11
“Making Money”: Objects, Productions, and
Performances of Shell Money Manufacture
in Langalanga, Solomon Islands*
Pei-yi Guo
I. Introduction
In 2002, the Public TV Station (PTS) in Taiwan, in collaboration with the
National Museum of Natural History, produced a series of educational
films called Discovering the Austronesians. Among them was an episode
shot at the Solomon Islands, in which I was invited to work as advisor
accompanying the filming team to the islands. I was not involved in the
planning process; the filming team asked the tourist bureau of the
Solomon Islands to arrange the site and content of the film. Having done
fieldwork in the Solomon Islands, I expected the tourist bureau to
arrange filming of what they considered culturally representative of the
country—the shell money in Langalanga Lagoon (Malaita
Province)—and indeed they did just that. A man in Raolo Island was in
charge of organizing the program in Langalanga Lagoon, and he planned
to take us to his village, an “artificial islet” (Guo 2003) with traditional
grass-leaf houses. During my fieldwork in Langalanga, I had observed
several touristy performances; therefore, the programs that followed
yielded no surprise. When the visitors’ motor boat approached the island,
local women paddled their canoes to welcome the guests. As soon as the
foreigners stepped into the entrance of the village, male warriors, their
bodies decorated with mud paint and dressed in traditional attire,
suddenly emerged and “threatened” the visitors with spears, yelling, and
intimidating motions. The warriors left after a local “big man” presented
a string of shell money to them as a placatory gesture, and the visitors
saw what was beyond—almost twenty women dressed in traditional
grass skirts were making shell money in the open area in the center of the
212 The Frontiers of Southeast Asia and Pacific Studies
small village (Figure 1). Each step of shell-money manufacture was
performed by several women—u’uina (breaking various types of shells
into small pieces), safana (flattening their surfaces), barana (changing shell
color), and ogaana (drilling). The heavy work, aarana (polishing the edge),
was performed by a man, and then the beads were threaded (urufia) into
desired patterns.
Shell-money manufacture is considered by Langalanga as the most
representative part of their culture, and performance of its production is
always listed on top of their program for tourists. In organizing what is
to be included for each touristy show, the person in charge usually
prefers to cut out other programs (e.g., welcoming canoes, “welcoming”
warriors, and local meals) but keeps the shell-money making on the show
list.
Such performances are not foreign to audiences of various
experiences. In sites of ethnic tourism, such as cultural centers and
festivals, performance of traditional craft—such as weaving, knitting, and
carving—are often part of the display. In museums, live performance of
craft production is used to make the exhibition “lively” and is considered
by some curators as a way to put objects in their context. In the famous
Polynesian Cultural Center, each “village” develops its own performing
activities, and schedules live demonstration of their craftsmanship. For
example, the Tongan village carries out tapa (bark cloth) lessons, and the
Tahitian village presents fishing techniques. Sometimes tourists are
excited by “seeing the real natives working in their grass huts” (Stanton
1989, Webb 1994). The planning of the Cultural Centre of the Solomon
Islands was conceived to show “living aspects” of culture by including
live performances of handcrafts in addition to the still exhibitions of
cultures in the National Museum (Faoana’ota 1994: 101).1
Performing a craft is now frequent in museums and cultural centers.
This raises the question as to why the curators of museums think it
necessary to include such performances. What message do they want to
send to the audience? And how do the viewers regard such
performances?
Some museum curators promote live performance of a craft in order
to place objects in context instead of leaving them in cabinets as still
objects. In such a performance, the object is not a stable product alienated
from the people who produce it, but something to be constructed by
them in a dynamic and mutually interactive process. For example,
Schroeder argues that we should pay attention to how things are made in
Making Money 213
order to understand their materiality (Wang 1991: 149). The
representation of the production process (“craft”) can demonstrate more
than the formation of objects, by illustrating their cultural and social
meanings (Wang 2001).
Performance of a craft is an exhibition format in museums and
cultural centers by which curators hope to break away from the display,
in the past, of objects that is static and decontextualized. For the viewers,
such representation is also more vivid and attractive than seeing objects
positioned in glass cabinets. However, whether it really achieves what it
claims—a less shallow connection between viewers and objects—is
questionable (e.g. Chen 1998: 42). Moreover, there is a proposition
implied in the perspective of such curators that there is significant social
and cultural meaning in showing the craft of the culture on display, and
therefore the performance of the construction process can help viewers
understand the deeper value of the culture. Nevertheless, this
proposition needs to be examined. We have to ask whether the making of
an object is meaningful in the culture of the curators and viewers, or in
the culture of the groups involved in the performances. If only the former
is true, then it is too soon to assert that such a performance can achieve
deeper understandings of the exhibited cultures. If it is the latter, then we
have to look further into its meanings, and explore whether the meanings
are different when different objects are involved. If both answers are
positive, then we need to examine them not only individually, but also in
their contexts.
The aim of this paper is to explore how the crafter/artisan—i.e., the
performers in exhibitions—perceive their performance of the craft in such
circumstances. What is the relationship between an (or a particular)
object and its production process in its cultural context? What are the
relationships between the object, its value, and the way people assume it
should be represented? In the case of Langalanga, people think that it is
important to perform shell-money making in self-representation to
outsiders. Why do they think it necessary to make the performance? In
addition to the possible interest of promoting tourism, I argue that there
are more profound cultural meanings in the performance—it links to the
notions of things in Langalanga, especially the conceptualization of the
production process of a particular object.
I will first give a brief introduction of Langalanga shell money and
its role in the region, followed by two examples of performances of
shell-money making. I will then analyze how the Langalanga view
214 The Frontiers of Southeast Asia and Pacific Studies
cultural performance and cultural representation, particularly in the
context in which shell-money making is involved. The notions of things
in Langalanga will be examined to illuminate the cultural meanings of
shell-money production. Finally, I argue that this study can contribute
theoretically to the anthropological literature of material culture through
the cultural analysis of object-human relationships, especially by taking
account of its production and performance.
II. Langalanga Shell Money (bata)
The Langalanga reside in the Langalanga Lagoon, which stretches about
19 km along the west coast of Malaita Island, Solomon Islands. Partly due
to the lack of sufficient land for agriculture, the Langalanga rely to a
certain extent on income from the production of shell money (Cooper
1971), which is used in the region for bridewealth (Guo 2004a),
compensation, and peacemaking efforts. It is also used to decorate the
body, attract tourists, and serve as a cultural symbol in the contemporary
nation-state. Langalanga shell money is circulated in many forms
according to local preferences among various groups (Guo 2002), and its
production is now considered marketable for cultural tourism. In the
Central Market at Honiara, the capital of Solomon Islands, Langalanga
women line up various designs of shell-money products (mostly
necklaces and wrist bands), which are popular among tourists and the
local youth.
I have elsewhere (Guo 2006) discussed why the Langalanga persist
with the shell-money economy while most production centers in the
region have abandoned local currency production after the introduction
of European currencies. In short, shell money is an expression of
Langalanga agency in the contemporary political and economic
arena—by producing more shell money and expanding its circulation to
a wider region, the Langalanga maintain their identity by actively
participating in the formulation of a new country.
Shell money is culturally and economically important in Langalanga.
Women in Langalanga Lagoon often sit under their raised houses
breaking shells and drilling holes. In contact with outsiders, Langalanga
people always mention shell money as their cultural characteristic. In my
recent trip back to the Solomon Islands, an old man from Langalanga,
whom I met for the first time, initiated a conversation in which he
Making Money 215
detailed the process of shell-money production, and commented on its
hardness for about ten minutes. I listened politely. It reconfirmed my
belief of how typical such representation of Langalanga is. Notably, he
(and many others) described the steps of shell-money manufacture
instead of solely mentioning the application of shell money in social life.
For the Langalanga, shell money is more than something to be used in
social exchange; it is something that they make. “Galonala bata” (making
shell money) is an expression that contains several layers of meaning. It
refers to the economic value of shell money. As in English, “to make
money” means making a living; “making shell money” is the keystone of
the Langalanga economy. However, the action itself—the process of
manufacturing shell money, and the agency embedded in such action—is
just as important.
III. Performing Shell-Money Manufacture
Due to their geographic location and lack of resources, countries in
Oceania have always placed hopes on revenues brought in by the
tourism industry (Hall 1998; Rajotte 1980). In addition to tropical charm,
local cultures have been closely tied to tourism, and “kastom” has
become marketable for tourism (Lindstrom & White 1994). Tourism in
Melanesia started around the 1880s; in its initial phase, until the 1920s,
visitors were few and adventurous in nature. After the 1930s, cruises to
the region began to get popular.2 It was not until the 1960s that mass
tourism came into the area (Douglas 1996: 9-10).
Tourism also penetrated into the Solomon Islands and had an impact
on local culture and cultural products (Tanirono 1980, Horoi 1980).
Organized tourist activities appeared in Langalanga at the end of the
1960s, and in the 1971 annual report of the British Solomon Islands
Protectorate (BSIP 27/VI/28), the district officer recorded that more and
more tourists visited villages such as Laulasi and Alite in central
Langalanga, where they were treated to cultural performances. In 1972,
TV filming crews from Belgium, Canada, France, and Australia went
there to make films. According to official statistics, about 200 tourists
visited Langalanga in 1971; the number increased to 700 in 1972, and was
even more optimistic in 1973, when fifty-two groups had already booked
their trips in the middle of the year (BSIP 27/VI/29). Many Langalanga
were involved in the tourism industry, and several villages organized
216 The Frontiers of Southeast Asia and Pacific Studies
performance groups that competed with each other for cultural
tourism —they built rest-houses for tourists, put up signs of “Cultural
Village,” and offered packages. Cruises carried tourist groups to the
region, where they could spend half a day in a chosen village. Tourists
took pleasure in watching performances of shell-money making, dancing,
and the calling of sharks by traditional priests; they could also visit men’s
house (fera) or an ancestral shrine (fera aabu), or women’s menstrual huts
(bisi) respectively according to their gender. They could also enjoy
traditional cooking if preliminary arrangements were made (Guo 2001b).
Of all the villages that took part in the industry, Laulasi was the most
successful and most famous, and a local man recorded it as the richest
village in the region (Kii 1980). Locally run tourism business started at
Laulasi village in the 1970s (Douglas 1996: 187), where the daily life of the
village was displayed. This village was famous for its shell-money
production (Douglas 1996: 197-198, Hay 1971; Fisk 1973; Malaita
Newsletter 1971.07.20). According to the literature available to me, shell
money production was part of the tourism program right from the
beginning. Kii commented that it was popular among tourists, who
observed the manufacture of shell money from raw materials to finished
products, and found that the job demanded plenty of patience and effort
(Kii 1980: 116).
However, tourism organizations dissolved gradually in the 1990s,
mainly as a result of difficulties faced by organization managers in
assuming leading roles in an egalitarian society (Guo 2004c), and the
dissatisfaction among participants with respect to the distribution of
wealth (see Douglas 1996: 98). With the decrease in tourists, there is no
regular performance unit in Langalanga. Today interested parties need to
find a local intermediary to organize a temporary performance group.
The charge for each performance varies depending on the number of
performers; therefore it is necessary to clarify the budget and negotiate
programs in advance.
Below, I will give two examples of performances catering to tourists
in order to illustrate the organization and content of performing
shell-money manufacture. In 1997, three Taiwanese visitors who planned
to spend a few days in the Solomon Islands asked their friend to help
organize the trip, and the latter suggested that they visit Langalanga
Lagoon in Malaita Island. The Taiwanese contact in Malaita found a few
Langalanga people to assist, and he asked a local mediator, Mr. Wade, to
assume charge of organizing the show. I was doing fieldwork in the area,
Making Money 217
and was asked to accompany them as the translator for both sides. As an
anthropologist, I was at first hesitant to get involved in the tourism
business. However, after experiencing a downhill trend in tourism for a
decade, Langalanga people were very interested in the show, as it was a
way to increase their income. So I eventually agreed.3 Mr. Wade came up
with a list of what he considered a “full program” in Langalanga,
including women’s welcoming canoes, warrior dance, shell-money
manufacture, local dances and songs, and the cooking and tasting of
traditional cuisine. He also calculated the cost of each item, including
payments for the participants, their transportation fees and cost of
materials. The Taiwanese intermediary came to negotiate the cost and
programs; he felt that the overall price was too high, and after a few
rounds of discussion with Mr. Wade, they decided to cancel everything
but the shell money production program. Then they had another lengthy
discussion on how many performers were needed—Mr. Wade insisted
that all steps of shell money making be represented, and on a specific
number of performers. Finally they reached an agreement on the budget
and the content of the performance.
On a sunny day in September, the motor canoe that carried the
tourists, Taiwanese intermediary, and me arrived at Gwaelaga Island,
where Wade suggested the performance take place because of its exotic
attraction. It was built as an artificial islet, with two grass huts, which did
not have iron roofs like some buildings in the Solomon Islands nowadays.
Residents on the islet were few; most performers came from neighboring
villages. According to custom, visitors were charged a landing fee per
person. After getting onshore, we saw seventeen or eighteen women
sitting in line, under the shade in the plaza, making shell money. They
covered cloth skirts with grass skirts; elder ones sat bare-breasted
according to tradition, while the younger ones were shy and preferred to
keep their breasts covered with skirts. All performers were women with
the exception of the man who was in charge of a’arana (polishing). Many
curious children also appeared on the scene. In the front, souvenirs were
lined up for sale, including necklaces and wooden carvings (Figure 2).
The tourists observed the production with curiosity, and Mr. Wade
helped explain (with my translation) the procedures. About ten women
were doing u’uina (breaking shells into proper pieces), and the number of
performers exceeded the original plan. Mr. Wade explained that some
came without prior invitation. However, it was hard to turn them away
as they were his relatives. The tourists were particularly interested in
218 The Frontiers of Southeast Asia and Pacific Studies
traditional drills, and they bargained in the purchase of a few necklaces.
After taking photos, the group left. The whole process took about half an
hour.
