NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-24

June 2011

Historic Fishing Methods in American Samoa 

Karen Armstrong 

David Herdrich 

Arielle Levine 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. Department of Commerce
About this document

The mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is to 

understand and predict changes in the Earth=s environment and to conserve and manage 

coastal and oceanic marine resources and habitats to help meet our Nation=s economic, 

social, and environmental needs. As a branch of NOAA, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) conducts or sponsors research and monitoring programs to improve the 

scientific basis for conservation and management decisions. NMFS strives to make 

information about the purpose, methods, and results of its scientific studies widely available. 

NMFS= Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) uses the NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS series to achieve timely dissemination of scientific and technical 

information that is of high quality but inappropriate for publication in the formal peerreviewed literature. The contents are of broad scope, including technical workshop 

proceedings, large data compilations, status reports and reviews, lengthy scientific or 

statistical monographs, and more. NOAA Technical Memoranda published by the PIFSC, 

although informal, are subjected to extensive review and editing and reflect sound 

professional work. Accordingly, they may be referenced in the formal scientific and 

technical literature. 

A NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS issued by the PIFSC may be cited using the 

following format: 

Armstrong, K., D. Herdrich, and A. Levine. 

2011. Historic fishing methods in American Samoa. U.S. Dep. Commer., 

NOAA Tech. Memo., NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-24, 70 p. + Appendices. 

__________________________ 

For further information direct inquiries to

Chief, Scientific Information Services 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

2570 Dole Street 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-2396 

Phone: 808-983-5386 

Fax: 808-983-2902 

___________________________________________________________ 

Cover: Polynesian Photo Archives, American Samoa, Jean P. Haydon Collection. 
Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. Department of Commerce

Historic Fishing Methods in American Samoa 

Karen Armstrong1

David Herdrich2

Arielle Levine3 

1

Social and Cultural Anthropology 

PL-59 (Unioninkatu 38), University of Helsinki 00014, Finland 

2

American Samoa Historic Preservation Office 

Executive Offices of the Governor, American Samoa Government 

American Samoa 96799 

3

Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research 

1000 Pope Road, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-24

June 2011

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This research was sponsored in part through a NOAA Preserve America Initiative Grant, as part 

of the project: “Documenting Traditional Knowledge and Marine Resource Use and 

Management in American Samoa.” The research involved interviews with elder fishermen from 

coastal villages in Tutuila and the Manu’a Islands. The grant also supported the production of a 

related video “Palolo: The cultural and environmental significance of American Samoa’s marine 

worm,” which provides video documentation of some of the material presented in this report. 

Additional copies of this report or the palolo video can be obtained through the NOAA Pacific 

Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC). A PDF file of the report is available on the PIFSC 

library website at http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/pubs/techpub_date.php. 

Additonal support was received from Academy of Finland, project SA-118442. 

Our thanks to Paul Anderson of the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme for creating 

the maps, Evelyn Lilio for providing photos from Fagasa village, and American Samoa’s 

Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources. 
iv

DISCLAIMER

This report has been financed in part with Historic Preservation Funds from the National Park 

Service, Department of the Interior. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily 

reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of the Interior. 

NONDISCRIMINATION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 

This program received Federal funds from the U.S. National Park Service. Regulations of the 

U.S. Department of Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental Federally 

Assisted Programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or handicap. Any person 

who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility 

operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to: Director, Equal Opportunity 

Progam, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, 

D.C. 20013-7127.
 v 

CONTENTS 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 

Fishing Seasonality ............................................................................................................. 4 

Atule ................................................................................................................................ 5 

Palolo and Seasonality .................................................................................................... 6 

The Pleiades (Mata-liki) ................................................................................................. 8 

Samoan Social Structure ..................................................................................................... 8 

Division of Labor in Fishing ......................................................................................... 12 

Fishing Techniques ........................................................................................................... 13 

Technique: Nets ........................................................................................................... 13

Ordinary Family Fishing ........................................................................................... 14 

Fishing for Two Kinds of Mullet .............................................................................. 15 

Fish Drives in Pago Harbor....................................................................................... 16 

Technique: Fish Weirs .................................................................................................. 17 

Technique: Fishhooks ................................................................................................... 18 

Technique: Floats (uto) ................................................................................................. 21 

Technique: Specialized Fishing with Boats .................................................................. 22 

Fishing for Sharks ..................................................................................................... 22 

Bonito Fishing ........................................................................................................... 24 

Technique: Fish Poisoning ............................................................................................ 28 

 Other Types of Fishing ................................................................................................. 29 

 Squid Lures: Catching Octopus ................................................................................ 29 

 Traps and Pots: Fish, Crabs, Crayfish, Lobsters ....................................................... 31 

 Turtles ....................................................................................................................... 32 

 Prawns ....................................................................................................................... 32 

 Eels ............................................................................................................................ 33 

Legends: Significance and Continuity .............................................................................. 33 

Atule Stones: Aoloau .................................................................................................... 34 

Atule Stones: Fagasa ..................................................................................................... 35 

Talking Chief Sala’s Tale ......................................................................................... 35 

The Dolphins of Fagasa ............................................................................................ 37 

The Blessing of the Rocks, Fagasa ........................................................................... 38 

Atule Rock: Asili .......................................................................................................... 39

Fishing Rock: Fagamalo ............................................................................................... 40 

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 40 

Photographs: ..................................................................................................................... 42 

Polynesian Photo Archives Photographs ...................................................................... 42 

Recent Atule Rock Photographs ................................................................................... 50 

Evelyn Lilio: Atule Rock and Traditional Fishing Photographs .................................. 51 

Annotated Bibliography .................................................................................................... 55 

Appendix A: Traditional Fishing Chronology ................................................................ A-1 

Appendix B: Fish Terms and Size .................................................................................. B-1 

Appendix C: Dictionary of Samoan Terms Used in This Document ............................. C-1 
 vi 

 

(This page is intentionally left blank.)
 

INTRODUCTION 

Fishing and marine resources play a central, social, cultural, economic, and subsistence role in 

the Pacific islands. Recent recognition of the depleted state of many coral reef and nearshore 

fisheries resources around the world has brought increased attention to the outcomes and 

sustainability of local systems of fisheries use and management. 

In working to protect and manage coastal resources, it is important to understand local patterns 

of use and traditional systems of marine management. Incorporating local community concerns, 

practices, and cultural particularities have been shown to be critical to the success and stability of 

marine management systems (White et. al., 2002; Christie, 2004). Evidence documented 

throughout the Pacific has illustrated that traditional fisheries were, and in many cases still are, 

frequently accompanied by active local management systems designed to foster the sustainable 

use of local fish stocks (Johannes, 1978; Cinner and Aswani, 2007). Cinner and Aswani (2007) 

suggest that efforts to develop management systems should consider hybrid approaches that 

integrate traditional management systems or methods with socioeconomic factors influencing 

communities today. 

The islands of Samoa have already incorporated traditional systems into their fisheries 

management policies by establishing community-based fisheries management programs. It is 

recognized that historic practices, and associated historic sites, hold the promise to inform and 

improve modern management policies. Still, much remains unknown regarding how traditional 

marine resource use and management systems have changed over time, given the dearth and 

relative inaccessibility of archival accounts documenting these types of activities. 

The Samoan Islands are a culturally homogeneous group although, since 1900, they have been 

split into two political units: American Samoa and Western (now independent) Samoa (see Fig. 

1). Villages in both independent Samoa and American Samoa now work with government 

agencies to integrate traditional local practices and tenural systems with modern fisheries rules 

and regulations (King and Fa’asili, 1999; Fa’asili and Sauafea, 2001). Minimal specific 

information, however, has been documented to understand the impact on Samoan natural 

resources. It seems an opportune moment, therefore, to collate a profile of traditional Samoan 

fishing methods so as to assess their impact on the environment and their role in the community. 

This report presents a coherent view of previously published research on traditional fishing 

practices in Samoa. By using this material to compare what we know of previous practices with 

the contemporary situation, scientists may be able to better measure the changes that have taken 

place. In turn, this documentation can help to inform modern community-based management 
2 

programs and potentially revitalize traditional practices that are supportive of the conservation 

and sustainable use of natural resources. 

Figure 1.--Overview map of the Samoan Islands. 

