The map appended to this volume is (with the exception of the red lines and red lettering upon it) a reproduction of a portion of the map relating to the explorations and surveys of Dr. Strong, Mr. Monckton and Captain Barton, which was published in the Geographical Journal for September, 1908, and the use of which has been kindly permitted me by the Royal Geographical Society. I have eliminated the red route lines which appear in the original map, so as to avoid confusion with the red lines which I have added. The unbroken red lines and the red lettering upon my map are copied from a map, also kindly placed at my disposal, which has been recently prepared by Father Fillodean of the Mission of the Sacred Heart, and these lines mark roughly what the Fathers of the Mission believe to be the boundaries of the several linguistic areas within the district covered by their map. It will be observed that some of these lines are not continued so as to surround and complete the definition of the areas which they indicate; but this defect is unavoidable, as the Fathers’ map only covered a relatively small area, and even in that map the lines were not all carried to its margin. It will also be noticed that, though the Fathers introduce the two names Oru Lopiku and Boboi as being linguistically distinct, they have not indicated the boundary line between the two areas. Father Egedi, however, informed me that this boundary passes along the ridge of hills south of the Ufafa river as far as Mt. Eleia, and thence along the Ukalama river to the Kuni boundary. The Ukalama river is not shown in the Geographical Society’s map; but I may say that it is shown in the Fathers’ map as rising in Mt. Eleia, and flowing thence in a south-easterly direction, and so joining the St. Joseph river close to Dilava. The broken red line upon my map does not appear in the Fathers’ map, but has been added by me to indicate what, I understand, the Fathers believe to be a continued boundary, so far as ascertained, of the Fuyuge linguistic area, called by them the Mafulu area, to which I am about to draw attention.

The term Mafulu is the Kuni pronunciation of Mambule, which is the name, as used by themselves, of the people who live in a group of villages within and near the north-westerly corner of the area of the Fuyuge-speaking people, whose Papuan language, so far as ascertained, appears, subject to local dialectal differences, to be the same, and may, I was informed, be regarded as one common language throughout the Fuyuge area.

The Fathers of the Mission have adopted the name Mafulu in a wider sense, as including all the people with whom they have come in contact of the Fuyuge-speaking area; and, though my investigations, which form the subject-matter of this book, have been conducted only in the neighbourhood of Mafulu itself, I was assured that, so far as the Fathers have been able to ascertain, all these Fuyuge people not only have similar languages, but also are substantially similar in physique and in culture. My observations concerning the Mafulu people may therefore, if this statement is correct, be regarded as applying, not only to the inhabitants of the portion of the north-westerly corner of the Fuyuge area in which the Mafulu group of villages is placed, but to those of the whole of the north-westerly portion of the area, and generally in a greater or less degree of accuracy to those of the northerly and north-easterly parts of the area, and possibly the southerly ones also.

The boundaries of this Fuyuge-speaking area can hardly be regarded as definitely ascertained; and the discrepancies, even as regards the courses of the rivers and the positions of the mountains, which appear in the few available maps make it difficult to deal with the question. The area, so far as actually ascertained by the Fathers of the Mission, roughly speaking, covers, and seems to extend also some distance to the south or south-west of a triangle, the western apex of which is the junction of the river Kea with the river Aduala (a tributary of the St. Joseph),1 whose north-eastern apex is Mt. Albert Edward, and whose south-eastern apex is Mt. Scratchley. It includes the valley of the Aduala river and its streams (except those flowing into it from the north in the region of the western apex of the triangle) within its northern boundary, and the valley of the upper Vanapa river and its rivers and streams in the neighbourhood of its eastern boundary; but this eastern boundary has been found to extend also so as to include the upper valley of the river Chirima. How far the area extends to the south or south-west of the triangle above mentioned appears to be uncertain.

The linguistic area to the north of the Mafulu or Fuyuge people is that of the Ambo people, who are somewhat similar in appearance to the Mafulu, and whose language is also Papuan, and, though differing from the Mafulu language, is, I was told, somewhat similar to it in grammatical construction and as regards a few of its words. The area to the west is that of the Kuni people, whose language is Melanesian, but whose ordinary modes of life are, I was informed, more like those of the Mafulu than are those of the Papuan-speaking Ambo. The areas to the east and south cannot be so definitely stated, but are dealt with below.