Another performance was a bit different and could be used for
comparison. The famous amateur anthropologist, the late Max Liu,
decided to visit the Solomon Islands, and again his friend approached the
Taiwanese intermediary in Malaita to arrange a one-day tour. The latter
again asked Mr. Wade to organize a program in Langalanga, and I
assisted in the translation. After negotiation, it was decided that the
Langalanga program would be limited to a shell-money performance,
and a visit to the ancestral shrine on Alite Island. Mr. Liu’s interest in
traditional dancing would be satisfied at another village composed of
Kwara’ae people. Mr. Wade’s arrangement of the shell-money
performance last time at Gwaelaga had upset his fellow villagers at
Talakali village, who desired the income from tourism. Therefore he
decided to arrange the performance in Talakali this time. The women’s
charity organization at Talakali agreed to perform, and the income was to
go to their foundation.
When Mr. Liu and his company arrived, villagers had already laid
down the setting for their performance. Fresh coconuts were offered to
the visitors, and a group of women sat underneath a dwelling house
performing all the steps of shell-money making. Again I was involved in
translating and explaining the procedure. Necklaces and wooden
carvings were displayed for sale and Mr. Liu bought a few of them. The
performance time was short and afterward, as usual, a woman dressed in
traditional bride’s attire demonstrated the custom and the grandest form
of shell money. This became the highlight of their performance (Figure
3).4 Tourists often enjoy this part, and take pleasure in taking their photos
or posing for photos with the girls.
IV. Analysis of Performances of Shell-Money Making
The performance of shell-money making resembles home production of
shell money in terms of procedures, but further comparison illuminates
several differences. First, the emphasis on “tradition” in performances: in
addition to performing traditional dances and customary cooking,
elements of cultural performance include houses and village settings,
dresses, and the tools in use. Langalanga people try to present what they
Making Money 219
imagine as the “ideal tradition” in the cultural performance. For example,
according to oral account, the traditional drill has been completely
replaced by the iron drill for a few decades; however, in performing
shell-money making, only traditional drills are used, and the modern
ones are totally absent and not even mentioned. For many tourists, the
most vivid image of “tradition” in the program is what the performers
wear. In the “ideal” performance organized by Langalanga people, the
more traditional the better, therefore forms of dress from pre-Christian
times—grass skirts and bare-breasts—are adopted as the standard code
for most performances. In addition to authenticity with respect to
costumes from the past, previous experiences with tourism give an idea
of tourists’ expectations—tourists’ desire for and fantasy of “the
primitive” and “nudity” sell. Young women who have had a Christian
upbringing feel embarrassed about appearing bare-breasted, and such
nudity is prohibited by some churches. Therefore, the site of the
performance, the church affiliation of the performers, and the age of the
performers influence the performers’ dress. In the examples mentioned
above, we see that Mr. Wade wanted the program to be as traditional as
possible, and scheduled it on Gwaelaga islet instead of his own SDA
village, Talakali. By doing so, he gave away landing fees to Gwaelaga.
The performers were not his neighbors, as the SDA church does not
allow nudity. The second occasion took place at Talakali. Therefore all
the performers, including the girl who played the role of the bride, wore
bras or covered their breasts with other decorative ornaments.
The second aspect is collective production vis-à-vis individual
production: Shell-money making is an individual task in ordinary
production. Although friends, relatives, and neighbors sometimes gather
together under the house to chat while breaking and drilling, all
procedures, except the final polishing (man’s job), are done by an adult
woman. However, in performance, in order to demonstrate all
procedures at once, different women perform different steps, and thus
give a false impression of the division of labor for tourists, who often
think that different people are in charge of different types of production
in reality.5 The synchronization of the production process leads to
compression of time, which resembles the course of mass production in
the factories.6
Through these differences, we are able to grasp a few significant
concepts in Langalanga’s performance of shell-money making, and they
also open a window for our understanding of local conceptualization of
220 The Frontiers of Southeast Asia and Pacific Studies
cultural and touristy performance— Langalanga people believe that what
they present to outsiders should be tradition. No matter whether it is
craft, ritual, architecture, or dress, the more traditional it is the better.
Moreover, we find that the Langalanga think of performance as a
collective activity instead of one that draws too much attention to
individuals. Whether it is the women’s welcome canoes, the warriors’
welcoming ritual, dances, traditional cuisine, or shell-money making,
ideally, the performance should be done by a group of people without
one individual dominating the show. Such principle is closely related to
the fairly egalitarian nature of Langalanga society. In Langalanga, there is
no hereditary chief or leader class; individuals rely on their own ability
and effort to gain prestige and wealth (Guo 2004c, 2005). In the
egalitarian culture and tradition, most knowledge is accessible and
shared (except ritual knowledge), while in hierarchical societies,
aristocrats have a monopoly and enjoy access to a particular power. The
Langalanga perform tradition and traditional heritage collectively in
tourism. On the one hand, tradition is shared—there is no expert in
shell-money making; it is public knowledge and activity.7 On the other
hand, the program organizer is always under pressure to allocate the
benefits as equitably as possible. How delicately he can handle the
distribution of income is the key to his future career in the business.
However, we may further ask, why do Langalanga people think that
shell-money making is worth performing. Why do they believe that such
performance can best represent their culture to outsiders? First, as
previously stated, shell money is their cultural symbol, so highlighting
shell money and the Langalanga ability to produce shell money is
reasonable. As the only group that produces the shell money that is
widely circulated in the region, Langalanga people stand out in their
expertise in comparison to other ethnic groups in the Solomon Islands.8
In my fieldwork experiences, I have found that Langalanga people often
make comparisons with other groups to highlight their uniqueness in a
region with many interacting ethnic groups (Guo 2004a). Dances and
panpipe performances among the Langalanga are not distinctive
elements in comparison to other groups—in the Solomon Islands, the
Are’Are are famous for their panpipe performances, and the Gilbertese
are known for their Polynesian/Micronesian style of dance, but the
Langalanga dance is mundane and not practiced very often in everyday
life. In addition, the warrior welcoming dance and ancestral shrine and
men’s house are all common cultural elements shared by many groups in
Making Money 221
the region. Moreover, the architecture of the Langalanga houses is not
unique in style, although their ancient residence on artificial islets is
distinctive and popular in tourism as well (Guo 2003, 2001b). Their best
claims to exclusivity are shell money and the artificial islands. The latter
is scenic, and the former is performative.
Nevertheless, why does shell money manufacture have to be
performed in the context of tourism? Whey do the Langalanga consider
such performances important?
We can try to answer the question from two perspectives: from the
tourists’ view, and from the context of local society and culture. On the
one hand, Langalanga people probably speculate on what the outsiders
would like to see; on the other hand, in Langalanga culture, the
production of things (especially the production of shell money) is an
important means by which an object acquires meaning. In other words,
the production of objects plays a significant role in understanding human
relationships to them. I argue that both perspectives are indispensable,
for tourism is the process by which both sides communicate and
negotiate their cognition and relationships under the power structure
(Tucker 2002: 118).
First, as many scholars have pointed out, local people gradually
learn to accommodate tourists’ preference (Stronza 2001: 271). The tourist
gaze is culturally structured; in order to create a successful tourist scene,
it is necessary to satisfy instead of contradict the tourist gaze (Urry 1990).