Marine resources have traditionally played an important cultural, economic, and subsistence role 

in Samoan village life. This report focuses on traditional fishing practices prior to 1950 and 

includes data collected from all the islands. However, whenever possible, we have cited 

examples specific to American Samoa in order to trace changes in the use of marine resources 

within this island group. The islands of American Samoa have undergone rapid cultural and 

economic transformations, with exposure to Western influences and incorporation into the global 

economy. The introduction of modern fishing gear and technology, the presence of the tuna 

canneries as a major economic force in Pago Pago, the dominance of the Christian religion as a 

village organizing force, and the gradual but continuous introduction of Western cultural norms 

and practices have altered American Samoans’ relationship with the sea. American Samoans 

continue to maintain Samoan traditions and various village-based systems of governance, but 

fishing practices have become more commercialized, particularly during the latter half of the 

20th century. This report is meant to be read alongside reports documenting more recent 

information as a way of measuring the impact of changes in the use of marine resources, and of 

course, the impact of these changes on the environment. It is also intended as a “take-off” point: 

hopefully Samoan readers will add to it with stories of fishing practices in their own villages. 

Because our focus is on fishing practices prior to 1950, the report relies on the observations of 

explorers, missionaries, and ethnographers who recorded what they observed and learned from 

talking to Samoans of their day. Other reports about the pursuit and use of marine resources (e.g., 

Severance and Franco, 1989; Dye and Graham, 2004; Linnekin et al., 2006) have described the 

general history and context of the Samoan Islands. We narrow the focus to look more 

specifically at fishing techniques over a roughly 50-year period, from 1900 to 1950, and more 

specifically at the islands of American Samoa (for map of locations refered to in this report, see 

Fig. 2). 
3 

For our period, Augustin Krämer (1994,1995 [orig. 1901, 1903]) and Te Rangi Hiroa (1930) 

provide the most exhaustive descriptions of Samoan fishing practices, with illustrations and 

photographs of the various material items associated with fishing. Krämer was a German medical 

doctor who came to Samoa with the German navy as part of their colonial mission in the 1890s. 

He learned Samoan and, through his contacts with Samoan patients, he interviewed Samoans and 

traveled extensively around the islands. Following the methods of German ethnology, he made 

extensive notes, took photographs, and collected material items. This was the era of “salvage 

ethnography,” when there was a sense that the life of “native peoples” should be recorded before 

it died out as a result of Western contact and the adoption of modern innovations. This became 

the driving force behind Krämer’s project. 

Te Rangi Hiroa (a.k.a. Sir Peter Henry Buck) was also a medical doctor; his research followed 

that of Krämer by about 30 years. Hiroa was born into a European-Maori family in New Zealand, 

and he developed an early interest in Maori culture. Later, he worked at the Bishop Museum in 

Honolulu and was director of the museum from 1936 until his death in 1951. He traveled 

extensively throughout the Pacific, and much as Krämer had done, used the methods of 

ethnology to record, photograph, and collect material culture. By the time of Hiroa and his 

contemporaries, the idea was not to “salvage” these cultures but to record them for comparative 

purposes. By recording practices carefully, they hoped to compare similarities and differences 

across the Pacific region as well as across time. 

Using these writings as baseline data, therefore, we have snapshots of two time periods: the late 

1890s, when Krämer was collecting his data, and 1927, the year of Hiroa’s visit to Samoa as part 

of the Bishop Museum group that included Alfred Judd and Bruce Cartwright. We supplement 

these two texts with a chronology that lists the observations of earlier navigators and 

missionaries and with observations by a few other people who visited American Samoa between 

1900 and 1950. There are few detailed records of fishing practices and fish catch prior to the 

latter half of the 20th century for American Samoa. Therefore, we have included some interview 

data collected more recently from elders in American Samoa (compiled by Levine and SauafeaLeau, n.d.). The interviews offer an insight into fishing practices since 1950 and provide another 

source for measuring continuity and change. 

Common fishing techniques, such as gathering on the reef, diving, rod and line, netting and 

trapping (including communal fish drives), and boat fishing, were practiced throughout the 

Samoan Islands. However, slight differences in practices were based on particular village rules 

and techniques related to the habits of the marine resources. The village has been, and remains, 

an important organizing unit in Samoan society (Keesing, 1934), and the village customarily 

controlled the usage rights to a lagoon and its resources. While individual and family fishing 

occurred on an almost daily basis, villages also organized communal drives for certain fish 

species, and men sometimes fished outside the lagoons under the leadership of a fishing expert, a 

tautai. There were rules that certain fish were to be given to the chiefs, and restrictions were 

occasionally made regarding the lagoon and its resources. All of these practices were, in essence, 

under the control of the village and its decision-making body, the village fono. In the context of 

these general practices, we review practices regarding fishing for certain resources—atule, i’a 

sina, palolo, ‘anae, sharks, and bonito—while at the same time anchoring our examples in 

descriptions of fishing practices and historic sites in communities in Tutuila and Manu’a. 
4 

Figure 2.--The islands of American Samoa and relevant historic locations cited in this 

report. 

FISHING SEASONALITY 

The availability of fish year round in the Samoan Islands led Krämer (1995:198) to conclude that 

“the sea is just as inexhaustible as the land.” However, there was, and is, seasonal variation in the 

availability of certain species, and Samoan fishing methods were also synchronized with the 

tides, time of day, cycles of the moon, and weather and surf conditions. According to the 

observers, and the evidence agrees, Samoans understood intimately the behavior of the marine 

resources they pursued. 

In virtually all cases in ancestral Polynesia, the ‘year’ was partitioned into two periods (Kirch 

and Green, 2001: 261). In Samoa there are marked wet and dry seasons and seasons when certain 

marine resources appear. According to Krämer, the beginning of the rainy season, which 

occurred between September and October, was considered to be the most productive time for 

fishing. During this time, the fish spawned and moved in great numbers at high tide from the 

open sea to the lagoons. In October and November, at the time of the appearance of palolo, a sea 

worm to be explained in the following section, numerous schools of young fish arrived in the 

lagoons; for example, the lō, the palai’a, the nefu, and the palagi, often followed by larger fish, 
5 

came in and the lagoons were full of fish (Krämer, 1995:198). Vaipalolo was the period of the 

wet season, beginning with the rise of the palolo in October or November (Milner, 1966: 310). 

The fact that tides were noted and significant to the fishing effort is reflected in the various 

words and phrases which include the word tai (tide). For example, ‘Ua a’e le tai lō translates as 

game or fish in season; taivale, a poor season when fish are scarce (Milner, 1966: 229; Krämer, 

1995: 233). 

Because of the need to synchronize with the tides or because of the characteristics of the fish, 

much of the fishing was done at night, sometimes all night. For example, Krämer (1995: 202) 

reports that fish spearing took place at night by torch light on the reef at the time of the new 

moon or full moon when the spring low tide occurred around noon and midnight. Llewella 

Churchill (1902: 127) describes how women frequently fished at night at low tide with coconut 

leaflet torches and spears at Vaiala, on the island of Upolu. Bruce Cartwright (1927) also 

describes the use of torches as observed during his visit to Aunu’u Island, off the coast of 

Tutuila: 

The natives do much fishing with rod and line and torches here. The eastern half of the 

island is occupied by a hill with deep water along the shore while the western half is lowlying with shoal water extending out quite a distance and then abruptly dropping into 

deep water—heavy surf breaks on this reef shelf. 

We saw many women bound along the NE shore of Aunu’u carrying bundles of thin 

sticks about 4 ft long and with a diameter of a fountain pen. Upon inquiring, we found 

that about half of these rods were tied together and used as torches in fishing on the reefs 

at low tide, at night (Field Notebook I: 93-94, from the Bishop Museum Archives). 

Atule 

Fishing for atule is a good example of how Samoans considered factors of seasonality, time of 

day, and tides in their fishing practices. The atule appeared in large schools in March/April/May 

and October (Milner, 1966: 29; Krämer, 1995: 218), and they were often caught by using 

communal labor to drive the fish towards a trap with branches (lauloa). The effort began at night, 

when the fish had come in with the high tide. Then, as the tide went out, the fish, seeking to 

reach the sea through the trap’s opening, were scooped up as they tried to get through (Krämer, 

1995: 218). The fishing ended with low tide in the morning. Many thousands of atule were 

caught with this method and were distributed equally to all the village families who participated 

in the fishing. A large catch allowed for gifts, to family and friends in other villages. Gifts of fish 

are part of the reciprocal relations and constant circulation of food and gifts that maintains 

Samoan social structure to this day. Krämer notes that the missionaries called this fish herring 

because it also glistens like silver and comes in large numbers (1995: 236, footnote 81), but atule 

(Selar crumenophthalmus or bigeye scad) is a neritic-pelagic species that is related to the bonito. 
6 

Palolo and Seasonality 

The palolo worm (Eunice viridis), which is also found on other islands in the Pacific, is a classic 

example of a marine animal exhibiting lunar periodicity regarding the time of its spawning 

(Caspers, 1984: 229; Krämer, 1995: 475, Fig. 44). The color of the male worm is reddish brown; 

the female is bluish green. The palolo appears during 3 days of the third quarter moon, usually 

first in October, with a second, smaller appearance in November.1

 The epitokous segments of 

these worms break off from the head (the atokous segments) and have been, and are, a favorite 

food of Samoans. The palolo swarms at different times on the different Samoan Islands. 

