Gifts to Men and Gifts to God: Gift Exchange and Capital Accumulation in Contemporary

Papua
Author(s): C. A. Gregory
Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Dec., 1980), pp. 626-652
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2801537 .
Accessed: 09/12/2014 16:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Man.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GIFTS TO MEN AND GIFTS TO GOD: GIFT

EXCHANGE AND CAPITAL ACCUMULATION
IN CONTEMPORARY
PAPUA
C. A.GREGORY
University
ofCambridge
Boas'sthesisthatpotlatchgiftexchangeis governedby theprinciple
ofinterest
hasbeen
acceptedby manypeopleas thegeneralprinciple
underlying
all competitive
giftexchange
systems.In the Melanesiancontextsome have arguedthat'traditional
thriftiness'
has
'preconditioned'
Melanesians
to capitalaccumulation
in thecontextof a moderneconomy
aimedat development.
This articledevelopsa theoretical
and empiricalcritiqueof that
argument.
The principle
ofinterest
doesnotunderliecompetitive
gifts-to-men
systems
and,
ofdestruction
paradoxically,
itistheprinciple
inherent
ina gifts-to-god
system
thatoffers
the
greatest
potential
forcapitalaccumulation.
Competitive
giftexchange
flourishes
anddevelops
undertheimpactofmoney.

Amongthefirst
groupofbeingswithwhommenmusthavemadecontracts
werethespirits
of
thedeadandthegods.Theyarein facttherealownersoftheworld'swealth(MaussI925: I3).
Men saythatgift-exchange
bringsabundance
ofwealth(MaussI925: I2).

What distinguishesthe Kwakiutl potlatch from other competitive gift

exchangesystemsis thatit involves'giftsto god' as well as 'giftsto men' (Mauss
I925: I2). As Mauss notes,'It is not simplyto show power and wealth and
unselfishness
thata man putshis slavesto death,burnshispreciousoil, throws
coppersintothesea,and setshishouseon fire.In doing thishe is also sacrificing
to thegods and spirits,who appearincarnatein themen who are at once their
namesakesand ritualallies' (I925: I4). It is thisgifts-to-god
element,and the
destructionof wealth involved,thatsetsthe potlatchapartfrommost other
systems.Competitivegiftexchangesystemsthatculminatein the destruction
of wealthare extremelyrare.However, as a gifts-to-men
system,potlatchhas
much in common with the exchange systemsof Melanesia and elsewhere.
Indeed,Boas's descriptionand analysisof the gifts-to-men
potlatchhas had a
profound effecton the descriptionand analysis of Melanesian exchange.
According to Boas, the ideal operation of the gifts-to-men
potlatch is as
follows:A gives I0 blanketsto B; afteran intervalof timeB gives20 blankets
intervaloftimeA gives40 blanketsto B, and so it goes on
to A; aftera further
with the numberof blanketsbeing given increasingat a geometricrate 8o,
Man (N.S.)I5,

626-52.

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C. A. GREGORY

627

i6o, 320, 640, and so on. It was thisperceptionof potlatchthatled Boas to

investmentof
argue that'The underlyingprincipleis thatof interest-bearing
property'(I897: 77).
This principle has been accepted by many as generallyunderlyingall
systems.For examplePospisil(I963) discoveredthat
competitivegifts-to-men
it operatesin theKapauku Papuan economy,and Epstein(I968) in Tolai. For
For Epsteinthis
bothit was proofthatMelanesianswere 'primitivecapitalists'.
Tolai economic development.Tolai bigfactwas the key to understanding
men,arguesEpstein,were'primitivecapitalists... who displayedan overruling
shecontinues,
passionforaccumulation'(I968: 27). 'Thistraditionalthriftiness,'
'preconditionedthemto capitalaccumulationin thecontextof a moderncash
economyaimed at development'(I968: 34). A similarargumenthas been put
forwardby Finney.'Gorokansociety,'he argues,'was preadaptedforeconomic
were positiveassetsratherthan
change,... traditionalvalues and institutions
liabilitiesin theadoptionof cash croppingand commerce'(I973: x).
This articledevelopsa critiqueof thistypeof argumentby presentingdata
systemthat operatesin contemporaryPapua,
on a gifts-to-man/gifts-to-god
and by contrastingthe principlesof thissystemwith thoseof potlatch.It is
and
systems,
arguedthattheprincipleofinterestdoes notunderliegifts-to-men
that,paradoxically,it is rathertheprincipleof destructioninherentin a giftsto-god systemthat offersgreatestpotentialfor capital accumulationin the
contextofa 'moderncasheconomyaimedat development'.PacetheBohannans
and developedunder
have flourished
(I968) and others,giftexchangesystems
theimpactof westernmoneyand westerngods.
systemisfirstdescribed.
Papuangifts-to-god/gifts-to-men
The contemporary
It is thenanalysedin comparisonwith the potlatchand othersystems.In this
secondpartthe varioustheoriesof giftexchangeare criticallyexamined,and
an alternativetheoryput forward.

GiftstogodinPapua

Description

There is perhapsno villagein Papua New Guinea thathas been more affected
by the impactof colonisationthanPoreporena(Hanuabada as it is popularly
but incorrectlyknown-see fig. i). Situatedin the middle of the capitalcity,
ofthevillagehas beentransformed
thesocialstructure
by theimpactofmoney

The storyto
and missionaries.

I95I

has been told by Groves(I954)

and

Belshaw (I957). What followsbrieflysummarisestheiraccountsand brings

themup to date.
In pre-colonialtimespeople survivedby fishing,hunting,cultivatingyams
and trading.It is thelatterforwhich theyare mostfamous.The arid land that
food and they
surroundedtheirvillage was incapableof producingsufficient
were forcedto engage in long tradingexpeditionswestwardsacrosstheGulf
of Papua.' This economyis no more.Some women stillcultivategardens,but
almostall themen have been absorbedintothePortMoresbyworkforce.The
In I950 82 per cent.of
weeklywage is now theprimarysourceof subsistence.

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C. A. GREGORY

628

all menfromHanuabadavillagewereemployed,
almostall ofthesein skilled
or semi-skilled
jobs.SincetheI95 o'S therehasbeenan increase
in thenumber
of womenemployedin the workforce
and an increasein the numberof
thoseofschool-leaver
unemployed,
especially
age.
In spiteofthesechangesinthevillage,thekinship
doesnotappearto
system
havechangedverymuch,in thatthetraditional
'clan'(iduhu)2
structure
is still
iduhuin Poreporena.
verystrong.
Today,thereareaboutthirty
Mostarenow
andthestructure
oftheseChristian
Christian
iduhuisshowninfig.i. Itcanbe
seen thatPoreporenais thoughtof as dividedinto threevillagedistricts,
Elevala, Tanobada and Hanuabada,and the lattertwo districtsfurther
intofivegroupings.
subdivided
Thesegroupings
havelittlesocialsignificance.
Of muchmoreimportance
aretheiduhuandsub-iduhu
groups.In I979 there

VILLAGE

VILLAGE DISTRICTS

Hohodae

IDUHU

Tupa
-Taurama
Geakone

CODE

}a a

Dubara

-Hanuabada

Laurabada

-Gunina

-Lahara

b
c
d
e

Kahanamona
-Mavara
Kwaradubuna
Tubumaga

-Vahoi

Botai
BotaiIdibana
-Botai Laurina
-Abisiri
-Gunina

Poreporena
Tanobada
-Kuriu

-Elevala

FIGURE I.

Gaibudubu/Kaevaga

uninaPoreIdibana
-Gunina PoreLaurina
GuninaHagwaipi
-Gunina Hoboimo
-Botai Idibana
-Botai Laurina
Vahoi

k
m
1

n
o
p
q
r
s
t

ofPoreporena
Clan structure
village,I 979.

excludesnonChurchhandoutandtherefore
froma I 979 Poreporena
Note: Thisisconstructed
iduhu.
Christian

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C. A. GREGORY

629

with an average of I04 people in each. As thesesub-iduhu

were 54 sub-iduhu
are roughlyequal in size,thelargeriduhutendto have more subdivisions.For
example, Hanuabada Gunina is the largestiduhuand has eightsubdivisions,
whereasTupa, beingone of thesmallestiduhu,has only one subdivision.
Members of theseiduhustilllive in a line of housesrunningout fromthe
beach to the sea and it is possible to identifyeach line of houses with a
particulariduhu.3Elevala,forexample,consistsof 96 houses,mostattachedto
one of theeleven piersbelongingto seveniduhu.
an exogamousgroup.You can marrywithinan
The iduhuis not necessarily
iduhuso long as the person you marryis not your taihuna.The latteris a
cognatic kindred group that includes third cousins.4Marriage involves a
complex systemof giftgiving betweenthe bride'sand the groom'sfamilies.
The netflowis in thedirectionofthebride'sparentsand as suchit can be called
'bridewealth'.A largenumberofitemsis includedin thebridewealthpayment
todayand the quantityand value of thispaymenthas risendramaticallysince
colonisation.For example, in I904 a bridewealthtransferconsistingof 43
armshells,3 pigs, and IOO dogs' teeth was recorded (Seligman I9Io: 77);
whereasin I975 one bridewealthtransferconsistedof K3, 245,5 67 bags of
rice, I4 handsof bananas,836 armshells,and 3 I bags of sugar(PacificIslands
Monthly,20 June,I975). Some indicationof the relativesize.of the monetary
componentof thisbridewealthpaymentcan be gauged fromthe factthatit
was 2,5 timestheannualincomeofa minimumwage earnerin thatyear.Such
preventoutsidersmarryinginto this
high bridewealthpaymentseffectively
village;6 it also meansthatthe young men become heavilyindebtedto their
clansmenfortheyhave no hope of raisingsucha sum independently
of them.
The principalsignificanceof the iduhucomes fromthe role it playsin the
exchangesystem:it is the basic unitof competitivegiftexchange.There has
been a profoundchangein theformof giftexchangepractisedin Poreporena
and it is necessaryto begin with a briefsummaryof Groves'saccountof the
traditionalsystem.
The Motu residentsdistinguishedbetween an 'elder' (kwarana)and a 'big
man' (lohia).More oftenthannottheiduhukwaranawas theiduhulohiabutthis
was notalwaysthecase.They had two majorfeast-and-dance
cycles,hekaraand
turia.Hekarawas a competitivegiftexchangesystemnot unliketheHighlands
moka,and turiawas held to honourthememoryof a deceasedkinsman.
forsocial
menfought
oftheturia,
ofthehekara,
andindirectly
bymeans
powerful
Bymeans
foodto distribute.
outuntilonemanhadno further
A hekara
wasfought
supremacy....
ancestral
on thewealth,
thusdepended
Success
power,and
talent,
rangeofacquaintance,
theMotu
LiketheKwakiutl
andhisiduhu.
resources
potlatch,
magical
(orluck)ofthesponsor
thatneverended
it waspartofa battle
socialstanding;
dancewasa deviceforadjusting
(GrovesI954:

8).