Sometimes, the “staged authenticity” (MacCanell 1976) by the host can
satisfy the sense of exotic “authenticity” pursued by many tourists. In the
touristy scene created by the Langalanga, we see how they have learned
from past experience to capture the image of “tradition” desired by
tourists, and perform according to the tourist gaze.9 They think that
tourists look for different experiences. There is dramatic effect (the
tourists are shocked) in the warriors’ “welcoming” ritual. The
shark-calling performance by priests in the past amazed tourists, thus
making it rate as a successful performance. “Traditional” settings,
costumes, and performances attract tourists and make them feel they
have got their money’s worth. The bride’s model show is magnetic and
makes good souvenir photos for tourists. From this perspective, what we
need to explore is why tourists are interested in traditional crafts and the
accompanying technology. Here, I propose a few possible explanations.
MacCanell (1989) examines a particular type of contemporary tourist
activity—the “work display”—i.e., the visit to industrial and working
222 The Frontiers of Southeast Asia and Pacific Studies
sites. He argues that labor transforms materials into useable goods, and
modernity transforms labor into a cultural product that tourists can gaze
at and participate in. Thus, “work” becomes an exhibited object. He
thinks this is only possible in modern society: in industrial society, work
is alienated from workers, while in modern society, work is transformed
into a social feature, and thus possibly an “alienated leisure” (ibid: 36-7;
Urry 1990: 10). It is in such context that modern tourists develop interests
in seeing other people work—irrespective of whether it is production
lines in factories or an individual practicing a craft.
Bruner (1987) argues that what attracts tourists is the cultural item
they think is going to disappear or has already waned, “the trope of the
disappearing primitive” (1987: 441). Shell money is an example of such a
case. On the other hand, in additional to being dynamic in exhibition,
why crafting interests tourists is related to the particular value that
“handmade” and “handicraft” acquires today. In contrast to the
homogeneity and anonymity of mass production, handmade objects
become more popular and highly valued because they contain qualities
of individuality, humanity, and time/effort (i.e., high labor cost). Many
tourists observing the performance of shell-money making were
astonished by the time and efforts demanded by the work, and agreed to
the price asked by local producers. Besides, in contrast to machine-based
production, the craft of shell-money making fulfills tourist
imaginations—“tradition,” “primitive,” “backwards,” and “exotic.”
Do the Langalanga achieve their ideal self-representation through
such performance? Obviously in the tourist scenario, communication
originates from different attitudes, backgrounds, and power relationships,
and thus there are gaps between what the host wants to transmit and the
message received and conceived by the guests. This is clear in the
example of Mr. Liu’s visit. After returning from his short visit, Mr. Liu
wrote a brief article for the magazine Artists. I was surprised by the
many faults in his description of shell money. It gave only a simple
account of what the Langalanga cared about the most—the production
process of shell money; and the photo published with the article was not
the performance of shell-money making, but the bride’s dress. Contrary
to the local name of the artifact (shell money, bata), he inappropriately
called shell money “money necklace” (in fact, necklaces are tourist
souvenirs, and not the most important form of shell money). He
mistakenly interpreted the meaning of shell money by stating that the
various types of necklaces worn by women symbolized their “age grade,
Making Money 223
marriage condition, and love records,” while those worn by men
symbolized their “war success, wealth and living condition” (Liu 1998:
405). In fact, shell money that signifies wealth is very long and heavy,
and is stored at home; necklaces are usually worn for aesthetic reasons,
not as indicators of marital status or age.10
I have more than once overheard tourists commenting on how
backward the “primitive money” was, and how “primitive” the tools the
Langalanga used were, and they attributed this to the seemingly lower
standard of living in local society. Some even suggested using machinery
to mass produce shell money. As Hsieh (1994) points out, through ethnic
tourism, tourists seldom achieve cultural understanding, but on the
contrary reinforce original stereotypes.
External gazes and preferences in tourist activities often influence
the way a craft is practiced.(e.g., Smith 1989; Parnwell 1993). However,
the explanation of fulfilling tourist desire tends to portray local people as
passive objects. In fact, the hosts have their agency in touristy
performance. Tourism is the cultural contact of two groups of people; we
need to consider the background and history of their tourism cultures
respectively, and the active role the host takes in tourism activities
should not be overlooked (Nash 1996: 90-93). For example, in order to
show the craft, it is possible to have one or two experts demonstrate each
step, as is often seen in museums and culture centers. However, the
Langalanga want to involve as many people as possible. In addition to
the egalitarian characteristic of the society previously discussed, such
preference is also related to the inheritance and practice of technology
(see next section). Moreover, we have to ask why the Langalanga people
think that shell money is displayable, and why shell-money making is
displayable. What positions do the displayed artifacts and the
performance of craft (shell-money making) occupy in the categorizations
in Langalanga culture? Moreover, what are the relationships between
production and product/object? We need to understand the notions of
things in Langalanga culture in order to answer these questions. The next
section is a preliminary analysis.
V. Langalanga Notions of Things: Body, Practice, and
Object
Studies of material culture were ample in early anthropological literature,
224 The Frontiers of Southeast Asia and Pacific Studies
after which for decades a downhill trend was noted in this respect. It was
not until the early 1980s that studies of objects and material culture
regained recognition in the discipline (Appadurai 1986: 5). New research
topics that have contributed to theoretical advancement in the discipline
include the gift (the “return” of gift), exchange/exchangeable (Carrier
1990; Fajan 1993; Godelier 1999), alienation (or the inalienable) (Miller
1987; Weiner 1992), consumption and commodity (Appadurai 1986;
Miller 1987, 1995), value (Appadurai 1986; Munn 1986), identity (Morris
1998; Ohnuki-Tierney 1993; Rival 1998), morality (Hagen 1999; Parry &
Bloch 1989), and exchange in colonial contacts (Thomas 1991).
In the development of anthropological studies of object and material
culture, Oceanic ethnographies were always prominent. For example, the
classic study The Gift by Mauss made use of examples in Oceania;
Malinowski’s famous study of the Kula Ring and the eminent studies of
moka (and other) exchange systems in highland New Guinea (A.
Strathern 1971) are also landmarks in anthropology. Recent assessment of
gender perspective in exchange (M. Strathern 1982), examination of the
historical contextualization of exchange by Thomas (1991), the theory of
“inalienable possession” by Weiner (1992), and the reconfiguration of the
Enigma of the Gift by Godelier (1999) are also Melanesian-oriented.
However, these studies concentrate on the sphere of exchange, together
with the contemporary studies of consumption and commodity by
Appadurai (1986) and Millers (1987, 1995), and devote relatively little
attention to the aspect of “production.” This paper attempts to fill the gap,
and argues that the reexamination of the local concept of “production,”
especially the production of culturally important objects that play
important roles in the process of exchange, trade, and commoditization,
can contribute to our understanding of the notion of things and
human-thing relations.
Studies of objects in Melanesia focus on exchange and gifts partly
because the groups studied by anthropologists, especially in inland New
Guinea, circulate imported valuables, especially shell valuables, which
are traded or exchanged beginning from the seashore.11 Therefore the
production side of these valuables is seldom taken seriously in the
literature. In the case Langalanga, they produce shell valuables that are
widely circulated in the region and enter the exchange systems in
different areas. As the manufacturer of shell valuables, the production
side of exchangeable objects acquires significant meaning in their culture.
