Architecture of Fiji

Architecture of Fiji

Ferenc Zamolyi*Department of History of Architecture and Building Archaeology, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria

The Fiji Islands are part of Melanesia, one of the large regions within Oceania. They are situatedgeographically in the easternmost part of this area. Islands belonging to Polynesia can be found verynear to the East, thus making the Fiji Islands a contact zone toward several Polynesian groups. It isassumed that the Islands were first settled by the direct ancestors of the Polynesian people (Kirch, 1997).While formerly it was suggested that there was later strong contact and thus adsorbed influences fromsome Melanesian Islands, newest archaeological evidence does not seem to support this (Clark &Anderson, 2011). It is interesting that vernacular architecture found on parts of the islands neverthelessshows very strong parallels to Melanesian building types (for a more detailed discussion on this, seeFreeman, 1986, p. 16). While Polynesian influence in the form of Samoan and Tongan cultural ideas andarchitecture is more recent and well documented, the possible direct Melanesian connections remainvague, strongly debated, andmore difficult to trace, if present at all. The rugged landscape and the divisionof Fiji into many smaller Island groups allows for a comparably high diversity in built forms, in which alsothe proximity of certain island groups to others plays an important role: While, for example, the highlandareas of the main island, Viti Levu, were for most of their history very isolated and their architecture thussubject to mostly local development and evolution, small islands like the Lau group always had beenconnected via intensive sea trade to other domains, as in the case of the aforementioned Tonga group.Thus, vernacular architecture on Lau is heavily influenced by Tongan building practices and can in fact beregarded closer to that tradition, than the building culture of Viti Levu (Fig. 1).

History of Settlement and Origins of Traditional Buildings

The first settlements on Fiji were established approximately 3,200 years ago (e.g., Lapita site ofNanutuku, Kirch, 1997), by a people whom archaeologists attribute to left behind remains named the“Lapita culture.”While some aspects of the emergence and expansion of the Lapita culture are still subjectto a certain amount of debate, it can be safely argued that these people spoke a form of Austronesianlanguage and can be regarded as the ancestors of todays’ Polynesian people. They came from theWest andinsular Southeast Asia is regarded as the geographic area where the characteristic traits of this cultureformed. As it is difficult to associate a complex of archaeological remains with ethnic and linguistic data,there are diverging scientific opinions on the formation period of the cultural complex in the insularSoutheast Asia region. What seems to be sure is that the ancestors of the Polynesian people settled Fijibringing material culture with them, which consisted apart from a very characteristic set of pottery of atradition of building stilt buildings over the water or on the shore near the coastline. According to Kirch(1997) gradually these settlements shifted inland as the islands were colonized. Today no stilt buildingscan be found in the Fiji Islands. This can be explained by a development, in the course of which buildingswere rather built on earthen platforms, rather than on stilts. The earthen platforms provide a high floor,similar to the stilt house, and keep the inhabitants safe from ground moisture. Additionally the earthenplatforms did evolve strong symbolic meaning, as at some point in history people started to be buried

*Email: [email protected]

Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western CulturesDOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3934-5_10215-1# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Page 1 of 32

within these mounds under the house, and thus the platform became an object associated with the spirits ofthe ancestors.

A very plausible reason for change from stilts to earthen platforms is that unlike in insular SoutheastAsia in Oceania, no malaria and no dangerous or highly venomous kinds of snakes or spiders can befound, which would make living in a stilt house very practical. To live in a high and well-ventilated placehas been proven a good protection against mosquitoes, especially the malaria-transmitting Anophelesvariety, as they tend to fly at a certain low height and avoid places with good air circulation.

Neither are there any large predators present. In insular Southeast Asia tigers as large predatorsrepresented a real source of danger even for humans. As accounts from Java, which was sparsely settledeven a 100 years ago, suggest, people were afraid (and with good reasons) of these animals.

Apparently the protection (high) stilts could offer was not needed anymore. However, the architecturaltype of stilt houses lived on in the Vale ni Moce (Figs. 26, 27), the so-called sleeping houses. These weresmall cabins (usually built for persons of special importance) on stilts offering protection against raids inthe pre-colonial era. They are not built anymore, and whether they had been an archetypical remnant ofearliest history or reinvented at some time later is not clear.

