconstruct the form. Moreover, comparison with hooks collected later, in the 18th and 19th centuries, shows an astonishing continuity of form over such extended periods of time.

Plate 137 shows a two-piece hook, two bone points and a nephrite point. Pl. 137 They date to the Classic phase, which Bellwood however maintains should not really be seen as completely distinct from the Archaic phase: “Many of the changes took place over several centuries, and since artefacts made of organic materials have so rarely survived from Archaic contexts we are obliged to restrict observations to those made of stone or bone. Nevertheless, by 1500 AD a fairly homogeneous cultural assemblage (...) shows some marked differences from its Archaic predecessor. (...) One-piece bait-hooks for fishing are replaced almost entirely by two-piece forms, and harpoons and the Archaic types of trolling hooks disappear, to be replaced by different forms as the Kahawai hook in the North Island, and the “barracuda lure” in the South.” (173): 144/145. The elegantly shaped nephrite point is seldom seen in collections, despite Best’s assertion to the contrary: “It should be noted that fish hook barbs in greenstone, like those figured above, are common in collections.” (188): 5, Fig. 6, 7, 10. He calls these nephrite pendants Tautau, and suggests that they are derived from the bone points of Barracuda hooks. When the latter were of particularly fine manufacture and not inserted into shanks, they were used as ear ornaments or necklace pendants. Best says: “Thus, becoming purely ornamental, they were copied in greenstone. Fig. 6 shows several of these ornamental greenstone barbs.” (188): 3. Skinner illustrates a nephrite point similar to the one on plate 137. He writes: “The craftsman who Pl. 137 made it has added notches presumably for their magical power rather than for aesthetic effect.” (189): 197, Pl. XII.D. Skinner illustrates additional examples of

(*3) A one-piece hook made of human bone, collected in the 19th century by Dennis Collings.

(*4) Close-up views of two of the three small “head”-protrusions on the outside of the shank.

(*5)

227

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

Pl. 137

(*) A very old jade amulet in the shape of a shark tooth.

Pl. 137

Pl. 133 Pl. 134 Pl. 133

(*1) The term “Murihiku” is often used in archaeological research, especially pertaining to the east coast, and appears in many publications.

See especially (177) and (179).

228

18:18 Uhr

Seite 228

nephrite points. He calls them “fish hook point amulets.” They were found in the Otago area, and are housed in the Otago Museum. Example D.24.1206 has crenellations on its outer edge; D.10.258 has a hole drilled in it, and an inner and outer barb, while D.39.1501 is smooth and is pierced at its extremity. (190): Fig. 4.126, 4.127, 4.130.

The artfully worked bone points on plate 137 are typical examples from the Murihiku region (*1) of southern South Island. The lower loose point on the plate has a truly virtuosic and unique appearance, as if all of the possibilities of the material from which it is made had been exploited and exhausted in its manufacture. But similar points are seen in Skinner (177): Fig. 28 (Otago Museum #D 27.002). Hjarno calls these points “serrated and multi-barbed points type C.4” (179): Fig. 21, and says: “The word baroque seems to suit this type. It varies somewhat in shape as well as size and in the number of barbs. The main criterion, but a very marked one, is the plethora of notches and supplementary barbs on all sides of the point.” (179): 29. These points were found in the upper layers of excavated sites. The type is characteristic of the Classic phase.

Many wooden hooks with these beautifully made bone points, with early collection dates, have been published in the literature. Parkinson, the artist who accompanied Cook on his first voyage, illustrates all four of the types of two-piece hooks mentioned here, alongside five other New Zealand hooks, on plate XXVI of his Journals (see (191): Pl. XXVI and p.227).

Beasley shows over a dozen of these impressive hooks (8): Pl. XXIV A through Pl. XXVII. Plate 61 of the Oldman catalogs shows further outstanding examples of these hooks, which vary greatly in form and size. (192) The complete hook on plate 137 also exhibits not only highly developed technical abilities on the maker’s part, but also a keen sense of form and proportion. The elegant swing extends even to the binding which secured the hook to its now absent leader. The gradual thickening of the wooden shank at its base and its thinning towards the point at which the elegantly shaped bone tip is tied on, and the manner in which the small adjacent barbs “target” the binding at the top of the hook, elevate this example to an aesthetic level that surpasses that of many other nonetheless very beautifully made two-piece hooks.

The Murihiku hook on the plate 133 is an example of the great variations in hook manufacture that were possible. As the smaller hooks on the following plate 134 further demonstrate, such wide variations are not encountered elsewhere in Polynesia. The wooden shanks were primarily made of “trained roots” (*2), which gave them the strength to withstand the pull of large fish when hooked. This hook is complete in all respects, and it has bite marks on its shank, presumably produced by shark teeth. The bone point, which is equipped with both an inner and outer barb, is meticulously tied to the shank with flax fibre line. The masterfully braided leader lashed to the shank is additionally reinforced with a covering of multi-stranded twined flax fibre, extending from above the shank head to the bottom of the binding, to prevent the caught prey from biting through it. A comparable hook may be seen in Skinner (177): Fig. 24. Another hook in the collection of the Museum für Völkerkunde Dresden (Inv.no.13806) compares

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 229

favorably to the one illustrated here, inasmuch as the somewhat heavy base has here been carved into a head (*3).

Drawings #19 and #20 in Skinner’s publication (177) are of particular interest because they show wooden hooks without bindings or points, and so allow for examination of how both the shank head, and the tip to which the bone point was attached, were made. According to Skinner, this hook can be attributed to the Murihiku area (*4).

Hjarno investigates the “two-piece bait hooks” from this area in great detail and asserts that the many bone points are readily identifiable as belonging to these two-piece hooks. The hook he illustrates shows how the bone point is laid into the wooden shank, before being lashed onto it. (179): Fig. 13.

According to Skinner, no other area in New Zealand has so great a variety of hooks as Murihiku. He says: “That this is due to conservatism rather than to inventiveness is indicated by the fact that every Murihiku type and most varieties are present in other parts of Oceania.” (177): 209.

The two-piece hooks on plate 134 are also variously shaped. The upper Pl. 134 hook has comparables in Beasley (8): Pls. XVII and XIX as well as in Hjarno (179): Fig. 15. The latter states: “The line attachment consists of a knob at the back, and from here the shank tapers to a point. The bend ends in a groove, in which the point was placed. To secure the point lashing the lower outside of the shank is grooved on the underside.” He goes on to say: “No wooden example of this type has yet been recovered in Murihiku.” (179): 23. Skinner similarly remarks: “On open sites wood covered by sand decays rapidly, and as caves of any kind are infrequent in Murihiku and caves suitable for settlement are nonexistent, the number of wooden fish hooks or wooden fish hook shanks preserved in collections is small.” (177): 209. The lower left hook with its bone point turned acutely inward still has its bait line. The bone point of the very unusual upper left hook also still has a portion of bait line attached. This perhaps unique two-piece hook is meticulously bound with flax fibre line all the way to its bone point, and the wooden shank beneath the binding is thus not visible. Unfortunately only little information is available on this hook, and comparable examples are unknown in the literature, but it may be assumed that the binding was intended to strengthen the hook and protect it from the fishes’ teeth (*5).

There is barely any information available for a large number of hooks on what types of fish they were used to catch. Reed writes: “The sea, lakes and rivers teemed with fish which were a valuable part of the Maori’s food supply” (150): 70, and describes nearly 100 species of fish that he calls “more common.” But which specific hook types were used to fish for which species is known only in a fraction of cases. In their 2008 publication, Davidson and Leach write: “Classifications of fish hooks in New Zealand and the Pacific have tended to focus on form, with less attention to function. Discussions of hanging baited hooks often distinguish between jabbing hooks and rotating hooks, which are thought to function differently (...). Allen found that functional aspects of hook morphology are still poorly understood. Most studies however, have concentrated on form without considering what kinds of fish were targeted and how the hooks actually captured

(*3) Museum für Völkerkunde Dresden, Inv. Nr. 13806 (18,5 cm high).

(*2) Hiroa mentions a practice in the northern Auckland area: “the bend was produced artificially by tying the stem of young tanekaha plant in a loose overhand knot so that the natural growth fixed the curve in circular form.” (186): 219. Best describes another practice from the Bay of Plenty. “A peculiar submarine growth termed totara-moana was used for the manufacture of wooden hooks. Suitable green and pliable pieces of wood were bent into the desired form. They were then allowed to dry, and thus became extremely hard and resistant.” (193): 38. (*4) “There are doubtless a good many complete hooks from Murihiku in British collections, but in all cases evidence as to locality has been lost.”

(177): 209. (*5) Beasley illustrates four examples of twopiece hooks from East Polynesia (Rapa Iti) which are completely bound except for their points, and expresses the opinion that the purpose of the binding was to protect the hook from damage caused by fish teeth. (8): 46, Pl. LXXIII.

229

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

Pl. 135 Pl. 136

(*5) One of several large hooks in the Vienna Museum für Völkerkunde: P12/1891 - 42395, 42396, 42400, 42401. All lack their line bindings.