Generally, it appears with regularity, moving from east to west: near Manu’a at 10:00 pm, at 

Tutuila at 1:00 am and off Upolu and Savai’i at 4:00 to 5:00 am (Caspers, 1984: 230; Drees n.d.: 

97). Krämer (1995: 477) says it appears at the time of the lowest, or spring, tide, at the time 

when the sun is nearest its zenith in the southern hemisphere (the following section on the 

Pleiades will show this to be wrong). At the time of the palolo, numerous small fish appear in the 

reef lagoons and some swim up freshwater rivers. People on Upolu reported that about 10 days 

before the palolo appear, a common crab (mali’o) living inland moves down to the sea to spawn 

during the night (Krämer, 1995: 480-481). On Ta’ū, others claimed that they could predict the 

coming of the palolo by the odor of the reef, called pua palolo (Hiroa, 1930: 439), and even 

today people on Tutuila say this. 

In an article published in 1928, an anonymous author makes a strong case for the central event of 

the rise of the palolo worm in the Samoan calendar year. First, the author notes that the Samoan 

word for year is tausaga, from the Polynesian root word tau. According to Pratt,2

 this word 

originally meant a season, a period of 6 months, corresponding to the wet and dry seasons 

(Anonymous, 1928: 229; see also Kirch and Green, 2001: 261). The lists of names for the 

months of the year, collected from Krämer, Turner, and others are not very consistent. It seems 

that they varied from place to place, sometimes because a month was named for a local deity. 

Reverend Stair, a missionary who lived on Upolu from 1838 to 1845, reports that July and 

August are named for the consumption of palolo in certain districts where it is found (1897: 

143). The anonymous article shows some consistency, however, in the names for months 

connected to the growth of taro and the appearance of marine resources. For example, in some 

places the month of April was called Lō, from the name of the fish which was plentiful during 

that month. Significantly, July was called Palolomua (“mua” meaning “first”), and designated as 

the first month of the season for consuming palolo, distinguished from the other half of the year 

which was called the trade wind season. August was called Palolomuli (“muli” meaning “the 

end” or “last”), the time after palolo. The author reports that according to the local explanation, 

while palolo were caught in October and/or November, July and August were the months when 

the preserved palolo would be eaten and finished off. November was called Taumafamua

according to some, meaning the first month of plenty because fish were numerous this month, 

and December was sometimes called Toetaumafa, the finish of the feasting (of November) 

 

1

 Sometimes the palolo may only appear in one or the other of these months. 

2

 The author does not give a reference for Pratt, but he is likely referring to Rev. George Pratt, “Grammar and 

Dictionary of the Samoan Language,” 3rd edition, London, 1893, or 4th edition, Apia, 1911. Rev. George Pratt was a 

missionary of the London Missionary Society. 
7 

(Anonymous, 1928: 233–34; Krämer, 1994: 484).3

 In all these distinctions, the appearance of the 

palolo is connected with the season of plenty for marine resources. 

According to the anonymous author (1928: 236), the Samoans had no name for “week” but the 

names of the days of the month, as he found in Krämer, follow the phases of the moon (masina).4

Here, too, several day names were connected to palolo: Masina usunoa, first day of the 

appearance of the palolo; Masina motusaga, first real appearance of palolo; Masina tatelega, the 

great scooping up of palolo (Anonymous, 1928: 236; Krämer, 1994: 484-485; Krämer, 1995: 

478). All of this lends credence to the claim that the arrival of palolo in the lagoon and periods 

designated for consuming palolo were significant markers of time during the calendar year. 

Krämer reports that special festivities were organized for the night before the palolo catch, 

according to the timetable of Upolu and Savai’i. The chief of the village which had jurisdiction 

over the reef channel would send the fishermen out to search for the first signs of palolo (the first 

day). When they reported success, preparations were begun at the faleali’i, the house of the high 

chiefs in the village. Food was amassed and ‘ava5

 was prepared by the taupou (the high-ranking 

village virgin), who left immediately after the ‘ava was prepared. All other women were 

excluded from the preparations. Once the food was piled up in the house on the final night before 

the harvest, everyone would gather at the chiefs’ house (the faleali’i) for feasting and 

amusements until the time arrived for all to go to catch the palolo, which would have been 

shortly before dawn in the western islands (Krämer, 1995: 481). 

Traditionally, the worms were caught in small funnel-shaped baskets (Stair, 1897: 141). When 

brought on shore, the worms were tied up in leaves in small bundles and baked. Large quantities 

were also eaten uncooked. Messengers were sent immediately in all directions with gifts of 

worms for those parts of the islands where none were found (Stair, 1897: 142). Reverend Stair 

witnessed the palolo catch in 1843 on Upolu and, while the net for catching palolo is different, 

much of his description of the harvest and the distribution of the palolo is still recognizable 

today. 

Krämer (1995: 202) described two types of scoops that were used for palolo: one was a coconut 

fabric scoop while the other, stronger one was the coconut leaflet midrib scoop. By 1927, both 

were no longer in use according to Hiroa (1930: 440). Hiroa found that people made palolo nets 

by using thin gauze that could be bought from the traders; on Manu’a it was said that people 

saved gauze from the naval infirmary for their palolo nets. Hiroa witnessed the palolo catch at 

Ta’ū on October 17, 1927, at about midnight, at full tide; it lasted until the rising of the moon, 

when the tide went out, taking the palolo segments with it (Hiroa, 1930: 441). 

According to Hiroa (1930: 441), the chief’s palolo was cooked with coconut cream. But it was 

common everywhere to wrap the palolo in banana leaves and keep it fresh throughout the whole 

year by re-cooking and pouring coconut milk on it (Anonymous, 1928: 233; Hiroa, 1930: 441). 

 

3

 See also Kirch and Green (2001: 268). They use the month names reported by Turner (1884). 

4

 The proto-Polynesian word *maasina meant moon and/or month, and referred to a lunar calendar (Kirch and Green 

2001: 261) 

5 Piper methysticum, also called “kava.” The root of this plant is prepared for ceremonial purposes in Samoa and 

throughout the Pacific. 
8 

The Pleiades (Mata-liki) 

In their analysis of time reckoning in ancestral Polynesia, Kirch and Green (2001) do not find 

evidence of a clear beginning for the calendar year. The evidence indicates that it could be late 

November–early December or June. As a result, they conclude that “the risings and settings of 

Pleiades were widely observed in many Polynesian societies, where they were used to mark the 

change in seasons and/or to mark the commencement of the year” (Kirch and Green, 2001: 263). 

The Pleiades (“Seven Sisters”), known in Polynesia as Mata-liki (or a version of this), consist of 

six stars visible to the naked eye. The acronitic rising of Pleiades (when Pleiades first becomes 

visible just after sunset) occurs about November 20 and the heliacal rising of Pleiades (when 

visible on the eastern horizon just before dawn) occurs 30 to 40 days after the acronitic setting of 

Pleiades (when Pleiades are last visible just after sunset) at the end of April (Kirch and Green, 

2001: 262-263). 

The appearance of palolo corresponds with the acronitic rising of Pleiades and signals the 

beginning of the wet season, the “season of plenty”, the harvest, and the offering of first fruits, 

while the heliacal rising corresponds with the arrival of the dry season, sea turtles to deposit their 

eggs in the sand, the harvest of turmeric, and the commencement of yam garden work (Kirch and 

Green, 2001: 265). While Kirch and Green (2001) link the calendar year to the seasonal yam 

crop, they recognize also the significance of the seasonal reproductive behavior of the green sea 

turtle (Chelonia mydas), which arrived at the beginning of the dry season. In Polynesia, the turtle 

often had sacred status; it was often associated with chiefs and deities and could be a ritual 

offering in ceremonies. This status is reflected in the Samoan word for turtle: i’asa—literally, 

“sacred” (sa) “fish” (i ‘a). In Samoa, at the To‘aga site, the archaeological evidence includes 

relatively high concentrations of turtle bones (Kirch and Green, 2001: 260). Kirch and Green 

(2001: 269) argue that the ancient ritual link between turtles and Pleiades was significant and 

was carried into later time periods. 

Thus, time reckoning in ancestral Polynesia, including Samoa, consisted of an interlocking set of 

systems: the cycle of the wet/dry seasons, the observations of Pleiades which marked the 

transition between seasons, a lunar calendar, and a system of intercalation that kept the lunar 

calendar in sync with the tropical year (Kirch and Green, 2001: 273). Horticulture, fishing, and 

ritual activites were all based on this system of calendar reckoning. The analysis of Kirch and 

Green (2001) relies on, and clarifies, the earlier ethnographic descriptions of seasonal activities 

in Samoa. 