In comparison to these famous cases mentioned above in New Guinea,
Making Money 225
the Langalanga do not have an exchange system as complicated and
delicate—the pieces of shell money they produce do not have individual
names, or a cultural biography (Kopytoff 1986); they are not memorized
and lack special meanings individually. However, in the discussion
below, I will argue that we need to approach the Langalanga
understanding of things (especially shell money and landscape, which
are embedded with symbolic meaning and used as cultural
representation) from the aspect of its production, or more accurately, the
relationships between human body (and its motions) and objects.
Foremost, I do not think that there is a single, unchangeable notion
of things in Langalanga. Cultural concepts are tied to historical, social,
and power-related contexts; meanings of things and their relationship
with humans (for example, the classification and appropriation of things,
and the symbolic relations between them) are ever-changing and
inseparable from cultural and historical contexts. On the other hand, the
agency of things is sometimes influenced by and intertwined with
cultural concepts (Wang 2001) and the respective society (Latour 1987).
The Langalanga notions of things cannot be dealt with completely in this
paper; I will only discuss what relates to shell money and shell money
making below.
In the cultural representation of the Langalanga, the most traditional
characteristics are the artificial islets and shell money. I have elsewhere
(Guo 2001a, 2003) discussed human relations with landscape in
Langalanga—how landscape is conceptualized and appropriated by local
people. The most essential is the interaction between human and
landscape: people’s (especially ancestors’) movements on and actions on
the landscape (e.g., clearing a piece of land, house building, rituals,
resting, and other appropriations), which constitute how they come to
realize the landscape. Landscape in Langalanga is not alienated from
people or merely viewed by them; through ancestral activities, landscape
embeds ancestral and past histories, and is thereby tightly connected to
the people today. People in Langalanga emphasize their ancestors’
actions on the landscape, particularly through the medium of human
bodies, which links people, landscape, and ancestors together. For
instance, tracks of ancestral activities on the landscape (including paths
of migration, houses built, fields cleared, trees planted, and rocks moved
by ancestors, have significance in connecting people today with their
ancestral/historical memory. The path people walk through is called
fuliaela (footprint), which is the mark of the ancestral bodies on the
226 The Frontiers of Southeast Asia and Pacific Studies
landscape and encloses supernatural power. Human relationships with
landscape, a particular object are established, continued, and recognized
and inherited through the entanglement of human activities and
landscape. Artificial islets become a symbol of Langalanga culture in the
context of this notion of things, which triangulates human, landscape,
and ancestors through human actions from the past to the present.
The Langalanga relationships between people and shell money are
similar. Shell money is the result of work (galona)12 by the human body,
the result of interactions between shell materials and human body. The
process involves bodily actions such as diving and picking up shells, and
the hardship of breaking, flattening, drilling, polishing, and threading.
Shell money attains its importance through human activities—especially
through the delicate and hard labor, which creates the artifacts and
imparts economic value.
As seen in the case of shell money and landscape, how Langalanga
conceptualize objects is inalienable from human actions. Similar notions
apply to other objects. For example, food is not just an objective physical
reality, but the result of people’s “work.” Sweet potatoes become edible
not just by themselves, but through women’s hard work, which includes
planting, weeding, and harvesting in their fields, as well as the
processing jobs (peeling, washing, and cooking) in the kitchen. An object
obtains its meanings not by itself, but as a result of human actions
involved. In designing the tourist program, the Langalanga not only treat
visitors to local “exotic” cuisine, but perform the process of traditional
cooking, which is not only a representation of “kastom” but also of how
food becomes meaningful and special. The acquisition of
things—whether they are harvested from the soil of the land, fished from
sea, or bought in the market—is also important, but the Langalanga
emphasize the “making processes” that turn raw materials into products.
The way of cooking, instead of the material, is a representation of
“kastom”; similarly, the emphasis is not on the acquisition of materials
(shells), but the process of making shells into shell money, which is
performed to illustrate their culture. Seeing the process of shell money
making is a way of understanding shell money’s value.13 In the Central
Market, souvenir shops, and hotel stores of Honiara, shell money is
alienated from its production process, and becomes a displayed
commodity. The Langalanga think that tourists who buy them in these
places treat shell money only as a souvenir and fail to understand its real
Making Money 227
meaning and value. The ideal situation is to witness the production of the
object in the place where it is made.
For the Langalanga, the value of shell money lies in the making
process rather than factors such as who makes it, who owns it, or its
circulation history. Different from the case of Kula valuables, the
previous owners of a certain string of shell money do not affect its value.
Once completed, the string of shell money no longer has deep social and
emotional ties with the producer(s) (sometimes plural, the result of
corporate production). It becomes a pure commodity for sale, or a
possession stored in one’s house, which could be used as bridewealth in
the future. Moreover, there is no point in keeping a string as it is in a
whole piece; people can take away part of the string to re-thread it into
others, or even polish it to make a smaller and newer product.
From many perspectives, shell money making is indeed the most
significant link between the Langalanga and shell money. Its meanings
first came from the entanglement between shells and bodily experiences,
and then it obtained additional meanings through its circulation and its
role in social connections. We can further examine the analysis above via
another example. In addition to bodily decoration, the most general use
of shell money is in bridewealth exchange. The Langalanga ritual for
bridewealth exchange has all the ingredients of a performance. Relatives
of the bridegroom carry shell money to the house of the bride’s parents.
A ritual expert assists in lining them up in the plaza, and counts the
numbers of each type in a loud voice. He then serves as an intermediary
in the special exchange of duuna (Guo 2004a), which helps to establish
further networks between relatives of both sides. Shell money is the
medium for creating and maintaining social relationships in the process,
and its meaning is transformed from the earlier stage when shell money
is made. However, the Langalanga, to my knowledge, never perform the
ritual of bridewealth exchange, although its process can be an interesting
performance. The fact that the Langalanga perform only shell money
making indicates that among all the meanings of shell money, they find
the aspect of its production—the relationships built between objects and
people through bodily experiences—more significant, more central in
their notions of things than its usage and exchange.
In asking how shell money is located in the category of things, and
how shell money making is understood in Langalanga culture, we need
also to ask why the production process is allowed to be performed. First,
shell money is not a “tabooed object” (are aabu). In contrast, the ancestral
228 The Frontiers of Southeast Asia and Pacific Studies
skulls in their shrines (fera aabu) are aabu (taboo) and it is forbidden to
display them in public.14 Secondly, in contrast to shell valuables in many
Melanesian cultures, shell money is not an inalienable possession
(Weiner 1992) in Langalanga. After it is made, it is ready for exchange,
gift-giving, trade, or sale as commodity. As seen in the touristy
performances, souvenirs for sale are arranged right next to the
performances of shell money making. This is part of the Langalanga
notions of things, in which things like shell money can be alienated or
commoditized as soon as their production is completed. Thirdly, the
process of shell money making does not involve secret technology.
Therefore it can be shown openly. The techniques are publicly shared
and learned. How Langalanga people learn and transmit knowledge and
technology is critical to our understanding here: they do not depend on
oral knowledge but largely on observation of others’ work and trying it
by themselves in practice. This way of knowledge transmission is often
seen in Melanesia. For example, in the Kwaio Cultural Centre, the
teaching and learning of tradition is carried out in a similar
way—teachers weave and carve while students acquire the knowledge
through observation and imitation (Akin 1994). Therefore, performing
the process and showing the manufacturing technology are similar
actions to how disciples learn their culture in everyday lives. “Work,”
technology, and knowledge are what can be expressed and passed on
through practice and observation on both sides.