They all have a drilled hole a few centimeters below the shank head. A groove extends upward to the top of the shank head from either side of the hole for the securing of the line. The line running inside this recess, will therefore be protected from the fish teeth. (20,5 x 12,5 cm)

(*1) This hook was collected by missionaries of Pl. 132

(*2) Another, almost identical, example is housed in the American Museum of Natural History in NY (cat.No.80.0/5628). (*3) Michel Thieme witnessed at a funeral in New Zealand, that a wooden fish hook comparable to our Pl. 135, was placed on the coffin and buried with it. (*4) Best states: “For the manufacture of wooden hooks certain tough woods were employed, such as roots of the tauhinu, hardened by fire.” (193): 37.

230

Seite 230

and held them.” (194): 195. Further information on the subject of what kinds of hooks were used to catch what kinds of fish can unfortunately only be hoped for in the future from archaeological excavations, when and if fish bones are found in strata in association with hooks. In his descriptions of old hooks from North Island, Fairfield makes the following remark about how they might have been used: “As to the detailed use of these hooks, it is evident from their diversity, both of size and barbing, that each different type was used to catch different types of fish (...) the larger hooks would be used for dogfish and hapuku (groper) fishing, and the medium sizes for catching snapper (tamure) while the smaller sizes were for catching smaller fish, such as gurnard, etc.” (195): 153.

The following hooks on plates 135 (*1) and 136 were baited and used to fish for larger species. There is an almost identical hook in Beasley (8): Pl. XXII. The binding of the leader is intact on the Beasley example, but the age-induced brittleness of the braided flax line on the one illustrated on plate 136 has caused it to break off. The carefully executed lashing of the bone point to the shank is perfectly preserved, however. The artful manner in which the point takes over and continues the shape of the wooden shank is noteworthy. Only a few examples like it are known (*2). About these hooks, which exist in so many different variants, Anell writes: “Whether all these hooks were used for catching sharks or other big fish is not known, but from a purely classificatory point of view they all belong to the category of shark-hooks.” (*3), (19): 227.

Two Unusual Wooden Hooks

Pl. 131

the congregation of the Fathers from the Sacred Heart in the 19th Century.

18:18 Uhr

One-piece wooden hooks are seldom seen in collections although, as mentioned above, many two-piece hooks with wooden shanks and bone points do exist. The hook shown on Pl. 131 is of extraordinary elegance, and is superior from an aesthetic point of view to all other known examples. (193): Fig. 17 and (8): Pl. XXIII. This hook’s solidity is due to the fine quality of the piece of wood from which it is made, which was trained by manipulation to grow into the desired shape (*4). The carefully smoothed surface, abundantly dented with shark bites, and the beautifully shaped point with its small outer barb for the attachment of a bait line, or to keep bait put directly on the hook from slipping off, demonstrate masterful comprehension of the selected material, and elevate the hook to the status of an art work. Both the leader and its wrapping are also meticulously executed.

The one-piece hook on plate 132 combines two uncommon features: a point with an inner and outer barb and a grooved and pierced shank head. If we assume that the barb on such large hooks serves to prevent the bait or bait line from slipping off, one such barb would suffice. What then could be the purpose of a second barb? Future research may find a satisfying answer.

The grooved and pierced shank head, however, has strictly functional reasons. The line passing through the hole and up the shank lies protected in its channel and can not be damaged by the teeth of the fish. There would have been additional lashing around the shank head and the leader, which unfortunately has been lost on our hook. (*5).

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 231

An Unusual Hook with Questionable Purpose: the Albatross Hook.

Best illustrates two richly decorated examples in 1924, and describes them as albatross hooks, without however supplying any additional information. (196): Fig. 122. It also seems as if all later discussion of “albatross hooks” in literature refers only to this brief mentioning by Best (*6).

A similarly decorated example appears in the publication “Te Maori” with the following commentary: “Most fish hooks used by the Maori have incurved points with only occasional jabbing hooks from East Cape collected in the 19th century which are described as hooks for catching albatross. They are all jabbing hooks. In the 19th and early 20th centuries the Whanau-a-Apanui were noted shorebased whalers. Albatross could have been commoner in the area at that time than before or since. The heads and carving style on this hook would suggest an early date, as the form is that of the Te Kaha carvings (...). Such hooks were collected in 1863. The earlier Te Kaha carving style may have survived until then.” (197): Fig.94.

It must be noted, that the carving style of the illustrated examples seems consistent with a collection date in the late 19th or even in the early 20th century.

The question remains open as to how and why such hooks, especially with a bait string attached, should have been used for catching albatross, or if the attributed purpose is simply an early misunderstanding by Best.

(*6) The two questionable hooks. (196): fig.122.

A New Zealand Hook with Haliotis Shank and Bone Point This exceptionally well crafted hook appears to be rare in collections. The Pl. 138 shank is made from the hard edge of the Haliotis shell (Pana), and the point of bone. The plant fiber bindings are additionally strengthened with resin paste.

Neither Beasley nor Anell present this type of hook. Oldman illustrates two examples that he classifies as being of the Kahawai type (192): Pl. 62, #106J and #107k. A hook with a serrated Paua shell shank and an iron point appears in the Hooper catalogue, and is also identified as being of the Kahawai type (61): Pl. 3, #28. That these hooks were already in use at the beginning of the 19th century is demonstrated by an interesting group of hooks that were sold at auction in London in 1983. The label gives an incorrect location of origin, but states that they were “given by Sir Edward Parry to General Sir Ralph Darling in 1830.” Three of these four hooks with early collection dates, complete with their bindings and lines, have Kiwi feather hackles. All have Paua shell shanks with serrated edges. The bone points are also notched and barbed. (210): 25. Two additional hooks, with Haliotis shell shanks and points, were sold at auction in Auckland in 2002, again identified as Pa Kahawai. (211): 70. While on account of their short shanks, these hooks could have been used to catch Kahawai, the hook from the Christie’s auction and the one presented here were probably used to catch larger fish. Why Haliotis shell was used in the manufacture of hooks is explained by Janet Davidson: “The lack of pearl shell in New Zealand prompted some early adaption. Lure shanks were initially of bone or stone (...) although some use was made of local iridescent shells, both the paua (Haliotis spp., a New Zealand form of abalone) and a gastropod of the Turbo 231

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 232

family. Suitable bone was abundant in the form of moa bone and, to a lesser extent, sea mammal bone and ivory (...). The development of two-piece bait hooks appears to have begun in the south and spread north. Trolling forms utilising the iridescent properties of paua developed. At first these had a shank made of the thick rim of the shell, but in the nineteenth century a highly standardised form consisting of a wooden shank with a thin paua shell plate became widespread. In the south a wooden shank and bone point were used” (212): 17-18. According to Davidson, hooks of the type shown here were used in the 18th century. They were the predecessors of the Kahawai hooks, of which many examples are shown here. That it is safe to assume this is true is supported by the fact that the bone points are very artfully crafted and serrated, in a manner which is typical of the Maori Classic phase of the 18th century.

(*6) “Line-outriggers used by Kahawai trollers.”

Pa Kahawai – The Best Known Fish Hooks from New Zealand Pl. 139

(*1) Very rarely of whale bone, like the example in the middle of the bottom row of Pl. 139. (*2) The Kahawai inhabits the waters of the southwest Pacific, and grows to a length of up to 90 centimeters and a weight of up to 9.5 kilos.

Juveniles are found in swarms in bays and river delta areas until they are fully grown, and adults swim in huge swarms along the coast. (*3) No hook of this type can be traced to Cook. (*4) Examples with metal points are described by Wakefield at Wanganui in the 1840s”. (198): 51. (*5) Beasley laments the manufacture of Kahawai hooks for sale to 19th century travellers: “Unhappily even larger numbers (of Kahawai hooks) have been produced at the behest of the curio-hunting tourist. Many of these last being but sad travesties of the older forms.” (8): 15.

232

The eight Kahawai hooks on plate 139 provide an overview of the many variants of this nonetheless unmistakable hook type. They all have a slightly bowed and boat-shaped wooden shank (*1), the inner face of which is covered with a perfectly fitted piece of haliotis shell, reminiscent of Polynesian bonito hooks. The eastern Polynesians seafarers, accustomed to tropical conditions, who arrived in New Zealand’s much cooler climate, found neither pearl shell nor the prized bonito in their new environment. But at specific times of the year, the Kahawai (*2), a fish comparable to the bonito, was present. The Polynesian bonito hook with a mother of pearl shank ultimately evolved into the Kahawai hook, probably in the late 18th century (*3). Its manufacture required great skill, as the haliotis overlay had to be secured to the inner shank face with only the lashing holding the shank to the bone point, and the lashing attaching the shank head to the leader. The very artful lashings are illustrated in every phase of their production in Hiroa (186): Fig. 61.

The securing of the human bone point to the lower shank end with flax fibre line is also described in detail. The smallest hook in the upper row is of special interest because it has a native Maori repair to the haliotis overlay. Two holes drilled through the broken haliotis shell and the shank allow the two pieces to be “sewn” together. This demonstrates what great value even small hooks had. With the introduction of iron, heavy metal wire points began to be widely substituted for bone ones (*4). The hook at left in the lower row is a good example (*5). A hackle made of kiwi, kingfisher or penguin feathers is no longer present on any of the examples here. Kahawai hooks were used only by the Maori on North Island.