An old man explainedtheprinciplesof hekarato me in the followingterms:

Hoboimowillgo totheirgardens
SupposeVahoiandHoboimoiduhudecidetomakehekara.
and collect40 bundlesofbananasand placethembetweenthetwo clans.Vahoiwill then
dancearoundthebananasandtakethembackto theirclan.ThenVahoigo to theirgardens
andcollect5o bundlesofbananas.The big-manofVahoisaysto thebig-manofHoboimo,
'Hereare 50 bananas'.Hoboimodancearoundthemand takethembackto theirclan.This

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

630

C. A. GREGORY

goeson untiltheydecidetoenditbyhavinga bigcelebration.

Bothclansgo totheirgardens
andbringback500 bundlesofbananaseach.Theseareplacedon displayandbothclansdance
aroundthem.Attheconclusion
ofthisbothbig-mensaytoeachother'We areequalsnow'.

The happyendingaside,7it is clearthatthissystemembodiestheprincipleof

whatA. Strathern
hascalled'alternating
disequilibrium'(I97I: 222). Afterthe
firstgift Hoboimo is dominant,afterthe second Vahoi, afterthe third
Hoboimo, and so on.
This gifts-to-men
systemhas been replacedby a gifts-to-god
systemof the
classicpotlatchtypewith the difference
thatthegiftstakethe formof money
and areappropriatedbythechurchinsteadofbeingdestroyed.
The replacement
of one system by another was the product of a long conflictbetween
missionariesand big-men.The missionariesemergedas the eventualvictors8
and therebysucceededin completelytransforming
the politicalstructureof
thevillage.Nowadays big-menare no longer.They have been replacedby the
churchdeacons,the'neo-big-men'of thenew giftexchangesystem.It was the
rise of these men that saved the iduhusystemfrom collapsing.As Groves
reportedin I954, 'the iduhustructure... has persistedmosteffectively
... in
theelectionof churchdeacons,whose power in the villagedrawsmuch of its
forcefromthe iduhustructure'(I954: I 3). These deacons competewith each
otherforstatusin a systemcalled boubou,establishedin I948. Afterthewar a
locally trainedpastor was appointedto replace an expatriateas head of the
Poreporenachurch.Faced with theproblemof raisingmoneyforhis church,
he designeda flagcalled BoubouKwalim Toana (collection-winner-sign)
and
arrangedforthedeaconsto competeforitin an annualgift-giving
competition.
The iduhuthatraisedthe most money was given the flagto fly.In I950 the
churchraised38 per cent.of itsmoneyby thismethod,Since thenthesystem
has 'takenoff'.In I950 K736 was raisedin thisway (table i). This compares
with K45, I37 in I974 and K70,090 in I979. This lastfigurewas 95 per cent.
of the churchincome forthatyear.It is clear thenthatthe systemhas grown
enormouslyboth in relativeand absoluteterms.Its organisationhas evolved
too. Nowadays two cross-cutting
competitionsare held-one at iduhulevel,
theotherat sub-iduhulevel betweendeacons.
Resultsof the I974 competitionare shownin table 2. Gunina iduhu(h) was
the clear leader in I974, and two of its sub-iduhuheads,Areni Tutura,and
Morea Hila, came secondand thirdin the deacons'competition.The money
collectedis notusedto improvethegeneralconditionsofhealth,sanitationand
such.'It is a gift',thepeople say,'and it is wrong thatwe shouldbenefitfrom
it'. What is not earmarkedfor the financialdevelopmentof the church is
donated to some cause. In I973, for example, a large giftwas made to the
Darwin ReliefFundto helpthevictimsofthecyclonethatdevastatedthatcity.
Some of theyounguniversity-educated
villagersare lessthanhappywith this
arrangementand are pressingforchangesin theway themoneyis distributed.
A specialday is setasideeach yearfortheactualceremonyof handingover
themoney.This is a greatfestiveoccasionand villagerslook forwardto it with
excitement.At the I974 ceremonyI attended,the atmospherein the church
was thatof a carnival.Everybodywas dressedup forthe occasion.The men
were in outrageousfancydress:one deacon wore a woman's dress; another

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C. A. GREGORY
TABLE

i.

63I

PNG, I950.
CentralDistrict,
church,
Giftsto Poreporena
K

Hohodaeiduhu
Tupa
Dubara
Taurama
Geakone
iduhu
Poreporena
Kahanomona
Mavara
Kwaradubuna
Tubumaga
Apau
Vahoi
Botai

Gunina
Geavana
Elevalavillage

4905
22-40
I4-50
I2 I5

55*35

495'9I

5I 25
6I*2I
32-30
28-20

I40o88
I22'20
4 52

I9I 49

736-45

Total iduhu

OtherSources

IJ,73

GrandTotal

I,9I 0I5

Allocation
LMS* generalfunds
Pastor's
pocketmoney
Hanuabadamissionteachers
Churchbuildingfund

I,354-22

Total

I,9I 0I5

Unknown

70

400-00
30-00

56 oo

69-93

Source:BelshawI957: I84
Society
*LondonMissionary

size,
woreoddshoes,oddlongsocks,a whitelap-lapcloth,tenbeltsofdifferent
and had a pairof binoculars
shapeand colour,facepaint,a fancyhead-dress
hangingaroundhisneck.The women,on theotherhand,wereverysoberly
dressed.They wore theuniformof theiriduhu:a simplecottondressof a
was theirmakeup.
of theirappearance
feature
standard
design.The striking
Theyhadappliedliberaldosesofpowderto thefaceandpaintedtheircheeks
and hymnsand endedwiththe
beganwithprayers
rosyred.The ceremony
clubsandotherorganisations
handing
overofthemoney.Thevarioussporting
Afterthiswas finished,
thenamesof theiduhuwerecalledout.A
gavefirst.
a huge
oftheiduhucalledthendancedup to thealtarcarrying
representative
themoney-notesandcoins-thatthe
cottonswagcontaining
multi-coloured
iduhuwas ableto raiseduringtheyear.On theoutsideoftheswagwas a tag
nameandtheamountofmoneyinsidetheswag.Thistag
theiduhu's
displaying
is keptwell concealedby thecarrierand is onlyforthepubliceyeafterthe
in recentyearsfollowingan eventin the
event.Secrecyhasbeenheightened
earlyI970's. On thatoccasion,theamountof moneycollectedby theiduhu
This
thatusuallywins,Gunina(h) ofHanuabada,wasleakedtoanotheriduhu.

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

632

C. A. GREGORY
TABLE

Iduhu

2.

Giftsto Poreporena
church,
CentralDistrict,
PNG, I974.
Deacon

Amount
(K)

Ranking
Iduhu

a. Hohodae

Udu Hedu

I,507 64

AuieSarahu
Nou Igo

650o50

939-50

III I 8 I I

Daera Ganiga

b. Kahanamona

Reva Lou

c. Mavara

RevaBoge
VagiDouna
Douna Manoka
Ruma Vai

d. Kwaradubuna

Rei Vagi

e. Tubumaga

Nou Sisia
Kora Lohia
LakaniOala

476-60

f
9690oo
I,I II I00

Dai Guba

PauloToua
LohiaRoni

h. Gunina

Lahui Ako
Mahuru Morea

2,080o00

662-5o
668-20
527-60

Ikupu Ovia
Mea Hila

MoreaHila
Dago Morea
AreniTutara
RaruaTau

476&60

I,293 89

Daroa Boga

GaveraMea
Oape Heagi
Boa Arua

I 5 75

I,455-56

Tau Vagi
g. Botai

4,2

2,786&73

Nou Heni

f Vahoi/Apau

3,I521I9

86195
6o6&oo
502-20

f 3IP50

I,28o0o

I,224-40

4,46I-05

THIRD

2,2 I I *20

SECOND

I,523 03
I,820o00
577-60
4380oo

8,682-83

KoreAuie
GuduIdau

j. Gunina

Vai Igua

k. BotaiIdibana

KameaDikana

4,3I7.47

4,3I7.47

1.Abisiri

RaviniDaure

IJ,3785

IJ,3785

m. Botai Laurina

Tom Taru

354.39

354.39

Raho Misi

752-64

752-64

Idibana

THIRD

2,I I 3 00

i. Kuriu

n. GuninaPore

Deacon

FIRST

37-20

68-oo

553'50

I05-20
552'50

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FIRST

C. A. GREGORY

633

TABLE 2.-contd.