However, one discussion point remains: One form of vernacular building, which was common inWestern Viti Levu (the main island of Fiji), the Were Rausina, is difficult to explain architecturally as adirect legacy of stilt Lapita buildings: While Lapita houses were rectangular, the ground plan of WereRausina is round. This is such a fundamental change that it either requires the local invention of a newhouse type or strong outside cultural influence. Of course we can credit local invention with the creation ofthe building type, but it is remarkable that on several near Melanesian island groups (e.g., NewCaledonia), very similar round buildings can be found. Although archaeological evidence does notsupport ideas of direct connections, the geographic and typological proximity of the building typessuggests that there is at least some link between these phenomena. It remains to be seen, whether furtherarchaeological research can definitely decide this question.

Fig. 1 House in Navala Village, Western Viti Levu Highlands


Page 2 of 32

Villages in the Fiji Islands

As the islands became densely settled over time and Fijian people were definitely warlike, a communityhad to be prepared for frequent raids and hostilities. The buildings were erected within villages enclosedby palisades and protected by ramparts and ditches. Sometimes gardening structures made for Taro plants,which prefer moist conditions, were located in a way to turn the surroundings of settlements into swampsto protect the inhabitants. Other places had ditches protecting their walls (Parry, 1977, 1981, 1997)(Figs. 2 and 3).

Fijian houses are built around the rara, the village square. It actually used to be small, confined andinfluenced by the space and terrain available in ancient times when the villages were fortified to protectthem from outside attacks. Nowadays, it is much bigger and more rectangular in shape and houses are setin rows along it in an orderly manner. In fact, it is a very typical element of the numerous new villageswhich were founded after the colonial wars when it was safe to spread out.

On one end of the square the village chief’s house is built, on the opposite end the church. The livinghouses are lined up in two rows along the rara between these two foci of power (Zámolyi, 2004,pp. 52–58) (Fig. 4).

Different House Types According to Geographical Distribution

Most Fijian houses have a rectangular or at least elongated ground plan. They have either gabled or hippedroofs and are built on earthen platforms or mounds. Notable exceptions to the plain rectangular shape arethe Lau and Rotuman houses which have rounded, apsidal endings and the Were Rausina, a now extinctbuilding type of the Western Viti Levu highlands, which was round, or some of its variants square.

Fig. 2 Virtual reconstruction of a fortified lowland village after Parry (1997, p. 100)


Page 3 of 32

Eastern Highlands of Viti Levu

Buildings of this region have rectangular ground plans. Unlike buildings in theWestern highlands, housesof the Eastern highlands do not have a middle post (Freeman, 1986). Often two end posts were used orking posts on tie beams. The design was very similar to coastal buildings, and usually also referred to bythe same name (vasemasema). However, there seem to have been regional differences in proportions,which caused a slightly different appearance.

Western Highlands of Viti Levu: Were Rausina

The Were Rausina was a building type which could be found in the Western highlands of Fiji’s mainisland, Viti Levu. It became extinct in the course of recent history, as many temples or buildings associatedwith spiritual beliefs of the time before the advent of Christianity had been built in theWere Rausina style.

Fig. 3 The village is protected by a ditch filled with water from the nearby stream and ramparts with bamboo spikes. Awoodenstockade has been erected on top of the ramparts. There are fortified gates and inside the village square can be discerned, wherethe chief’s house or the mens’ house is located surrounded by stone stelae. Opposite to it, in the lower right corner in thisimage, the spirit house (Bure ni Kalou) can be seen. It is standing on a large platform (Yavu) and has a disproportionatelyhigh roof


Page 4 of 32

They were mostly razed after conversion. As only a few sketches of European travelers (e.g.,Kleinschmidt), descriptions, and photographs remain, we cannot be completely sure how this housetype looked in every detail. Also there seem to have been at least two variants of the type. The name itselfrefers to its roof covering (Rausina = thatched with grass) and supposedly stresses the fact that all of thebuilding was covered in grass. This is in contrast to other building types, which were also covered in grassor reed, but only to their eaves, while the wall zone remained uncovered.Were is a highland-dialect wordfor house (Vale).

