Australian Museum Journal XI. The ethnology of Funafuti

Shortform:
Hedley, 1897, Aust. Mus. Mem. 3(4): 227–304
Author(s):
Hedley, Charles
Year published:
1897
Title:
XI. The ethnology of Funafuti
Serial title:
Australian Museum Memoir
Volume:
3
Issue:
4
Start page:
227
End page:
304
DOI:
10.3853/j.0067-1967.3.1897.497
Language:
English
Plates:
plates xiii–xv
Date published:
27 September 1897
Cover date:
27 September 1897
ISSN:
0067-1967
CODEN:
AUNMA5
Publisher:
The Australian Museum
Place published:
Sydney, Australia
Subjects:
ETHNOGRAPHY; ANTHROPOLOGY; OCEAN: PACIFIC
Digitized:
20 July 2009
Reference number:
497
EndNote package:
EndNote file
Title page:
Title page (29kb PDF)
Complete work:
Complete work (8488kb PDF)

Abstract

[Excerpt from page 229] Much of the information conveyed in the General Account could have been included with equal appropriateness in the present chapter; to it the reader is therefore referred for details not here repeated. The natives of the Ellice Group appear to be closely allied to those of the Phoenix and Union Groups, and also to those of several small outlying islands, and atolls in the same neighbourhood, extending perhaps as far as Rotumah and Fotuna. This branch of the Polynesian Race may, for want of a better comprehensive term, be called the Tokelau People. We are much in want of a satisfactory subdivision of the Polynesian Race. The only classification with which I am acquainted is that of Dr. H. Stolpe, based upon ornamental art. Good though this undoubtedly is, yet a broader basis including physique, language, religion, and so on, is required for a sound arrangement. Dr. Stolpe throws the branch here proposed to be called Tokelau into his Province or Tonga-Samoa, from the remainder of which I would clearly distinguish it by, inter alia, the different gods they worshipped and the difference of tattoo. …

Last Updated: