Hunting Restrictions

In the past any Kundagai could ideally shoot or trap game, including valuable plume-bearing birds, anywhere within the clan cluster territory from the Jimi to the Simbai River. Within this area individuals laid claim to particular localized resources, such as nests or bird of paradise display trees. Although Tsuwenkai remained uninhabited, Bokapai and Kinimbong Kundagai hunted there, though Bokapai residents infrequently because of the distance from their settlement and easy access to forests nearer the Jimi. Similarly, Kinimbong and Tsuwenkai residents seldom hunted in Bokapai land.

Initial government patrols sought to formalize settlement boundaries. As noted in chapter 1, the Kundagai recognize the official boundary between Bokapai and Tsuwenkai but not between Tsuwenkai and Kinimbong. Although early kiaps told the Kundagai to confine their activities within their three official territories, following traditional precedent any Kundagai is still accorded the right to harvest natural resources in any part of the clan cluster territory, without permission, provided the resource is not considered to be of value in the nonsubsistence sector of the economy (see table 9 for a list of restricted items). In line with the kiap's ruling on boundaries, and the subsequent affirmation of this by the Local Government Council, the Kundagai say that residents of Bokapai and Tsuwenkai should not hunt for valuable birds on one another's territory. Despite the kiap's ruling on the Kinimbong-Tsuwenkai boundary, members of these two settlements, as members of a single clan subcluster, say they are free to hunt valuable birds in both areas without territorial restriction. Kundagai territory is thus divided into two major subterritories in respect of hunting valuable birds. These territories conform to the two Kundagai clan subcluster territories.

Clan clusters are the largest units owning rights to the resources of a territory. Rights within this area may be further restricted at more exclusive structural levels. Members of other local groups have no rights to these resources. There are, however, several situations in which people are permitted to hunt on land of other clan clusters. Travelers

may shoot game of no special value that is encountered in foreign territories, but such hunting should occur only as opportunity permits, and a hunter should not stray far from paths. Anyone from another clan cluster found wandering away from paths is assumed to be poaching valuable game or on hostile business. Some Kundagai nonetheless say that a man is free to hunt within the clan cluster territory of his matrikin, bapa-wambe , and affines, latse-imatse . According to some, it is even permissible to shoot valuable birds in the territory of these kin, although it is polite to seek permission first. The extension of hunting rights so close matrikin and affines might be regarded as a form of the ideal of generalized exchange that the Mating consider should be maintained with these kin. Such hunting of valuable game is seldom done, unless in the company of matrikin or affines, and would not be condoned by unrelated members of foreign clan clusters.

Within the constraints noted above on hunting in territory to which one has no primary-use rights, only a few species of valuable game are forbidden quarry. With the exception of fetal pigs and cassowaries the

restricted species are the more valuable plume-bearing birds. There is no complete agreement on restricted game, but table 9 indicates those species generally listed by informants.

On land seldom used either for gardening or hunting and gathering, hunters from other groups may be tolerated, even if they have no close kinship ties with the landowners. Even valuable birds might be taken on such land, which is usually at such a distance from the settlements of the owners that they may be unaware of the extent of hunting by outsiders. For instance, the Kundagai hunted on former Cenda land in the upper Pint Valley (see map 3) long before they gained ownership of it.

A clan cluster would only tolerate hunting on its land by members of other friendly clan clusters or nokomai , "allies." Members of major enemy groups, cenang yu , were in the past in danger of being attacked if found hunting beyond their territory. A further factor inhibiting infringements of enemies' hunting rights was (and remains) the fear that the spirits of these groups resident in the forest would attack intruders, causing serious sickness or even death.

Boundaries of clan cluster territories in the primary forest are not always dear. For instance Mount Yirua on the Bismarck crest to the east of Kundagai territory is not clearly within the territory of any one clan cluster. Formerly the Kundagai, Manamban, Kanump-Kauwil, and Tuguma all hunted on the slopes of Yirua, and no one group claimed exclusive ownership to the area.