Best describes fishing for the Kahawai: “A different kind of outrigger was employed in some parts in connection with fishing for Kahawai. The fish was taken by trolling, along the canoe. The hooks employed were the Pa kahawai, already referred to. Here again the difficulty was the entanglement of lines. Hence poles were secured in a horizontal position, or nearly so, on either side of the vessel, and a line at the stern passed through a notch in the upper end of a rod secured in a vertical position. The side line passed through forks at the outer ends of the poles.” (*6) (193): 49, Fig. 23.

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 233

The Okooko Barracuda Hook The hook on plate 141 consists of a meticulously manufactured whale bone shank and a forged nail point. The iron point is inserted through a hole in the lower portion of the shank, and bent in such a way as to make it run upwards and parallel to the shank. A hole drilled with non-metal tools is present at the base of the shank beneath where the Barracuda / Sphyraea qenie © Greenpeace / Axel Heimken point passes through it for the attachment of a hackle of reddish feathers. A depression which encircles a button-like protrusion is artfully worked into the head Pl. 141 of the shank. This serves to assure a secure binding of the braided flax line to the shank. Remains of red colour are still visible inside the drilled holes. In contrast with Kahawai hooks, barracuda hooks were used everywhere in New Zealand. They usually consisted of a bone point inserted into a wooden shank. As wooden shanks were subject to rotting over time, archaeological excavations have unearthed many bone points, but very few shanks or shank fragments. Hiroa illustrates several variants of barracuda hooks that show different ways in which the line was attached. (186): Fig. 55. He writes: “The straight and somewhat massive shank was formed of a dark wood such as rimu (...). Rarely the snood knob was on the inner side (...). After European contact, a bent nail usually replaced the bone point.”

(186): 220. Two of the hooks with Cook provenance, one in the Göttingen collection (Oz 337) and another in the Taranaki Museum (No. 46.832), have this rare type of leader attachment knob. Bullen gives a vivid account of barracuda fishing, which is cited by Anell. According to it, the hook was attached to an approximately 170 centimeter long rod. “Seated in the boat with sail set, they slip along until a school of barracuda is happened upon. The peak of the sail is dropped, so as to deaden the boat’s way, while the fishermen play their poles with a sidelong sweep that flashes the bit of shining red through the water, making it irresistibly attractive to the struggling horde of ravenous fish. One by one, as swiftly as the rod can be wielded, the lithe forms drop off the barbless hook into the boat.“ (199): 329. Best states that the Barracuda season begins in November and ends in April. (193): 54 Anell refers to Duff with respect to the origins of the barracuda hook, when he says: “the barracuda lures had already made their appearance during the moa-hunting period; but they are much commoner in younger sites and have continued in use up to modern times. Their rare occurrence in the oldest periods indicates that they were not used by the first Polynesian emigrants; and it seems likely that they did not appear until “the minnow shanks” had proved ineffective. On the other hand, the absence of barb would indicate that they are older than the Kahawai-lures.” (19): 181.

233

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 234

Five Archaeological Bone Points from the Southeast Coast of New Zealand’s South Island Pl. 140

(*2) A Jade Hei-Matau collected in the late 19th century by Arthur Lewis in the collection of the Vienna Museum für Völkerkunde. (6,6 x 6,2 cm)

These five undocumented bone points can be attributed to the Murihiku area, thanks to the many publications on the subject by New Zealand archaeologists and ethnologists (see Hjarno (179): Map 1). The two points on the left appear to have formerly been attached to the wooden shanks of barracuda hooks. Beasley (8): Pl. 10, Hjarno (179): Figs. 3 & 4, Hiroa (186): Fig. 55, and Skinner (171): Fig. 54, all provide information on how these serrated points were attached to their shanks. The bone points are partially deeply eroded, which is an indication of their considerable age. Golson gives dates for the Murihiku sites: “Radiocarbon dates run from 1185 A.D. +/- 30 and 1195 A.D. +/- 30 in the lowest level of occupation to 1490 A.D. +/- 50 halfway through the deposits” (198): Fig. 41. The bone points are made of different materials. The light one could be made of Moa bone. An example comparable to the drilled point can be seen in Lockerbie (176: Fig. 40). It appears to be made of canine jaw bone. There are also comparables for the point at lower center in Lockerbie (176): Fig. 27, and Hjarno (179): pl.III. As a comparison to the lower right point see: (171): fig. 30. Over the course of the centuries, the less resistant wooden shanks disintegrated, but thousands of bone points are known to have survived, protected underground, and collected primarily by archaeological excavation. Most of these points are in the collections of the Otago Museum which is located in the heart of the so-called Murihiku area.

An Ornamental or Amulet Hook The two-piece hook shown here (*1) is similar in some respects to a functional hook, but cannot be considered as such for several reasons. The wooden shank has a carefully smoothed surface, but it is not made from trained branch wood, and would lack the strength needed to hold the weight of a fish. The crab pincer point, although artfully secured to the shank, would likewise not be up to the tests that a real fishing device would encounter. The shape of the shank head is reminiscent of the heads on one-piece wooden hooks, such as those in the Vienna Museum für Völkerkunde. The answer to the question of what this hook, which shows clear signs of extensive care over a long period of time, was used for, could be that it served as an ornament, just like the well known Hei-Matau (*2).

Master fishermen wore such hooks and recited magical incantations or sayings in order to create favorable conditions for successful fishing.

(*1) (*3) Another perfect basalt hook is in the collection of the Kontiki Museum in Oslo. It was Pl. 142 collected and published by Heyerdahl. (134): fig.

102, Cat.no. 1006. He also illustrates the different stages of manufacture. (134): fig. 102, 103.

Metraux informs us on all hook types from Rapa Nui in his monograph. (158): 174-182, fig. 7-11. (*5) Only the Otago Museum houses a basalt hook which was collected on Pitcairn. (135): fig. 74.

234

Rapa Nui Rapa Nui, lost in the endless reaches of the Pacific ocean, is the most eastern Polynesian island. Steep cliffs mark the coast of this volcanic island, with its highest peak reaching 600m above sea level.

Metraux states that the waters around the island teem with fish. This wealth was well used in prehistoric times, judging by the abundance of fish hooks

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 235

found and excavated in the caves. Myths describing fishermen as heroes and countless petroglyphs of fish underline the significance of fishing to the islands’ inhabitants. The stone fish hooks are most impressive amongst the Easter Island hooks. These well proportioned and perfectly polished basalt hooks are masterworks of neolithic craftsmanship. The stone hook illustrated here entered Pl. 142 into the collection of the Ethnographical Museum in Vienna (*3), together with some bone hooks, two of which are shown here (*4).

“The absence of pearl-shell or any bone other than human bone, which was too small, caused Easter Islanders, like the ancient people of Pitcairn (*5) to use basalt stone for making one-piece bait hooks in the graceful form of the Polynesian ‚rotating’ hook with recurved unbarbed point. Such hooks, up to 5 inches long, used with sinker and bait for large fish (kahi) of the Tunny family were called mangai kahi.” (104): 60 A large number of broken stone hooks lead one to imagine the great difficulties in their manufacture.

The two-piece hook illustrated here shows many similarities to Hawaiian Pl. 143 examples which could suggest a common ancestor. (*6) Upon comparison of this complete two-piece hook with the few examples illustrated in literature (*7), we can assume that it is a very old example made before Western contact. (*8) The two parts made from human bone (*9) are artfully shaped at the base to allow the compact lashings, of two-ply twisted Hibiscus string covered with a flat bark fibre line, to pass around its four sides. The attachment of the leader is just as artfully secured against sharp fish teeth with a fine two ply twisted plant fiber string below the knob and above the head with the winding of a flat bark string around the two-ply twisted Hibiscus fibre leader. (*10) Many two piece hook parts found in caves and digs allow for easy study of the indigenous design of different hook parts which are normally covered on complete examples. The best survey can be found in Heyerdahl’s book. (134): Pl. 73f; fig. 107 With many of the collected bone or stone hooks one has to ask about their authenticity. Metraux states: “Most specimens in Bishop Museum (...) are recent and it is uncertain whether they were used or manufactured for trade (...). I know that modern natives (*11) have forged ‚ancient’ hooks from the skeleton of a whale which had drifted ashore.” (158): 179 Also the double hooks illustrated by Chauvet (206): pl. XXX, fig. 69 and Beasley are rated as trade specimens by Metraux: “I am inclined to consider them modern products with no ethnological significance.” (158): 178 Especially stone hooks were manufactured soon after the first contact with European sailors. Such hooks made from lighter and softer stone than basalt could easily be recognized.

But Metraux writes: “for throughout our stay the Easter Islanders offered us articles counterfeited with such skill that despite our precautions we were not always able to avoid being taken in. These imitations of ancient utensils were often so faithful and their patina so authentic that the forgers deserved the payment they received for their trouble.” (207): 25 Metraux is saying this after he had traded a “splendid stone fish hook” which later turned out to be a “fake.”