Iduhu

Deacon

Amount
(K)

Ranking
Iduhu

o. GuninaPore
Laurina

AvakiBani
Sioa Vani

p. Gunina
Hagwaipi

Lou Bau

454136

KeniHeni
KakunaRaha

256&oo

Deacon

I,02I*89

so6&oo

q. Hoboimo

GanigaDarai
DouraRaka'ani
)
RahoPipi

r.BotaiIdibana
s. BotaiLaurina
t. Vahoi

MaragaBoe
MoreaDoura
MoreaMea

I,2i6'36

5,509-75

SECOND

8o5 oo

I42'59
I,910i56

Total

45,I36&9i

GrandTotal

46,I32-49

Other

995-58

Source:Poreporena
churchhandout.

iduhuhad a lastminutefundraisingdriveand managedto beat Gunina (h) by

just a fewKina. The eventcausedmuchargument.This bitofhistoryexplains,
perhaps,themode in whichGunina (h) presenteditsmoneyin I 974. Theirbag
was carriedby Morea Raka who was precededby a woman carryinga large
signshowingtheamountofmoneythatthebag contained.She waved thissign
aroundand poked it underthenosesof themembersof competingiduhu.But
thiswas a deliberateteasebecausethesignwas inJapanese!The signwas made
by Morea just back froma shortstudycourseinJapan.Afterall themoneywas
presentedthe winnerswere announcedand theyheld celebrationsthatlasted
severaldays,at which theydrankmanygallonsof beer.
Detailsof thegrowthofthesystemover theperiod I974 to I979 are shown
in Table 3. K45,I36 was raisedin I974, comparedwith K70,09o in I979, an
increaseof 55 per cent.This increasewas unevenlydistributed
throughoutthe
various iduhu.Four iduhuwere unable to matchtheirI974 level,but the rest
all managed to surpassit, some by considerablemargins.The differential
performanceof the various iduhuaffectedtheirrelativerankings.Hanuabada
Gunina (h) was top in I974 and in I979, increasing its annual gift by K9,I 7I

over the period. No other iduhuwas able even to approach the KI7,85 3 it
raisedin I979. Thus the top positionhas been stable.However, the nexttwo
places are farless so. About eight iduhucompetefortheseplaces and thereis
quite a bit of movementup and down theladderhere.For example Hoboimo
(q) came second in I974 but had dropped by threeplaces to fifthby I979.
Botai (g) moved up one place to take secondpositionand Mavara (c) moved
up fourplaces to take up the thirdposition.At the otherend of the ladder
Kuriu (i) is consistently
last.

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

634

C. A. GREGORY
TABLE

Iduhu
a. Hohodae

b. Kahanomona
c. Mavara
d. Kwaradubuna
e. Tubumaga
f. Vahoi/Apau
g. Botai

h. GuninaHanuabada

i. Kuriu
j. GuninaTanobada
k. Botai Idibana
1. Abisiri
m. Botai Laurina
n. Pore Idibana

o. PoreLaurina
p. Hagwaipi
q.
r.
s.
t.

Hoboimo
Botai Idibana
Botai Laurina
Vahoi

3. Giftsto Poreporena
church,I974 and I 979.
Rank
sth

I7th

7th
8th
ioth
6th
3rd
Ist
20th
i6th
4th
I2th

i8th
Isth
I 3th
i ith
2nd
I4th
igth
gth

I974

4,2I5'75

476&60

2,786&73
2,080o00
I,455 56
3,I521I9

4,46I05

8,682-83
I05 20

552'50

4,3I7'47
I,J37 85
354 39
752 64
I,02I89

I,26136

5,509'75

8050??
I42'59
I,9Io 56

Rank

I979

Change

8th

4,39005

3rd
4th
6th
7th
2nd
Ist
20th

6,056I2
5,369oo

I4th

I2th

gth
igth
i8th
Isth
I7th
i ith
sth
3th
i6th
i oth

45,I36 9I

I,054-86

4,5360oo

4,398 94
7,I83 34

I7,853-96
573 52

I,2II
3,2I3

o0

06

Rank
-3

+3

I74'30

578 26

+4
+4
+4

3,269-39
3,289oo
3,o80o44

+ I
0
0

2,722-29
9,I7I
I3

-I

+4

648-97
732'3I

I,022-95

926o90

I,845-89

5,00057I

i,iI6i8
944 42

2,0I2

44

70,090-62

-5
-7

0
0

-4

0
-3
+I

+ 3
-I

I,246&75

468-32

658-5o
-I,J044I

-488 88
377'92
270-3I

-9499

629 53
-509'04
3IIi8
8oI83
ioI88

+24,953

7I

Source: PoreporenachurchhandoutsI974 and I979.

The positionofa deacon is by no meansstableeither.They areelectedevery

fouryearsby meansofa secretballotamong themembersof a sub-iduhu.
Only
thirty-one
of themen who were deaconsin I974 were deaconsin I979. Thus
seventeenof the forty-eight
deacons of I974 failedto securere-election.The
number of deacons also increasedby six over the five year period to 1979,
reflecting
increasein thepopulationand changein theinternalstructure
of the

iduhu.

This systemis not restricted

to Poreporenavillage.The United Churchhas
coloniseda largenumberof villagesup and down thecoastwheresimilargift
exchangesystemsareoperating.Largesumsofmoney,by Papua New Guinean
standards,are raisedin thesevillagestoo. Boera, forexample,is a smallvillage
consistingofabout 700 people and I 3 iduhu.In November I979 theymanaged
to raiseKi I,487.
The new exchangesystemis similarto theold in thatit establishes
a ranking
of the iduhuand thesub-iduhuleaders.It differs
in thatit is a gift-to-god
system
ratherthan a gift-to-men
system,a modern variationof the classicpotlatch.
The natureand significance
of thisvariationis analysedbelow.

GiftstomeninPapua
The traditionalgifts-to-men
systemthatoperatedamong theMotu and Koita
people of Papua was the hekara.This, as alreadyexplained,was suppressedby
the Church and replaced by a gifts-to-godsystem.To my knowledge no

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C. A. GREGORY

635

detailedstudyof thisformersystemexistsand it is notpossibleto elaborateon

what has been said above. However, bananasseem to have been theprincipal
of giftexchangeand theywere consumedby theclan membersat
instrument
the end of the contest.In thisrespectit invitescomparisonwith Highlands
systemswherepigswere slaughteredat theend ofan exchangecycle.One must
assumethatthe'banana cycle'was inevitablyshorterthanthe'pig cycle'.
However, while traditionalhekarano longer exists,a new gifts-to-men
systemdid emergein theearly I970's. Impressedby thesuccessof theUnited
Church at raisingmoney by the giftexchange system,a young universityeducatedPapuan setup a village DevelopmentCorporationand triedto raise
money in the same way. Every fortnightthe fourteenvillages9of the Hiri
Local GovernmentCouncil would get togetherfor a Moale hebou,gaukara
hebou,ani hebou(fun-work-food
gathering).The villageswould takeit in turns
to host the occasion, the primaryaim of which was to raise money by
competitivegiftgivingbetweenthem.
At the ceremony I attended on I5 September I 974, in Roku village,
The
KI,427-50 was raised.Ten of thefourteenvillageswere in attendance.10
meetingwas chairedby the village pastorwho opened it with prayersand a
hymn.The funthenstarted.A blackboardwith the namesof all the villages
was placed on a tablein thecentreofthegathering.As thename ofeach village
was called out the membersof this village would move forwardand place
theircontributionon the table. This was duly countedand recordedon the
blackboard.The presentationof the money was done with greatceremony:
the donors would congregatetogetherand slowly move towards the table
in the
singingtraditionalsongsand waving theirpaper money contributions
air. At theend of thefirstroundthehostvillage,Roku, had raisedthegreatest
amount,K447. Second was Boera withKi 65 5o and thirdPapa withKI 550IO.
Papa then decided to tryto beat Boera to second place by making another
contribution.This raised K27-52 to bring their total to Ki82-62. Boera
respondedto thischallengeby giving anotherK3 I7i, raisingtheirtotal to
and thereby consolidatingtheir second position. Roku, whose
Ki97-2i
positionofsupremacywas neverin doubt,thendecidedto show offby making
a second contributiontoo. This added anotherK6o08o to theircontribution,
bringingtheirtotalto K507 8o and thecombinedtotalto KI,427-50.
All the moneycollectedbelongedto thehostvillage.They decidedhow it
should be distributed.In this case most went to the village Development
Corporationin theformof sharecapital.Roku become indebtedto theother
villagesto theextentof theircontributionlesswhat Roku contributedto the
othervillageswhen it attendedtheirhebou.
This systemnever'took off. It had a veryshortlifeand was non-existent
in
I979 when I returnedfor a visit.The Development Corporationwas still
going,but onlyjust. Some of itsbusinesseshad closed down and otherswere
It is beyond thescope of thisarticleto considerthedetailsof the
floundering.
rise and fall of the Development Corporation. It is sufficient
to note that
whereas the Church received a money gift with no stringsattached,the
Development Corporation did not. The gift exchange systemfacilitated
theraisingof some capitalin theformof sharecapital.This did not harmthe

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

636

C. A. GREGORY

running of the Corporation, but it did not help it much either. The
Corporation obtained most of its capital from the Development Bank in
loan. However, the unprofitablenatureof
the form of an interest-bearing
the Development Corporation was probably a contributingfactorin the
downfallof the giftexchangesystemforreasonsthatwill be analysedbelow.

Analysis
The theoreticalproblem addressed here is the relationshipbetween gift
exchange and capital accumulationin the contemporaryhistoricalcontext.
The aim is to determinethe generalprinciplesthatgovern competitivegift
exchange.This requiresthatthePapuan systembe comparedwiththepotlatch
and othersystemsas theyhave existedin different
placesat different
times,for
it is only by notingtheapparentdifferences
betweenthevariousgiftexchange
systemsthat the essentialsimilaritiescan be discovered. This necessarily
involves a discussionof ideas,forthe factsof a case do not have an existence
independentofthetheoryusedto describeit.This is especiallyso withpotlatch
becausemuch of theso-calledethnographic'fact'on potlatchtransactions
is of
a hypotheticalnatureand therefore
itselftheory.