But the notions of things in Langalanga are not singular and static;
they vary and are expressed in diverse ways in different contexts.
Although alienable in the context of tourism and family economy, shell
money is entrenched in different relationships with humans, and they are
emphasized accordingly in different circumstances. For example, shell
money, made through the effort of the human body, is considered to
embed a particular power. The grandest type of shell money, tafuliae, is
marked for its potency to establish social relationships and to maintain
peace. It is powerful not only because it is the most expensive type of all,
but also because it has red leaves attached (replaced by red cloths
nowadays) on both ends, which symbolize and can substitute for human
blood and furthermore prevent possible bloodshed in the future. It is
necessary to exchange tafuliae in peacemaking ceremonies. Moreover,
tafuliae is valued and applied as bridewealth in many areas of Malaita for
similar reasons—according to local accounts, the side that “loses” a
woman often feels angry, thereby leading to the possibility of bloody
Making Money 229
conflict. Shell money is presented in the bridewealth exchange to prevent
possible violence in the future. On these two occasions, for which shell
money is most commonly employed, the circulation of shell money is a
mechanism to prevent death—whether it is the compensation of death in
the past, or the prevention of death in the future—and create a socially
productive network of relationships. When the Langalanga talk about the
power of shell money, they often think that its wider circulation is an
extension of Langalanga power (Guo 2006). However, this aspect is often
understated in touristy and commercial contexts, though it is parallel to
and intertwined with the more alienated concept.
Furthermore, Langalanga notions of things are also influenced by
political-economic power and the doctrines of Christianity. For example,
after the introduction of Christianity, the Protestant ethic emphasizing
“work” was promoted by some churches, which consider work to be of
high moral value. Therefore, performance of traditional “work”15 is in
accordance with church preaching, and is sometimes encouraged.
Performing shell money making, as described earlier in this paper, can be
a way for women’s organization or the church to raise funds.
Finally if the notions of things in Langalanga shape to some degree
the Langalanga performance of shell money making, the practice of their
performances probably in turn influence Langalanga notions of things as
well. Such performance reinforces the recognition of the aspect of
production, especially the manufacture of shell money, in Langalanga
culture.
VI. Performing “Manufacture”: Rethinking Objects and
Performance
Unlike objects in static exhibitions, in museums, souvenir shops, or
selling booths, the performance of the production process gives the
viewers information on how objects are made. This paper points out that
performance of the production process (in museums, cultural villages,
and films and festivals) is more than just making the exhibition more
dynamic and attractive. It is also more than the contextualization of
objects in terms of craftsmanship. I argue that we need to go beyond
these technological concerns of the exhibition, and ask why the
performers perform—how they regard the performance, and what
meanings are embedded in the production of things and its performance
230 The Frontiers of Southeast Asia and Pacific Studies
in their culture.
Studies of performances have contributed to our understanding of
cultures. For example, Hu (1998), who analyzes the modern reformatted
performances of ritual dancing and singing of the Saisiat and Paiwan
groups in Taiwan, argues that core values in the cultures we study can be
revealed in such contexts, especially with respect to “authenticity” and its
related performance. Wang (2003) describes the experience of building a
Tsou men’s house in the plaza of the National Museum of Natural
History in Taiwan, in which he finds that the Tsou insist on employing
traditional technology and materials as well as performing religious
rituals to ensure that an authentic structure is built in the national
institute. Kaeppler (1994) argues that in Tonga, “representation” is an
important cultural concept—the act of representation is often more
important than what is represented (Kaeppler 1994: 42). Performance of
culture often provokes one to thinking of related cultural concepts, and
therefore becomes a valuable window for us to look into the culture.
In this paper, I examine why the Langalanga think it necessary to
include processes of shell money making in their cultural performance.
On one hand, previous experiences with tourism have given them an
idea of tourists’ expectations; on the other hand, it is closely related to
their notions of things. In Langalanga culture, the entanglement between
human bodies and objects, especially in the production process, is central
in the conceptualization of human-thing relationships. As in many
Melanesian societies (e.g. Wagner 1991; M. Strathern 1988), practice
prevails in Langalanga culture. Shell money is made through people’s
hard work, thus reinforcing its cultural meaning. In comparison to the
aspects of its employment and circulation, the production of shell money
symbolizes the characteristics of the Langalanga, and therefore its
performance is inevitable in their cultural representation.
Through the Langalanga example, we are able to enhance our
understandings of the relationships between objects and performance.
Recent studies of material culture have led to a large stock of literature,
especially with respect to gift exchange and commoditization. Exchange
of shell valuables and their social role in Melanesia have stimulated a lot
of scholarly work; however, the notions of production and work, and
their relations to humans, human bodies, and objects, have not been
explored thoroughly. This paper examines how local producers
conceptualize the production of objects and the manufacturing process,
and what cultural meanings are embedded in such performance.
Making Money 231
Theoretically, I argue that by going beyond the Marxist approach, the
reexamination of production from cultural and local perspectives can
enrich our knowledge in the study of material culture.
* This paper was originally presented in the CAPAS (Academia Sinica)
and IRSEA & CREDO (Université de Provence) “New Frontier of
Southeast Asian and Pacific Studies” Conference, November 24-25,
2005, at CAPAS, Academia Sinica, Taiwan. I would like to thank the
participants for their comments, and Dr. Ben Burt’s useful
suggestions. I am also indebted to the Langalanga friends who have
been working with me for the past ten years. An earlier version of
this paper has been published in Chinese (see Guo 2004b); however, I
have made some amendments in this version.
Figure 1 Performance of Shell Money Making
232 The Frontiers of Southeast Asia and Pacific Studies
Figure 2 Souvenirs for Sale
Figure 3 Bridal Dress for Tourists’ Cameras
Making Money 233
Notes
1. The Cultural Centre of Solomon Islands was opposed by some
islanders. They look at culture as encompassing all aspects of living,
while in the Cultural Centre, touristy considerations exceed local
notions, tradition is commercialized, and custom is displayed by
shows (Stanley 1998: 95).
2. Earlier accounts from European observation (e.g., Hopkins 1928: 66,
Raucaz 1928: 242-244, Johnson 1944, etc.) indicate that the
demonstration of shell-money making might have started even
earlier, whether the purpose was touristic or not. Further research is
needed to trace the history of collective and staged demonstration of
shell-money making in Langalanga.
3. Anthropological research is by nature a translation and medium, and
anthropologists sometimes play the role as mediators between the
societies they study and their own. Nash (1996: 83) reminds
researchers to pay more attention to self-reflexivity in the study of
tourism. Therefore I think it necessary to contextualize the role I
played in the process of this research.
4. A more “ideal” performance would involve three unmarried
maids—the bride and two bridesmaids. The bride especially wears
all kinds of body decoration composed of shell money
beads—including skirt, saosako (vest), hat, arm bands, leg bands, and
a string of tafuliae. She holds a coconut packed with shell money,
which symbolizes fertility. Sometimes these girls appear
bare-breasted according to “tradition.” But some of the girls with a
Christian upbringing hesitate to appear bare-breasted and cover
their breasts with bras, as was the case in Talakali Village.
5. It is not clear why the Langalanga organizers always insist on such
synchronization of work in performance—perhaps it is a way to
include as many performers as possible. The significance of the latter
will be discussed below.
6. I am thankful to Weining Cheng for pointing this out to me.
7. Shark calling in the past was performed by priests, who possessed
special knowledge. However, as the last generation of priests has
passed away, the performance is no longer carried out.
8. The mountain-dwelling Kwaio also produce another type of shell
money nowadays, but the circulation is exclusively among
themselves (Akin 1999). Therefore Langalanga is the only group that
234 The Frontiers of Southeast Asia and Pacific Studies
produces local currency for circulation.
9. In addition to the tourist gaze, external gazes in Langalanga include
gazes by colonial officers, missionaries, and anthropologists. I have
elsewhere (Guo 2001b) discussed them in a historical perspective.
10. In addition, there are many other faults in Liu’s paper. For example,
while visiting the ancestral shrine, the local guide and I both
explained that the skulls were ancestral remains, but he described
them as the evidence of cannibalism. Liu’s misrepresentation
reiterates common Western stereotypes about the meanings of
‘primitive ornaments’, as well as imagination of cannibalism. I thank
Ben Burt for bringing this point to my attention.
11. Among the exchanged objects, pigs are of special significance, and
their farming/rearing plays an important role in local societies.
However, this paper only deals with shell valuables, which are of a
very different nature in terms of production and circulation.
12. In Langalanga language, “making shell money” is “galo na la bata”
(bata means shell money). The verb form of “work” is “galo,” and its
noun is “galona.”
13. The economic value of shell money originates from the labor and
time needed. The demonstration of its production helps illuminate
its value to buyers.
14. The skulls cannot be displayed in public; however, they can be
shown to male tourists in their original secret locations if certain fees
are paid.
15. Shell money making in Langalanga language is “galo na la bata”, in
the same category of work (galona). It is beyond the scope of this
paper to discuss fully the relationships between “work” and things
in Langalanga. For related discussion, please see Schwimmer (1979).
References
Akin, David. 1994. Cultural Education at the Kwaio Cultural Centre. Pp.
161–172 in Culture-Kastom-Tradition: Developing Cultural Policy in
Melanesia, eds., Lamont Lindstrom & Geoffrey M. White. Suva, Fiji:
Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific.
Making Money 235
______. 1999. Cash and Shell Money in Kwaio, Solomon Islands. Pp.
131-150 in Money and Modernity: State and Local Currencies in
Melanesia, eds., David Akin & Joel Robbins. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Appadurai, Arjun. 1986. Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of
Value. Pp. 3-63 in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural
Perspective, ed., Arjun Apadurai. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bruner, Edward M. 1987. Of Cannibals, Tourists, and Ethnographers.
Cultural Anthropology, 4: 438-45.
Carrier, James. 1990. Gifts in a World of Commodities: The Ideology of
Perfect Gift in American Society. Social Analysis, 29:19-37.
Chen, Mau-thai（陳茂泰）. 1998. Museum and Festival: Genre and Politics
of Cultural Representation. (博物館與慶典：人類學文化再現的類型與
政治). Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica (中央研究院
民族學研究所集刊), 84: 139-184. (In Chinese)
Cooper, Matthew. 1971. Economic Context of Shell Money Production in
Malaita. Oceania, 41:266-276.
Douglas, Ngaire. 1996. They Came for Savages: 100 Years of Tourism in
Melanesia. Alstonville, Australia: Southern Cross University Press.
Fajans, Jane, ed. 1993. Exchanging Products: Producing Exchanging. Sydney:
University of Sydney.
Faoana’ota, Lawrence Agiomea. 1994. Solomon Islands National Museum
and Cultural Centre Policy. Pp. 95-102 in Culture-Kastom-Tradition:
Developing Cultural Policy in Melanesia, eds., Lamont Lindstrom &
Geoffrey M. White. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pacific Studies, University
of the South Pacific.
Fisk, Denis. 1973. Malaita, the Island with the Mostest. Pacific Islands
Monthly, 44: 53, 55.
Godelier, Maurice. 1999. The Enigma of the Gift. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Guo, Pei-yi. 2001a. Landscape, History and Migration among the
Langalanga, Solomon Islands. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh.
______. 2001b. External Gazes and Cultural Representation: Langalanga
People and Their “Artificial Islands”. Paper presented at the
conference “Representation and Boundary,” National Museum of
Natural Science, June 22, Taichung, Taiwan.
236 The Frontiers of Southeast Asia and Pacific Studies
______. 2002. “Trading Money”: Shell Money and Trading Networks
among the Langalanga, Solomon Islands.” Paper presented at the
17th Congress of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association (IPPA),
September 9-15, Taipei, Taiwan.
______. 2003. “Island Builders”: Landscape and Historicity among the
Langalanga, Solomon Islands. Pp. 189-209 in Landscape, Memory
and History: Anthropological Perspectives, eds., Pamela J. Stewart &
Andrew Strathern. London: Pluto Press.
______. 2004a. Comparisons and the Construction of Anthropological
Knowledge: Bridewealth Exchange Ritual among the Langalanga,
Solomon Islands ( 「 比 較 」 與 人 類 學 知 識 建 構 ： 以 所 羅 門 群 島
Langalanga 人聘禮交換儀式為例). Taiwan Journal of Anthropology (台
灣人類學刊), 2(2): 1-42. (In Chinese)
______. 2004b. Performing “Manufacture”: Notion of Things and
Performing “Shell Money Making” among the Langalanga, Solomon
Islands (展演「製作」：所羅門群島 Langalanga 人的物觀與「貝珠錢
製作」展演). Museology Quarterly (博物館學季刊), 18(2): 7-24. (In
Chinese)
______. 2004c. Rethinking Ascribed/Achieved Status: Hierarchy and
Egality in Oral Histories among the Langalanga, Solomon Islands.
Paper presented at the conference “Hierarchy and Power” held by
Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica, October 6-8, Taipei, Taiwan.
______. 2005. Social Complexity in Malaita: Movement, Regional Trade
and Hierarchy. Paper presented at the ASAO annual conference.
February 2–5, Hawaii.
______. 2006. From Currency to Agency: Shell Money in Contemporary
Langalanga, Solomon Islands. Asia Pacific Forum 31 : 17-38.
Hagen, J. M. 1999. The Good Behind the Gift: Morality and Exchange
among the Maneo of Eastern Indonesia. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 5:361-376.
Hall, C. Michael. 1998. Making the Pacific: Globalization, Modernity and
Myth. Pp. 140-153 in Destinations: Cultural Landscapes of Tourism, ed.,
Greg Ringer. London: Routledge.
Hay, John. 1971.Will Laulasi Lose Its Remoteness? Pacific Islands Monthly,
42: 55, 57.
Hopkins, A. I. 1928. In the Isles of King Solomon: An Account of Twenty-Five
Years Spent Amongst the Primitive Solomon Islanders. London: Seeley,
Service & Co. Ltd.
Making Money 237
Horoi, Stephen Rex. 1980. Tourism and Solomon Handicrafts.” Pp.