Within the Tsuwenkai-Kinimbong subcluster territory there is a further subdivision of land in respect to the hunting of valuable birds. A small area is the exclusive hunting territory of the Kolomp (1) clan, whereas all the remaining forested land may be hunted in by members of the Wendekai-Amankai-Atikai cognatic cluster (map 3). This Kolomp (1) hunting territory was established only a few years ago. Prior to contact any Kundagai was permitted to hunt valuable birds here as elsewhere. These became restricted game after the kiap ordered the Kundagai to confine their activities to their ancestral lands, and it seems that little hunting of valuable birds occurred here by non-Kolomp clansmen after the kiap's order. Several years ago, however, two Wendekai clansmen shot Valuable birds on this land. The ensuing dispute was brought before a moot or kot (TP: "court") adjudicated by the Local Government councillor. The case is summarized here.^[3]

Case 1: Rim versus Aikupa and Cengitai

Aikupa and Cengitai of Wendekai clan went hunting together on Kolomp (1) land at Wumenakema, where Aikupa shot an Astrapia and Cengitai a Saxony Bird of Paradise. Rim objected to this infringement of his clan's hunting rights and, as the instigator of the dispute on behalf of his clan, demanded compensation for the birds killed. The consensus of opinion at the kot was that compensation should be given. Aikupa exchanged the Astrapia for a male piglet, which he gave to Yunai of Kolomp (1), a classificatory father of Rim. Cengitai gave K2 compensation for the Saxony Bird of Paradise to another classificatory father of Rim resident in Bokapai. Although Rim did not receive compensation himself he says he was satisfied that suitable recompense had been made.

During the dispute Kolomp (1) clansmen announced that a portion of clan land was to be marked out as an exclusive hunting preserve, within which only Kolomp (1) clansmen would have rights to hunt valuable birds, though any Kundagai would still be free to hunt for other birds or mammals. As a reminder of exclusive Kolomp (1) rights to the valuable resources of the land a Kolomp man planted two sets of cordyline shrubs and stakes about one kilometer apart on Kondokoi ridge in the forest.^[4] All restricted game (table 9) found in the area running down to the valley floor from between the marks erected on the ridge may be hunted only by Kolomp (1) clansmen.

The Kolomp (1) of Tsuwenkai extend hunting rights to fellow clansmen living in Bokapai. These Bokapai Kolomp (1) and the Baikai (1) allied to Atikai are the only Bokapai clans with full hunting rights in Tsuwenkai. The issue of Baikai (2) clansmen (allied to Wendekai) hunting in Tsuwenkai has not arisen as far as I am aware.

In chapter 1, I noted that certain individuals are "fathers" of land in Tsuwenkai gained by grant from the Tsembaga and Tuguma. These individuals have extended full hunting rights to fellow members of the Wendekai-Amankai-Atikai cognatic cluster. These hunting rights relate only to the Kundagai and are not identical with rights in other settlements. Not all Maring and related populations claim the same type of hunting rights, although there are similarities in the basic principles involved.

By right of discovery members of territory-holding groups may claim individual ownership of resources on their land. By claiming particular trees attracting or sheltering animals, building traps or blinds, or hanging fruit lures, a hunter also establishes exclusive rights to harvest any game found in association with these objects. The basis for sole rights

is that the claimant has expended time and effort in locating prime. hunting sites or preparing structures and that he should therefore have primary access to the proceeds of his labor. Any man who capitalizes on the labor of others is liable to meet with a demand for compensation, from the owner of the hunting rights. Most men say, however, that they would tolerate such infringements by close agnates, matrikin, and affines, and few men refuse requests to hunt at individually claimed sites.