SAMOAN SOCIAL STRUCTURE 

The basic units of Samoan social structure were (and are) the family and village. Unlike Western 

society, the family (rather than the individual) was the central unit, and unlike Western capitalist 

society, the emphasis was on reciprocity rather than individual accumulation. “High virtues are 

to be polite, kind and generous to relatives, friends and dependents; ... prestige comes through 

generous distribution, not accumulation, of wealth” (Keesing, 1934: 30-31). The generous 

distribution of food marked—and still marks – every occasion, and from the 19th century into 
9 

the early 20th century, fish and other marine resources were central items in the circulating 

baskets of food. For example, the Wesleyan missionary Peter Turner (1837: 66) describes a feast 

for the opening of a chapel on Savai’i in the 1830s that included 260 pigs, 1900 baskets of taro, 

60 bunches of bananas and 600 fish. About 100 years later, in the 1930s in Vatia on Tutuila, the 

visiting Superintendent of Schools was presented, all together, “thirty fish, sixty taro, twelve 

lobster and crabs, six wild pigeons, twenty breadfruit, several dozen little bundles of palusami, 

and ... a seventy-five pound roast young pig...” (Drees, n.d.: 70).

Within the village, the basic unit of organization was, and is, the extended family (‘aiga), a 

group with a wide membership based on descent, adoption and marriage. At the head of the 

group was (and is) the matai, whose title carried with it the authority (pule) over the land and 

resources used by members of the group. The matais of a village constituted the village fono, or 

village decision-making and administrative group. The matais were ranked according to local 

hierarchies of titles, and the basic fono organization was reproduced in district and island-wide 

political organizations. However, for organizing work, the family and the village remained 

central. In the 19th century and early 20th century, it was customary for the matai to allocate 

tasks each day to the untitled men and women in the plantations, in fishing, or working around 

the village. Fishing was often a village effort. Typically, the heads of families in the village met 

in a guest house, and over a bowl of ‘ava decided, according to the season, what form of 

community fishing should take place (Hiroa, 1930: 517). The control of natural resources, 

therefore, was mediated based on sociopolitical attributes specific to a given village (Watters, 

1958a: 56). By 1950, this system of communal labor had changed as wage labor became more 

common. 

There was recognition of individual talent regarding fishing, building canoes, and house 

building, and men who were noted specialists were called by a special term (tufuga). A village 

gained enviable social status for its rich taro gardens, the skill of its bonito fishermen, or the skill 

of its canoe builders (Watters, 1958a: 55). In fishing, the tautai (or tautai ali’i as Thilenius 

[1900] reports) was a recognized expert at fishing, and during fishing he had higher status and 

authority than a matai who might otherwise rank higher on land in the fono. Margaret Mead 

gives a description of the tautai’s role in Ta’ū in 1926: 

Although all men fish, the master fisherman (tau tai) is always distinguished. He is 

usually also a master net-maker, and weaver of eel traps. He combines skill in fishing, the 

ownership of a good bonito boat, and proficiency in the secondary industries dependent 

on fishing. Usually the tau tai knows only the rudiments of the carpenter’s art and is 

therefore more dependent upon other craftsmen, tufuga, than is the less skilled man who 

combines a general knowledge of all the arts with a special skill in no one of them. 

Between house builders (tufuga fau fale) and canoe builders (tufuga fau va’a) there is no 

hard and fast line. This is becoming increasingly true with the decrease in the 

manufacture of larger native canoes (Mead, 1930: 68). 

According to Mead’s observations on Ta’ū, the village fono regulated the food supply, especially 

for anything involving the consumption of a great deal of food, like ceremonies and emergencies, 

and this was probably in line with other village practices: 
10 

The usual formal food regulations are of two sorts: to tapu the sea (namu le tai) and to 

tapu the land (namu le ele’ele). These are not necessarily exercised together. The tapu of 

the sea forbids reef fishing, but when the occasion is economic and not ceremonial (for 

identical tapus are observed during mourning for a high chief) it does not forbid deep-sea

fishing where the supply would be only slightly affected. Special prohibitions may be laid 

upon coconuts, taro, pigs, or more special prohibitions may be declared under which each 

family is allowed to make palusami (a dish made of grated coconut meat and taro leaves 

which requires a great many coconuts) only once a week or once every ten days. (The 

sale of coconuts for copra has greatly enhanced their value and the rigor of the 

prohibition regarding their use has probably greatly increased.) The fono also decides 

upon the making or renewing of a masi pit (fermented breadfruit stored in the ground) or 

the baking of a communal ti oven (only resorted to in times of great food scarcity). 

The food supply is further regulated by feasts for each breadfruit season (until the 

breadfruit feast has been held by the fono, no one else may eat of the breadfruit), and by 

the assignment of certain rare fish to one or more high chiefs, or of special parts of a pig 

or fish to special groups; for example, the head of the pig is assigned to the aualuma, and 

the head of the shark to the aumaga (Mead, 1930: 16). 

In fishing, the families made up the work units, and the fish were distributed in the village to 

which the lagoon belonged (this is still the case). A communal fish drive—for atule or any other 

fish – was conducted by a village community in its own lagoon (Krämer, 1995: 218). In Samoa 

in 1930, “[S]upernatural influences are vastly important in human life, and give sanction to the 

whole political and social system as established by tradition. In olden times these were in terms 

of Polynesian deities and taboos, but nowadays they are defined mainly according to the 

interpretations current in the various mission sects” (Keesing, 1934: 31). Reverend George 

Turner (1989, original 1884), a missionary from the London Missionary Society (LMS) who 

wrote extensively about Samoan customs, provides many examples of fish and sea creatures that 

were considered sacred in various districts and villages as well as sanctions associated with 

violating taboos. For example, Turner relates the following concerning the deity incarnate in the 

fe’e or octopus. 

The month of May was sacred to his worship. No traveller [sic] was then allowed to pass through 

the village by public road; nor was any canoe allowed in the lagoon off that part of the settlement 

(Turner, 1989: 29). ...In another district three months were sacred to the worship of the 

Fe'e. During that time any one passing along the road, or in the lagoon, would be beaten, if not 

killed, for insulting the god (Turner, 1989: 30). 

While formal sanctions today come from the church or government, it is still possible in 2009 in 

American Samoa, following the Polynesian practice of taboos, to make a village lagoon ‘sa,’ or 

restricted. 

It should be remembered that for the first half of the 20th century, the population of Samoa was 

much smaller than it is today. According to the American Naval and German censuses (Keesing, 

1934: 33), in 1900 an estimated 5499 people lived in American Samoa and an estimated 32,815 

occupied Western Samoa. By 1930, these respective numbers were 8926 and 40,722 (Keesing, 
11 

1934: 33). Of course, this means far fewer people resided in American Samoa and Western 

Samoa in relation to the available land and marine resources. 

R. F. Watters (1958a: 45) states that a population density of 130 persons per square mile does not 

overtax natural resources in a system of shifting cultivation, as in traditional Samoa. He 

estimates that the population of Samoa was 54,000 in 1840, with a density of 44.5 persons per 

square mile, after a decline from the pre-European population, which he estimates at 80,000 

persons. There were ample agricultural resources in large areas of Upolu and Savai’i ; only in 

Apolima and Manono (340 persons per square mile), Tutuila (212 persons per square mile) and 

Manu’a (153 persons per square mile), and possibly coastal areas of Aana on Upolu, was there 

some population pressure on the gardens (Watters, 1958a: 45). However, Watters concludes that, 

because traveling parties (malaga) from one village could visit another village if the land or 

lagoon was not providing enough food, population pressure never affected major modifications 

in the overall intensity of the use of land and sea resources (Watters, 1958a: 47; see also Hudson, 

1839: 333). As an economic activity, although fishing came second to gardening, Samoans took 

full advantage of marine resources. Fish (except seven species that were poisonous or 

unpalatable and thus were not eaten) were consumed on a daily basis in the Samoan household. 

However, some species were not eaten in particular families or villages because they were 

deified (Watters, 1958a: 48; Watters, 1958b: 349, citing Krämer, 1995: 182–183). As a result, 

fishing activities stood in high esteem in traditional Samoan culture, fishing skill brought high 

social status, and fishing activities figured importantly in mythology (Watters, 1958a: 49). No 

evidence from early observers indicated that the lagoons were “fished out” (Watters, 1958a: 49). 