(*4) Two hooks made of bone housed in the Museum für Völkerkunde, Vienna. (*6) “At any rate, it is clear that colonization parties from the Marquesas were responsible for the settlement of Easter Island by about AD 400, and of Hawaii possibly by AD 300.” (162): 58 Two-piece bone hooks have so far not been found on the Marquesas Islands. (*7) (8): Pl. XCV (Beasley coll.); (8): Fig. 21.B (Museé National, St. Germain); Museé du quai Branly: No.Inv.: 72.66.462.1; (*8) A comparable hook is illustrated in: (205): p.

188, fig.4 The small illustration shows a hook with lashings and leader but does not allow to distinguish the fibre materials. (*9) Brown writes about the bone material: “...human bone has a special virtue (...) that stone can never have. Maui, the hero who pulled up the islands of New Zealand, had the same faith in human bone.” (205): 188/189 Interesting is the myth: “Origin of the bone fish hooks” which Metraux put down. (158): 363 (*10) The snood is of evenly twisted fibre from the hibiscus. (...) the lashings at the base of the hook (...) would appear to be strips of the outer bark of some plant.” (8): 57 (*11) Metraux visited Rapa Nui in 1934/35 to conduct his research.

235

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 236

Ellice Islands (Tuvalu) 236

72/73

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 237

237

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 238

Ellice Islands (Tuvalu) 238

74

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 239

239

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 240

Ellice Islands (Tuvalu) 240

75

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 241

241

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 242

Ellice Islands (Tuvalu) 242

76

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:18 Uhr

Seite 243

243

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 244

Futuna 244

77/78

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 245

245

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 246

Tokelau 246

79

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 247

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite XVII

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite XVIII

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite XIX

Tokelau 248

80

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite XX

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite XV

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite XVI

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 250

Tokelau 250

81

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 251

251

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 252

Tokelau 252

82

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 253

253

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 254

Samoa 254

83

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 255

255

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 256

Samoa 256

84

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 257

257

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 258

Samoa 258

85

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 259

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite XIX

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite XX

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 260

Tonga 260

86

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 261

261

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 262

Tonga 262

87

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 263

263

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 264

Tonga 264

88/89

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 265

265

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 266

Tonga 266

90

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 267

267

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 268

Tonga 268

91

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 269

269

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 270

Pukapuka (Northern Cook Group) 270

92

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:19 Uhr

Seite 271

271

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 272

Pukapuka (Northern Cook Group) 272

93/94

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 273

273

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

274

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 274

Manihiki Collected by missionaries of the congregation of the Fathers from the Sacred Heart in the 19th century.

95

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 275

275

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

276

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 276

Society Islands.

Circumstantial evidence indicates that the left hook was possibly collected on one of Cook’s voyages.

96

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 277

277

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 278

Society Islands 278

97

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 279

279

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 280

Huahine, one of the Society Islands, seen from the air, the outer reef clearly visible. In the second photo we are standing inside the outer reef at low tide.

Society Islands 280

98

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 281

281

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 282

Society Islands 282

99/100

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 283

283

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 284

Society Islands 284

101

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 285

285

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

286

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 286

Society Islands.

Circumstantial evidence indicates that the hook in the middle was possibly collected on one of Cook’s voyages.

102

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 287

287

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 288

One of the Tuamotu Islands. An Atoll island, made of corall raising only slightly above the level of the ocean.

Tuamotu Islands 288

103

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 289

289

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 290

Tuamotu Islands 290

104

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 291

291

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 292

Tuamotu Islands 292

105/106

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 293

293

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

294

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 294

Mangareva The two hooks with their long leaders still attached were collected in the 1830’s by Vincendon-Dumoulin on the Dumont D’Urville expedition.

107

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 295

295

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 296

East Polynesia 296

108

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 297

297

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 298

Marquesas Islands 298

109/110

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 299

299

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 300

Hatuatua Bay on Nuku Hiva, Marquesas Islands. An important archaeological site was excavated here; last by Dr. Yosi Sinoto in 1965, unearthing several fish hooks and other fishing related artefacts.

Marquesas Islands

300

111

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 301

301

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:20 Uhr

Seite 302

Hawaiian Islands

302

112

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:21 Uhr

Seite 303

303

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:21 Uhr

Seite 304

Hawaiian Islands

304

113

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:21 Uhr

Seite 305

305

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:21 Uhr

Seite 306

Hawaiian Islands

306

114/115

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:21 Uhr

Seite 307

307

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:21 Uhr

Seite 308

Hawaiian Islands

308

116/117

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:21 Uhr

Seite 309

309

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:21 Uhr

Seite 310

Hawaiian Islands

310

118/119

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

30.11.2011

18:21 Uhr

Seite 311

311

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:01 Uhr

Seite 312

Hawaiian Islands

312

120/121

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:01 Uhr

Seite 313

313

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:01 Uhr

Seite 320

Hawaiian Islands

314

122

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 321

315

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 316

Hawaiian Islands

316

123

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 317

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite XXI

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 319

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 318

Hawaiian Islands

318

124

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 319

319

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 320

Hawaiian Islands

320

125

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 321

321

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 322

Hawaiian Islands

322

126

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 323

323

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 324

Waimanalo Bay on the island of Oahu. The important archaeological “Bellows Sand Dune Site” was excavated here, revealing one of the earlier Hawaiian sites.

Hawaiian Islands

324

127

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 325

325

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 326

Hawaiian Islands

326

128

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 327

327

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 328

Hawaiian Islands

328

129

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 329

329

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 330

New Zealand

330

130

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:02 Uhr

Seite 331

331

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 332

New Zealand

332

131

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 333

333

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 334

New Zealand

334

132

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 335

335

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 336

New Zealand

336

133

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 337

337

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 338

New Zealand

338

134

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 339

339

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 340

New Zealand

340

135

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 341

341

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 342

New Zealand

342

136

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 343

343

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 344

New Zealand

344

137

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 345

345

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 346

New Zealand

346

138

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 347

347

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 348

New Zealand

348

139

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 349

349

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:03 Uhr

Seite 350

New Zealand

350

140/141

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 351

351

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 352

Easter Island 352

142

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 353

353

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 354

Easter Island 354

143

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 355

355

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 356

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

One-piece hook

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 357

Two-piece hook

Composite hook

Whenever possible, hooks are illustrated in their true sizes (1:1).

For the few hooks which are illustrated smaller than life, the sizes are given in the text.

Details of hooks are enlarged for better understanding.

In this publication the different parts of one-piece, two-piece and composite fish hooks are named as illustrated above. Fish hook parts mentioned by other authors and quoted here have been accordingly translated for better understanding and to have a consistent terminology in this publication.

357

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

A small section of the steep NE coast of Nuku Hiva, Marquesas Islands.

358

Seite 358

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 359

Bibliography: (1) Fischer-Harriehausen, H.: Das Bonito-Ritual in Zentralmelanesien Göttingen 1961 (2) Schmeltz, J.D.E. & Krause, R.: Die ethnographisch-anthropologische Abteilung des Museum Godeffroy in Hamburg (plate XVII) Hamburg 1881 (3) Edge-Partington, J. & Heape, C.: An Album of the Weapons, Tools, Ornaments, Articles of Dress etc., of the Natives of the Pacific Islands, vols. I, II, III Manchester 1890-98 (4) Woodford, C.M.: Solomon Islands: fish hooks, in: MAN 18(9): 130-132 London 1918 (5) Ivens, W.G.: Melanesians of the South-east Solomon Islands London 1927 (6) Blackwood, B.: Both Sides of the Buka Passage Oxford 1935 (7) Bernatzik, H.A.: Owa Raha Wien 1936 (8) Beasley, H.G.: Pacific Island Records: Fish Hooks London 1928 (9) Cummings, H.: The Distribution of Compound Fish hook Types as a Gauge of Population Interaction in the Solomon Islands Chicago 1973 (10) Kaschko, M.: An Archaeological Consideration of the Ethnographic Fish hook Set on Uki Island, Southeast Solomon Islands, in: Royal Society of NZ, Bulletin no.11 Wellington 1976 (11) Bell, D., Specht, J. & Hain. D.: Beyond the Reef: Compound Fish hooks in the Solomon Islands, in: Traditional Fishing in the Pacific, ed. by A. Anderson. pp.45-57 Honolulu 1986 (12) Starzecka, D. & Cranstone B.A.L.: The Solomon Islanders London 1974

(13) Hurst, N.: Power and Prestige Cambridge, Mass. 1996 (14) Birket-Smith, K.: An Ethnological Sketch of Rennell Island: A Polynesian Outlier in Melanesia Kopenhagen 1956 (15) Finsch, O.: Ethnologische Erfahrungen und Belegstücke aus der Südsee Erste Abtlg.: Bismarck-Archipel. Neu-Guinea Zweite Abtlg.: Neu-Guinea Dritte Abtlg.: Mikronesien. I. Gilbert-Inseln II. MarshallArchipel III. Ruk und Mortlock Wien 1888, 1891, 1893 (16) Parkinson, R.: Zur Ethnographie der Ontong Java- und Tasman- Inseln etc.