Giftstomen
Iftheunderlyingprincipleofcompetitivegiftexchangewere,as Boas claimed,
thatof'interest-bearing
investment
ofproperty',
and theaim ofa gifttransactor
was to accumulate,then the lenderwould be motivatedto raisethe interest
rateas high as possibleand theborrowerto keep it as low as possible.In other
words,the motivationof any individualtransactorwould be to maximisenet
incomings.However, the motivation of a gift transactoris preciselythe
opposite:itis to maximisenetoutgoings.
This aim impliesan altogetherdifferent
'underlyingprinciple'.But before this principleis statedit is necessaryto
establishempiricallythattheaim of a gifttransactor
is indeedto maximisenet
outgoings;ifso,theunderlyingprincipleofgiftexchangeis notthatofinterest.
Consider the potlatch. Boas's account of potlatch transactionsare all
which makesit impossibleto demonstratefromhisdata thathis
hypothetical,
theorywas wrong.However, it is possibleto raisequestionsabout hisanalysis
in it. He says,forexample,that'Possession
by highlightingthecontradictions
of wealth is consideredhonorable,and it is the endeavor of each Indian to
acquire a fortune'(i 897: 79), a statementconsistentwith his claim thatgift
exchangeis about capitalaccumulation.But in thenextsentencehe adds,'But
is not as much the possessionof wealth as the abilityto give greatfestivals
which makeswealtha desirableobjectto theIndian'.Here Boas is sayingthat
an Indian accumulatesso thathe can de-accumulate,which is to say thatin
some transactions
theaim of thetransactor
is to maximisenetoutgoingswhile
in othersthe aim is to maximisenet incomings.The implicationis thatthere
is not one underlyingprinciplebut two, yetthisseemswrong.I would argue

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C. A. GREGORY

637

thattherecan only be one underlyingprincipleof potlatch,and thisis theone

that generates the aim to maximise net outgoings. This point can be
who have
substantiated
by examiningthe evidence of otheranthropologists
worked in north-westAmerica.
Curtis'sstudy,firstpublishedin I9I 5, sharplycontradictscertainof Boas's
propositions:
It has been said of thepotlatchthat'theunderlying
principleis thatof interest-bearing
at
investment
of property'.
This is impossible.
The potlatchand thelendingof property
distinct
distributed
in a potlatchis freely
interest
are two entirely
proceedings.
Property
cannotbecollected
on demand,
andneednotbe repaidatalliftheone
given,bearsno interest,
thegift(I9I5: I43).
who receivedit doesnotforanyreasonwishto regulate

FurthersupportforCurtis'sinterpretation
can be foundin Barnett'saccount:
Potlatchpresentsare not capitalinvestments...They may be consideredas prestige
buttheirmoreimmediate
investment;
character
is thatof a gift,a favourunconditionally
bestowed.This soon becomesapparentto anyoneattempting
an inventory
of a seriesof
reciprocatingpotlatches(I 93 8: 3 5 3).

Druckerwrites:
Internal
evidencefromdetaileddescriptions
ofpotlatches
anddatafrominformants
ofgroups
who potlatched
untilrecentdaysagreethattheloansat interest
were quiteapartfrom
potlatch
gifts.
The amountofeachpotlatch
gifthadno relation
toanyprevious
giftexceptin
thegeneralsensethata potlatchgiftshouldbe adequate,notniggardly
(I965: 486).

This empirical evidence contraryto the 'interestprinciple' thesis is so

to comprehendhow sucha misunderstanding
overwhelmingthatit is difficult
has managed to stayin circulationforso long. One reasonis thatwhile these
authors have told us what the principleof potlatchis not, they have not
a satisfactory
substituted
accountof what theunderlyingprincipleis. Another
reasonis thatBoas's data have been rationalisedthrougha seriesof ingenious
but fallacioushypothesesby Codere (I950). It is her theories,ratherthanthe
empiricalevidenceof Curtisetal., thathave influencedthe thinkingof many
A landmarkin thedevelopmentof an alternativetheoretical
anthropologists.
perspectiveon potlatchis Druckerand Heizer'sreexaminationof theSouthern
Kwakiutl potlatch(I967). This book is a sustainedempiricaland theoretical
critique of the Boas/Codere position and demolishesit. The book is less
in constructing
successful
a viablealternativebecauseofitslack ofcomparative
perspective;but it does lay thenecessaryfoundationstones.
The questionto be confrontednow is thatof the underlyingprincipleof
The answermustspecifya relationship
potlatchand othergifts-to-men
systems.
betweena giftgiven at one point in time (call it G,) and a counter-gift
given
at some later time (call it G't+). According to the Boas/Coderetheorythe
relationshipis G'+. = (i + i)n Gt, where i is the rate of interestand n the
numberof years.Accordingto thisformula2 blanketsgiven todayat ioo per
cent. interestrequires4 blanketsto be returnedafterone year,8 aftertwo
years,i6 afterthree,and so on. But if thisis the incorrectrelationshipthen
discussionof
what is thecorrectone? The clue is to be foundin A. Strathern's

moka:

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C. A. GREGORY

638

The theoretical
progression
in thesize of thegift,at leastas someinformants
explainthe
matter,is X, 2X, 4x, 8x, and so on; but in practicesmallerincrements
are added.The
increment
aloneistakenas thedebtforthenextgift,
so thatthesituation
iscontrolled,
ascan
be seenfromthefollowing
scheme:
A givesx to B
B gives2X to A
ThusA owesx to B
NextA gives2X to B
AndB owesx to A
NextB gives2X to A
andso on (A. Strathern
I97I:
98).

This sequenceimpliesthefollowingrelationshipbetweena giftand a countergift: G+1= G+1 + G, where G,+1 is the new gift,the incrementthat is
takenas debtforthenextgift.IfA gives2 blanketsand B makesa counter-gift
of 4 blanketsthena new debt (Gt+1) of 2 blanketsis createdand thesequence
startsagain. This processcreatesan 'alternating
disequilibrium'in thestatusof
the transactors:now A is debtor,now B, now A. But forthisto happen the
mustexceed the last increment.If it does not the debt relation
counter-gift
between the transactorsis unchangedand the giver loses status.The ideal
sequence,then,is not a seriesof giftsbut a seriesof counter-gifts.
A counter-giftexchange sequence can rise, fall or remain stable (as in
Strathern's
hypotheticalexample). The variablethatdeterminesriseor fallin
thesequenceis abundanceor scarcityof theinstruments
of giftexchange.The
ideal instruments
are scarceand durable,suchas thecoppersusedin potlatchor
thepigs and shellsin moka.If thegifttransactors
lose controlover thesupply
of thesethingsthe sequence will show an inflationary
tendency.If the oversupplybecomes too greatthen a different
instrument,
whose supplycan be
controlled, will be substituted.This is precisely what happened in the
Highlands.In pre-colonialtimesshellswere used.These foundtheirway up to
the Highlands via the traditionaltrade routes.Colonisation enabled large
numbers of shells to enter the Highlands by alternativeroutes. Inflation
followed and the shellswere eventuallyreplacedwith money (A. Strathern
I97I:

I06-IiI).

The accumulation of capital, whetherin the form of pigs, blanketsor

To the extentthatgifttransactors
money,is not the aim of a gifttransactor.
The big-manis the one with
accumulateat all it is in the formof gift-credit.
forhe hasbeenable to maximisenet-outgoings.12Pospisil's
themostgift-credit
data on transactionsamong the Kapauku demonstratethis point. Table 4
summarisesthe net creditpositionof the sixteenhouseholdsof Enona clan,
Botukebo village,as at August I955. Household 6, the big-man'shousehold,
has the largestnet credit position.This household gave away I340 shells
duringtheperiod underreviewand receivedonly I 30 in return,givinga net
creditof I2 I0.13 Data collectedby Meggitt(I974: I86) on Enga tetransactions
tellsa similarstory.A 'completebig-man'had a net creditof 27 pigs,a 'little
big-man'a net creditof- 2, a marriedman a net creditof 4, and a bachelora
net creditof o. But Meggitthas a different
of thesedata. In the
interpretation
Boas/Codere traditionhe argues that the 'shrewd man is the one who can
to parityor, better,to profit[i.e. negativenetcredit]
adjustall his transactions

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C. A. GREGORY
TABLE

639

4. NetcreditpositionofEnonaclanwithotherclansas at AugustI955.
Household
I
2

7
8

9
Io
II

I2
I3

Outgoings
(credits)
60

Incomings
(debits)
I30
I

I2I

II

60

76
I340
I20
20

6o
I
2I
20

I33

60
-

22
I30
I05
-

6i
64
60
-

Netoutgoings
(netcredits)
70
I20

49

60

54

I2I0

I5
20

-I
- 63
-39
20

I27

I4

365

6o

I5
i6

65
i65

6o

305
65
I05

2638

759

I879

Total

thetopranked
cowrieshells,
createdbythetraditional
Note: Thistableonlyrecordsthecredits
gift.Pospisil(I963: table46) givesdetailsofthenetcreditcreatedbytheotherinstruments.
fromthedatain PospisilI963: table3 I .
Source:Constructed

over the long run' (I974:

I86). This formulationof a big-man's aims
contradictsthedata he collected,and he explainsthecontradictionin termsof
the 'selectiveamnesia'(I974: I 86, f 38) of his informants.
However I would
suggestthatit is Meggitt'stheorythatis wrong,not his data.
It is necessaryto enquireinto thenatureof the obligationscreatedby giftcredit.This can be done by contrastinggift-credit
(debt) with commodityis meantthoseobligationscreatedby the
credit(debt). By commodity-credit
lending and borrowing of interest-bearing
capital. To distinguishbetween
thesedifferent
typesof obligationit is necessaryto focuson thesocial context
of the transactors
ratherthanon thephysicalnatureof the objectstransacted.
This is becausethingssuchas coppersand paper-moneyare symbols.They can
be usedto symboliseeithercommodity-credit
or gift-credit
wvith
equal ease.As
Godeliercorrectlynotes(I 973: I28), thingsare now gifts,now commodities
to be
depending upon the social context. The tendencyfor gift-credits
expressedin termsof paper-moneytodaychangesthenatureof gift-credit
not
one iota.
The firstdifference
betweengift-debt
and commodity-debt
is thatthelatter
grows exponentiallyover timewhereasthe formerdoes not. For example,if
of io per cent,/?i i mustbe returned
1io is givenas a loan at a rateofinterest
at theend of the yearin orderto cancel thecommodity-debt;but ?io given
as a giftonly requires?io to be returnedaftera yearin orderto cancel the
debt,and if ? i i is returneda new debt of Li is createdand the relationship
continues.The verydefinitionof mokais a particularly
betweenthetransactors

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

640

C. A. GREGORY

which can be referred

to
good illustrationof this:'It is theincrement,strictly,
as moka;therestis theresimplyto meet"debt"' (A. StrathernI97I: I0).
between gift-debtand commodity-debtis thatthe
The second difference
thatcreatedit whereas
formercan be cancelledonlyin termsoftheinstrument
In otherwords,a giftthe lattercan be cancelledin termsof any instrument.
debt createdby the giving of pigs can only be cancelled by giving pigs in
return.Consider Hill's discussionof the bikigifttransactionof Hausaland for
example: 'Contributionsare not necessarilyin cash,but may take such forms
as clothes,threshedgrain,bundlesof grain,smalllivestock,food togetherwith
money,or enamelware;but like mustalwaysbe "exchanged"forlike,so that,
e.g. a donor of threshedgrain must be given such produce in return'(Hill
2I i). This like-for-likeprinciple also extends metaphoricallyto
I972:
thathave theappearanceofcommodity
bridewealthand othergifttransactions
purchases.
In moka,pigsand shellsare exchangedforeach other,but ideallya reversalof theinitial
ofpigsforpigsandshellsforshells.In thesame
transaction
shouldeffect
an eventualtransfer
is givenfora woman,a secondwomanshould
way,whileat each marriagebridewealth
forbridewealth
(M. Strathern
andthusbridewealth
begiveninreturn
forthefirst,
ultimately
I972: 73).