Although any Kundagai may claim temporary rights of harvest at fruiting or flowering trees, or build hunting aids anywhere in Kundagai territory, he may only harvest restricted game in areas held by the smallest corporate landholding group of which he is a member. To hunt the more valuable birds (category A in table 9), men claim rights of harvest to flowering trees where Papuan Lories feed, to the nests of cassowaries, and to the display sites of birds of paradise. All these claims are temporary, lasting only until trees cease flowering, the cassowaries disperse, or the single birds of paradise occupying display trees are shot by the claimant. A hunter may not always be able to locate a display tree, even though a bird of paradise haunts a limited area. In this case he makes it known that he regards the bird as his by right of being the first person to locate its customary range. Such claims are not as outlandish as they might seem. Male birds are sedentary in habits and not infrequently have minor differences in plumage making them distinguishable to the practiced eye. Ideally a man should announce the location of any display tree or other sites he claims, so that others will not inadvertently shoot his birds and be asked to surrender the skin or pay compensation. In practice this is not always done, for two reasons. First, some men fear that poachers might deliberately shoot the birds. Second, it is tacitly agreed that valuable birds occurring in particular regions are owned by certain men who therefore have no need to make their specific claims known. For instance, Superb Birds of Paradise frequenting the forest edge near homesteads are assumed to be claimed by the owner of the nearest house. Again, as will be discussed shortly, some men confine their hunting to definite tracts of forest, and others assume that a hunter familiar with the area has already found and claimed all valuable birds there. Thus, in many parts of the forest most valuable birds are regarded as the property of individuals, and their rights of ownership are generally respected, even if they have not been announced publicly.^[5]

The basis of concepts of individual property or ownership warrants

further attention here. It is noteworthy that claims of individual rights to harvest birds at particular natural or man-made sites, or of ownership of birds in particular areas, apply in land held under collective tenure. Sites or particular birds come to be accepted as individual, as opposed to collective, property by the investment of personal labor. Kundagai point to the importance of what they refer to as hat wok (TP: "hard work"; Maring: konggiang ), applied to building blinds, setting lures, and searching the forest. But this concept of labor is only incidentally concerned with its objective manifestations in the form of built structures, such as blinds and traps. More fundamentally, it is through "hard work" that one achieves specialist knowledge. A hunter builds his blinds or searches for birds, display trees, and fruiting trees on the basis of the personal knowledge he has accumulated over a long period of intense association with a particular tract of land. It is this familiarity, privileged knowledge and, indeed, emotional attachment, distilled over frequent visits, that prompts a man to speak of a particular tract of forest as "my land," ren nan . By this means he has acquired a richly textured understanding of the local environment—the conformation of the land and the particularities of the plant and animal communities it supports.

The unique knowledge a man may build up over time of a particular locality is the product of his own physical and intellectual efforts, even if it is grounded on a more general, less-detailed collective knowledge of the environment. Such specialist knowledge gives a man the potentiality to harvest the resources of his favored locality by conscious design, whereas those less familiar with the region depend more on chance. It gives a man privileged access to wild resources: valuable game is in a very real sense the product of unique knowledge, and hence it is the rightful property of the individuals who have worked at acquiring knowledge.

Specialist knowledge that yields material or other benefits of one kind or another is clearly a valuable resource. Detailed knowledge of natural history tends to be highly particular, rather than general: certain individuals are deeply knowledgeable about particular localities; some are acknowledged experts on high-forest birds, others on cassowaries, and yet others on phalangers and giant rats, and so on. There is, in short, a tendency toward specialist areas of expertise, although the range and depth of general knowledge of natural history among enthusiasts is impressive. This kind of specialist knowledge is akin to

magical knowledge, in the sense that both are private, personal, and particular possessions. Certain individuals (men or women) are credited with knowing particularly efficacious magic for specific purposes, like promoting the growth of pigs or curing particular ailments. Individuals are reluctant to divulge details of their knowledge indiscriminately, though they readily apply their knowledge to assist others. Thus, a man may take a friend hunting in his favorite haunts or make a gift of a bird skin or meat to kin of affines—the product of his specialist knowledge—just as he will willingly perform secret magic he possesses on behalf of someone else.