Internationales Archiv für Ethnographie, vol. X, S.104-118, 137-151 Leiden 1897 (17) Koch, G.: Die materielle Kultur der Ellice-Inseln Berlin 1961 (18) Gudger, E.W.: Wooden Hooks used for catching Sharks and Ruvettus in the South Seas; a Study of their Variation and Distribution New York 1927 (19) Anell, B.: Contribution to the History of Fishing in the Southern Seas. Studia Ethnographia Upsaliensia. IX. Uppsala 1955 (20) Hedley, C.: The Ethnology of Funafuti. Australian Museum, Memoir III. p. 229-304 Sydney 1897.

(21) Krämer, A.: Hawaii, Ostmikronesien und Samoa Stuttgart 1906 (22) Becke, L.:

By Rock and Pool on an Austral Shore New York 1901 (23) Parkinson, R.: Dreißig Jahre in der Südsee Stuttgart 1907 (24) Kennedy, D.G.: Field Notes on the Culture of Vaitupu. Ellice Islands.

Memoirs of the Polynesian Society, vol. 9.

New Plymouth 1931 359

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

(25) Krause, F.: Zur Ethnographie der Insel Nissan. Jahrbuch des Städtischen Museums für Völkerkunde zu Leipzig, vol. 1, 1906 Leipzig 1907 (26) Koch, G.: Materielle Kultur der Santa Cruz-Inseln Berlin 1971.

(27) Speiser, F. und W. Foy: Völkerkundliches von den Santa-Cruz-Inseln. Ethnologica, vol. 2. S.153-213 Leipzig 1913 (28) Codrington, R.H.: The Melanesians Oxford 1891 (29) Guppy, H.B.: The Solomon Islands and their Natives London 1887 (30) Wichmann, A.: Nova Guinea. Vol.II. 1re Partie. Entdeckungsgeschichte von Neu Guinea (1828-1885) Leiden 1910

360

Seite 360

(39) Schlesier, E.: Eine ethnographische Sammlung aus Südost-Neuginea Göttingen 1986 (40) Finsch, O.: Südseearbeiten Hamburg 1914 (41) Haddon, A.C.: Decorative Arts of British New Guinea Dublin 1894 (42) Williams, F.E.: Drama of Orokolo Oxford 1940 (43) Wirz, P.: Die Marind-anim von Holländisch-Süd-Neu-Guinea, Teil 1, 2, Hamburg 1922/1925 (44) Reche, O.: Der Kaiserin-Augusta-Fluß Hamburg 1913 (45) Hauser-Schäublin, B.: Frauen in Kararau Basel 1977

(31) Kuschel, R: Matahenua - Livet i en polynesisk landsby Kopenhagen 1977

(46) Hambruch, P.: Wuvulu und Aua (Matty-und Duror-Inseln) Hamburg 1908

(32) Speiser, F.: Südsee, Urwald, Kannibalen Leipzig 1913

(47) Thilenius, G.: Ethnographische Ergebnisse aus Melanesien, Teil 2 Halle 1903

(33) Firth, R.: We, the Tikopia London 1936

(48) Nevermann, H.: Admiralitäts-Inseln Hamburg 1934

(34) Firth, R.: Primitive Polynesian Economy London 1939

(49) Ohnemus, S.: Zur Kultur der Admiralitäts-Insulaner in Melanesien Basel 1996

(35) Rivers, W.H.R..: The History of Melanesian Society Cambridge 1914

(50) Brough Smyth, R.: The Aboriginies of Victoria, vol.I London 1878

(36) Neich, R. and Fuli Pereira: Pacific Jewellery and Adornment Auckland 2004

(51) Lewis, S.: Australian Aboriginal Material in Manchester Museum Manchester 1977

(37) Menter, U.: Ozeanien - Kult und Visionen München 2003

(52) Nevermann, H.: St. Matthias Gruppe Hamburg 1933

(38) Bodrogi, T.: Art in North-East New Guinea Budapest 1961

(53) Neuhaus, P.K.: Beiträge zur Ethnographie der Pala - Mittel Neuirland Köln 1962

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 361

(54) Buschan, G.: Illustrierte Völkerkunde, Bd.II Stuttgart 1923

(67) Hadfield, E.: Among the Natives of the Loyalty Group London 1920

(55) Harms, V. (Hrsg.): Völkerkunde Museen 1990, Lübeck 1990

(68) Sarasin, F.: Neu-Caledonien und die Loyalty-Inseln Basel 1917

(56) Stephan, E. & Graebner, F.: Neu-Mecklenburg (Bismarck-Archipel) Berlin 1907

(69) Heintze, D.: Wirtschaft und Leben auf einem Atoll im Pazifik (Beiheft zur Diareihe 102247), Stuttgart 1975

(57) Ribbe, C.: Ein Sammelaufenthalt in Neu-Lauenburg Dresden 1910

(70) Eilers, A.: Westkarolinen, 2. Halbband Hamburg 1936

(58) Hunter, J.: A Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and Norfolk Island, plate p. 233 London 1793

(71) Krämer, A.: Palau, 3. Teilband Hamburg 1926

(59) Kleintitschen, P.A.: Die Küstenbewohner der Gazellehalbinsel Hiltrup 1906 (60) Meyer, P.O.: Fischerei bei den Uferleuten des nördlichen Teils der Gazellehalbinsel und speziell auf der Insel Vuatom, NeuPommern, Anthropos vol.VIII, 1913 (61) Phelps, St.: Art and Artefacts of the Pacific, Africa and the Americas, The James Hooper Collection London 1975 (62) Harcombe, D.: Solomon Islands Hawthorn 1993 (63) Williams, J.: A narrative of missionary enterprise in the South Sea Islands; with remarks upon the natural history of the Islands, origin, languages, traditions, and usages of the inhabitants London 1838 (64) Waite, D.B.: Artefacts from the Solomon Islands in the Julius L. Brenchley Collection London 1987 (65) Mead, S.M.: Material Culture and Art in the Star Harbour Region, Eastern Solomon Islands Toronto 1973 (66) Speiser, F.: Ethnographische Materialien aus den Neuen Hebriden und den Banks-Inseln Berlin 1923

(72) Eilers, A.: Westkarolinen, 1. Halbband Hamburg 1935 (73) Müller, W.: Yap, 1. Halbband Hamburg 1917 (74) Damm, H.: Zentralkarolinen, 2. Halbband Hamburg 1938 (75) Krämer, A.: Zentralkarolinen, 1. Halbband Hamburg 1937 (76) Kubary, J.: Die Palau-Inseln in der Südsee Journal des Museum Godeffroy, part IV, pl. 4 Hamburg 1873 (77) Treide, B.: In den Weiten des Pazifik, Mikronesien Wiesbaden 1997 (78) Krämer, A.: Inseln um Truk, 1. Halbband Hamburg 1935 (79) Damm, H. & Sarfert, E.: Inseln um Truk, 2. Halbband Hamburg 1935 (80) Skinner, H.D.: Review of Anell, B.: “Contribution to the History of Fishing in the South Seas. Uppsala 1955”, in: The Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 356-358 Auckland 1955 361

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

(81) Eilers, A.: Inseln um Ponape Hamburg 1934

(96) Pacific Islands. Geographical Handbook Series.

Naval Intelligence Divison: Vol. II, Vol. III Cambridge 1943, 1944

(82) Buck, P.H. (Te Rangi Hiroa): Material Culture of Kapingamarangi.

Honolulu 1950

(97) Burrows, E.G.: Ethnology of Uvea (Wallis Island) Honolulu 1937

(83) Sarfert, E.: Kusaie, 1. Halbband Hamburg 1934

(98) MacGregor, G.: Ethnology of Tokelau Islands Honolulu 1937

(84) Schneider, O.: Muschelgeldstudien Dresden 1905

(99) Demandt, E.: Die Fischerei der Samoaner Hamburg 1913

(85) Lautz, Th.: Steinreich in der Südsee Köln 1999

(100) Te Rangi Hiroa (P.H. Buck): Samoan Material Culture Honolulu 1930

(86) Erdland, P.A.: Die Marshall-Insulaner Münster 1914

(101) Krämer, A.: Die Samoa-Inseln, 2 vol.