Based on John Coulter’s (1941: 37) research conducted in American Samoa in 1937, he stressed, 

even at this early date, the importance of increased population density in relation to available 

resources and an increased reliance on imported foods. In 1937, he reported the population of 

American Samoa as 11,906 (including 125 people for Swains Island) and he noted that fishing 

was less important than in previous time periods because of the availability of canned fish. Judd 

noted in 1926 that, “Today the natives are not fishing as they could” and Frank Drees (n.d.: 163) 

describes the distribution of many cases of canned salmon and sardines at a funeral in Vaitogi in 

the mid-1930s. In 1955, Coulter (1957: 76) reported the population of American Samoa as 

20,500, and he cautioned that there was a high population density in relation to available 

resources (especially land). Additionally, it should be remembered that very little emigration 

from the islands occurred prior to 1950. 

Similar to research conducted in other parts of Polynesia (e.g., Firth, 1975), we do not find 

evidence in Samoa of what could be called a society of “natural conservationists.” That is, 

Samoans, like other groups, observed the animals and birds in their environment and drew 

conclusions regarding their behavior. Sometimes their deductions assisted them in the food 

quest, for example, when they observed that flocks of sea birds were following shoals of bonito. 

By spotting these birds in pursuit of these fish, Samoans could find bonito (Hiroa, 1935: 51). 

Samoans synchronized their behavior with that of the animals they hunted, in what Marcel 

Mauss (1979) has called ‘symbiotic’ behavior. On the one hand, many fish were taken (“many 

thousands of atule” as Krämer reports) and on the other hand, Samoans recognized that men and 

the natural environment were in a symbiotic relationship. It was not the reflexive thinking of the 

21st century (e.g., “we must conserve”); it was a practical recognition of the relation of human 
12 

society to its environment. Mauss (1950), following Durkheim, used the term ‘social 

morphology’ to describe how this balance worked, not only between men and the environment 

but as part of the entire fabric of culture and social relations. In Samoa, with the matai and 

village social organization, decisions about the usage of resources were not determined on an 

individual basis; they were subject to cultural beliefs that were enacted through the village 

political structure. 

Prior to 1950, we find evidence of a non-Western or noncapitalist economy that emphasized 

social relations and sustainable use over profit maximization or monetary gain. This point has 

also been made more generally by R. Johannes (1978) regarding traditional fishing methods in 

Oceania. With the influence of westernization and the availability of markets to sell fish, there 

was a different attitude about economic and natural resources—a capitalist one—and this, 

combined with new technology (like scuba gear) and the possible refrigeration of the catch, led 

easily to overfishing practices that were not traditionally common. Having said this, Johannes 

(1978: 360) cites an example from (Western) Samoa, after monetary economies had been 

introduced, in which a local chief, under his traditional authority, issued a taboo on a section of 

the beach to limit the taking of turtle eggs after he realized that too many people were taking 

them. Today, for example, both territorial law and customary law in most villages forbid the use 

of poison or dynamite in reef fishing, although previously the use of poison was practiced 

widely. Traditional village management practices, therefore, can be appropriate for 

contemporary conservation goals and have been part of a plan for the management of subsistence 

fisheries in Samoa (King and Faasili, 1999). 

Division of Labor in Fishing 

As reported by Krämer (1995: 205, 200 Illustration #57), Hiroa (1930: 447-449), Judd (field 

notes 1926: 97), and, more recently, Linnekin et al., (2006: 59), only Samoan women gathered 

shellfish, octopus, seaweed, and small fishes on the reef. Men fished by snorkeling, diving with a 

spear, and angling with a rod; women took fish that dug under the sand. Only the men used large 

nets, and only the men hunted turtles. Both men and women used the ‘enu (fish basket) to catch 

small, school fish like the i’a sina, and both men and women participated in the communal fish 

drives. Young men did most of the diving while older men fished with poles. Only men fished 

for bonito and shark, using boats. 

According to Krämer (1995:198), women armed mainly with a stick gathered small fish and 

small creatures (figota). During the new moon and full moon periods, when the low tide was in 

the forenoon, women went to the dried-up reef lagoons with a short stick, a longer stick, and a 

fish basket (ola). They used the sticks to poke in the reef and catch many species of small fishes 

and shellfishes as well as octopi, which they killed by biting them through the neck (Krämer, 

1995: 199) or between the eyes (Hiroa, 1930: 420). The men caught the more dangerous species 

of morays, sea eels, and large crabs. 

The smallest trap, the fanga fa’atau tu’u’u – the size of a child’s head – was used only by 

women during the day when fishing amongst the coral in the shallow parts of the lagoon. It was 

used to catch the dark fish, the tu’u’u (angelfish). 
13 

The tu’u’u is recognized as an aggressive fish, ready to fight fishes of similar size. Samoans 

recognized this trait, using it to their advantage to catch the fish. Samoan women would initially 

lay a trap on its side on the bottom of the lagoon and place a dark stone about the size of the fish 

in the trap. Standing nearby with her head submerged, the woman would watch the trap. Her 

presence would not disturb the fish. As the tu’u’u entered the trap to fight the other “fish,” the 

woman would place her hand on the entrance and lift the trap, thus catching the fish. This fish 

then replaced the stone as a decoy. The woman pushed a coconut leaflet midrib through the 

lower lip of the fish to tie the live fish to the trap (Krämer [1995: 205] says they attached it by its 

tail). Hiroa notes that the women caught fairly large numbers of tu’u’u in this manner, and that 

the introduction of water goggles (by 1927) greatly assisted this method (Hiroa, 1930: 447). 

Hiroa did not see any of these traps on Tutuila, although they were known by the people living 

there. He notes that it was the most common form of fishing for women in Savai’i and the easiest 

way for them to catch a large number of fish for the daily meal (Hiroa, 1930: 448). 

The tu’u’u is a fish that is eaten raw, for which there is a saying: Euliuli fua le tu’u’u ae otangia

(the tu’u’u is black but is eaten raw). According to Hiroa (1930: 449), although blackness is 

generally associated with dirt and low status, the significance of the saying lies in the fact that a 

fish eaten raw shows that it has edible status over many other fish that are not eaten raw (see also 

a slightly different proverbial expression as given by Milner (1966: 293) in Appendix II, p. 101). 

Tutui or tuinga, according to what Chief Tufele told Alfred Judd in 1926, was a method of 

fishing practiced only by women who worked in pairs. Each held a stick or short pole which was 

jabbed under opposite sides of a coral rock in the shallows, thereby driving small fish into a 

basket laid in the water nearby. This method was practiced at Ofu, and a similar method of 

fishing by women – called sasa’e – is described by Krämer (1995: 206). The women searched 

the corals with their right hand while they held the fishing basket in their left hand. Then they 

spoke the following words aloud: “Go inside malau, inside tu’u’u, inside fō, inside fuga, inside 

pone, inside sugale, inside lō” (Krämer, 1995: 206). 

Safunua is a fishing method in which about two dozen women formed a semicircle in place of a 

net and then moved forward in close formation towards the shore, scooping up the trapped fish in 

small nets (Krämer, 1995: 214). 

FISHING TECHNIQUES 

Technique: Nets 

Based on the descriptions of fishing for various species, nets – both large and small – were seen 

as important gear in traditional Samoan fishing. Krämer (1995: 233, footnote 1) notes that Stair 

recorded 130 different types of nets, although he did not detail the names of all of them or what 

exactly they were used for. According to Reverend Barradale (1907: 112-14), a missionary, the 

women of the inland villages made most of the nets on Upolu and Savai’ibecause the nets were 
14 

made of tree fiber and the inland villages were closest to the source of the fiber. Krämer (1995: 

206) reports that the tree fiber, fau sogā (Pipturus argenteus), was used for fine nets, whereas 

coconut husks were used to make coarse nets (see also Whistler, 2000: 164). 

According to Krämer, fishing with nets was more important and more frequently practiced than 

fishing with baskets, and netmaking could involve a special meal for the artisans, called an 

umusā (sacred meal). Although both women and men participated in gathering the materials to 

make the net, and some nets were made by both women and men, the making of fine-mesh nets 

was often accomplished by a male netmaking specialist. The matai who was organizing the 

netmaking would first order his family to collect all the materials needed, and the women, girls 

and men would twist the sennit for the net for several weeks. After this, the matai would make a 

piece of wood the length that would correspond to the mesh size and would make an agreement 

with an artisan to make the net to a specified length and with the mesh of a certain size. After the 

man wove the net, the matai would direct the family to prepare for the tying of the net by 

preparing a feast of banana, coconut, and taro baked in the oven. When this “loloi” dish was 

ready, other people brought food and, under the direction of the netmaker other fishermen 

helped to tie the net. After the net was tied, the netmaker distributed the food to the fishermen 

who assisted in tying the net. Finally,they drank ̓ava so that many fish would be caught with the 

net (Krämer, 1995: 211-12). 