The males of two species of birds of paradise gather to display communally at traditional sites in the Jimi. The most widespread and common is the Lesser Bird of Paradise of lower-montane forest, which is present in perhaps all middle-Jimi territories except Tsuwenkai (Healey 1978b ). The other species, Princess Stephanie's Astrapia, is common in the Tsuwenkai high forest. There are four known display sites of this bird in Tsuwenkai. Some of the display trees have been in use up to sixty years by generations of birds. Three of these sites were found by Yekwai and his father Kemba, but they lost ownership of two to other men (see case 5 below). Yekwai and another tree owner are well known as eager hunters. In view of their frequent visits to their Astrapia trees, other men assume that these two hunters have discovered and claimed all other valuable birds in the vicinity and so generally refrain from seeking such birds in these regions.

Since sites where birds display communally may remain in use for so long, they are the most valuable of hunting claims an individual can make. In 1973-1974 none of the original discoverers of Astrapia display trees in Tsuwenkai had died, although Yekwai had effectively inherited his father's site as the old man was no longer an active hunter. Lesser Bird of Paradise display trees are usually inherited patrilineally, like other individual property. Occasionally, rights to harvest at trees are transferred in exchange for small payments of a pig, shells or, nowadays, money. Kinsmen may help a purchaser with small contributions hoping to be invited to hunt at the tree or rewarded with skins of birds shot there by the new owner. A Tsuwenkai man helped a Bokapai relative in such a purchase but never received any reward.

In principle, the Kundagai say that a man who claims ownership of display trees and the birds associated with them may demand that any plumes obtained at or near these sites by a non-right-holder be surrendered to him. The owner has the right to take possession of these skins

even if the hunter was unaware that the bird shot was already claimed by another. In practice, few men who through either ignorance or intent shoot another man's birds do relinquish the plumes. In this case the rightful owner of the birds can expect to receive compensation amounting to the generally accepted value of the plumes in cash or other goods. Some men say that if the plumes are handed over by the poacher it is proper and wise for the owner of hunting rights to make at least a small return payment of cash or trade goods. It is considered proper because the poacher has worked hard to shoot the bird, just as the owner worked hard to establish his prior claims to ownership; it is wise because he may be a witch and, angered by compensation demands, may seek revenge through witchcraft if no payment is made to mollify him. The following cases illustrate some of these points.

Case 2: Kom Versus Yekwai

Without seeking permission Kom shot an Astrapia at the Bombong display tree formerly owned by Yekwai. Although Kom is his classificatory father, Yekwai demanded compensation. Kom, however, argued that although he had shot the bird it had escaped and died in the forest, where its decomposed remains were later found. Since he had worked hard to kill the bird but had not profited, Kom reasoned that he was not liable to pay compensation. Yekwai agreed with the argument and dropped his claims.

Case 3: Cengitai Versus Menek

After the last case, Menek gained ownership of the Bombong site (see case 4). Here his clan brother Cengitai shot one adult male Astrapia and trapped an immature male close to the display site in mid-1972. Menek claimed that the birds visited his site and that by right they were his own, and demanded that Cengitai hand over the skin of the adult bird. Cengitai refused, saying he wished to exchange the skin for a pig. He agreed, however, to give Menek one of the progeny of the pig he obtained. In September 1974 Cengitai gave Menek a piglet in settlement.

During the kot on the issue some men told Cengitai and his brother that since their father was an Ambrakwi (who sought refuge with his Kundagai matrikin and affines after a violent dispute with other Ambrakwi), they had no right to hunt on Kundagai land. They were told to confine all their hunting to Mena, a tract of land bought by the Bokapai Kundagai from the Ambrakwi in the late 1960s. The two men have not complied with this directive, which has not been pressed further.

I have noted above that some men customarily hunt in certain tracts of forest. Other men seldom seek valuable birds there, on the assump-

tion that they have already been claimed. In short, informal personal hunting territories can be identified, within which other members of the group holding corporate hunting rights to valuable game in that region seldom hunt, in recognition of the intensive hunting activities of one man. Such men thereby gain de facto exclusive rights to hunt valuable birds occurring on the land, even if they have not been claimed previously or discovered by the hunter. Some men who are regarded as holding these informal territories speak of the land as their own, ren nan ("land mine"). Kinsmen sometimes share personal hunting domains. There are no formal principles of ownership of domains. Rather, they are recognized on the basis of the current most-intensive users of the land for the purpose of hunting valuable birds. In addition, as the following case shows, vague notions of inheritance may also be entailed in defining personal territories.