Stuttgart 1902/03

(87) Krämer, A. & Nevermann, H.: Ralik-Ratak Hamburg 1938

(102) Herdrich, D. & Armstrong, K.: Historic Fishing Methods in American Samoa Honolulu 2008

(88) Hambruch, P.: Nauru, 1. und 2. Halbband Hamburg 1914 and 1915

(103) Giglioli, E.H.: Appunti intorno ad una Collezione etnografica fatta durante il terzo Viaggio di Cook (Archivio l'Antropologia e la Etnologia 23: 173-242) Firenze 1893

(89) Kayser, P.A.: Die Fischerei auf Nauru (Pleasant Island) Wien 1936 (90) Maude, H.E. & Lampert, R.J.: The Stalactite Fish Hooks of Ocean Island, in: The Journal of the Polynesian Society vol. 67, Auckland 1967 (91) Mahaffy, A.: Ocean Island. in: Blackwood's Magazine, 188: 569-585 Edinburgh 1910 (92) Ellis, A.F.: Ocean Island and Nauru, Their Story Sydney 1935 (93) Koch, G.: Materielle Kultur der Gilbert- Inseln Berlin 1965 (94) Koch. G.: Südsee Berlin 1969 (95) Meinicke, C.: Die Inseln des Stillen Oceans. 1. u. 2. Teil Leipzig 1875/76 362

Seite 362

(104) Duff, R.: No Sort of Iron. Culture of Cook's Polynesians Christchurch 1969 (105) Klemm, G.: Allgemeine Culturwissenschaften. Werkzeuge und Waffen Leipzig 1854 (106) Hauser-Schäublin, B. & Krüger, G. (Eds.): James Cook: gifts and treasures from the South Seas Munich 1998 (107) Kaeppler, A.L.: Cook voyage artefacts in Leningrad, Berne and Florence Museums, Honolulu 1978 (108) Söderström, J.: Anders Sparrman's Ethnographical Collection from James Cook's 2nd Expedition (1772-1775) Stockholm 1939 (109) Moschner, I.: Die Wiener Cook-Sammlung, Südsee-Teil, in: Archiv für Völkerkunde, 10: 136-253 Wien 1955

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 363

(110) Clunie, F.: Yalo i Viti. Shades of Fiji: a Fiji Museum Catalogue Suva 1986 (111) Roth, J. and St. Hooper (Eds.): The Fiji Journals of Baron Anatole von Hügel, 1875-1877 Suva 1990 (112) Abel Janszoon Tasman's Journal (Facsimile reprint of the 1643 original) Amsterdam 1898 (113) Labillardiére, J.J.H. de: Voyage in search of La Pérouse (...) during the years 1791, 1792, 1793 and 1794 Paris 1800 (114) Loeb, E.M.: History and Traditions of Niue Honoloulu 1926

(123) Morrison, J.: Journal de James Morrison, second maître à bord de la “Bounty”, trad. B. Jaunez Paris/Papeete 1966 (124) Wernhart, K.R.: Mensch und Kultur auf den Inseln unter den Winden in Geschichte und Gegenwart Wien 1974 (125) Barrow, T.: Art and Life in Polynesia Wellington 1972 (126) Joppien, R. & Smith B.: The Art of Captain Cook's Voyages, vols. I, II, III, IV, Melbourne 1985-87 (127) Lavondes, A.: The Polynesians and the Sea Papeete 1971

(115) Miles, G.P.L.: Notes on the Material Culture of Niue Ethnologia Cranmorensis, vol.3 Chislehurst 1938

(128) Nordhoff, CH.: Notes on the Off-Shore Fishing of the Society Islands, in: Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol.. 39, nos. 2 and 3

(116) Beaglehole, E. & P.: Ethnology of Pukapuka Honolulu 1938

(129) Thode-Arora, H.: Tapa und Tiki, Die Polynesien-Sammlung des Rautenstrauch-Joest-Museums Köln 2001

(117) Te Rangi Hiroa (P.H. Buck): Ethnology of Manihiki and Rakahanga Honolulu 1932 (118) Te Rangi Hiroa (P.H. Buck): Ethnology of Tongareva Honolulu 1932

(130) Ellis, W.: Polynesian Researches. 2 vol.

London 1829 (131) Dreyer, W.: Naturfolkenes Liv Kopenhagen 1898

(119) Hooper, St.: Pacific Encounters, Art & Divinity in Polynesia 1760-1860 London 2006

(132) Emory, K.P.: Material Culture of the Tuamotu Archipelago Honolulu 1975

(120) Te Rangi Hiroa (P.H. Buck): Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands Honolulu 1944

(133) Te Rangi Hiroa (P.H. Buck): Ethnology of Mangareva Honolulu 1938

(121) Tanner, J.: From Pacific Shores, 18th Century Ethnographic Collections at Cambridge Cambridge 1999

(134) Heyerdahl, Thor and E.N. Ferdon Jr., (Eds.): Reports of the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition to Easter Island and the East Pacific, vol. I: Archaeology of Easter Island Santa Fe 1961

(122) Little, St. & Ruthenberg, P. (Ed.): Life in the Pacific of the 1700’s, The Cook/Forster Collection of the Georg August University of Göttingen Honolulu 2006

(135) Simmons, D.R.: Craftsmanship in Polynesia Dunedin 1963

363

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

(136) Byer, Doris: Die Große Insel, Südpazifische Lebensgeschichten, Autobiographische Berichte aus dem südöstlichen Salomon-Archipel seit 1914 Wien/Köln/Weimar 1996 (137) v. Krusenstern, A.J.: Reise um die Welt in den Jahren 1803–1806, (...) (1. part) Berlin 1811 (138) Reinman, F.M.: Fishing: An Aspect of Oceanic Economy, An Archaeological Approach Chicago 1967 (139) von den Steinen, K.: Die Marquesaner und ihre Kunst, vol. I, II, III Berlin 1925, 1928 (140) Appel, M.: Die frühesten Südsee-Bestände des Staatlichen Museum für Völkerkunde München, part 2, in: Münchner Beiträge zur Völkerkunde. vol.9 München 2005 (141) Linton, R.: The Material Culture of the Marquesas Islands Honolulu 1923 (142) Suggs, R.C.: The Archaeology of Nuku Hiva, Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia New York 1961

(149) Koch, G.: Hundert Jahre Museum für Völkerkunde Berlin: Abteilung Südsee, in: Baessler-Archiv, Neue Folge, Bd.XXI Berlin 1973 (150) Reed, A.W.: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Maori Life Wellington 1963 (151) Kelley, H. L.: Problems connected with the fishing industry in Hawaii, in: Haw. For. and Agriculturist, vol. 27 (1): 9, 1930 (152) Titcomb, M.: Native Use of Fish in Hawaii Honolulu 1972 (153) Te Rangi Hiroa (P. H. Buck): Arts and Crafts of Hawaii Honolulu 1964 (154) Arning, E.: Ethnographische Notizen aus Hawaii 1883-86 Hamburg 1931 (155) Kaeppler, A. L.: Artificial Curiosities.

An Exposition of Native Manufactures Collected on the Three Pacific Voyages of Captain James Cook Honolulu 1978 (156) Oldman, W. O.: The Oldman Collection of Polynesian Artifacts New Plymouth, N. Z. 1943

(143) Sinoto, Y.H.: A Tentative Prehistoric Cultural Sequence in the Northern Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia, in: Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol.75: 286-303, 1966

(157) Young, D.: NA MEA MAKAMAE, Hawaiian Treasures Kailua-Kona 1999

(144) Gorges, J.-P.: L’Art ancestrales des Iles Marquises Musée des Beaux-Arts de Chartres 2008

(158) Métraux, A.: Ethnology of Easter Islands Honolulu 1940

(145) Sinoto, Y.H.: The Marquesans, Chapter 5, in: Jennings, J.D.: The Prehistory of Polynesia Cambridge, Massachusets 1979

(159) Cook, J. and James King: A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean (...) for Making Discoveries in the Northern Hemisphere (...) 1776-1780, vol.III London 1784

(146) Kaehr, R.: Neuchâtel-on-South-Seas, in: Pacific Arts, No 5, January 1992

(160) Brigham, W.T.: Bishop Museum Handbook, Part I: The Hawaiian Collections Honolulu 1915

(147) Leenhardt, M.: Arts de l’Oceanie Paris 1947

(161) Beckley, E.M.: Hawaiian’ fisheries and methods of fishing (...) fishing implements used by the natives of the Hawaiian islands Honolulu 1883

(148) Nevermann, H.: Götter der Südsee, Die Religion der Polynesier Stuttgart 1947 364

Seite 364

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 365

(162) Kirch, P.V.: Feathered Gods and Fish hooks, An Introduction to Hawaiian Archeaology and Prehistory Honolulu 1985

(174) Teviotdale, D.: Notes on stone and moa-bone fish hook shanks in the Otago University Museum, in: Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol.38: 270-280. 1929

(163) Summers, C.C.: Material Culture, The J. S. Emerson Collection of Hawaiian Artifacts Honolulu 1999

(175) Teviotdale, D.: Progress Report on the Excavation of a Moa-hunters’ Camp at the Mouth of the Tahakopa River, in: Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol.46: 134-153. 1937

(164) Malo, D.: Hawaiian Antiquities Honolulu 1951

(176) Lockerbie, L.: Excavations at Kings Rock, Otago, with a Discussion of the Fish hook Barb as an Ancient Feature of Polynesian Culture, in: Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol.49: 393–446. 1940

(165) Kaeppler, A.L., Schindlbeck, M. and G.E. Speidel (Ed.): Old Hawaii, An Ethnography of Hawai’i in the 1880s based on the research and collections of Eduard Arning in the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin Berlin 2008 (166) Brigham, W.T.: Stone Implements and Stone Work of the Ancient Hawaiians Honolulu 1902 (Reprint 1974)

(177) Skinner, H.D.: A Classification of the Fish hooks of Murihiku with Notes on Allied Forms from Other Parts of Polynesia, in: Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol.51: 208-221, 256286. 1942 (178) Duff, R.: The Moa-Hunter Period of Maori Culture Wellington 1950

(167) Kamakau, S.M.: The Works of the People of Old, transl. Mary Kawena Pukui Honolulu 1976

(179) Hjarno, J.: Maori fish hooks in Southern New Zealand Dunedin 1967

(168) Emory, K.P. and Y.H. Sinoto: Oahu Excavations Honolulu 1961

(180) Skinner, H.D., and W. Baucke: The Morioris, in: Memoirs of the B.P. Bishop Museum, vol. IX, No. 5 Honolulu 1928

(169) Dalton, O.M.: Notes on an Ethnographical Collection (...) formed during the Voyage of Captain Vancouver 1790-1795, in: Internationales Archiv für Ethnographie, vol. X: 225 ff.