Missionaries, Krämer (1995: 205-222),Hiroa (1930: 469-488), and the Wilkes Expedition (1839) 

all show evidence that nets of all sizes and varieties were a staple tool in Samoan fishing. Fishing 

with nets ranged from everyday family fishing in the lagoon to fishing with more specialized 

nets to catch certain species. 

Ordinary Family Fishing 

Short nets (‘upenga fa’alava) of 8 to 10 fathoms with pegged float lines and stone sinker lines 

were used in ordinary family fishing by a small party. At Leone, Hiroa participated with the 

Ripley family in this form of fishing. Two persons were stationed with a net that was spread 

across a channel. The channel is called ava, and the method of fishing by stretching the net 

across it was called tu ava ava. The fisherman dove down to see that the sinker line rested on the 

bottom and adjusted it into holes, depressions, and around rocks so that no openings were left 

below the sinker line. The other members of the family spread out in a curve and worked down 

towards the net by splashing and beating the water to drive the fish into the net. As they did this, 

they subjected rocks to close scrutiny by diving down and feeling or spearing in the crevices. In 

this manner, they caught several fish while others were driven into the net. Every crevice and 

hole in the rocks was familiar to the family. After the drive, the net was taken up and carried 

across to another channel. The net, which was short and light, was quickly folded at the float line 

and carried over the shoulder of one person. The part of the lagoon adjacent to the family 

dwellings was worked with this technique (Hiroa, 1930: 482-83). 

Short nets were also used with artificially made rock heaps. After driving the fish into the heaps, 

the net was run around it and the sinker line carefully adjusted to the bottom. The stones were 

then removed by dropping them outside the net line. The fish were speared or caught up in some 

form of scoop net and the surrounding net prevented their escape, some being caught in the 

meshes. 
15 

The casting net was used for the above purposes quite readily. When opened out across a channel 

or used around a rock heap, it was an ‘upenga fa’alava, but when folded and cast, the same net 

was an ‘upenga tili (Hiroa, 1930: 482). 

Fishing for Two Kinds of Mullet 

Different netting techniques were used for catching ‘anae, grey mullet, and ia’eva, the current 

Samoan term for the red-lipped mullet (Hiroa, 1930: 439, 478, 485; Krämer, 1995: 219-221; 

AusAID No. 19, July 2000). Hiroa says that, for Samoans, ‘anae (mullet) and atule (mackerel) 

were two important fishes that swam in shoals. The mullet hand net (alangamea) was used for 

catching mullet as they jumped over a seine net. The Samoan mullet was usually caught with an 

ordinary net, but the alangamea was used to catch mullet in Nu’uuli village on Tutuila and in 

some villages in Upolu and Savai’i. Hiroa says that the use of the alangamea net in Nu’uuli was 

a practice imported from Upolu and Savai’i. Krämer shows a picture of an alangamea net on 

Upolu, circa 1900 (1995: 220, Illustration #66). 

In Upolu and Savai’i, a long net (tolo matu) was used in connection with catching mullet. Mullet 

will not go through the net but endeavor to escape by leaping over it. The nets are used to form 

an enclosure around the fish. The fish are actually caught with the alangamea net: after the long 

net has been set across the direction in which the fish are moving, the fishermen, each armed 

with an alangamea, take up their positions outside the net and close together. 

The mullet caught with the tolo matu and the alangamea are red-lipped mullet and were called 

‘anae ngutu mumu. This distinguished them from the other mullet (‘anae Samoa). Tradition says 

that Sina (a well-known female figure in Samoan legends) brought the red-lipped mullet from 

Fiji and that the family of Toaloa in Pu’apu’a, Savai’i has the authority (pule) over the fishing 

arrangements for her mullet (Hiroa, 1930: 485-86; 522). In Tutuila, the red-lipped mullet 

appeared only at the western end. They appeared first at Lauanae and then moved westward to 

Amanave near the lighthouse island. Here they were caught in nets stretched across the channel 

between the small island and the coast. No alangamea scoop was used (Hiroa, 1930: 485). 

The season for red-lipped mullet extended from October to December. The spawning of the redlipped mullet was known in the villages of Luatuanu’u and Moata’a on Upolu, at Pu’apu’a on 

Savai’i, and at Nu’ulopa Island near Manono, in addition to Lauanae and Amanave on Tutuila. 

By 1993, the red-lipped mullet was almost nonexistent, although they were considered an 

indicator species for the health of the lagoon fishery (AusAID, 2000: 36). By 2000, there was a 

substantial recovery of the fishery in Pu’apu’a, Savai’i. Traditionally, most of the families of the 

village made a section of net and joined together to encircle the school of fish when it came 

inshore to spawn (a similar method was used for i’a sina and atule, and managed by an expert, 

according to Hiroa, 1930: 432). The last mullet net of this type was used in 1960. Today, an 

attempt is in progress to restore the fishery at Pu’apu’a, under the leadership of a “fish leader.” A 

description of the Samoan fishing techniques in 2000 demonstrates the village’s continuity in 

organizing their fishing efforts and by banning certain activities at Pu’apu’a: 

A village elder was in charge of the fishing. When he believed the mullet were about to 

enter the lagoon, he called together a group consisting of five of the village orators 
16 

(known as aitu ole i’a). The group decided whether to have a fish drive and advised the 

village families. At this time, no one was allowed to enter the lagoon. Before dawn the 

next day, all 60 or so families would gather with their nets and scoops at the shore and 

join their pieces of net. An elected ‘fish leader’ is said to be the only person that the fish 

will follow. If the mullet are present, he blows a shell horn to tell the villagers to set their 

net. He then paddles his canoe past the school using a particular flick of the paddle. The 

fish follow the canoe and enter the net which is then closed. Once encircled, the fish 

attempt to escape by jumping over the net, to be caught by the villagers using scoop nets. 

When the orators decide that enough fish have been caught to satisfy village needs, they 

end the fishing. The catch is placed on a flat rock and shared out. There is a ban in the 

village on the sale of the fish, though there is some distribution, notably to the pastor. In 

an average year, such group fishing activities would occur about five or six times 

(AusAID, 2000: 37). 

Both Krämer and Hiroa emphasize in their descriptions how the Samoans understood the natural 

behavior of the various species fished and adjusted their techniques accordingly. While the redlipped mullet appeared only in certain places, the grey mullet was more common. Krämer reports 

that it was a special fishery and a favorite occupation of chiefs because of the inclination of 

mullets to jump over the net. Samoans made an analogy between this fishing (seu ‘anae) and 

pigeon hunting (seuga lupe), which was also a favorite pastime of chiefs, because both mullets 

and pigeons were caught with nets while in the air (Krämer, 1995: 222).6

 

The following description also shows how Samoans distinguished fish according to size and age: 

for instance, the small ‘anae was called āua (see Appendix II for more examples). Āua fishing 

depended on a large number of people, about 100-150 Krämer (1995: 221) reports, who were led 

by a special fish spotter. At the time of rising water, the fish spotter went into the lagoon in his 

canoe and when he saw the young mullet (called āua at this stage) either feeding on the bottom 

or swimming on the surface, he twisted his oar as a sign to the six to eight canoes behind him 

who held the net. Following his instructions, they laid out the net to the right and left with the 

help of about 40-50 canoes who composed the net-laying fleet. When the fish spotter lowered his 

paddle straight into the water, they lowered the net. They then jumped out of the canoes and, 

standing by the net, they caught the āua in flight as the fish jumped over the net (Krämer, 1995: 

222; see Krämer, 1995: 207, Illustration #60, the drying of a large net for grey mullet fishing). 

Fish Drives in Pago Harbor 

This description was made by Commander E. M. Blackwell, who was in Pago Pago in 1900 with 

Commander Tilley. It is the only description we found about communal fish drives in Pago 

Harbor. 

They had a peculiar fishing custom there. An old man named Magia who lived about 200 feet up 

on the side of the mountains above Pago Pago claimed that he owned all the fish in the harbor. 

At certain seasons they would have fish drives. Magia would be up at daybreak calling the fish. 

All the boats would stretch across the mouth of the harbor with lines running across them and 

cocoanut branches weighted and hanging down 10 to 15 feet in the water. The boats would pull 

 

6

 See Herdrich’s (1991) discussion of pigeon-hunting for a further understanding of this metaphor. 
17 

slowly up the harbor, scaring and driving the fish before them. When they got up near the end 

and the water became shallow, they would stretch a long net or seine in front of the boats from 

shore to shore and haul that up gradually until the fish got in a very small space. Men would 

stand outside and spear and keep fish from jumping over, and men, women and children would 

be inside catching them and throwing them on shore. When all were caught and piled up, every 

man, woman and child there was entitled to a share of the fish. They would form a line, Magia 

presiding, and pick up a fish as they passed the pile and keep this up until all the fish were taken. 