The Were Rausina was definitely round, with walls made of wooden piles dug into the earth. Uponthese piles a wall plate in the form of a ring made of twisted lianas rested. Higher up in the roof structureanother such ring plate could be found. The building had a middle post with a short roof ridge on top. Thethatch covered not only the roof but also the walls and gave the building a shape, which supposedly wasthe reason that the missionary Williams described some of the Fijian houses as “haystacks” (Williams,1858, p.79) (Figs. 6, 7). There was also a variant of the house which had a square ground plan and wherethe thatch apparently was not covering the walls (Fig. 5). The building had one entrance and no windows,and there was a hearth situated inside, as we know from the descriptions of the traveler Kleinschmidt(1879; Tischner, 1961, 1966). There are several Melanesian house types, which show close architecturalparallels to the Were Rausina. Buildings in New Caledonia, for example, are very similar both inappearance and in inner structure to the Were Rausina, but as already discussed in this article, actualconnections remain highly debated. The distribution area of the Rausina was similar to that of the Nangacult places, and in that case a connection would be more plausible. At the end of the Nanga enclosures,usually a circular house was built, which was likely to be related to the Rausina type.

Western Highlands of Viti Levu: Rectangular Buildings

While the ground plan was rectangular, most houses of the Western highlands feature a middle post and ahipped roof with radially arranged rafters. In many cases the rafters are held together by a ring plate of

Fig. 4 Rara or village green of a contemporary Fijian village in the Western Viti Levu highlands (Navala village, Ba)


Page 5 of 32

Fig. 5 A house of Were Rausina type with unthatched walls (Source: Archive of British Museum)

Fig. 6 A Were Rausina with thatched walls, sketched by the traveler Theodore Kleinschmidt in 1879 in the Viti Levuhighlands


Page 6 of 32

twisted lianas near the ridge pole. Several of these features (middle/main post, ring plate of twisted lianas)are very likely to have been originated from the Were Rausina type. It is without doubt that while theRausina itself is not built anymore, many of its features transformed the rectangular buildings and madethem recognizably different from those of the Eastern Highlands (see also Freeman, 1986). In somevillages Kleinschmidt (1879) describes the existence of both rectangular and round buildings. Therectangular house seems to have spread in the Viti Levu highlands in the nineteenth and twentiethcenturies (Roth, 1953, p. 9) (Figs. 8, 9, 10, and 11).

Coastal Buildings (Vasemasema)

The coastal buildings, which are called Vasemasema have gabled or slightly hipped roofs, are rectangularin ground plan and have an entrance on the longer side. With time additional doors were built, and somewere even built with windows, although this seemed to be a historically very recent practice linked toEuropean influence. The houses usually featured two main piles at the gable ends or king posts on tiebeams within the building. The main piles could be set in the plane of the shorter end walls, then the roofwas gabled, or somewhat toward the inner part of the house, then the building would have a slightlyhipped roof. The walls were made of different materials and methods than in the highlands; often theywere thatched with leaves or branches of certain trees (Figs. 12, 13, 14, and 15).

Fig. 7 The reconstruction of the inside of a Were Rausina after the description of Kleinschmidt (1879)


Page 7 of 32

Fig. 9 Plans of a house with middle post in Navala village, Ba

Fig. 8 Rectangular house showing many characteristics of the extinct Were Rausina building type. Navala village, Ba


Page 8 of 32

Fig. 10 Plans of a house with middle post in Navala village, Ba

Fig. 11 Vernacular house with middle post in Navala village, Ba


Page 9 of 32

Fig. 12 Building in Lomanikoro, Kadavu

Fig. 13 Plans of the house in Lomanikoro, Kadavu


Page 10 of 32

Fig. 14 House in Lavena, Taveuni island

Fig. 15 Plans of house in Lavena, Taveuni island


Page 11 of 32

Coastal Regions: Vale Leka

The so-called short house or vale leka is an architectural solution which can be found in a very similarform on very exposed islands all over Oceania. It has very low or no walls at all. Instead, the roof is builtdirectly on the ground, giving it its peculiar triangular shape. This enables the house to work with thesurrounding terrain and embed itself in a streamlined manner. It is thus able to successfully withstandstrong winds and tropical storms, which can occur in coastal regions or low islands. A similar house formexists in Polynesian Hawai’i and Melanesian Vanuatu. In Fiji it can be found in several coastal areas. Itwas also said to be built on Vanua Levu. There existed two types, one with low walls of around 60 cmheight, often secured with stones, and one type without any walls at all (Fig. 16).