111-114 in Pacific Tourism: As Islanders See It, edited by Freda Rajotte
& Ron Crocombe. Suva, Fiji: University of the South Pacific, Institute
of Pacific Studies and South Pacific Social Sciences Association.
Hsieh, Shih-chong (謝世忠). 1992. Tourist Activities, the Shaping of
Cultural Tradition, and Ethnic Identity (觀光活動，文化傳統的塑模，
與 族 群 意 識 ： 烏 來 泰 雅 族 Daiyan 認 同 的 研 究 ). Bulletin of the
Department of Archaeology and Anthropology ( 考 古 人 類 學 刊 ), 48:
113-129. (In Chinese)
______. 1994. Tourism in Mountain Peoples (「山胞觀光」：當代山地文化展
現的人類學詮釋). Taipei: Avanguard Publishing Co. (In Chinese)
Horoi, Stephen Rex. 1980. Tourism and Solomon Handicrafts.” Pp.
111-114 in Pacific Tourism: As Islanders See It, edited by Freda Rajotte &
Ron Crocombe. Suva, Fiji: University of the South Pacific, Institute of
Pacific Studies and South Pacific Social Sciences Association.
Hu, Tai-Li （胡台麗）. 1998. Cultural Reality and Performance: Saisiat and
Paiwan Experiences (文化真實與展演：賽夏、排灣經驗). Bulletin of the
Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica (中央研究院民族學研究所集刊),
84: 61-86. (In Chinese)
Johnson, Osa. 1944. Bride in the Solomons. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Kaeppler, Adrienne L. 1994. Paradise Regained: the Role of Pacific
Museums in Forging National Identity. Pp. 19-44 in Museums and the
Making of “Ourselves”: the Role of Objects in National Identity, ed., Flora
E. S. Kaplan. London: Leicester University Press.
Kii, Lucian. 1980. Laulasi Island Welcomes Tourists. Pp. 115-118 in Pacific
Tourism: As Islanders See It, eds., Freda Rajotte & Ron Crocombe.
Suva, Fiji: University of the South Pacific, Institute of Pacific Studies
and South Pacific Social Sciences Association.
Kopytoff, Igor. 1986. The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization
as Process. Pp. 64-94 in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in
Cultural Perspective, ed., Arjun Appadurai. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and
Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
238 The Frontiers of Southeast Asia and Pacific Studies
Lindstrom, Lamont & Geoffrey M. White. 1994. Cultural Policy: an
Introduction. Pp. 1-20 in Culture-Kastom-Tradition: Developing Cultural
Policy in Melanesia, eds., Lamont Lindstrom & Geoffrey M. White.
Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific.
Liu, Max. 1998. Notes on Interviews in Solomon Islands (所羅門採訪紀略).
Artists (藝術家), 277: 400-405. (In Chinese)
MacCannell, Dean. 1989/1976. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure
Class. New York: Schocken Books.
Miller, Daniel. 1987. Material Culture and Mass Consumption. New York:
Basil Blackwell.
______. 1995. Consumption and Commodities. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 24: 141-161.
Morris, Brian. 1998. The Power of Animals: An Ethnography. Oxford: Berg.
Munn, Nancy D. 1986. The Fame of Gawa: A Symbolic Study of Value
Transformation in a Massim (Papua New Guinea) Society. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nash, Dennison. 1996. Anthropology of Tourism. Oxford: Pergamon.
Ohnui-Tierney, Emiko. 1993. Rice as Self: Japanese Identities Through Time.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Parnwell, Michael J. G. 1993. Tourism and Rural Handicrafts in Thailand.
Pp. 234-257 in Tourism in Southeast Asia, eds., Michael Hitchcock,
Victor T. King & Michael J. G. Parnwell. London: Routledge.
Parry, Jonathan & Maurice Bloch, eds. 1989. Money and the Morality of
Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rajotte, Freda. 1980. Tourism Impacts in the Pacific. Pp. 1-14 in Pacific
Tourism: as Islanders See It, eds., Freda Rajotte & Ron Crocombe. Suva,
Fiji: University of the South Pacific, Institute of Pacific Studies and
South Pacific Social Sciences Association.
Rival, Laura, ed. 1998. The Social Life of Trees: Anthropological Perspectives
on Tree Symbolism. Oxford: Berg.
Schwimmer, Erik. 1979. The Self and the Product: Concepts of Work in
Comparative Perspectives. Pp. 287-315 in Social Anthropology of Work,
edited by Sandra Wallman. London: Academic Press.
Smith, Valene L. 1989. Introduction. Pp. 1-17 in Hosts and Guests: the
Anthropology of Tourism, eds., Valene L. Smith & William R.
Eadington. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Stanley, Nick. 1998. Being Ourselves for You: the Global Display of Cultures.
London: Middlesex University Press.
Making Money 239
Stanton, Max E. 1989. The Polynesian Cultural Center: a Multi-Ethnic
Model of Seven Pacific Cultures. Pp. 247-262 in Hosts and Guests: the
Anthropology of Tourism, ed., Valene L. Smith. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Strathern, Andrew. 1971. The Rope of Moka. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Strathern, Marilyn. 1988. The Gender of the Gift. Berkeley: California
University Press.
Stronza, Amanda. 2001. Anthropology of Tourism: Forging New Ground
for Ecotourism and Other Alternatives. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 30:261-283.
Tanirono, Eliam. 1980. The Impact of Tourism on Solomons Culture. Pp.
109-110 in Pacific Tourism: as Islanders See It, eds., Freda Rajotte & Ron
Crocombe. Suva, Fiji: University of the South Pacific, Institute of
Pacific Studies and South Pacific Social Sciences Association.
Thomas, Nicholas. 1991. Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and
Colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tucker, Hazel. 2002. Living with Tourism: Negotiating Identities in a Turkish
Village. London: Routledge.
Urry, John. 2002 [1990]. The Tourist Gaze. London: Sage Publications.
Wagner, Roy. 1991. The Fractal Person. Pp. 159-173 in Big Men & Great
Men: Personifications of Power in Melanesia, eds., Maurice Godelier &
Marilyn Strathern. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, Song-Shan (王嵩山). 1991. The Future of the Past: Anthropology in
Museum (過去的未來：博物館中的人類學空間). Taipei: Daw Shiang
Press. (In Chinese)
______. 2001. Craftsmanship, Beliefs, and Social Value: the Example of
the Tsou in Mount Ali (工藝、信仰與社會價值：阿里山鄒人的例子).
Taiwan Literature (台灣文獻), 52(2): 197-220. (In Chinese)
______. 2003. Studies of the Representation of Cultural Forms (文化形式
再現之研究：以博物館的廟/會所與船舶的「原貌重建」為例). Pp.
205-261 in The Pursuit of Authenticity in the Conservation of Cultural
Properties (2001 台灣文化資產保存研究年會紀實：追求文化資產的真實
性 ). Tainan: National Center for Research and Preservation of
Cultural Properties. (In Chinese)
Webb, T. D. 1994. Highly Structured Tourist Art: From and Meaning of
the Polynesian Cultural Center. Contemporary Pacific, 6: 59-85.
240 The Frontiers of Southeast Asia and Pacific Studies
Weiner, Annette B. 1992. Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of
Keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press.