The implicationofthisis thatgift-debt

cannotbe reducedto a singlemeasure.14
Everygiftis itsown numeraireand thusthereis a distinctsphereof exchange
foreveryrankof gift.15
The third differencebetween gift-debtand commodity-debtis that the
who
latteris createdby theexchangeof alienableobjectsbetweentransactors
are in a stateof reciprocalindependence,whereasgift-debtis createdby an
exchange of inalienable objects between people in a state of reciprocal
dependence.This distinctionwas firsthintedat by Marx in his discussionof
forcommodityexchange:
thesocial pre-conditions
areexternal
to man,andconsequently
alienablebyhim.In orderthat
Objectsin themselves
itisonlynecessary
formen,bytacitunderstanding,
to treat
thisalienation
maybe reciprocal
as independent
eachotheras privateownersof thosealienableobjects,and by implication
ina primitive
hasno existence
society
individuals.
Butsucha stateofreciprocal
independence
in common(Marx I867: 9I)
basedon property

The implicationis thatin a 'primitive'(i.e. gift)economythingsare inalienable

and people are in a stateof reciprocaldependence.This is a principalthemeof
Mauss's The gift(I925). He repeatedly16refersto the 'indissolublebond of a
thingwith its originalowner' (I925: 62). A giftis like a tennisball with an
elasticband attachedto it. The owner of the ball may lose possessionof it for
a time but the ball will springback to its owner if the elasticband is given a
jerk. Among theKachin,
as theowner(ruler)of an objectis publiclyto give
The bestway to acquirenotoriety
... thenhas the object,but you retain
possessionof it to someoneelse. The recipient
theowner(madu)ofa debt(LeachI954: I42).
overitsinceyoumakeyourself
sovereignty

The inalienabilityof a kula giftis capturedby the term kitomu(or kitoum,

Damon I980). As Munn notes: 'Men emphasize that kitomuare personal
sometimesdescribingthemmetaphoricallyas "naval"(pwasora)to
possessions,

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C. A. GREGORY

64I

emphasizetheirinalienabilityfromtheirowners' (Munn I977: 46). It is also

interestingto note thatkula canoes,even thoughtheymay be permanently
separatedfromtheirproducers,are neveralienatedfromthem (Munn I977:
45). Thus when kulacanoes are tradedtheyare exchangedas giftsratherthan
commodities.
The inalienabilityof pigs used in the te (or tee) giftexchange systemof
HighlandsPapua New Guinea is capturedlinguistically:
betweenpigsproducedat home,and those
Tombema[an Engagroup]makea distinction
Home raisedpigsarecalledmenapaloanda,'pigsofthe
receivedthrough
exchangechannels.
arecalledteekailamena,'pigson tee
housesleepingstall',whilethosecomingvia teepartners
roads'or simply'otherpigs'.Pigs thatcome fromothersourceshave in mostcasesbeen
ata givenplace,orina person's
so thatwhiletheymaybe in transit
financed
fromelsewhere,
is to another
destination
theirultimate
temporary
possession,
place.Theyarebeingheld,not
owned.Butpigsraisedathomeare'owned'bythewomanwhoselabourproducedthem(Feil
I978:

222).

It follows,of course,thatthe'pigson teeroads'are theinalienablepropertyof

otherwomen who have lostpossessionofthepigs butnot control.But thekey
factthatthisexample bringsout is thatinalienabilityis to be understoodin
terms of the social relationshipbetween a product and the labour17 that
produced it.18 In a commodityeconomy the worker'sproduct is alienated
fromhim or her by the capitalistemployer; in a gifteconomy thereis no
relationand the labourer'sproductis not, in general,so
wage-labour/capital
alienated.To anticipatelaterdiscussionon thiscrucialpoint: alienationis a preconditionfor accumulation,and while alienationis impossiblein a gifts-toman system,it is theverybasisofa gifts-to-god
system-which meansthatthe
potentialforaccumulationexistsin a sucha system.
It needs to be emphasisedthat the relationshipbetween producer and
restricted
to one betweenpeople and things.Where
producedis notnecessarily
the produceris a clan and the produced are people, the inalienablegiftsare
people. This pointis theessenceofLevi-Strauss's
argumentthatwomen are the
'supremegift'(I949: 65). Women as giftsare the inalienablepropertyof the
clan thatproduced them.Many such examples exist.Among the Motu, for
example, a proverb expressesthe proprietaryinterestof the iduhuin the
women born to it: 'You can buy our sister'sbody, but you cannot buy her
bones' (Groves I963: 28).
A fourthdifference
betweengift-debt
and commodity-debt
is thatwhile the
formermust be explained with referenceto the social conditionsof the
reproductionofpeople,thelattermustbe explainedwithreference
to thesocial
conditionsof the reproductionof things.In other words, gift-debtmust be
explained with reference,for example, to clan structureand the principles
governingkinshiporganisation,while commoditydebt must be explained
with referenceto class structureand the principles governing factory
organisation.Furthermore,the different
typesof gift-debtmust in turn be
explained in termsof the different
typesof kinshipsystems.For example,
marriagesystemsbased on the exchangeof 'sisters'cannotsupporta big-man
system with incrementalgift exchange.19 A marriage systeminvolving
bridewealthis a necessary,but not sufficient,
conditionfor incrementalgift

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C. A. GREGORY

642

giftexchangeimpliesbridewealth
exchange,thatis incremental
but the
true.However,a discussion
oftheseissuestakesusfar
oppositeisnotnecessarily
beyondthescopeofthisarticle.20
itis nowpossibleto analysethePapuan
In thelightoftheabovecomments
considera simplified
itsworkings,
system.
To understand
gifts-to-men
and
idealisedversion.Supposethattherewereonlythreevillagesinvolved-A, B
meeting
at A's villageB gaveKio to A, andthat
andC-and thatat thefirst
graphicallyas follows:
can be represented
C gave K20 to A. These transactions
A --

DiagramI

.20

ThusK30 is raisedandA owesB Kio andC K20.

wasat B's villageandthatA gaveB K20
Supposethatthesecondmeeting
andC gaveB K30. In thiscaseB hasK5o butowesC K3o andA Kio.
A

20

Diagram2

atC's villageB gaveC K4o andA gave

Supposenowthatatthethirdmeeting
C K40. The situation
is as follows:
20

vo

Diagram3

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C. A. GREGORY

643

C raisesK8o but has a debt of K20 to A and Kio to B. In otherwords A and

B are now his creditorswhereasbeforethe exchange theywere his debtors.
The giftscan keepgoing on like thisforeverwithoutanyaccumulationtaking
place because the systemis a three-person
zero-sumgame21.In thiscase total
debt is Ki6o and thisequals totalcreditas shown in Diagram 3. As such it is
exchanges.This can
nothingmore thana complicatedvariationof moka-type
be seenby focussingon therelationship
betweenA and B. Afterthefirstround
(Diagram i) A owes B Kio. Afterthesecondround (Diagram 2) thesituation
is reversedwhen A gives B K2o becausethiscreatesnew debt of KIO. If in a
third round (not shown) B gives A more than Kio the situationwill be
reversedyetagain,and so on. Thisistheprincipleof'alternating
disequilibrium'.
systemssuchas moka,
What distinguishes
thissystemfromothergifts-to-men
is thatin mokathetransactors
link up to forma 'rope',22e.g.
A

D-

whereashere (supposingthereare six transactors

now) theylink up to forma
cobweb', e.g.
A

B3

D
Another difference,
of course,has been in the role of the Development
In
to
Corporation. order analysetherole of theDevelopmentCorporationin
the systemit is usefulto referback to round one (Diagram i). Afterthe
meetingA has K3o but gift-debtof the same amount.Suppose thatthisK30
were given to theDevelopmentCorporationas sharecapital.This transaction
an investmentin interest-bearing
differsfromthe othersin thatit represents
property.In otherwords,fromA's perspective,
it createsa commodity-credit
and A expectsa returneach yearon theinvestmentin theformof dividends.
A also expectsthereturnoftheoriginalcapitalof K3o some timein thefuture
too. This can only be returnedwhen A sells its sharesin the Development
Corporation.However, becausetheK3 o is riskcapitaltherecan be no certainty
thattheoriginalamountwill be returned.It will dependupon theprofitability

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

644

C. A. GREGORY

of the Corporation.The annual dividendwill also more or lessdependupon

the profitabilityof the Corporation. The impact of the Development
Corporation on the system,then,was to siphon off capital from the gift
exchange systemand to returnsmalleramounts of money in the formof
dividendsin theeventof makinga profit.Thus theneteffectwas to siphonoff
and giftmoney and to createa complex interlockingof commodity-credit
of circulation,money.This requiredmoneyto
debt with a singleinstrument
changeitssocialformwhen it ceasedto mediaterelationsbetweenvillagesand
came to mediate relations between the villages and the Development
Corporation.There is no evidenceat all thatpeople foundthisambiguousrole
of moneyconfusing.They knew exactlywhat typeof obligationswere being
created in the differenttransactions.It is very confusingfor the outsider
though.Blanketscirculatedamong theKwakiutlin thesame ambiguousway.
capital,sometimesthey were
Sometimesthey were lent as interest-bearing
given as giftsin a potlatchtransaction.Failureto perceivethisdistinctionhas
led to much confusion.
This particulararrangementhelpedthe DevelopmentCorporationin that
the giftexchangesystemprovidedit with capitalwith which to operate,but
the existenceof the DevelopmentCorporationhinderedthe operationof the
giftexchangesystem.ConsiderDiagram i once again.At theend ofroundone
A had K30. In round two A gives away K20, and afterthe thirdmeeting,
(Diagram 3) K40, a total of K6o. Thus before the interventionof the
Development CorporationA only has to findK3o. But if the Development
Corporationintervenesand siphonsofftheoriginalK3o A has to findK6o. A
similar problem develops for the other villages too, and the fact that the
Development Corporation did not pay any dividends was a further
complication.None of these problems existed in the relationshipthat the
Church had withthegiftexchangesystemthatit created,as will now be seen.