Houses of the Lau group (Kubololo)

The Kubololo is a Tongan house style with apsidal, rounded ends. This building type spread in thenineteenth century with Tongan influence. Tongan and Samoan boat builders came to the Lau group, as intheir home islands there was a shortage of timber, and some of the Lau islands were in fact annexed byforce by Tongans during the nineteenth century. They brought with them their house building technologyand style (Kooijman, 1978) (Figs. 17 and 18).

Houses of Rotuma Island

Rotuma was subject to influences from Tonga and Samoa, and the buildings were similar to those of theLau islands (Fig. 19).

Fig. 16 Vale leka (short house) on Ra island (Source: Archive of British Museum)


Page 12 of 32

Fig. 17 House in the Lau group showing Tongan influence

Fig. 18 House in Tonga, Polynesia (Source: Archive of British Museum)


Page 13 of 32

Fig. 19 House on Rotuma island (Source: Archive of British Museum)

Fig. 20 Bure ni Sa on Bau island (Source: Thomson, 1908). This example is a very large and generous one. Bure ni Sa in thehighlands for example seem to have been much smaller and had a rather confined inner space. Kleinschmidt (1879) describesBure ni Sa which had partitions for each person using it, resulting in small private spaces


Page 14 of 32

Different Building Types According to Function

Bure/Vale (Living House)While the term Bure in former times referred either to men’s houses, temples, or chief’s houses, in moderntimes the term more and more is used for all types of traditionally constructed dwelling houses. The term“Vale” is used in the coastal dialects for house, while in the Viti Levu highlands the word “Were” is morecommon. Tippet (1968) states that these two expressions are variants of the same word and do not haveany difference in meaning.

Usually living houses had one entrance on their longer side, but with timemore doors became common.Today some buildings have three doors.Windowswere not a common feature and were introduced only inthe European colonial era. No furniture was used in Fijian houses; the earthen floor was covered withdried grass or if people were affluent enough, with mats made out of the leaves of the Vodra tree(screwpine).

Formerly there was no separate kitchen; food was prepared in the living house. The missionaries andthe colonial administration advocated separation of the kitchen in a building different of the main house,as it was deemed healthier. Finally separated kitchens became the norm.

Bure ni Sa (Men’s House)/bure ni cauravou (House for Bachelors)In pre-Christian Fiji family life was different from the present norm. Formerly the core family (wifehusband and children) was not so emphasized, and the clan was more important. Also husbands spentmore time apart from their wives and children, or they had even several wives at once. The men spentmuch time in the Bure ni Sa, a club house or men’s house, while the women usually also had a women’shouse where they would stay, often even overnight. With the advent of Christianity, the missionariesabolished these types of buildings. Kleinschmidt (1879) mentions in his account of travels in the WesternViti Levu highlands that Bure ni Sa could be both round (the Rausina type) or an elongated rectangularbuilding, according to local tradition, with separate areas fenced off within as private areas for each person(Fig. 20).

Fig. 21 Bure ni Kalou (Source: Williams, 1858). The spirit houses or temples could be recognized by their high platform andtheir high roof structure


Page 15 of 32

Bure ni KalouThe Bure ni Kalou or spirit temple used to be built on high earth platforms which were covered with stonesand were also fitted with disproportional high roofs. The high platform was a sign of the high status of thebuilding. While its absolute dimensions (apart from the steep roofs) were apparently not necessarily largeror sometimes even smaller than those of ordinary houses, the quality of materials, the construction work,and also the exquisite decoration of the building set it apart from any other. The joints between thedifferent posts and beams were lashed in elaborate patterns and adorned by coconut cords of differentcolors. The tree-fern stems of the ridge were decorated with cowries, each shell marking the death of a

Fig. 22 Reconstruction of a Naga after Fison (1884)

Fig. 23 Reconstruction of Naga after Joske (1886)


Page 16 of 32

human in sacrifice to the gods. The construction of a temple required a large number of humans to besacrificed and gave rise to conflicts and raids with neighboring villages and tribes (Seeman, 1862;Williams, 1858). Kleinschmidt (1879) recorded that in the Western Viti Levu Highlands, Bure ni Kalouwas often built in the building type of the Were Rausina. In other places the design was that of thedominant local building type (Fig. 21).