As regards these Ambo people I may, in view of divergences of names which appear in maps, explain that Ambo is a contraction of Ambore, and is the name given to the people by their Mafulu neighbours, whilst Afoa is the name given to them by the Kuni people, and is adopted in the Geographical Society’s map.2 As regards the Kuni people, their name is the one adopted by themselves.

Concerning the boundaries of the Fuyuge linguistic area as above indicated, and the people whose districts adjoin that area, I propose here to draw attention to four names, and to refer to some observations bearing on the subject of the probable Fuyuge boundary which are to be found in existing literature.

The term Kovio, though primarily the name of Mt. Yule, and properly applicable to the people living in the neighbourhood of that mountain, is now, I think, often used to express all the mountain tribes of the hinterland of the Mekeo and Pokau, and perhaps the Kabadi, districts. But the use of this name has not, I believe, been generally associated with any question of linguistics.

The area in the map which is called by the Fathers Boboi is occupied by people whose language, I was told by the Fathers, is Papuan, but is distinct from the languages of the Ambo and the Fuyuge areas.

Kamaweka is a name which appears in several of Dr. Seligmann’s publications. It seems to have been originally used by Captain Barton to designate the natives of the district of which Inavaurene, to the north-east of the Mekeo plains, is the centre, but to have been afterwards regarded as a somewhat more general term; and I think Dr. Seligmann uses it in a very general sense, almost, if not quite, equivalent to the wide application above referred to of the term Kovio, and which might include the Papuan-speaking Boboi and Ambo people, and even perhaps the people of the northern Mafulu villages.3 But here again the use of the name has, I think, no reference to linguistics.

If the Fathers’ linguistic boundary lines are substantially correct, each of the two terms Kovio and Kamaweka, as now used, would appear to cover more than one linguistic area; and in any case these terms seem to have widened and to have become somewhat indefinite. It will be seen on reference to the map and to Father Egedi’s information as to the Oru Lopiku and Boboi boundaries that both Mt. Yule and Inavaurene are within the area which the Fathers call Oru Lopiku, but that Inavaurene is not far from their Boboi area. I suggest that it would be convenient for the present, pending further investigation and delimitation on the spot, and until we know something of the difference between the languages of the Oru Lopiku and Boboi people, to adopt the term Kovio as a general name for, and confine it to, the two areas Boboi and Oru Lopiku; though for linguistic purposes the names Boboi and Oru Lopiku, which at present indicate very little to us, may eventually be accepted and come into general use.

The Koiari people of the foothills and lateral spurs behind the Motu area, also referred to from time to time in Dr. Seligmann’s writings, must be eastern next door neighbours of the Fuyuge-speaking people, the western boundary of these Koiari being stated by him to be the Vanapa river,4 and they being in fact regarded by him as being the eastern neighbours of the natives of “the mountains inland of Mekeo Nara and Kabadi,”5 and being referred to by him as being the people from whose district the Kamaweka and Kuni are reached by “passing westward”—the word used is “eastward,” but this is obviously a printer’s error—“in the mountains, keeping roughly parallel with the coast.”6

Turning to the question of the Fuyuge boundary, Dr. Strong says that the Fuyuge people occupy the upper waters of the St. Joseph river,7 and he is quoted by Dr. Seligmann as having stated that the Afoa language “is spoken in the villages on Mt. Pizoko and the northern slopes of Mt. Davidson,” and that “the Afoa villages lie to the north of the Fuyuge-speaking communities, stretching westward for an unknown distance behind Mt. Davidson.”8 If the information given to me verbally by the Fathers of the Mission of the Sacred Heart and the red linguistic boundary lines roughly drawn by them, and introduced into my map, be correct, these statements require modification, for according to the Fathers the Mafulu or Fuyuge-speaking area does not include any part of the St. Joseph river, as its extreme north-westerly corner lies to the east of the junction—close to the boundary line between the Afoa (Ambo) and the Kuni areas—of the rivers Alabula and Aduala, and Mt. Pizoko is within the Fuyuge area, and not within that of the Afoa, and Mt. Davidson is within the Boboi area. I think that, though the Fathers’ lines are admittedly not exact, they and the information supplied by the Fathers to me are likely to be more trustworthy in these respects, especially as regards boundaries near to the actual Mafulu villages, than the earlier statements of Dr. Strong, as they are the outcome of recent and careful investigation; and, as regards Mt. Pizoko, I may mention that Dr. Strong himself seems to have subsequently regarded that mountain as being within the Mafulu district,9 which brings it into the Fuyuge area.

