, especially those made
from the leaves of the pandanus-like plant, were considered by the
Samoans to be their most valuable property; they were handed down as
heirlooms from father to son, and were so much coveted that wars were
sometimes waged to obtain possession of them. The pedigrees of the more
famous mats, particularly those fringed with red feathers, were
carefully kept, and when they changed hands, their history was related
with solemn precision. Age enhanced their value; and their tattered
condition, deemed a proof of antiquity, rather added to than detracted
from the estimation in which they were held. The wealth of a family
consisted of its mats; with them it remunerated the services of
carpenters, boat-builders, and tattooers. The mats formed, indeed, a
sort of currency or medium of exchange; for while the Samoans were not
in general a trading people, and there was little or no actual buying
and selling among them, there was nevertheless a considerable exchange
of property on many occasions; at marriage, for example, it was
customary for the bride's family to give mats and bark-cloth as her
dowry, while the bridegroom's family provided a house, canoes, and other
articles. But though the fine mats were thus paid away or given in
exchange, they had no fixed negotiable value, and thus did not serve the
purpose of money.[42]
[42] Ch. Wilkes, _Narrative of the United States
Exploring Expedition_, ii. 142 _sq._; J. E. Erskine, _Journal of
a Cruise among the Islands of the Western Pacific_, pp. 109
_sq._; W. T. Pritchard, _Polynesian Reminiscences_, pp. 129-132;
Violette, "Notes d'un Missionnaire sur l'archipel de Samoa,"
_Les Missions Catholiques_, iii. (1870) p. 135; G. Turner,
_Samoa_, pp. 119-121; S. Ella, "Samoa," _Report of the Fourth
Meeting of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of
Science, held at Hobart, Tasmania, in January 1892_, p. 636; J.
B. Stair, _Old Samoa_, pp. 143 _sq._; G. Brown, _Melanesians and
Polynesians_, pp. 304 _sq._, 305, 315, 434.
Sec. 4. _Rights of Property_
In Samoa the rights of private property, both personal and landed, were
fully recognised, but with certain limitations. The lands were owned
alike by chiefs and by heads of families; the laws regulating their
possession were very definite. In no case did the whole of the land
belong to the chiefs. Every family owned portions of land not only in
the village and adjoi
|