The inside of the building was apparently very similar to dwelling houses, and as within them, also hereno special furniture was used. The gods were sometimes represented by two-headed whale ivoryfigurines. During the day they were placed in small mock houses made out of sennit, while during thenight they were put into a basket to “sleep.” Additionally it is recorded that a masi (bark) cloth was hungeither from the ridge inside the temple, or from a corner post, and symbolized the path on which a godcould descend. Supposedly also trophies of war or weapons thought to have an especially famousreputation were displayed within the temple. There was a hearth within the building. The priest (bete)could reside in the temple, but more often he possessed his own building within the village (Seeman,1862). The temple seems to have held a specific place within the village, supposedly opposite the chief’shouse, the same location which is today occupied by the Christian church. Although churches (at least inthe beginnings) were built with the same methods of traditional buildings, they did not take over thedesign of temples, but were understandably oriented on western architectural models.

Ritual Enclosure: The NagaNagas were cult places used for ceremonial gatherings, which only existed in the southwest highlands ofViti Levu. They are probably similar to Polynesian cult places, such as the marae of New Zealand and theheiaus of Hawai’i.

Nagas generally consist of three rectangular zones which are enclosed by a low stone wall or aperimeter of stone stelae and lined with aromatic trees. At the end of the third zone, there is ValeTembu (taboo), a forbidden or untouchable house, which symbolizes the watchful place of one’sancestors. Each zone is reserved for a specific rank and clan. Stump pyramid-shaped piles or stonewalls with a gap allowing only a narrow passage in between mark the boundaries of each zone. The ValeTembu, as the innermost sanctum, was entered at the culmination of the initiation ceremony, when newmembers of the cult were admitted to its secrets (Fison, 1884; Joske, 1886).

Nagas were used for initiation rites, harvest feasts, etc., by many villages at the same time. They werebuilt hidden away in remote areas. The walls of the zones within a Naga are actually pervious enough toallow people to leave the place quickly in case of attacks which were a constant threat in ancient times.After conversion to Christianity these sites were neglected and their locations forgotten. No such cultplace is restored, archaeologically excavated, or otherwise presented to a wider public. Only descriptionsfrom the nineteenth century and observations of European travelers of that time remain (Figs. 22 and 23).

Bure LevuBure Levu is a term for the chief’s house. This building, which sometimes also was termed Vale Levu (bighouse), was a more elaborate, lavishly decorated, and usually larger version of the commoners’ houses. Italso stood on a higher platform, advertising the higher social rank of the Chief (Fig. 24).

Vale ni KuroThe kitchen is called Vale ni Kuro in Fijian. It seems that the building of kitchens as separate buildingsstarted mainly in the colonial era (from 1874 on), as European authorities deemed the smoke caused bycooking within the dwelling house insanitary. Although a smoky house interior is in no way healthy, ahearth within the dwelling house could have following useful effects: The house itself was “smoked” andthus vermin did not nest within the thatch and the wooden parts of the building lasted longer. Also, at least


Page 17 of 32

in the highland regions, people needed the warmth of a fire, as the nights sometimes could be cold.Mosquitoes and other flying insects were also kept from entering the house by the smoke.

Several accounts from the nineteenth century describe cooking utensils and hearths for cooking withinthe dwelling houses (Kleinschmidt, 1879;Williams, 1858), and it seems that at least in the interior of Fiji’slarger islands, it was not usual to build separate kitchens at that time. Whether the custom was different inthe coastal areas is not entirely clear, but before the annexation by the British tribal warfare was frequent,and most villages were fortified. Therefore the construction of separate buildings as kitchens seemsunlikely (Fig. 25).

Vale ni MoceVale ni Moce were raised little house-like annexes for people to sleep in. They were built ina height of 2–3m to guard people from surprise enemy attacks and also from the inconvenience ofmosquito bites. Most of the time these houses were built in such a fragile way that any time someonetried to climb the ladder and access the house, the whole house would start shaking and that way woke upthe person sleeping inside. He or she was warned in time. After the colonial wars more peacefultimes arrived and the sleeping house was made redundant. Nowadays, it is not being built anymore(Figs. 26 and 27).

Fig. 24 Bure (house) of a chief being built (Source: Thomson, 1908)


Page 18 of 32

Fig. 25 Sketch by the author showing a earth in a kitchen in Navala village, Ba, Viti Levu. The kitchen buildings are usuallybuilt in the same way as dwelling houses; they are only smaller and less elaborate

Fig. 26 Vale ni Moce behind a chief’s house (Source: private collection of Rod Ewins)


Page 19 of 32

Building Technology, Materials

Fijian houses were built traditionally without the use of any nails or carpenter’s joints. All parts wereround pieces of wood; only the end of some parts (e.g., the ends of piles) had to be worked in a way thatthey had grooves or V-shaped cuts to receive other structural elements. First the piles of a house were

Fig. 27 Vale ni Moce (Source: Williams, 1858)

Fig. 28 House building tool before European contact: Stone adze (Source: Archive of British Museum)

Fig. 29 House building tool before European contact: tortoise-shell adze (Source: Archive of British Museum)


Page 20 of 32

buried in the ground, and usually afterwards an earthen platform (Yavu) was built. In some cases first theplatform was built and then the piles dug in. Often old platforms were used to re-erect buildings on them(Figs. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34).

On the piles wall plates were placed. The ridge of the house was held in place according to type eitherby one main post (Bou), two posts at the end of the building, or two king-posts placed on a longitudinalbeam, which in turn was placed on tie-beams. Sometimes also combinations of these parts could occur(e.g., two main posts and two king posts). All parts were lashed together with lianas or coconut sinnet.Strong lianas were used to fix large timbers in place, while coconut sinnet (Magimagi) was ideal forproducing elaborately patterned connections and lashings. According to Tipett (1968, pp. 141–172)enormous amounts of binding material could be used at larger projects. An example of a large community

Fig. 30 After iron was obtained from Europeans, the adzes were modernised (Source: Archive of British Museum). Nowadaysnobody in Fiji uses adzes. Common tools are European style axes, hatchets or large bush knives

Fig. 31 Piles dug into the ground before the house platform (Yavu) is erected


Page 21 of 32

house built for a school in Kadavu Island in the traditional manner is mentioned using 7,200 f. (2.16 km!)of coconut sinnet (Magimagi) and 17,500 f. (5.25 km!) of various lianas (Tipett, 1968, p. 152). It has to beremarked though that such buildings were not the norm but the exception. Such a project can only becompared to a chief’s house or a temple of former times and required large efforts and considerable time inpreparation from the community (Figs. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42).

However, once the material was prepared, the building of a house itself took only a few days. Of coursecommon village houses did not need such large amounts of binding material, as their dimensions weresmaller and their joints far less or not ornamented. It has to be stressed that this particular buildingdescribed by Tipett had apparently very elaborate bindings as decorations on the wall and the joints, whichwas the main possibility of adorning a building. At the end of the nineteenth century in certain places thereseemed to be a trend of Tongan patterns to be used in binding, very likely connected to the import of theTongan house type in the Eastern island groups of Fiji.

Fig. 32 Notching of the piles

Fig. 33 Men in Navala village, Ba lever a large pile of a house under construction into its final place


Page 22 of 32

Fig. 34 The yavu (house platform) is built up after placing the piles

Fig. 35 After placing the wall plates, a temporary bamboo scaffolding is set up in the middle of the house. This holds the roofridge, until the rafters are fixed to it


Page 23 of 32

Fig. 36 Woven bamboo walls are attached to the sides of the building

Fig. 37 The length of the rafters is not calculated exactly beforehand, but they are trimmed after they have been placed in thestructure


Page 24 of 32

House walls were made of split bamboo or mats or covered by grass thatch. Especially in the Inlandareas of Viti Levu, the grass-thatched walls of houses were secured by bamboo strips, which produced avery characteristic horizontally striped appearance.

The roof ridge of Fijian houses was in most parts strengthened by an extra binding of lianas and alsotwo tree-fern stems (Bala-Bala) were attached slightly above the roof ridge, in a way that they projectedfrom the roof. This gave the buildings a very typical, almost emblematic shape (Figs. 43, 44, 45, and 46).