The inclusion of the upper valley of the river Chirima within the Fuyuge or Mafulu-speaking area is perhaps surprising, as this valley is separated from the general Fuyuge area by one of the southern ridges of Mt. Albert Edward, and more or less so by the ridges of Mt. Stone Wigg and the Wharton range, and as the Chirima is a tributary flowing into the Mambare river, which is one of the great watercourses of Northern New Guinea. The Mafulu Fathers, however, had no doubt as to the correctness of the inclusion, which seems to open out the possibility of some, at all events, of the Fuyuge people having northern associations; and indeed Monseigneur de Boismenu told me that he believed that the Mafulu people were in touch with Northern New Guinea, and got some of their shell ornaments, or the shells from which they were made, from the northern coast.

It is interesting, therefore, to turn for the purpose of comparison to the report of Mr. Monckton’s expedition to Mt. Albert Edward by way of the Upper Chirima valley in 190610 and the illustrations accompanying it, with which I incorporate a description of the people of this valley given to Dr. Seligmann by Mr. Money, who was with Mr. Monckton.11

From these it appears that the Upper Chirima people are short in stature and sturdily built. Both sexes wear the perineal band, the front of which is made (I am not sure whether this applies to women as well as to men) to bulge out by padding. In some cases the men’s hair is tied up in a bunch with string, and in others it is bound up in various styles with native cloth. Some of the men have their hair done up in small plaits over the forehead. All the above descriptions, except that of the padding of the band, are applicable to the Mafulu. Some of the Chirima houses have a curious apse-like roof projection over the front platform, which is a specially distinctive feature of a Mafulu house, and one with this projection figured by Mr. Monckton is indistinguishable from a typical Mafulu house. The Chirima people place the bodies of their dead on raised platforms, and apparently sometimes put the body of an infant on the platform erection of an adult, but below the latter. This also is a practice of the Mafulu; and, though the latter people confine platform burial (if such it may be called) to chiefs and their families and important persons, it is possible that some such limitation of the custom exists in the Chirima valley also, but did not come under Mr. Monckton’s notice. A burial platform figured by him might well be a Mafulu burial platform, except that the curious cone-shaped receptacle for the child is a form for which I cannot vouch as regards the Mafulu. The Chirima have a special and peculiar form of netting, which Mr. Monckton’s illustration shows to be identical with the special form of Mafulu netting. On the other hand, as regards the Chirima weapons, implements and utensils, a comparison of Mr. Monckton’s verbal descriptions and figures with what I have seen in Mafulu, and describe in this book, leads me to the conclusion that, though many of these are similar to those of Mafulu, some of them are different. As examples of this I may say that the drill implements of the Chirima people are very similar to, and their stone cloth-beaters appear to be identical with, those used by the Mafulu; whilst on the other hand their war bows are much longer,12 and their method of producing fire seems to be totally different; also they apparently have bull-roarers, which to the best of my knowledge are unknown among the Mafulu. Again some of the Chirima weapons, as figured by Mr. Monckton, disclose ideas of artistic design, including that of the curved line and a rude representation of a man, which I have not met with among the Mafulu. As regards this last point I draw attention to Mr. Monckton’s figures of carving on a bow and on wooden clubs. I think, however, that in such matters as these local differences might well arise between people who are really more or less identical, especially if their respective districts are on opposite sides of the main mountain range of the country, and still more so if the people of one of the districts (in the present case I refer to the Chirima people) may perhaps have been subject to the influence of other people beyond them. As to this latter point, however, I should say that these Chirima people seem to be, so far as dress, ornaments, &c., are concerned, much nearer to the Mafulu than they are to the natives of the Mambare river itself, as described by Sir William Macgregor.13 It is curious also that the dogs of the Chirima people are not yellow dingoes, but are black and white, as is the case in Mafulu.

I notice that Dr. Seligmann suggests that these Chirima valley people are related to the natives of the neighbourhood of Mt. Yule,14 a statement which, though probably intended broadly, is in accord with the suggestion that they are connected with the Mafulu-speaking people.