Giftstogod
A distinctionmustbe drawnbetweentheidiom in whicha directrelationship
betweenthegiver and god predominatesand the idiom in which therelation
a vehicleforthe expressionof relationsbetween
of giver to god is manifestly
men. In discussingcompetitivegiftexchangein thePapuan context,it will be
seenthatonlythelatteridiom is directlyrelevant,sinceitis usedveryexplicitly
as a meansto an end-the attainmentof prestigeand rank.Giftsof thislatter
typeoccur among the Kwakiutl and manyusefulinsightscan be obtainedby
themode ofgivinggiftsto god in thissocietywith
comparingand contrasting
the Papuan systemdescribedhere.
Among the Kwakiutl 'rivalrybetween chiefsand clans findsits strongest
expressionin thedestructionof property.A chiefwill burnblankets,a canoe,
or break a copper,thus indicatinghis disregardof the amount of property
destroyedand showingthathis mind is stronger,hispower greater,thanthat
of his rival' (Boas I897: 93). Mauss (I925: I4) wasjustifiedin describingthis
destructionas a 'giftto god'. A giftto god is a sacrifice,
and a sacrificeis,in the

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C. A. GREGORY

645

words of theOxford dictionary,the'surrenderof a possession'.The surrender

ofpossessioninvolvesthetransfer
ofownership23(i.e. alienation)ofsomething
froma naturalpersonto a non-naturalperson('god'). It is possibleforanother
personto receivethegifton god's behalfbut thatintermediary
is notplaced in
a gift-debtrelationshipbecause the giftis alienatedfromthe originalowner.
Given that a giftis an inalienable thing,is clear that what a giftto god
accomplishesis thealienationoftheinalienable.
In a potlatchthedestructionof
propertyresultsin thealienationofgiftsand in thissenseit can be calleda giftsto-godsystem.
But what is thepurposeof thisalienationvia destruction?
Codere hasdevelopedan ingeniousargumentthatlinksthepotlatchgifts-tomen systemwith thegifts-to-god
system.Her argumentis as follows:
Had ten blanketsbeen 'given'in theoriginalpotlatch,4320 would be requiredforthe
potlatchtenyearslater.... The reasona collapsedid not occurand thatpotlatching
as a
financial
systemremainedmeaningful
and tiedto realitywas thatthesystemhad as well
developedmeansforthedestruction
as it had foritsphenomenal
ofcredit
growth(Codere
I950:

75).

This argumentcontainstwo propositionsboth of which can be challenged.24

The first,that giftsto men are governed by the principleof I00 per cent.
interest,has already been criticallyexamined; the second,that giftsto god
'destroycredit',mustnow be examined.
The propositionthat giftsto god destroycredit has been shown to be
empiricallyfalseby Druckerand Heizer (I967: 68). But theargumentcan also
be challengedon a priorigrounds.Giftsto god simplyreduce the stock of
circulatinginstruments
of giftexchange.No creditof any sortis wiped out
whengiftsare destroyed.Creditscreatedin thepastwill continueto exist.Gifts
to god of thistypeaffectpotentialcredit,notpastcredit.By reducingthestock
of giftstheymake it harderforan opponentto replywith a biggerand better
giftto god. An example can clarifythispoint. In one village of i5o people,
Boas foundthatgift-credit
totalled75,ooo blanketswhile the actual stockof
blankets circulating as instrumentsof exchange was only 400. This
phenomenonis common to giftexchange systemsall over the world and
simplyillustrates
thefactthatinstruments
of giftexchangehave an extremely
high velocity of circulation.25The velocity can be calculated from the
= circulatingstock of giftsx velocity.In this
followingequation: gift-credit
example,velocityis i87 5 (400 timesi87 5 equals75,000).
This equationcapturesA. Strathern's
(i 969) distinction
between'production'
and 'finance'.A gifttransactorwho wants to make a prestationmust obtain
some of the circulatingstockof giftsand thereare two strategiesthathe can
follow: he can raisethe giftsby gettinghis familyto help him producethem
or he can acquireexistingstockby usingtheexchangenetwork.The first-the
productionstrategy-raisesthe stock of giftsand increasestotal gift-credit
without changing the velocity of circulation. The second-the finance
strategy-raisesthe velocityof circulationand increasesthe total amount of
gift-credit
withoutchangingthestockof gifts.
But what happensto theequationwhen a giftis given to god? Suppose,for

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

646

C. A. GREGORY

themoment,thatin theKwakiutlvillageitwas impossibleto produceblankets

and impossibleto importthem fromneighbouringvillages.In thiscase the
numberin circulationwould be fixedat 400. If big-manA, in an attemptto
outsmarthis rival B, destroyed250 of theseblankets,thenit is clear thatB
could neveroutdo A forthereare only I 5o blanketsleftin circulation.Thus
giftsto god-the alienationof some of the stockof gifts-is a thirdstrategy
that big-men can employ. It liberatesthe transactorfrom the two limited
strategicaloptionslogically imposed by the equation thoughdestroyingthe
equation and therebyopening up a thirdoption. Beforethe giftto god the
equation is 75,000 = 400 x I 87 5, and afterthe destructionof 250 blanketsit
becomes75,000$ I50 x i875. Giventhati5o x i875 =28,I25,itistempting
to argue thatgift-credit
is destroyed.This
totalling46,875 (75,000-28,I25)
is whatCodere argues.However, thisis wrongbecausetheequationbeforethe
destructionof the blanketsis an historicalsummaryof the transactions
that
ofsome ofthe
have occurredover a certainperiodoftime,and thedestruction
blanketsat theend of thetimeperioddoes not rendersome of thetransactions
null and void.
The above analysismightseemfaultybecausetheassumptionthatblankets
cannot be produced (or imported)is unrealistic.However, it is preciselyto
eliminatethe productionstrategythatgiftexchangesystemsthroughoutthe
world develop scarce durable symbolssuch as the potlatchcoppersand the
pearl shellsused in moka.These thingsinvariablyhave the top rankingof all
the giftsavailable because theyare so difficult
to obtain.Within the class of
thesetop rankinggiftsthereis a sub-ranking.
For example,in Boas's timethe
Ma'xts'6lEmcopper was the most soughtafter,then the L'a'xolamascopper,
and then the LU'peLila (Boas I897: 82). If the third rankingcopper was
destroyeda rival could go one up by destroyingthe second rankingcopper.
But the undisputedwinner of the contestis the one who destroysthe top
rankingcopper.Of coursethisall presupposesthattherivalshave accessto the
top rankinggifts.Iftheyare middlelevel big-menit is mostunlikelythattheir
financialnetworkswould ever be good enough to give them a chance of
obtaininga top rankinggift.
The tesystemin theHighlandsofPapua New Guineaprovidesan interesting
contrasthere.Live pigs are the principalinstruments
of giftexhange in this
system.Everyso often-about everyfouryearsin theideal case-an exchange
cycleculminatesin a massiveslaughter.The effectof thisis preciselythesame
as the destructionof coppersand blanketsin a potlatch.26Indeed, Meggitt
of thisslaughterin much thesame
(I974) analysesthenatureand significance
termsas Codere: he arguesthatthepig slaughterdestroyscredit.However,just
as the destructionof blanketsin potlatch leaves the stock of gift-credit
untouched,so too does theslaughterofpigs.It merelyreducesthecurrentstock
ofpigsand limitsthepotentialcreditthatcan be created.The factthatthepigs
are eatenratherthanburntis an importantdifference,
ofcourse.Cooking a pig
does not necessarily'alienatetheinalienable'becausethegivingof cooked pigs
can create gift-creditin some circumstances.(A. StrathernI97I: I23).
However, cookinga pig does definitely
destroyitsdurabilityas a giftand thus
placesan upperlimiton itspotentialvelocityof circulation.

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C. A. GREGORY

647

The Highlands pig slaughter invites a comparison with the banana

ceremonialthatused to be practisedin the Papuan hekara.However the lack
of data on thisnow defunctsystemprecludesany systematic
analysis.
The problemnow is to fitthe Papuan gifts-to-god
systemdescribedabove
into the schemeof things.At one level of analysisit is identicalto potlatchin
thatits primarypurposeis to achieve the rankingof clans and men. In both
is secondary.The giftsare
casesa sacrificeis made whose religioussignificance
not given with theaim of tryingto elicita counter-gift
fromthegods,in the
formof good weatherforcrops,or some such similarbenefitthatinvolves
gettingthe gods to control the uncontrollable.It is inter-clanrivalrythat
primarilymotivatesthe giving of giftsin both cases. The potlatchand the
Papuan systemare also alike in thatthe giftsto god involve alienationof top
rankingitems.They constitutereal sacrificesto the givers because having
given,forexample,the money theyneversee it again. The sacrificesare also
realin thattheydo notputotherpeople in debt.However, thePapuan giftsare
symbolicin so faras the intermediaryis concerned.In the potlatchcase the
intermediaryis fireand this destroysthe gifts;but in the Papuan case the
intermediary
is theChurchand itsymbolicallydestroysthemoneybyensuring
thatit does not get back to the donors.Thus the Church,by modifyingthe
traditionalgiftexchangesystem,hasperpetuateda rankingsystemof clansand
men that enables it to accumulateassetsfor the Church without incurring
liabilities,that is, to accumulatecapital. Paradoxicallyit is the 'destruction'
elementof a gifts-to-god
systemthatenablesthisaccumulationto takeplace.
The potlatchalso has thispotentialfor accumulation.If some intermediary
were developed for removing all the items sacrificedfrom the system,
accumulationcould takeplace outsidethissystem,and the internalprinciples
It is therankingachievedby the
governingthesystemwould not be affected.
alienationthatis important,
in
not themode ofalienation,and it is a difference
thelatterthatdistinguishes
thepotlatchfromthe Papuan system.
To understandthe relationshipbetween alienation and accumulationa
distinctionmustbe drawnnot onlybetweenrealand symbolicalienation,but
also betweenalienationin thesphereofproductionand alienationin thesphere
of exchange.Alienationvia thesphereof exchange,as in a gift-to-god
system,
merelyredistributes
existingwealth.The actualcreationof capitalrequiresthe
appropriationof a worker'ssurpluswithoutthe generationof debt. In other
words, it requiresthat a worker's surplusbe alienated from him. This is
preciselywhat the wage-labour/capital
relationshipachieves.It enables the
employerto accumulateassetswithoutthe accumulationof liabilities.Marx
has outlined this process in detail in Capital and has outlined the social
conditionsnecessaryfor its existence:namely,the separationof a producer
fromhis means of productionand the creationof a proletariatforcedto sell
theirlabour-powerin orderto survive(i 867: Ch. 26).
M. Strathern's
account of the plightof Hagen migrantsin Port Moresby
containsa numberofexamplesofhow Hagen workersperceivethisprocessof
alienation.For example: 'People nowadays speak of having been trickedby
Europeanswho "ate"the profitsof theirlabours,puttingaside only a minute
proportionforwages' (I 97 5: 33). By 'eating'theprofitsoftheworker'slabour

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C. A. GREGORY

648

the employeris alienatingthe worker'ssurplusproduct.The workersrealise

thattheybenefitin the formof wages but 'reiteratethe point thathowever
much they as wage-earnersbenefit,the owners of the business(employers)
benefitmore' (I 975: 38, f i). Furthermore,
themoneytheyget does not stay
on their'skins'.'All our moneygoes on foodand we are fedup',theycomplain
I i o). Thusthesurplus
(I975:
productofa workeris histotalproductminus
thatwhich is necessaryforhis subsistence.
Some workers,the skilledin particular,are able to win for themselvesa
wage in excessof subsistence.They are thereforeable to sharein the surplus
product of their labours with the employer. In Port Moresby a sizeable
proportionof the skilled workforceis supplied by men and women from
Poreporenavillage.The moneythesepeople earnis thebasisofthegifts-to-god
systemthat the Church has establishedin Poreporena.The Church's great
achievement,then,has been to setup a systemthatenablesit to alienatesome
of thesurpluswages thattheseworkersreceive.

Theanalysis
ofchange

The analysisof changeraisesthequestionof theimpactof colonisationon gift

economies.The principalagentsofchangehave been foreignchurches,foreign
statesand foreigncapital. These are the basic institutionsof the European
in non-Europeancountrieshas been
capitalistsystemand theirestablishment
accompaniedbytheemergenceofcommodityproductionand thedevelopment
of thewage-laboursystem.27Money keepsthe wheelsof thissystemturning.
The pound and thedollarepitomisethepower ofcapitalism.Yet theyare only
symbols.They have no intrinsicvalue noranypredetermined
rateofexchange
with other symbols.They acquire objective social validitybecause of state
power and thepower of capital.In thoseareasoutsidethe immediatecontrol
of theforeignstateand foreigncapitalit is possibleforpapermoneyto change
its social formand to functionas an instrumentof giftexchange.As a gift,
moneyis governedby theprinciplesof giftexchangeand not theprinciplesof
commodityexchange. This factis the key to understandingthe impact of
have failedto graspthispoint
moneyon a gifteconomy.Some anthropologists
and have arguedthatthenatureofmoneyis suchthatitdestroysgifteconomies.
However, there is nothingin its naturethat causes money to destroygift
exchange systems.They are destroyedby the political power of foreign
institutions
when conflictemerges.More oftenthannot giftexchangesystems
flourishand develop undertheimpactof suchopposition.
Bohannanand Bohannanareamongthosewho arguethatmoneynecessarily
destroys a gift economy. They correctlynote that a gift economy is
characterisedby the existenceof rankedspheresof exchange thatcannot be
compared one to the other in any quantitativeway. The introductionof
money destroysthismulti-centric
economy because 'it is in the natureof a
theexchangeabilityof all itemson
generalpurposemoneythatit standardises
a common scale' (I968: 246). A similarargumentwas put forwardto explain
thepredicteddemiseof the tesystemof the Enga. The Enga have fivespheres
of exchange.Pigs and cassowariesare in thetop sphere,vegetablefoodsare in

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C. A. GREGORY

649

thebottomsphere,and variousotheritemsin theotherspheres.When money

was introducedpaper notes were classifiedas belonging to the top spheres,
silver coins to a middle sphere,and copper coins to the bottom. This fact,

arguedMeggitt(I97

i),

to one.
reducedthespheres

This argumentis persuasiveand logical, but failsto explain the empirical

facts.Meggitt himselfcame to realisethis when he re-visitedhis fieldwork
area.He hasnow abandonedtheattemptto predictthedemiseof thetesystem
(MeggittI 974: I 8 i). So whatiswrongwiththetheory?
Whatthesetheorists
have failed to realise,it seems to me, is that when money functionsas an
instrument
of giftexchangeit may functionas a qualitativemeasure,whereas
when it functionsas an instrument
of commodityexchangeit functionsas a
measure.When Melanesiansplace paper moneyin thetop sphere,
quantitative
silvercoins in a middle sphere,and copper coins in a bottomsphere,theyare
of moneyensuresthat
usingmoneyas a qualitativemeasure.This classification
like will be exchangedforlike: notesfornotes,silverforsilver,and copperfor
copper.There is no exchangeof notesforsilveror of silverforcopper when
money is classifiedas a giftin this way.28 For example, the Siane of the
Highlandsof Papua New Guineafora while classifiedmoneyin thisway,and,
as Salisbury(I962:
I26)
reports,they did not treatthe notes and coins as
interchangeable.29
Such a use of money in no way precludesits use as a quantitativemeasure
when buyingriceat thetradestorewherenotesand coinsare interchangeable.
On theotherhand thereis no a priorireasonwhy moneyshouldfunctionas a
giftat all. It only entersthe giftexchangesphereifthe transactors
decide that
it should. It has not enteredthe kula giftexchange systemfor example (see
Leach & Leach in press).The reasonis thatthebig-menin thisIslandregiondid
not lose controlover the productionand distributionof shellsused in gifts,
whereasin the HighlandsDistrictsthe big-mendid.
Money did notenterthepotlatchsystemeither.The establishment,
however,
of a canningindustryin thearea in I 882 led to a rapidincreasein thepercapita
income of theKwakiutl,a rapidincreasein thenumberof blanketsthatcould
be purchased,and hencea rapidincreasein thenumberofblanketsgivenaway
in potlatch ceremonies.Before I849 the largestpotlatch consistedof 320

of
thelargestpotlatchconsisted
butduringtheperiodI930-I949
blankets,
a hundredfold
increase
33,000 blankets,
(CodereI 950: 94). Thisrapidgrowth

in potlatch occurred despite the institutionin I885 of a law prohibiting

potlatch(Drucker& Heizer I 967: 47). However,thislaw, and otherinfluences,
did bringabout manyqualitativechangesin thesystem.For example,theform
of the ceremonialhas changedand coppersare now no longerused (Drucker
& Heizer I967: 47-5 0). But as Druckerand Heizer note,
despiteall thevarietyof outwardchangesof formconnectedwiththeexpansionof the
ofdeviationfrom
nowhereis therea suggestion
institution
andwithitsgoingunderground,
ofa claimto hereditary
theoriginalprimepurposeofthepotlatch-theformalpresentation
socialstatus(I967: 52).
rightto a specific

The samecould be said of thegifts-to-god

systemin Papua. The outwardform
ofthesystemhaschangedmuchin thepastone hundredyears,but theessential
purpose-the rankingof men and clans-is stillthesame.