Fijian houses can be built by only using stone tools, as no complicated or precise joints have to be cutinto the wooden elements, nor do they have to be shaped (e.g., squared) very much. Before the advent ofthe Europeans, Fijians used stone knifes and adzes or bone tools like tortoise-shell adzes. After Europeancontact first simple iron blades, later European style tools became common (Figs. 28, 29, 30).

The House As Ordered Space

Fijian society is strongly hierarchical, and the use of the inner space within a house reflects this. People areseated during ceremonies according to their rank within the community and also where a particular personenters the building is regulated according to status. The house itself is divided into three zones (there areno physical barriers present, and the zonatiion is purely existing in custom and people’s perceptions). Theback part of the building is called Loqi, and is private. Here people sleep and guests usually do not enterthis area. People who step into the house either use the Katuba Lailai (small door) which is situated on thelong side of the building and as a rule looks onto the Rara, the village green or they use the Katuba Levu

Fig. 38 Elaborate lashing of a corner joint made of coloured coconut cord in the open-air museum of Pacific Harbour (Source:Erich Lehner). Such lashings are usually not made anymore nowadays


Page 25 of 32

(big door) which is situated on the shorter end of the building. The Katuba Lailai has high status and isonly used by members of the community with high rank, while everybody can use the Katuba Levu. Informer times, when a building used to have only one door, it was at the same position as the Latuba Lailaiis now. On the right side, when entering through the Katuba Lailai, the private end of the house (Loqi) canbe found; on the left is the public end (Soliqa). Thus having entered the building one is standing in theLoma ni Vale area, which is not private anymore, and also not open to all guests – only high rankingpersons or persons well known to the family may sit here. The Soliqa can be directly accessed through the“low rank” door (Katuba Levu). If there is a hearth to be found in the building, then it will usually belocated at the public end, in the right hand corner when entering through the Katuba Levu. Some buildingsalso have a door opposite the Katuba Lailai, but this door is seldom used as it is basically a back door to theLoma ni Vale, and thus ceremonially not as important as the much more prominent access from the Raravia the Katuba Lailai. In theWere Rausina the inner space was ordered somewhat differently, in a way thatthe hearth, which is in rectangular buildings in a low-ranking area, was situated behind the middle postright opposite the only entrance of the house, and thus within the Loma ni Vale, the higher rankingrestricted part of the building. It is not clear why it was not situated in the Soliqa area. Otherwise the WereRausina seems to have been used with a similar division (Loqi-Loma ni vale – Soliqa) as the rectangularbuildings (Fig. 47).

Fig. 39 Man in Navala village fixing a wall plate to a pile with wire. In former times such a joint would have been lashed withlianas or coconut cord


Page 26 of 32

Fig. 40 Beautifully lashed joints of a roof structure on Bau island

Fig. 41 A liana is beaten with a stone to loosen the bark


Page 27 of 32

Fig. 43 House before thatching

Fig. 42 After having been beaten, the liana is easily torn to strips which are used for lashing in the house structure


Page 28 of 32

Fig. 44 Detail showing the rafters of a roof lashed to purlins within the roof structure (Navala village, Ba, Western Viti Levuhighlands) (Source: Josef Schuller)

Fig. 45 Inner roof structure of a house in Navala village (Source: Josef Schuller)


Page 29 of 32

Fig. 46 Thatching the house. As the roof ridge is most exposed to the weather and thus could be damaged, it is strengthened bybeing wrapped with lianas. Navala village (Source: Josef Schuller)

Fig. 47 Hierarchy of space within a Fijian house


Page 30 of 32

In pre-Christian times deceased people used to be buried below their house in the house mound orplatform (Yavu) (Roth, 1953, p. 10). This might be also the reason why house mounds have specialimportance and are regarded almost as sacred (Ravuvu, 1983, p. 14). The missionaries abolished thepractice, and only chiefs were allowed to be buried within the village. If by anymeans chiefs or other high-ranking persons were not buried in the settlement, a mound was raised over the gravesite and usually ahouse built over it (Williams, 1858). A good example for this practice is the grave site of chief Cakombauin Bau, were a stone monument very much resembling a house has been erected over the burial platform(Fig. 48).

