Abstract
THE PEARL IN OCEANIA.—The prominence given to pearls by Prof. Elliot Smith and Mr. W. J. Perry in their theories relating to the diffusion of culture, has led Dr. A. C. Haddon to make a careful examination of the evidence. The result is published in Man for December. Prof. Elliot Smith founded his argument upon the word Mar gam, which he stated meant in Ancient Persian “pearl “and “giver of life “; whereas it means “coral,” and the interpretation “giver of life “is based upon an impossible etymology. Mr. Perry accounted for the activity of the colonisers of Oceania in certain areas by attributing it to the love of the islanders for pearl and pearl shell. An examination of the earliest writers on the Pacific shows that of all the natives of the Pacific, the Society Islanders alone had any enjoyment of pearls. When pearls are mentioned elsewhere they appear to have been obtained for the purpose of barter with the Spaniards. In Otaheite, early travellers bear witness that the women wore an ear ornament consisting of three pearls strung together. There is no evidence, however, that pearls had any special significance beyond that. Nor is there in Polynesia any general word for pearl in current use as would have been expected on Mr. Perry's view. The pearl-shell was the essential object, and the pearls were named from it. If the pearl were the prime object of interest to the “archaic “colonisers, it is difficult to see why the original name should have been lost and a derivative name substituted. In Malaysia the terms for pearl and shell suggest that the use was introduced by the Hindus. Pearl shell was both worn and used by Papuans and Melanesians when first we hear of them. There seems to be only one reference to its magico-religious significance. This is recorded by the Rev. Dr. C. E. Fox.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Research Items. Nature 114, 909–911 (1924). https://doi.org/10.1038/114909a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/114909a0