Leiden 1897

(181) Cook’s Pacific Encounters The Cook-Forster Collection of the Georg-August University of Göttingen Canberra 2006

(170) Sinoto, Y.H.: Chronology of Hawaiian Fish hooks, in: Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol.70, No.2 Wellington 1961

(182) Anderson, A.J.: Prehistoric Exploitation of Marine Resources at Black Rocks Point, Palliser Bay, in: Leach, B.F. and H.M. Leach: Prehistoric Man in Palliser Bay Wellington 1979

(171) Sinoto, Y.H.: Hawaiian Fish hook Classification, in: Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, vol.31 Honolulu 1991 (172) Emory, K.P., J. Bonk, and Y.H. Sinoto: Hawaiian Archaeology: Fish hooks Honolulu 1959 (173) Bellwood, P.: The Polynesians, Prehistory of an island people London (rev. ed.) 1987

(183) Leach, B.F.: Excavations in the Washpool Valley, Palliser Bay, in: Leach, B.F. and H.M. Leach: Prehistoric Man in Palliser Bay Wellington 1979 (184) Rowland, M.J.: Cellana denticulata in middens on the Coromandel Coast, New Zealand, Possibilities for a temporal horizon, in: Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 6 (1): 1-15

365

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

(185) Green, R.C.: Adaption and Change in Maori Culture, in: G. Kuschel (Ed).: Biogeography and Ecology in New Zealand. pp. 591-641.

The Hague 1975

(198) Golson, J.: Culture Change in Prehistoric New Zealand, in: Anthropology in the South Seas. Ed. by Freeman, J.D. and W.R. Geddes New Plymouth 1959

(186) Te Rangi Hiroa (P.H. Buck): The Coming of the Maori Wellington 1970

(199) Bullen, F.: The cruise of the “Cachalot“ London 1860

(187) Webster, K.A.: The Armytage Collection of Maori Jade London 1948

(200) Oliver, D.: Ancient Tahiti Society, 3 vols.

Honolulu 1974

(188) Best, E.: Evolution of the Tautau, a Maori Pendant, in: MAN, no. 2, 1915

(201) Skinner, H.D.: Maori Amulets in Stone, Bone and Shell, in: Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol. 42, part 5 (1933)

(189) Skinner, H.D.: Excavations at Little Papanui, Otago Peninsula, in: Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol. 69.

1960 (190) Skinner, H.D.: Comparatively Speaking, Studies in Pacific Material Culture Dunedin 1974 (191) Parkinson, S.: A Journal of a Voyage to the South Seas, in his Majesty’s Ship the Endeavour London 1773

(202) Plischke, H.: Der Fischdrachen Leipzig 1922 (203) Massola, A.: Australian Fish Hooks and their Distribution Melbourne 1956 (204) McCarthy, F.: Australian Aboriginies, their Life and Culture 1957 (205) Brown, J. Macmillan: The Riddle of the Pacific London 1926

(192) Oldman, W.O.: Skilled Handwork of the Maori. Being the Oldman Collection of Maori Artifacts Wellington 1946

(206) Chauvet, St.: L’Ile de Paques et ses mystères Paris 1935

(193) Best, E.: Fishing Methods and Devices of the Maori Wellington 1977

(207) Metraux, A.: Easter Island London 1957

(194) Davidson, J. and F. Leach: A cache of one-piece fish hooks from Pohara; Takaka, New Zealand; in: Islands of Inquiry Canberra 2008

(208) Kubary, J.S.: Ethnographische Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Karolinen Archipels. 3 vol.

Leiden 1889, 1892, 1895

(195) Fairfield, F.G.: Maori fish hooks from Manukau Heads, Auckland, in: Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol. 42, 1933

(209) Moseley, H.N.: On the Inhabitants of the Admirality Islands, in: Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (Reprint, May, 1877)

(196) Best, E.: The Maori as he was Wellington 1924 (197) Mead, S.M. (Ed.): Te Maori Maori Art from New Zealand Collections New York 1985 366

Seite 366

(210) Christie’s, London, 29 June 1983: Important Tribal Art (211) Dunbar Sloane, Auckland, 21 Nov. 2002: Artifacts

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 367

(212) Davidson, J.: Maori Prehistory, in: Starzecka, D.C. (Ed.) Maori Art and Culture London 1996

(217) Davidson, J.: An Archaeological Assemblage of Simple fish hooks from Nukuoro, in: Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol.76, No.2, 1967

(213) Lazarus, D.M.: Live Bait Fishing in Ontong Java Beasley, H.G: Notes on the Fishing Appliances from Ontong Java, in: MAN, XXXVII, April, 1937, no. 71 and no. 72

(218) Davidson, J. and F. Leach: Fishing on Nukuoro Atoll Mémoire de Pierre, Mémoire d’Homme Publication de la Sorbonne, 1996

(214) Sarfert, E. und Damm, H.: Luangiua und Nukumanu, 1. Halbband Hamburg 1929 (215) Hviding, E.: Guardians of Marovo Lagoon. Practice, Place, and Politics in Maritime Melanesia Honolulu 1996 (216) Koch, G.: Südsee- gestern und heute Braunschweig 1955

Sand Tiger shark or Grey Nose shark (Carcharias taurus) © Greenpeace/Doug Perrine

(219) Sinoto, Y.H.: Solving a Polynesian Fish hook Riddle, in: Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol. 68, no.1, Wellington 1959 (220) National Geographic Vol. 146, No. 6, Dec. 1974 (221) Stöhr, W.: Kunst und Kultur aus der Südsee Köln 1987

367

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Index of Islands and Regions (plate numbers in bold typeset) Admiralty Is. (Manus Is.) Agomes Aitutaki American NW-Coast American Samoa Andra (Admirality Is.) Anuta Apamama (Gilbert Is.) Atafu (Tokelau Is) Atuona (Marquesas Is.) Aua (see Wuvulu) Auckland area Austral Is. Australia

33, 46, 17 32 200 224 195 33 49, 51 217 194, 195, 79 213

Banaba Is. (Ocean Is.) Banks Peninsula (NZ) Bay of Plenty (NZ) Bellona Bismarck Archipelago Blanche Bay (New Britain) Bougainville British New Guinea Buka

51, 144-147, 149, 68 225 229 45 32, 50 53 36, 38, 18 31 36, 48, 18

Cape York Peninsula Caroline Is.

21, 3 6, 43, 45, 135, 141, 143, 149, 47-49, 52, 53, 56-59 138-141 35, 43, 49 226 38, 44, 46, 19

Central Carolines Central Solomons Chatham Is. Choiseul Chuuk (see Truk) Cook Is. Coromandel Region (NZ)

229 200, 224, 226 21, 224, 1-3

200, 224, 226 227

Daly River (Northern Territory) 21, 2 Duke of York Is. (Neu Lauenburg) East Cape (NZ) Easter Is. (see Rapa Nui) East Polynesia Ellice Is. (Tuvalu) Erub (Torres Strait)

34, 53

231 230, 108 46-48, 191, 192, 194, 199, 202, 72-78 31

Fagatau (Tuamotu Archipelago) 202 Faraulip 143 Fiji (Viti) 199 Friedrich-Wilhelm Hafen (Madang) 29 Funafuti 192 Futuna 193, 199, 77, 78

368

Seite 368

Geelvink Bay Gilbert Is. (Kiribati) Graciosa Bay Guadalcanal

29 147, 148, 69, 70 49 43

Hanamaimai (Marquesas Is.) Hane site (Marquesas Is.) Hatuatua Bay (Marquesas Is.) Hawaiian Is. Hilo (Hawaiian Is.) Hiva Oa Is. (Marquesas Is.) Hog Is. (Caroline Is.) Huahine (Society Is.) Huon Gulf

213 212, 111 300 6, 7, 139, 190, 205, 211, 214-225, 324, 112-129 216 213 138, 53, 54, 55 190, 213, 280 29, 4, 5

Ifaluk

139, 140, 59

Kailua (Kona) Hawaiian Is. 216 Kalapapa (Molokai, Hawaiian Is.) 216 Kapingamarangi 141, 142 Kaniet 32 Karolinen (see Caroline Is.) Kawekiu and Kuliouou shelter (Oahu) 220 Kaua’i 200, 217, 222, 223 Kiribati (see Gilbert Is.) Kosrae (see Kusaie Is.) Kusaie Is. 142 Lanaii (Hawaiian Is.) Lau Laur (Southern New Ireland) Lawland Is. (Massim region) Lemaki Leueneuwa Lifou Loto (Northern Cook Is.) Loyalty Is. Luangiua Luepe village (Ndende)

220 199 34 30, 31 199 47 52 200 52, 53, 197 48, 49 50

Makira (Southeast Solomons) Malaita Mangaia Mangareva Group Manihiki Manono Manus (see Admiralty Is.) Maramasike (Malaita) Marau area (Guadalcanal) Mare (Loyalty Is.) Marianas Archipelago Marind-anim Marovo Lagoon Marquesas Is.

44, 50 46, 24-26 200, 202 209, 210, 107 200, 202, 203, 95 199 33, 46 44, 50 43 52 148, 149, 71 32 43 6, 139, 211-214, 217, 235, 300, 354, 109-111

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

Marshall Is. Masi village (Guadalcanal) Massim area (Trobriand Arch).

Matupi Is. (New Britain) Mauke (Southern Cook Is.) Melanesia Menen district (Nauru) Mer (Torres Strait) Merir (Carolines) Micronesia Mitiaro Mogemog Atoll Mokil Atoll Mortlock Is. (Caroline Is.) Mortlock (east of Nissan) Murihiku area (New Zealand) Murray Is. (Torres Straits)

17:04 Uhr

Seite 369

137, 138, 142, 143, 165, 50, 51, 63-65 43 30-32, 7-9 53 203 29 144 31 138, 139, 53 134, 201 200 140 142 139, 56, 57 49, 226 225, 226, 228-230, 234, 132, 133, 136 34

Namonuito (Caroline Is.) 143 Nnapuka (Tuamotu Arch).

209 Nauru 144-147, 66, 67 Ndende (Santa Cruz Is.) 49, 50, 42 Nendo Is. (see Ndende) Neo Is. (Santa Cruz Is.) 51 Neu-Lauenburg (see Duke of York Is.) New Britain 6, 34, 35, 44, 53 New Caledonia 6, 51, 52, 53 New Hebrides (Vanuatu) 52 New Ireland 34, 44 New Zealand 7, 48, 226-235, 130-141 Ninigo 32 Nissan 49 Niue 199, 200 Niutao (Ellice Is.) 192 North Auckland area 227 Northern Cook Is. 200, 202, 92, 93, 94, 95 Northern Is. 216, 225, 226, 228, 233 Northern Territory (Australia) 21, 2 Nuguria 49 Nukufetau Atoll 191,192 Nuku Hiva (Marquesas Is.) 300, 354 Nukukasi (Makira Is.) 51 Nukumanu 46, 48, 49, 32 Nukuoro 32, 141, 205, 210, 60, 61 NW Coast (New Guinea) 29 Oahu (Hawaiian Is.) Ocean Is. (see Banaba Is.) Ontong Java Orokolo Bay (Papuan Gulf) Otago (NZ) Otaheite (see Society Is.) Palau Palliser Bay (NZ) Pitcairn

220, 222, 223, 324 45, 46-48, 36-41 32 228, 229, 235

134, 136, 135, 141, 142 227 211, 234, 235

Papuan Gulf Phoenix Is.(Kiribati) Pitilu (Admirality Is.) Polynesia Ponape (Pohnpei) Possession Bay (British NG) Pukapuka (Northern Cook Is.)

31,32 192 33 191-236 45, 134 31 200, 201, 202, 92-94

Queensland

21, 1

Rakahanga (Northern Cook Is.) Ralik-Ratak Is. Rapa Iti (Austral Is.) Rapa Nui (Easter Is.)

200-202 142 230 6, 128, 210, 211, 217, 224, 235, 142, 143 200 49, 50, 42 44, 45, 33, 34, 35 21

Rarotonga (Southern Cook Is.) Reef Is. (Solomon Is.) Rennell Is. Rockingham Bay (Queensland) Ruk (see Truk (Chuuk))

Samoa 6, 38, 195-200, 83, 84, 86 San Cristobal (see Makira) Santa Cruz Is. 49, 50, 42-45 Santa Isabel (Solomon Is.) 35 Satoan (Mortlock Group, Caroline Is.) 139 Satawal (Central Carolines) 139 Sepik 32, 33 Siara (Southern New Ireland) 34 Siassi Is. (Umboi) 29, 6 Sikaiana Is. (Solomon Is.) 36, 46, 47, 48 Society Is. (Tahiti) 6, 49, 141, 198, 200, 202-209, 224, 225, 96-102 Solomon Is. 6, 7, 34-52, 206, 87-105 Sorol Atoll (Western Carolines) 139 Southern Cook Is. 200, 202, 203 South Is. (NZ) 224-228, 234, 140 South Point (Hawaii Is.) 223, 224 Star Harbor Region (Solomon Is.) 45, 50 St. Matthias 33 Tahiti (see Society Is.) Tahuata (Marquesas Is.) 213, 214 Tami Is. (Huon Gulf) 29 Tamigidu (Huon Gulf) 29 Tauu 49 Tereia Is. (Tuamotu Archipelago) 208 Tikopia 49-51, 46 Tinian (Marianas Arch).

149 Tobi 47, 135, 136, 138, 139, 47, 48 Tokelau Is. 194, 195, 199, 210, 79-82 Tona’eva (Marquesas Is.) 213 Tonga Is. 6, 197-201, 85, 87-90 Tongareva (Penrhyn) 200, 202 Torres Strait 30, 31, 10, 11

369

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

Truk (Ruk, Chuuk) Tuamotu Archipelago Tuvalu (see Ellice Is.)

370

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

139 200, 202, 205, 208, 209, 98, 103-106

Uahuka (Marquesas Is.) Uki Is. (Solomon Is.) Ulawa Is. (Solomon Is.) Ulithi Atoll

212, 111 36, 40-43, 27-29 36, 37, 39-43, 45, 27-29 136, 140

Vairaatea (Tuamotu Arch).

Vaitootia site (Society Is.) Vaitupu (Ellice Is.) Vanuatu (see New Hebrides) Victoria (Australia) Viti (see Fiji)

209 213 192, 195

Waiakakea-River (Hawaiian is.)

Waier (Torres Strait) Waimanalo Bay (Hawaiian Is.) Waimea (Oahu) Hawaiian Is. Wanganui (NZ) Western Carolines Western Is. (Melanesia) Western Pacific Woleai Group Wuvulu and Aua

216 31 324 216 232 138, 140, 52, 53 32, 33, 46 48 140, 58, 59 32, 12-16

Yap

133, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 149, 50

21

Seite 370

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 371

Fish weirs on Huahine, Society Islands, 2008

371

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 372

We wish to thank family and friends for their help and patience during the lengthy creation of this book and the following people, who generously made their time available to make this publication a success: the unknown artist who invented and crafted the fish hooks we have learned to admire, collect and treasure Harry G. Beasley (whose book on fish hooks was the initial inspiration for this publication) the librarians of the Museum für Völkerkunde in Hamburg Dr. Michaela Appel, München Serge Brignoni (1903–2002) Bern Remy Carbayol, Papeete Renate Donath, Plunkau Harry Haase, Göttingen Nicole Gnesa, München Dr. Ingrid Heermann, Stuttgart Gunter Jentzsch, Dresden Clara Kern, London Hans Kern, NY Ulrich Kortmann, Dortmund Dr. Gundolf Krüger, Göttingen Dr. Gerd Kühnen, Kevelaer Karin Maaz, Detmold Dr. Petra Martin, Dresden Anthony JP Meyer, Paris Veronique Mu-Lipmann, Papeete Amu and Frank Reiter, Berlin David Rosenthal, Paris (for the translation of the main text into English) Dr. Yosi Sinoto, Honolulu Dr. Klaus Schröder, Wien Antje Schulz, Dresden Michel Thieme, Amsterdam Michael Volkmann, München David Young, Hawaii Ingeborg Zahn, Renningen Saskia Zimmermann, München Thomas Zuhr, München

372

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 373

Edited and published by Daniel Blau, Munich and London Printed and bound by Firmengruppe APPL. aprinta druck, Wemding Paper: Papyrus, MultiArt Matt, 130 g/m2 Typeset: Garamond Edition: 1000 copies Printed in Germany

© 2012 Texts: Daniel Blau, Klaus Maaz, Anthony JP Meyer, Sydney Picasso © 2012 Catalogue and illustrations: Daniel Blau, Munich and London Galerie Daniel Blau · Odeonsplatz 12 · 80539 München · Germany Tel. + 49 (0)89 - 29 73 42· Fax + 49 (0)89 - 24 20 48 60 Daniel Blau Ltd. · 51 Hoxton Square · London N1 6PB · England Tel. + 44 (0)20 - 7831 7998 contact@danielblau.com www.danielblau.com

Tous droits réservés. Toute reproduction, même partielle, est interdit sans permission écrite de l’éditeur, quel que soit le type de reproduction ou de support.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the editor.

Every effort has been made to identify other owners of copyrights: Individuals and institutions who may not have been contacted but claim rights to illustrations used are asked to contact the publisher.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de

ISBN: 978-3-7774-4931-9 Distributed by Hirmer Publishers, Munich www.hirmerverlag.de

373

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 374

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 375

aktuelles hakenbuch 12.okt:miot neu vertikal

01.12.2011

17:04 Uhr

Seite 376