References

Birks, L. (1973). Archeological excavations at Sigatoka dune site. Suva, Fiji: Bulletin of the Fiji MuseumNo. 1, The Fiji Museum.

Clark, G., & Anderson, A. (2011). The early prehistory of Fiji. Canberra, Australia: ANU E Press.Fison, L. (1884). The Nanga Cult. Journal of the Anthropoligical Institute of Great Britain and Ireland,

XIV, 29.Freeman, S. (1986). The center-poled houses of western Viti Levu. Suva. Domodomo, Fiji Museum

Quarterly, IV-1, 2–19.Joske, B. A. (1886). The Naga of Viti Levu. Journal of the Anthropoligical Institute of Great Britain and

Ireland, XVI, 255–271.Kirch, P. V. (1997). The Lapita peoples – Ancestors of the oceanic world. Cambridge, MA: JohnWiley &

Sons.Kleinschmidt, T. (1879). Theodor Kleinschmidt’s Reisen auf den Viti- Inseln. Journal des Museum

Godeffroy, 14, 249–283.

Fig. 48 Grave of a Chief on Bau island. Above the grave a platform was created, on top of which a stone or concretemonument was erected in the approximate shape of a house


Page 31 of 32

Kooijman, S. (1978). Continuity and change in houses and house construction: The case of the LauIslands, Fiji. In Baessler – Archiv, Neue Folge, Band, XXVI. Berlin: Verlag von Dietrich Reimer.

Lehner, E. (1995). S€udsee Architektur: traditionelle Bauten auf Hawaii, Tonga, Samoa. Wien, Austria:Neuseeland und den Fidschi – Inseln. Phoibos Verlag.

Parry, J. T. (1977). Ring –Ditch fortifications, ring –Ditch fortifications in the Rewa Delta, Fiji: Air photointerpretation and analysis. Bulletin of the Fiji Museum, 3, Suva.

Parry, J. T. (1981). Ring – Ditch fortifications II, ring – Ditch fortifications in the Navua Delta, Fiji: Airphoto interpretation and analysis. Bulletin of the Fiji Museum, 7, Suva.

Parry, J. T. (1997). The North Coast of Viti Levu Ba to Ra air photo archeology and ethnohistory. Bulletinof the Fiji Museum Vale ni I yaya Maroroi, 10, Suva, Fiji.

Ravuvu, A. (1983). The Fijian way of life. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pacific Studies of the University of theSouth Pacific.

Roth, G. K. (1953). Fijian way of Life. Melbourne, Australia/London/Wellington, New Zealand: GeoffreyCumberlege/Oxford University Press.

Roth, G. K. (1954). Housebuilding in Fiji. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britainand Ireland, 84, Parts 1&2.

Seeman, B. (1862). Viti: An account of a government mission. Cambridge: Macmillan.Thomson, B. (1908). The Fijians: A study of the decay of custom. London: William Heinemann.Tipett, A. R. (1968). Fijian material culture (B. P. Bishop Museum Bulletin, Vol. 232). Honolulu, HI:

Bishop Museum Press. (Chapter five “A Case Study of Fijian House Types” pp.141–172).Tischner, H. (1961). Beitr€age zur Ethnographie des Alten Viti Levu und Vanua Levu nach Unveroffen-

tlichten Notizen und Zeichnungen Theodor Kleinschmidts aus den Jahren 1875–1878(Veröffentlichungen des Museums f€ur Völkerkunde zu Leipzig, Vol. 11, pp. 665–681). Berlin, Ger-many: Akademie-Verlag.

Tischner, H. (1966). Theodor Kleinschmidt’s Ethnographische Notizen aus den Jahren 1877/78 €uber dieBergbewohner von Viti Levu (pp. 359–401). Baessler Archiv, NF 13 (1965). Berlin, Germany: Verlagvon Dietrich Reimer.

Williams, T. (1858). Fiji and the Fijians vol. 1, the Islands and their inhabitants. Fiji Museum reprint1982. Suva, Fiji Museum.

Zámolyi, F. (2004). Traditionelle Fidschianische Architektur – Konstruktion-Funktion-Symbolik. Wien,Austria: Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Tu-Wien.


Page 32 of 32

Documents

Architecture of Fiji