Melanesian Warfare: A Theoretical History

Abstract

Ina world historical perspective, the indigenous populations of Melanesia havebeen among the last to be contacted and then pacified by Western colonial powers. Particularly true of hinterland areas and New Guinea, this circumstance has been due to Melanesia's geographical remoteness from European colonial powers and a dearth of resources that could be easily exploited during the colonial era (e.g., Bitterli 1989:ch.7). This legacy has been reflected in Melanesia's relative peripherality in world politicoeconomic systems (Brookfield 1972;Brookfield with Hart 1971:ch.8;contrast Wolf 1982;Wallerstein 1989). As a result, indigenous warfare in Melanesia has been more accessible to detailed ethnographic study than in most world areas and has been of major concern to many Melanesianists, not to mention to Melanesians themselves. In recent decades, accounts of armed conflict in interior New Guinea have provided among the most detailed and comprehensive accounts of tribal warfare from any world area, and the resurgence of Melanesian warfare in some of these same areas in the post-colonial era makes the topic of continuing interest.A wide range of social structural, ecological, political, and psychological theories have been adduced concerning Melanesian warfare. However, a critical review of this work brings several lacunae to light. First, the respective strengths, weaknesses, and complementarities of these theories have rarely been addressed beyond assertion of singular criticisms and polar contrasts. Second, theories of Melanesian warfare have seldom been considered against the historical trajectory of colonialism and postcolonialism, despite the fact that violence and pacification in the colonial encounter have frequently provided the conditions if not the impetus for the ethnographic study of tribal warfare. Third and relatedly, Melanesian warfare over the last century and a half arguably includes conflicts between indigenes and whites as well as among Melanesians themselves, yet this dimension of collectiveconflict has seldom been addressed in studies of Melanesian warfare. The present essay has two interrelated objectives. On one hand, I assess the value and validity of various explanations of Melanesian warfare with respect to extant ethnographic data; on the other, I assess the historical influences that have shaped these anthropological perspectives and influenced their past and present trajectory. WARFAREAs collective armed conflict, warfare has been a topical focus of Melanesian ethnography for over a century (e.g., Codrington 1890; Haddon 1891). Particularly in the British anthropological tradition, warfare is almost intrinsic to political units, since these are commonly defined by their ability to adjudicate internal conflict and cohere in hostility 250 Oceania, 60, 1990

‘Smoke in the Hills, Gunfire in the Valley’: War and Peace in Western Highlands, Papua New Guinea

“…Some of these (e.g. Harrison 1989Harrison , 1993Knauft 1990;and Strathern 1985) have used their interpretations of how and why violence manifests itself in Melanesia as a means of critique against Western theories of human sociality, which take violence as a natural human condition, and the emergence of the state as the means by which violence is regulated. While such theories assume that violence represents a breakdown of social order, Harrison (1989;1993), Weiner et al (2002), Marilyn Strathern (1985), among others, argue that for Melanesians violence is an expression of thoroughly social relations.…”

Tenure and taboos: origins and implications for fisheries in the Pacific

“…The reason for low pre‐contact population densities in Melanesia appears to be a combination of high infant mortality, particularly owing to persistent, endemic diseases (most importantly malaria: Bennett 1987, p. 9; Denoon 1997; Groube 1993; Kirch 2000, pp. 83–84), high maternal deaths in childbirth (Denoon 1997), chronic intertribal warfare (Keeley 1996; Knauft 1990) and the relatively low yield per hectare of swidden (slash and burn) agriculture (Kirch 1997). In certain climatic conditions and locations, a more intensified agricultural system consisting of irrigated taro terraces could support higher productivity (and therefore population densities) than swidden farming.…”

Men, Modernity and Melanesia

“…In many areas of Melanesia, rates of violence and killing during the pre-colonial era, including in societies with active men's cult societies, were likely at least as high if not much higher than those presently evident (Knauft 1990). Though there is some truth to the suggestion that, prior to colonialism, ritualised male authority helped to channel and orchestrate male aggression from an intra to an inter-group focus, much of this functionalist reasoning is undercut by the fact that many forms of violence were more frequent and intense prior to colonial pacification.…”

“…From nineteenth-century images of bloodthirsty Melanesian savages and midtwentieth-century views of functionally controlled male ritual systems to early twenty-first-century views of male Hobbesianism-an almost Lord of the Flies perception of Melanesian male aggression-accounts have projected Western fears, or Western hopes, onto Melanesians (Knauft 1990;cf. Dinnen and Ley 2000).…”