The natives of Mt. Scratchley (apparently the eastern or south-eastern side), visited by Sir William Macgregor in 1896, appear from his description of them15 to show a few points of resemblance to the Mafulu people. In particular I refer to their “dark bronze” colour, to the wearing by women of the perineal band (to which, however, is added a mantle and “in most cases” a grass petticoat, which is not done in Mafulu), to the absence of tattooing or cicatrical ornamentation, to their “large earrings made out of tails of lizards covered by narrow straps of palm leaves dyed yellow” (which, though not correctly descriptive of the Mafulu earring, is apparently something like it), to their use of pigs’ tails as ear ornaments, to their plaiting of the hair and the decoration of the plaited hair with teeth and shells, to their small charm bags and to the shortness of their bows. Also to the construction of their houses, with the roof carried down to the ground, with a fireplace about 2 feet wide extending down the centre of the building from one end to the other, and having an inclined floor on each side, and especially to the curious apse-like roof projections in front of these houses (Dr. Haddon calls them “pent roofs”16), Sir William’s figure of which is, like that of the Chirima villages, identical, or nearly so, with that of a Mafulu house. But Sir William’s description of the physique of these Mt. Scratchley people and other matters make it clear, I think, that they belong to a type different from that of the Mafulu, though they must be next door neighbours of the Fuyuge-speaking people. Dr. Seligmann, in commenting upon this description of these people, expresses the opinion that they are Papuo-Melanesians.17

The natives in the region of Mt. Musgrave and Mt. Knutsford, as described by Mr. Thomson,18 appear, at all events so far as dress is concerned, to be utterly different from the Mafulu.

Dr. Seligmann states that Dr. Strong has informed him that the southern boundary of the Fuyuge-speaking area is the Kabadi country,19 and he had previously referred to Korona, immediately behind the Kabadi and Doura districts, as being within the area,20 and, indeed, the Geographical Society’s map shows the Fuyuge area as at all events extending as far south as Korona. I do not know how far inland the Kabadi and Doura people extend; but I may say that the Mafulu Fathers expressed grave doubt as to the extension of the Fuyuge area so far south as is indicated by the map.

If the Fuyuge area does in fact reach the Kabadi boundary, and if my notes on the Mafulu people are, as suggested, broadly descriptive of the natives of the whole Fuyuge area, there must be a very sudden and sharp differentiation, as the Kabadi people are apparently an offshoot from Mekeo,21 with apparently other Papuo-Melanesian blood (especially Roro) introduced.22

The contour and appearance of the country in the actual Mafulu district of the Fuyuge area is strikingly different from that of the immediately adjoining Kuni country, the sharp steep ridges and narrow deep-cut valleys of the latter, with their thick unbroken covering of almost impenetrable forest, changing to higher mountain ranges with lateral ridges among them, and with frequent gentle undulating slopes and wider and more open valleys; while, interspersed with the forests, are small patches and great stretches of grass land, sometimes thinly covered or scattered with timber and sometimes quite open and devoid of trees.23 And this condition continues, I was told, over the greater part of the triangular area above referred to.

Plates 1 and 2 give, I think, a fair illustration of what I mean, the steep contours and thickly wooded character of the foreground and nearer middle distance shown by Plate 1 being typical Kuni scenery, and the more open nature of the country displayed by Plate 2 and the comparative freedom from forest of its foreground being typical of the higher uplands of Mafulu.24

It will be noticed that the physical character of the Mafulu country is more favourable to continued occupation than is that of the Kuni country; and it is a fact that the Mafulu people are not so restless and ready to move as are the Kuni folk; and, even when they do migrate, it is generally to a spot comparatively near to their old villages.

The geological formation of the lower hills on which the actual Mafulu villages are placed and the intervening valleys is partly limestone; and I was told that limestone formation was also found further to the east.

Throughout this book I shall use the term “Mafulu” as including, not only the little group of villages near the north-westerly corner of the Fuyuge linguistic area actually known by that name, but also the other groups of Fuyuge villages in the north-western portion of that area; and, as above indicated, it is believed by the Fathers of the Mission that I should be substantially correct if I included the whole of the northern and north-eastern, and probably the southern portions of the known part of that area, and possibly the entire area.