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

65o

C. A. GREGORY
NOTES

In writingthisarticleI have been greatlyhelpedby comments

fromFrederick
Damon,
andPiersVitebsky.
I shouldalsoliketo thankmymanyfriends
AndrewStrathern
in Elevala,
especiallyMorea, withoutwhose help thisarticlecould neverhave been written.I am
responsible
forall errorsofcourse.
1 The annualtrading
expedition
wascalledhiriandis described
in Barton(i 9 Io).
2 The rights
ofiduhumembership,
and obligations
andrecruitment
norms,arediscussed
in
Groves(I963).
3 Duringthesecondworldwar thePoreporena
peoplewereevacuatedto Manumanuand
theirhouseswereburntdown by thegovernment.
Afterthewar theywererebuilt-by
the
Thisgavethepeopletheopportunity
to plantheirvillage.
government.
4 Belshaw(I957: 2 i) andRosentiel
thattheiduhuareexogamous.
(I95 3: I 4) report
Thisdoes
notaccordwithwhatI was toldnorwithwhatSeligman(I9Io: 82) was told;buttheremay
andtheiduhuas Seligmannotes(IgIo: 82).
be an overlapbetweenthetaihuna
5 The Papua New Guineancurrency
is the kina (K). This was introduced
in I975 and
replacedAustralian
The kinahada parvaluewiththeAustralian
currency.
dollarinitially
but
wassubsequentially
revalued.
6 See M. Strathern
ofsomeoftheproblems
(I 975: 269) fora discussion
to
Hagenmigrants
PortMoresbyhaveobtaining
Papuanwives.
7 CompareSeligman:'Ifthetwo pilesareadjudgedeven,thehekarai
is finished,
if
[hekara]
mustbe held,anditwasstatedthata numberofhekarai
not,another
hekarai
mightbe helduntil
therivalsprovidedan equalnumberofbananas,
finished'
whenthecontest
(I9Io: I45).
8 GrovesI954: 2, I I-I2. The former
LondonMissionary
SocietyisnowtheUnitedChurch.
9 FiveofthesevillagesareMotuan(Gaire,Tuberserea,
Boera,Barakau,
Lealea),fourareKoita
(Kouderika,
Gorohu,Papa,Roku)andtherearefiveothers(Dagoea,Manugora,
Senunu,
Kalaki,
Sabua).
10AbsentwereSabua,Barakau,GorohuandKalaki.
11The finalcontributions
were as follows:Dagoea Ki80oo, ManugoraK535o, Gaire
KIO9-93, Tuberserea Ki58-4I, Kouderika K83y83, Boera KI97-2I, Papa Ki82-62, Lealea
KIoI20, Senunu Ki5oo, Roku K5o78o.

12 Whilethepersonwiththelargest
netcreditis alwaysthebig-man,
thepersonwiththe
It maybe a big-manwho is temporarily
therubbish-man.
largestnetdebitis notnecessarily
down on hisluck.The rubbish-man
is theone who hashad few,ifany,transactions.
His net
creditis usuallyzero.
13 It shouldbe notedthatthesefigures
referto inter-clan
transactions.
Intra-clan
giftgiving
isgovernedbyaltogether
different
andtheiranalysis
principles
isnottheconcernofthisarticle.
Forexample,a giftfroma father
to a sonhasa different
socialsignificance
froma giftfromone
Household6, in thiscase,hasa netdebitof 5i on intra-clan
big-manto another.
account.This
netdebtcan be interpreted
as a measureofthesupportthebig-mangetsfromhisclan.Thus
intra-clan
credit(debt)mustbe sharply
frominter-clan
credit(debt)whentrying
distinguished
to getthemeasureofa big-man.
4 See Leach(I 954: I 46) fora concrete
exampleofthis.
15Thereis an extensive
literature
on thispoint,a guideto whichcan be foundin Meggitt

(I97I: I99, fn. I3).

16 See Mauss(I925: 9-IO, II, i8,24, 3I, 42, 46).

17 The sexofthelabourer
is ofcrucialimportance
forunderstanding
relations
male/female
(seeFeil I978: 222).
18 AmongtheSianeanydispute
as to who is theowner(amfonka)
ofan articleis settledby
who actuallymadetheobject(Salisbury
ascertaining
i962: 62).
19Manyofthetribesin theSepikDistrictof PNG arebasedon 'sister
exchange'andthese
tribesprovidean illustration
ofthispoint.See Gell(I975: I7-i8, 27) forexample.
20 Discussion
ofsomeoftheseissuescanbe foundin Gregory(inpress).
21 The actualsystem
wasa I 4-person
zerosumgame.
22 This is the case withkulatoo as Damon's (I980) recentarticledemonstrates,
if only
The essenceof his argumentis thatwhile kulacan be describedas 'generalised
implicitly.
oftheislands,
itis 'restricted
of
exchange'fromtheperspective
exchange'fromtheperspective
kitoums
fromthegeographical
(Munn'skitomu
andlinear
(1977)), i.e.it is circular
perspective
fromthesocialperspective.
23 The Oxforddictionary
defines
'alienation'
ofownership'.
as the'transference
24 Herarithmetic
isalsowrong.I O compounded
at I 00 percentforI O yearsreturns
I 0,240
not4320.
25 Thisis especially
so in thosesocieties
whereshellsareusedas instruments
ofgiftexchange

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C. A. GREGORY
is lowerbut,nevertheless,
(seeArmstrong
I924). In placeswherepigsareusedthevelocity
pigcreditstillexceedspigstock(Salisbury,
I962: 93).
26 The Melanesians
ofBanks'Islandsalienated
ofgiftexchange)
'shellmoney'(i.e.instruments
themina deepholeina stream
I 89 1:
whentheymadesacrifices
byscattering
(seeCodrington,
I40-I42,
323-328).
27 Foran account
ofthisprocessin Papua

New GuineaseeGregoryI979.
Moneyisnotalwaysclassified
inthisway.In Poreporena,
no significance
isattached
tothe
factthatmoneyconsists
ofpaperandcoins.
29 ButSalisbury's
reportseemsto be somewhat
contradictory
becausehegoeson tonotethat
money'sdivisibility
destroys
thespheres
ofgiftexchange(I962: I35-7).
28

REFERENCES

Armstrong,
W. E. I924. RosselIslandmoney:a uniquemonetary
system.
Econ.J.34, 423-9.
Barnett,
H. G. I938. The natureofpotlatch.
Am.Anthrop.
40, 349-58.
Barton,F. R. IgIo. The annualtradingexpedition
to thePapuanGulf.In TheMelanesians
in
British
New GuineabyC. G. Seligman.
Cambridge:Univ.Press.
Belshaw,C. S. I957. Thegreatvillage:theeconomic
andsocialwelfare
ofHanuabada,an urban
communtiy
inPapua.London:Routledge& KeganPaul.
Boas,F. I897. Kwakiutl
ethnography
(ed.)H. Codere.Chicago:Univ.Press(i966).
Bohannan,
P. & L. Bohannani968. Tiveconomy.
Evanston:Northwestern
Univ.Press.
Codere,H. 950o.Fighting
withproperty.
New York: Augustin.

Codrington,R. H. I 891 . The Melanesians.New York: Dover

(I972).

Curtis,E. S. I9I 5. The Kwakiutl.In Thenorth

American
Indian,vol. IO. New York:Johnson
(I 970).

Damon,F. H. ig80. The kulaandgeneralised

exchange:considering
someunconsidered
aspects
oftheelementary
structures
ofkinship.
Man (N. S.) 15, 267-92.
Drucker,
P. i965. The potlatch.
In Tribalandpeasant
economies
(ed.)G. Dalton.New York:The
Natural HistoryPress(i967).

& R. F. Heizeri967. To makemynamegood:a reexamination

ofthesouthern
Kwakiutl
potlatch.
Los Angeles:Univ.ofCalifornia
Press.
and modern:
someaspects
Epstein,T. S. i968. Capitalism,
primitive
of Tolai economic
growth.
Canberra:Australian
NationalUniv.Press.
inOceaniaandAustralia
In Tradeandexchange
Feil,D. K. I 978.Engawomenintheteeexchange.
(eds)J.Specht& J.P. White(MankindII :3, spec.Issue).
B. R. I 973. Big-men
Finney,
andbusiness.
Honolulu:Univ.PressofHawaii.
andritual.
Umedasociety,
London:
Gell,A. D. I975. Metamorphosis
ofthecassowaries:
language
AthlonePress.

in Marxistanthropology.
Godelier,M. I973. Perspecives
Cambridge: Univ. Press(I 977).

C. A. I979. The emergenceof commodityproductionin Papua New Guinea.J.

Gregory,
Asia9, 389-409.
contemp.
inpress.Giftsandcommodities.
London:AcademicPress.
R. anthrop.
Inst.84, i-i6.
Groves,M. I954. Dancingin Poreporena.J.
i963. WesternMotudescent
groups.Ethnology
2, I5-30.
Hill,P. I 972. RuralHausa.Cambridge:Univ.Press.
London:
Burma:a study
Leach,E. R. I954. Political
systems
ofhighland
ofKachinsocialstructure.
AthlonePress.
& J.L. Leachinpress.Newperspectives
onthekula.Cambridge:Univ.Press.
C. I949. Theelementary
structures
Levi-Strauss,
London:Eyre& Spottiswoode
ofkinship
(i969).
Publishers.
Marx,K. I 867. Capital.Moscow: Progress
Mauss, M. I935. Thegft. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (i974).
M. J.I 97I. Fromtribesmen
to peasants:
thecaseoftheMae-EngaofNew Guinea.In
Meggitt,

inOceania(eds)L. R. Hiatt& C.J.Jayawardena.

Anthropology
Sydney:Angus& Robertson.
I 974. 'Pigsareourhearts
!'.The teexchangecycleamongtheMae EngaofNew Guinea.
Oceania 44, I65-203.

ofGawa canoes.J. Soc.Ocean.54/55:33,39transformations

Munn,N. I977. Spatiotemporal

53.
PacificIsland Monthly. 20thJune I975.

oftheboubou
ChurchhandoutI974, I979. Stencilled
sheetsgivingtheresults
Poreporena
(gift
giving competition)held in I974 and I979 [in Motu].

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C. A. GREGORY

652

Pospisil,
L. I963. KapaukuPapuaneconomy
(Yale Univ.Publ.Anthrop.
67). New Haven:Yale
Univ.Press.
A. I 95 3. The MotuofPapuaNew Guinea:a studyofsuccessful
acculturation.
Rosentiel,
Thesis,
Univ.ofMichigan.
R. F. I962. Fromstonetosteel.Cambridge:Univ.Press.
Salisbury,
Seligman,
C. G. I9IO. TheMelanesians
ofBritish
New Guinea.Cambridge:Univ.Press.
twostrategies
inNew Guineahighlands
Strathern,
A.J.I969. Financeandproduction:
exchange
systems.
Oceania40, 42-67.
I97I.
TheropeofMoka.Cambridge:Univ.Press.
I979. Gender,
ideologyandmoneyin MountHagen.Man (N. S.), 530-48.
A. M. I972. Womenin between:
Strathern,
femalerolesin a maleworld,
MountHagen,New
Guinea.London,New York: SeminarPress.
I975. No money
onourskins:Hagenmigrants
inPortMoresby
(New GuineaRes.Bull.
6i). Port Moresby.

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:01:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions