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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. I am thankful to Weining Cheng for pointing this out to me. 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. 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 The Frontiers of Southeast Asia and Pacific Studies 234 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. produces local currency for circulation. 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. 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. 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. 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.” The economic value of shell money originates from the labor and time needed. The demonstration of its production helps illuminate its value to buyers. 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. 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.