In the absence of strong and lasting political units, exchange was the central socially binding mecha- nism in the Admiralty Islands, both within villages and between them. Exchanges had many different forms: from the spectacular and large-scale distribu- tions during lapan feasts, which occurred relatively seldom, to the daily exchanges of limited amounts of food and work between close relatives. Exchange was a necessity for the islanders in order to obtain the various items and foodstuff needed for survival. As mentioned, various groups in the archipelago had specialised in exploiting different ecological niches. Therefore, the fishermen living on small low islands and in lagoon villages had to exchange their fish and shells for garden food and bush materials with the people from the mainland and the larger islands. This happened mostly during regular markets in which two groups met formally and traded on the basis of fixed barter rates. In addition one could obtain necessary food supplies and other items by vis- iting a trade friend who would be able to give credit.
Apart from the direct exchange of food and raw materials the economic system in Manus was also
based on the specialised production of utensils and luxury items such as shell money, wooden bowls, soup ladles, carved beds and combs (Mead 1930; 1963[1930]: 221-22). Sometimes the production of such items was considered a monopoly, which would be defended with force if necessary, and sometimes it was connected with privileged access to special eco- logical resources such as clay for pots, produced on Hus and Mbuke, or obsidian for spear points made on Lou. These special items were often acquired from trade friends or during lapan feasts but they were also exchanged during smaller ceremonial exchanges between kin. Thus exchange between people living in different villages and islands was conditioned both by ecological differences and specialisation in production. But exchange also permeated daily life within villages between near and more distantly related kinsfolk. Here exchange was not primarily a means to acquire the necessities for living; rather it was a way to mark individual and group identities and to confirm social relationships.
The important transitional events in an individ- ual’s life – birth, marriage and death – were celebrat- ed with a ceremony to which various groups con- tributed with specific types of goods. What was exchanged and by whom depended on the type of event (Carrier and Carrier 1991; Schwarz 1963; Otto 1991). A marriage ceremony, for example, consisted of a series of exchanges in which the family of the bride contributed mostly food and cloth, while the groom’s family provided primarily wealth items: dogs’ teeth and strings of shell beads. During such a ceremony the bride and groom were joined in marriage, while at the same time a relationship was cemented between their respective ‘houses’ which would last for several generations; the children (and grandchildren) of the bride would namely maintain a relationship to the ‘house’ of their (grand)mother, in relation to which they were classified as ‘son of the woman’ (narumpein in the Baluan language), while the male line was called ‘son of the man’ (narumwen). Whereas rights to land were primarily inherited in the male line, the ‘children of the woman’ would keep secondary rights on the land of their mother’s ‘house’ as well as the obligation to assist this descent group in large enterprises, such as lapan feasts. On the other hand, at the death of a person, his or her nearest patrilineal kin would still have to pay a major gift to the ‘house’ of the deceased’s mother as a final recognition of the debt to this group. Thus
exchanges not only established a person’s transition from one status to another – from unnamed to named, from unmarried to married and from living to dead – they also defined alliances between various ‘houses’. Two types of relationships were particularly impor- tant in establishing such alliances: the affinal rela- tionship created by marriage and the relation between the children of a brother and sister created by birth. The centrality of exchange as a key element in Manus culture has been observed by previous ethno- graphers of the region. Margaret Mead emphasised the role of the individual in establishing exchange networks:
In Manus we have seen that we are dealing with individuals living in clusters with different degrees of common identifying features, that all activity was initiated by individuals and was carried out, not by lineages, or clans or villages as members of the groups, but because the individuals initiating the proposed affinal exchange, trading voyage or raiding party, invoked lineage or clan or village membership as a reason for tempo- rary co-operation by other individuals (Mead cited in Schwartz 1963: 59)
If instead of asking a Manus ‘to what do you belong?’ one asks, ‘what are your roads?’ the answer is a network of various degrees of intimacy covering all adjacent villages of the Manus linguistic group, and a series of trade friends in far- away villages. (ibid.)
Even though Mead’s description may be considered extremely individualistic – not all choices of collab- oration are equally free and there exist quite explic- it and binding expectations of mutual obligation between members of kin groups – she is certainly right in stating that individual actors play an impor- tant role in establishing and maintaining their own personal networks of exchange.
Also Theodore Schwartz emphasises the role of individuals in establishing integrative networks. He prefers to see the local leader or ‘“big man” as an entre- preneur, integrator, node in a network rather than as leader and representative of a group’ (Schwartz 1963: 68). Being such a node in an exchange network allows for the temporary accumulation of enormous wealth, which gives lasting prestige to the individual.
Part of the fascination in the psychology of ceremonial exchange derives from the temporary accumulation and dis- tribution of magnitudes of wealth far beyond the means of
any individual participant. Exchange allows large numbers of people to participate in a travelling wave of wealth that accu- mulates now on this spot, disperses, and then accumulates on another spot in a complex social network, allowing great scope for improvisational and entrepreneurial skills. The principals of the exchange derive prestige from the temporary amassing of wealth, but so also, to a lesser degree, do all participants in the exchange who at another time will themselves be princi- ples. This pattern is familiar and well described from many parts of Papua New Guinea. For the people of Manus it provides perhaps the central focus of life interest and enhancement of self. (Schwartz 1982: 395-96)
Schwartz (1963) rightly points out that genealogies are important in Manus, not as a biological record but rather as a valuable topological record of possible ‘roads’ that can be invoked according to circumstance. The widespread occurrence of adoption also points in the same direction: kin connections are not only determined by biological descent but are construct- ed according to need and occasion. Interestingly, Schwartz develops the network perspective to encompass the whole archipelago in what he calls an ‘areal culture’: ‘That is, not only are the cultures his- torically related but they are so interdependent cul- turally, and otherwise ecologically, that each must be considered as part-culture not sufficient or fully understandable in itself’ (1963: 89). The type of inte- gration thus established he characterises as a ‘partic- ularistic, entrepreneur-centred, dispersed network’. Other anthropologists working in Manus after Mead and Schwartz have also emphasised the impor- tance of exchange. In particular Achsah and James Carrier have analysed the structural and processual aspects of exchange relationships (Carrier and Carrier 1989; 1991). Of course this is a well-known theme in Melanesian anthropology more generally, which has led to interesting theoretical developments. Marilyn Strathern in particular has done much to develop our understanding of exchange relation- ships in Melanesia (see Strathern 1988; 1996; 2004). Whether or not we conceive of Melanesian persons as exchanging parts of their selves (thus becoming partible persons as Strathern suggests), it is common- ly accepted knowledge that groups exchange indi- vidual group members (especially women, but also children, captives and other dependents), and per- sons exchange things but also immaterial property such as rituals, magic and knowledge. Exchange and the concomitant logic of reciprocity are central to
understanding Melanesian personhood and sociality. Acts of violence can enter such reciprocity and dis- rupt existing links but they may also establish new social relationships. The complementary relation- ship between warfare and exchange has often been emphasised (Corbey chapter 3), but in this chapter I want to highlight their possible integration within the same social system instead of seeing exchange as the solution to and conclusion of warfare. Contra Mauss I see warfare as much as a social act as exchange (cp. Harrison 1993: 21, 149). Precolonial Manus was a type of regional system in which social groups were small and could easily split and fuse (Schwartz 1963); therefore, exchange should be considered as the crucial social glue that allowed the regional system to function. I will argue that warfare entered exchange relationships as another resource and helped maintain the system of interdependent exchange partners. But before developing this argu- ment, we have to find out what kind of war was waged in the archipelago.