Case 4: Yekwai Versus Aikupa and Menek

Yekwai and his father Kemba found two Astrapia display sites: at Gandakai and Bombong. They shot several birds at each place. Kemba subsequently ceased hunting actively and Yekwai retained ownership of the sites. Aikupa disputed Yekwai's right to the Gandakai site and declared ownership himself. He justified his claim by noting that his father's father had for a time lived at Bokapai, from where he and his coresidents had hunted at Gandakai.

Menek took possession of the Bombong site, arguing that his father's mother was of Aiwaka clan of Bokapai and that the Aiwaka had formerly hunted at Bombong. Both men, in short, claimed to inherit informal hunting territories held by groups of men two generations ago.

Yekwai agrees that he has relinquished rights to these sites but still regards his claims of ownership to be stronger than. those of their present owners. He supports these claims by stating that as the original finders of the sites he and his father have superior rights of ownership. He further argues that Gandakai and Bombong were included in the grant of land from Kolomp (2) to his own clan (Atikai; see chap. 1) and that Wendekai and Amankai are entitled to garden the land and harvest its resources only on sufferance. (Aikupa and Menek are of Wendekai clan.) He ceased to press his claim because he says Aikupa and Menek are more persuasive and aggressive talkers than himself. Both are politically influential—Aikupa a tep yu big-man and former luluai and kaunsil, Menek the present kaunsil.

The following table (table 10) lists the six personal hunting territories identified by informants. The areas are not clearly demarcated, but each is composed of a core ridge or ridges where the principal hunter or hunters concentrate their activities.

I am not sure how widely these territories are recognized, but certainly the individuals named are the most active hunters in the regions listed, according to records in hunting histories. Rim, as senior Kolomp (1) clansman, is regarded as the local "father" of the area in his domain, while Dukumpwai and Gela are the sole acknowledged "fathers" to the former Kwibukai land at Yongga (see chap. 1). As such, these three men would have primary use rights to these areas even if they were not active hunters. The other personal domains are on land of the Wendekai-Amankai-Atikai cognatic cluster.

Menek seldom hunts at Anggelep, but informants (including Menek) list him as retaining a personal territory because he owns an Astrapia display tree there. Kima frequently hunts there and at Anyen and was, therefore, included as a domain holder even though he neither owns Astrapia trees nor is a "father" of land. These two men, therefore, share parts of their domains. They are classificatory brothers, firm friends, and political allies.

The largest single domain is that of Kemba and Yekwai. With Kemba's advancing age Yekwai is now the most active hunter in this area. Their hunting territory was larger in the past when they owned Astrapia display sites at Gandakai and Anggelep (case 4).

Of the eight men listed in the table, Aikupa, Dukumpwai, and Kima are regarded by informants as yu tum kabang gwio aumba yundo (prominent hunters). Kemba had been such a hunter in the past. Although Yekwai owns an Astrapia display site, he does not consider himself to be a successful hunter, though some others class him as one.^[6]

There are a number of taboos on the eating of game which pertain to various categories of persons or particular stages in the ritual cycle. Hunters do not deliberately seek out tabooed game, but they may kill such an animal when encountered and give it to someone else to eat. Many younger Kundagai profess an ignorance of dietary taboos or simply do not observe them. Various ritual states that formerly involved restrictions on the diet no longer occur. Nonetheless, such taboos undoubtedly influenced hunting intensity and selectivity of prey in the recent past. The most significant and widely observed taboos on the eating or killing of game occurred in the context of war and its aftermath.

During periods of hostilities warriors assumed taboos on the consumption of a variety of animals and crops, including several marsupials, eels, cassowaries, and certain other birds associated with water or the night. Fight Magic men, bamp kunda yu , assumed a wider range of taboos, many of which they maintain for life. For other fighters some dietary taboos were abrogated on the cessation of fighting and others at the uprooting of the yu miny rumbim , "men's souls' cordylines," which were planted immediately after establishing a truce in order to give protection to warriors. The uprooting of the rumbim occurs several years after the termination of a war and is one ceremony of the ritual cycle culminating in the konj kaiko . During this period there is also a ban on trapping mammals in the forest, and Rappaport (1968: 151) suggests that this allows mammal numbers to increase. It is not clear, however, if these taboos act as a general disincentive to hunting, or if men turn their attention to other prey, including plume-bearing birds.

The Kundagai consider that the spirits can restrict hunting success by hiding their "pigs"—game mammals and birds—from the hunter. However, men themselves should exercise restraint in the number of animals they kill in a single day to avoid the anger of the spirits. This notion may be invoked to explain subsequent misfortunes, but I doubt that a man cuts short a hunting trip if it proves unusually successful, as good fortune itself can be interpreted as a sign of benevolence on the part of spirits who remove protection from their "pigs." They are especially likely to do this if the game is intended for ritual feasts in their honor or plumes are to be used in dances associated with the konj kaiko .

As well as the various jural and supernatural restrictions that limit hunting, some Kundagai also accept a number of voluntary restraints. I have already noted that few men shoot birds in the informal, personal

domains of other men. This is a jural restriction if the birds have been claimed publicly, but a voluntary restraint if the territory owner is assumed to be unaware of the presence of some birds in his area. Movements and reproduction of the birds will ensure that from time to time the numbers of birds in a personal territory will change, and the non-territory-holder is free to harvest these if he finds them first. In practice, few men are prepared to exercise this right, lest the customary hunter of that area claim that the birds killed are his own.

Some Kundagai consider that, aside from avoiding the anger of spirits, it is advisable to exercise restraint in the number or frequency of valuable birds killed. They argue that hunting rates should be moderated to give bird populations a respite for regeneration. Some men say that as a rough guide one should kill no more than half the males of valuable species occurring in a given area, or half the number of Astrapia displaying at a single site.

In the past, female-plumaged birds of paradise^[7] were commonly shot and trapped for food, but many hunters now state that this practice is unwise. Since contact, they say, the volume of plumes traded has increased, and they claim that this has been sustained by increased hunting rates, to the extent that if female-plumaged birds are killed the reproductive potential of valuable birds will be reduced. By sparing female-plumaged birds the Kundagai argue that the resulting increased reproductive pool can accommodate the higher predation by man on adult male birds. Several men told me that they do not shoot female-plumaged birds, and if they find them alive and unharmed in their traps they may even release them. Most Kundagai, however, say that no such restraint need be exercised on the Superb Bird of Paradise as this species is abundant. In fact, some men seldom killed female-plumaged birds even before the presumed increase in predation and trade in plumes following contact. These last two restraints on hunting are deliberately applied as conservatory measures, so that the continued survival of valuable birds to be exploited for decorations and trade is enhanced.

Hunting is somewhat seasonal, being more intensive during the drier season. The Superb and Saxony Birds of Paradise are generally silent in wet weather and, since they are often located by their calls, hunting them in the rain is not only uncomfortable but difficult. Astrapia are said to visit display sites even in the rain and can therefore be hunted profitably at any time, Even in the drier season most hunting occurs only during fine weather, for rain makes hunting uncomfortable and less productive.

Shortly preceding and during the annual molt (about June to August), plumes are in poor condition or only partially developed. By reducing hunting activities at this time the Kundagai minimize loss of plumes from their stocks by shooting birds with inferior plumes that would not be acceptable as valuable trade or decoration items.

Older men told me that toward the end of the ritual cycle they went hunting especially to obtain plumes to wear on the last day of the konj kaiko . Nowadays it seems that hunting is seldom increased before particular dances in connection with the kaiko or other occasions. Certainly I discerned no such intensification prior to the several dances that occurred while I was in the field, nor did informants suggest that this occurred nowadays.

Although one might conclude that intensification of hunting to secure plumes for specific occasions in the past was probably of only minor significance in altering predation rates,^[8] there is little doubt that during periods of hostilities hunting was considerably reduced. The assumption of taboos on the eating of a large variety of marsupials and certain other animals, many of them esteemed for their flesh, meant that there was little incentive for hunting in this period. A further disincentive was the fact that the solitary hunter or small party was vulnerable to attack by enemy raiders who usually traveled through the forest for concealment. For this reason, any hunting done during periods of hostilities mostly occurred away from areas where the enemy or bribed assassination parties from other settlements were likely to appear.

Big-men of all categories, but especially tep yu ("Talk Men") and bamp kunda yu ("Fight Magic Men") were particularly sought by raiding parties, and these men were cautioned by their comrades never to venture beyond the areas of homesteads and gardens without companions. Several big-men told me that their hunting activities had been constrained by fear of attack. Nowadays the Kundagai evince no fear of attack while hunting, except from witches.

The Jimi Local Government Council was established in 1966. At various times since then the councillors in session have affirmed the clan cluster boundaries established by early kiaps and echoed kiaps' injunctions to confine all gardening and hunting of valuable birds to the land of the smallest territory-holding group of which one is a member. Although the Kundagai formerly held joint and exclusive rights to the exploitation of resources throughout their estate, the Council rules on territories have shifted ownership of hunting rights to more exclusive

structural levels. This conforms to traditional restrictions in many of the constituent wards of the Council, although there is some variation between individuals' conceptions of hunting rights within and between settlements.

The Council has also affirmed the right of individuals to claim ownership of particular display sites that a man might find on territory in which he has full hunting rights.

Case 5: Aikupa Versus Yari

Aikupa often went hunting at Aiyonju in Bokapai territory. Here he found an Astrapia display site where over a number of years he shot several birds. Yari of Baikai (1) clan at Bokapai disputed Aikupa's claim of ownership. Both men agreed that the land had formerly belonged to the Went-Kai, now of Rinyimp. Yari claimed that he had the right to own the tree in preference to Aikupa because his sister was married to a Went-Kai man and that he was free to hunt on his affines' land. Aikupa justified his claim by pointing out that use rights to Aiyonju had been given to his father and father's brother as part of affinal exchanges (see chap. 1). The land therefore belonged to his own clan, Wendekai. Aikupa and Yari both continued to claim superior rights of ownership, until in about 1967 Yari felled the tree in anger.

Up to this point it appears that each man recognized the other's right to hunt at Aiyonju. The dispute was rather over who had the strongest claim to the tree. At this stage, however, other Bokapai residents entered the dispute and introduced a new issue. They pointed out that Aiyonju is within Bokapai territory as determined by annexation after a war with the Went-Kai and as affirmed by the kiap and the Council. As a resident of Tsuwenkai Aikupa therefore had no right to hunt valuable birds there. This argument was accepted by other Tsuwenkai residents (who had no particular stake in the issue), and the Tsuwenkai kaunsil warned Aikupa that he should cease hunting at Aiyonju. Aikupa still claims hunting rights there and, although he continues to visit the area and has recently shot Astrapia there, he has not been involved in any further disputes on the issue.

Although restraints on the hunting of female-plumaged birds were formerly a matter of choice for individual hunters, the Council has now declared that all hunters must observe this rule. No one could tell me how such a rule could be enforced since, according to Maring legal conceptions, an offence that can be sanctioned by the living, as opposed to spirits, only occurs when the rights of another person have been infringed. Shooting female-plumaged birds does not constitute such an infringement, as no one claims to own them.

The only rule introduced by the Council which has no traditional

basis relates to the use of shotguns. Councillors have been told in Tok Pisin by government officers that it is illegal throughout Papua New Guinea to shoot kumul with a gun. To Jimi people kumul means only the Lesser Bird of Paradise and not the wider category of birds of paradise in general. It is therefore permissible, they say, to shoot other valuable birds of paradise^[9] with a gun, provided this is done only by the licensed holder of the gun and that he hunts only in areas where he has rights to kill valuable birds. This misconception, the result of inadequate communication between government officers and councillors,^[10] has resulted in at least one unfortunate prosecution under national hunting laws.

Case 6: Anc Kills a Bird of Paradise with a Gun

This case, which does not involve any Kundagai, illustrates the misinterpretation of official court decisions that while officially punishing one offence appear to sanction informal Council rules.

Anc (a pseudonym) is the kaunsil of a Jimi Mating settlement and a prominent figure in the Local Government Council. He used his shotgun to shoot a Sicklebill on the land of a Simbai Valley community. Someone complained to the Simbai kiap about this infringement of their territorial hunting rights. The Simbai kiap informed his Tabibuga counterpart who convicted Anc on a charge of using a shotgun to kill a bird of paradise. Anc was fined and his gun impounded in Tabibuga, while the bird skin was confiscated in the Simbai where it joined a display of murder weapons on the courthouse walls.

According to Kundagai informants, however, Anc was entitled to shoot the Sicklebill with his gun but was punished for hunting on the land of another group where he had no rights.

No Kundagai own guns, nor is there any strong desire to do so. The leading Kundagai tep yu big-man told me he has forbidden the Kundagai to own guns. It is doubtful that his injunction would be heeded if the opportunity to obtain a gun license arose, but his objections to guns seem to be accepted by many. He argues that guns make hunting easier and that there would therefore be a real danger of rapidly exterminating valuable birds locally. This would disrupt trade and Kundagai ability to acquire valuables in exchange for plumes. He notes that bows and arrows and traps have hitherto proved sufficient to secure game. Guns are also dangerous, and he cites several incidents in other parts of the Jimi where men have borrowed guns and injured themselves and others through misuse. Finally, he says, it would be easy for a witch to

find a hunter in the forest by following the sound of his gun; the solitary hunter would make an easy victim.

All informants see these restrictions on hunting as safeguarding their bisnis interests. A common statement throughout the north Jimi is that plumes are bisnis bilong mipela (TP: "our commercial enterprise"). Council rules on territories and individual ownership of birds or display sites safeguard holders of hunting rights from poaching of birds to which only they have rights of access. Similarly, rules forbidding the killing of female-plumaged birds and shooting the Lesser Bird of Paradise with a gun are accepted for their value of conserving valuable species. The Kundagai recognize that it is in their own long-term bisnis interests to preserve bird populations at sufficient densities to permit sustained exploitation to provide plumes for trade, especially as there are very limited opportunities for entrepreneurial activities. I return to the issue of conservation of bird populations in the following section.

Where an individual's hunting rights are infringed he may bring the resulting dispute to a kot adjudicated by the kaunsil or komitis. Often these officials take no active part in the proceedings if public opinion crystallizes quickly and parties to a dispute agree to any decisions arrived at. Ideally a settlement is not reached until the principals to a dispute and the spectators have reached a consensus of opinion as to where the guilt for any wrongdoing lies and what recompense must be made to the injured party. Anyone is free to speak, and in the course of a dispute other grievances may be aired. Often these further complicate a dispute, opinion becomes divided, and no settlement is reached. In such situations, kots may drag on for days until an agreement is reached. Occasionally, to effect an early settlement, the kaunsil may threaten to take the disputants before the kiap, whose courts are seen as swift, intransigent meetings.

By law, councillors had no authority to deliver judgments in kots . Neither they nor their constituents were aware of this, and kiaps have encouraged councillors to settle minor disputes in order to leave the official courts free to conduct what kiaps see as more serious cases. Such encouragement by kiaps and their occasional upholding of rulings given by councillors in disputes referred to official courts certainly appeared to the Jimi people to support councillors' claims that they have the power to give judgments in kots .

Intervention by the kiap in disputes is interpreted as sanctioning the power of the kaunsil and therefore as legitimizing Council rules (TP: lo ). None of the lo relating to hunting territories and rights set down

by the Council have been forwarded to the Office of Local Government in Port Moresby for ratification. As such, they do not constitute formally recognized by-laws of the Council, and so transgressions legally cannot be punished either by local kots or the formal courts of the kiap. But by claiming and appearing to receive the endorsement of Council lo and local kot decisions, councillors and their followers created a situation where unofficial courts based on a blend of traditional and introduced conceptions of dispute settlement became integrated into the official national legal system.^[11]