Whenever this would happen, we would send our mess steward up there with the mess boys to 

get our part of the fish (Blackwell, 1948: 31-32). 

Technique: Fish Weirs

Walled weirs of stone were known throughout the Samoan group but were confined to one 

village on each of the three large islands and in the Manu’a group. They were situated at the 

mouth of a bay or lagoon. The walls, made of loosely built coral stone, were termed pa, and the 

fish weir, pa i’a. Hiroa’s data and diagrams of these weirs were obtained from the answers sent 

in reply to a Bishop Museum questionnaire on walled fish traps. By 1927, the time of Hiroa’s 

visit, the weirs had all disappeared (Hiroa, 1930: 446). 

In Savai’i, at Iva, the walls of loosely built coral were renovated each year prior to the season; 

“they are not used now and have fallen down” (Hiroa, 1930: 444; see Hiroa, 1930: 445, Fig. 259, 

sketches of walled fish weirs). 

In Upolu, according to Dr. E. Schultz, Chief Justice of German Samoa in 1911, men in the 

village of Falelatai waited at the entrance of the pa when the tide was going out and scooped up 

fish with a hand net. The Falelatai weirs, about 5 ft high, were temporary and were pulled down 

after use to allow the boats free use of the lagoon. Schultz claimed six types of fish were caught 

with this method, including malauli (Hiroa, 1930: 445). 

The only trap known on Tutuila was a stone weir between Nu’uuli and Tafuna, as reported by N. 

E. Crosse, Governor of American Samoa in 1911 and Mr. J. L. Lisonbee (with a sketch by Mr. 

Lisonbee). The weirs were built across the lagoon entrance, with six narrowed openings towards 

the sea and seven openings towards the shore. Fishermen used nets to catch fish at the inshore 

openings on the rising tide, as well as intercept fish returning to the sea on the falling tide at the 

seaward openings. The traps were visited by Mr. A. G. Mayer in 1920, but by that time only the 

remains were seen, as the walls had been knocked down by a storm and the weirs had gone out 

of use (Hiroa, 1930: 445-446). The length of the weirs was reported to be about 208 rods (a rod 

is 16.5 ft); they were about 2 to 4 ft wide at the bottom and about 3 ft high. When in use, they 

were probably higher. The traps belonged to the people and had been in existence since “before 

the time of the grandparents of the oldest inhabitants.” 

On Manu’a in 1920, the pointed ends of a stone weir were in good preservation but Hiroa saw 

nothing of them 7 years later. Krämer pictured the Ta’ū weir as it was being used to catch atule

(1995: 217, Illustration #65) when he observed the atule catch in May 1898. 
18 

Both the Falelatai and Nu’uuli weirs provide converging walls that force the fish through an 

opening into the net. The methods at Iva and Ta’ū are simply an open enclosure that must be 

closed with the coconut leaf lauloa. 

On Savai’i, Hiroa observed two leaf weirs, each with 20-yd-long sides, used to catch i’a sina. 

The i’a sina move in shoals towards the east in the morning (the optimal time is before 5:30) and 

towards the west in the evening (sunset is best), and both times they swim close to the bottom of 

the weir. A weir made of banana leaves was constructed to catch the fish as they move east while 

a weir of coconut leaves nearby was to catch them in the evening. The fisherman stood 

alongside, outside the weir, and scooped the fish out with small nets attached to the narrow 

opening of the weir (Hiroa, 1930: 432). 

In Upolu and Savai’i, by 1927 there were many V-shaped weirs with walls made of wire netting 

supported by stakes driven into holes made with an iron crowbar. According to Hiroa, the form 

was old but the method of execution was modern. At Fagamalo, large numbers of atule were 

caught, and elsewhere the wire trap was used for i’a sina (Hiroa, 1930: 477). The advantage of a 

wire netting trap was that it was permanently set and did not need watching (Hiroa, 1930: 446). 

Technique: Fishhooks 

According to legend, Samoan fishhooks have divine origins because the shell that was used for 

the original fishhook was said to have been brought down from heaven (Krämer, 1995: 197). 

Archaeological evidence show that fishhooks made from Turbo shell (Turbo setosus) have been 

found at two of the earliest known sites in American Samoa, the To‘aga site on Ofu Island in 

Manu’a, and the Aganoa site on Tutuila (Kirch, 1993:160-161; Pearl and Sauck, 2007: slides 30-

32). The fishhooks from these sites date to approximately 2500-2200 B.P. (Kirch, 1993: 87; 

Pearl and Sauck, 2007: slide 30).7

 The presence of fishhooks, as part of Samoan material 

culture, has also been noted by the earliest explorers including Bougainville in 1768, La Perouse 

in 1787, and Von Kotzebue in 1824, as well as missionaries such as Williams in 1830 and 1832, 

Turner from 1841 to 1860, and Stair from 1838 to 1845 (Bougainville, 1772; La Perouse, 1799; 

Turner, 1861, 1989 [1884]; Von Kotzebue, 1967 [1830]; Stair, 1983 [1897]; Moyle, 1984). The 

anthropological writings of Krämer (1995 [1903]), Demandt (1913), Beasley (1928), and Hiroa 

(1930) have the most detailed descriptions of traditional Samoan fishhooks. Of the four, Hiroa 

provides the most complete descriptions of the greatest number of known hooks and their 

manufacture. Hiroa (1930: 490-522) has extensive detailed drawings illustrating how the hooks 

were made and a photographic plate showing many of the hooks discussed in the text (Hiroa, 

1930: Plate XLVII). 

The general Samoan name for hook is matau with more specific names given to hooks using 

different methods to attract the fish, such as baited hooks, gorges, and trolling lure hooks. Hooks 

were designed to catch particular species of fish, with design features compatible with certain 

fishing methods. For instance, a hook called the pa’atu was a trolling style of hook (pa) (Krämer 

 

7

 Jeff Clark (Clark and Landrum n.d.) has found a number of fishhooks from the Va’oto site, just south of To’aga on 

Ofu, which fall into the same time period and later. 
19 

calls a pa a “spinner”) used to catch bonito ('atu). It was a composite, two-piece lure made of a 

shell shank, lure or spinner (pa) with a barbless turtle shell hook. As noted earlier, this design 

made it possible for the fisherman, using a fishing rod, to pull the fish out of the water and throw 

it into the front of his boat in one motion with the fish easily sliding off the hook since it was not 

held by a barb. 

The term matau for hook is broader than the English term “hook” as it includes gorges which are 

not hook shaped but is rather a straight piece of wood or bone. The gorges, attached to a twisted 

fiber line, were baited and once a fish took it, it became lodged in the fish’s mouth or throat. 

Hiroa (1930: 489-90) describes three varieties of wooden gorges and a single type of gorge that 

used a float and fish bones (see description of floats in next section). John Williams described 

this gorge plus float device in 1832 as follows: 

The Samoans form a float of hollow wood about eight inches in diameter & eight inches 

high. To this they attach a sharp piece of fish bone straight like a needle. This is tied in 

the middle & suspended by a piece of fine line about ten inches below the float & baited 

with cocoanut [sic], 20 or 30 of these floats are then strung together at some little 

distance apart on a strong string. The fish are attracted I believe by the whiteness of the 

float with which the wood is made and seize the bait. The fish bone pierces on each side 

the mouth by which the fish is held. The violent motion of the float indicates to the 

fisherman that a fish is fast (Moyle, 1984: 227).8

Hiroa (1930: 489-517) also describes 8 basic types of hooks with at least 11 varieties that were 

named for different colored shells and materials used. The types include: a hook for catching the 

mumu fish outside of the reef opposite the reef channel; a hook for catching freshwater eels in 

streams and wetland areas called a matau tuna; a masimasi or dolphin fishhook; a hook for 

catching tagi (a large open ocean fish) called a pa tagi; a hook used to catch bonito on the open 

ocean called a pa’atu; a hook used for catching malauli (just outside the reef and sometimes in 

the reef area in the early morning and evening) called a pa ala; and the hook for catching small 

fish was called a pa seuseu. Hiroa (1930: 517) lists the names of the small fish in question as 

follows: gatala (Epinesphelus9

 when about 6 in long), 'ata'ata (Epinesphelus when over one foot 

in length) matamu (Lethrinus), malai (Lutjanus when about one foot long), matalau (unknown 

scientific name name), umiumia (Polydactylus), sugalupe (unknown scientific name), and 

patagaloa (Thalassoma).10 

Hiroa (1930: 404, 514) notes that the pa’atu and pa ala hooks had additional names that were 

tied to differences in shell color. For the pa’atu those names included: pa tio, pa usi, pa laumilo, 

pa ulia, pa lautofe, pa sulu, pa lanulua, and pa lupovai. For the pa ala hooks the names were: pa 

ulutoto, pa laveuli, pa ululalafi, pa lau and pa ala sina. Hiroa explains that the variety of colors 

did not indicate a one-to-one relationship between different types of shell used and different 

colors; rather, “The craftsmen were expert in producing shades of color by varying the amount of 

dark outer [shell] surface removed in grinding” (Hiroa, 1930: 498). 

 

8

 This quotation from Williams was referred to in the next section regarding Ripley’s story of the flying fish float. 9

 A genus that encompasses species of grouper. 

10 Scientific names and their related sizes were found, whenever possible, in Milner 1966. 
20 

The hooks were made of various materials including wood from a tree fern, coconut tree wood, 

including the midrib of the coconut leaves, whale ivory, bone, fish bone, the shell from various 

invertebrates, and turtle shell. In addition, fine threads were used for lashing, a three-ply twisted 

string made from fau sogā was used as a snood (line attached to the leader line), and fau sogā

strips were used for the hackle (at the end of the hook). Milner (1966: 60) identifies fausoga (one 

word) as a small tree (Pipturus sp.); presumably the lines were made from strips of its inner 

bark.11 Feathers were also used as hackle with some types of hooks, though Hiroa (1930: 513-14) 

argues, contra Stair (1983: 203), not with the bonito hook (pa’atu). 

A wide variety of shell was used for fishhooks. Early explorers and missionaries frequently 

referred to the shell used as "pearl" or "mother of pearl" (Bougainville, 1772; La Perouse, 1799: 

110; Turner, 1861: 179; Von Kotzebue, 1967: 268; Stair, 1983: 203; Moyle, 1984: 227), but 

while imported pearl shell was commonly used in the 1920s, Hiroa (1930: 498) points out that 

such shell was not native to Samoan waters and was unlikely to have been used in pre-European 

times. This seems to be borne out archaeologically in that recovered ancient fishhooks tend to be 

made from Turbo shell (Kirch, 1993; Pearl, pers. comm.. 2008),12 and historically wherein a 

wide variety of shells have been identified in museum collections of Samoan fishhooks collected 

in the 19th and early 20th centuries. 

In Hiroa's review of the literature (1930: 510, 515), he notes that the following types of shell 

were used to make the shanks for trolling/lure style fishhooks: pala’au (Pterocera), fatuaua 

(Spondylus), foafoa (Cypraea), ‘ali’ao (Trochus), alili (Turbo), faisua (Tridacna), fole (Pinna), 

and tofe (Perna). In addition, in the case of the pa seu seu Hiroa (1930: 515) notes that tupe or 

the operculum of the Turbo shell was also used likely because the pa seu seu was the smallest of 

the trolling hooks. Historically, the pointed hook that was lashed to the shank was most 

commonly turtle shell, though Hiroa (1930: 497-98, 501) says that sometimes other materials 

such as wood (including niu vao, wild palm, and oliolī, tree fern),13 shell, and bone were 

sometimes used. He notes that a bonito hook made entirely of wood was seen on Ta’ū (Hiroa, 

1930: 501). 

The trolling hooks were the most difficult to manufacture. They required the shaping of the shell 

shank (by a combination of cutting and grinding) to resemble a small fish along with the drilling 

of holes in order to tie down the snood and the carving of grooves for lashing (fau sogā) on the 

curved turtle shell hook. Hiroa (1930: 495-96) describes and illustrates a drill (vili) that had a 

point made from a stone flake or spine of a sea urchin, the vana (Echinus). The turtle shell hook 

had to be carved into a hook-like shape that included a flat edge on the bend that butted up 

against the shank with a point at the end of the material forming the opposite bend of the hook. 

All of the hooks for trolling (Hiroa calls them points) had holes drilled through them along the 

flat edge so that they could be tied down to the shank (pa) using strong thread material. In some 

cases, such as the pa ala, the holes also were used to attach feathers and additional fau sogā

 

11 Krämer (1995: 206) and Whistler (2000: 164) also discuss the use of fau sogā; see our earlier discussion of fine 

nets. 

12 Roger Green (Green and Davidson, 1969: 271) mentions Hiroa’s statement but notes that, from his own 

conversations with Samoans, pearl shell does occur in Samoa, if rarely. 13 Niu vao (Clinostigma spp.) wild palms or “inland palm” and oliolī or “tree fern” (Cyathea spp.) were both used to 

make sharp sticks, points, or hooks (Whistler, 2000: 187, 189). 
21 

strips for the hackle. The lashing was complex and each expert hook maker had a style of lashing 

that he found lucky. Hiroa (1930: 499-503) provides a full example of a “lashing formula” that 

was written down by Le’oso Ripley when he held the senior orator (tulāfale) title for Leone, 

Tutuila, and demonstrated for Hiroa by Le’oso’s son Fepuleai Ripley. 

Once made, the hooks were attached by using a 9- or 10-ft fine leader line to five-ply sennit 

braid about 22 ft long. This would, in turn, be attached to one of two types of fishing rods 

(bamboo poles with wooden handles). One type was a long rod (launiu) 15 ft 6 in long while the 

other was a shorter rod (matila) about 8 ft long (Hiroa, 1930: 503-504). In some cases, however, 

the line was paid out from a boat as a hand line or even attached to a toe (Hiroa, 1930: 514). 

F. Pearl and W. Sauck (2007) note that some of the hooks they found at the Aganoa site seem to 

have this flat edge that suggests a hook designed to be lashed to a pa. No pa were recovered and 

none of these hooks had holes drilled in them, but the possibility is open that these hooks were 

broken in the manufacturing process or otherwise rejected for use before holes were drilled in 

them. 

Technique: Floats (uto) 

A bait float was used for shark fishing (see next section for description), and wooden floats were 

used for octopus fishing with nets and the line of a squid lure. The floats were termed uto, 

meaning a piece of wood of the tou tree that is very light and can float on the sea (Krämer, 1995: 

211). A green branch tied to an eel line also acted as a float and was termed fa’autouto (to act as 

an uto). One special float, not seen by Hiroa but described by Fepulea’i Ripley of Leone in 1927, 

was the flying fish float, uto malolo (Hiroa, 1930: 427). 

According to Fepulea’i Ripley, a particular bone in the flying fish (malolo) was tied to a line at 

an angle to form a crude hook. The short length of line was tied to a wooden float and the bone 

baited with a variety of coconut called niu uto. A number so prepared were set in line outside the 

reef and the fisherman watched from one end of the baited line. When the float moved out of 

line, he knew that a fish was on the hook. He paddled down, removed the fish, and reset the float 

in line again. When Hiroa asked about it, the method was apparently unknown in Manu’a and 

Savai’i, yet Pratt’s dictionary had a term, pangi, as the bait for flying fish, and pangiuto, to fix 

the bait for flying fish, indicating that the bait (pangi) was fixed by a line to the float (uto), and 

that the technique was more widely known (Hiroa, 1930: 428). Ripley claimed that the bone of 

the flying fish was used to make the hook, and he quoted his father, “E fano le malolo i lona au” 

(“the flying fish perishes through its own sharp point”), a saying that also applies to someone 

who brings trouble upon himself. Hiroa quoted this saying in Savai’i and described the hook 

technique but they didn’t know it (Hiroa, 1930: 428). 

When Hiroa returned to Leone, he asked Ripley to make one of these floats for him, but Ripley 

could not do it. Following Ripley’s suggestion, Hiroa consulted with High Talking Chief Le’oso, 

who knew the saying but claimed that the au was not the bone but the liver of the fish, used as 

bait on an ordinary hook. After investigation, and by consulting the journal of John Williams, 
22 

who gives a description of the bone, Hiroa concluded that Ripley’s story was correct: the bones 

were used as gorges to catch the malolo. 

Krämer reports (1995: 207) that flying fish were often scooped out of the sea with nets by torch 

light at night. They could also be fished with fishhooks made of fish bones that were attached to 

floats along a line; used primarily to catch flying fish, the method is called tagataga in Pratt 

(Krämer, 1995: 208). According to Krämer (1995: 207), the uto (float) method, with strings of 

cooked breadfruit as bait, was used to catch palagi on the small island of Apolima near Upolu. 

This, too, supports Ripley’s description of a method that was used apparently throughout the 

islands. 

Technique: Specialized Fishing with Boats

Fishing for Sharks 

Hiroa describes the shark noose in some detail because he claims that, while noosing was 

common in Samoa, it was rare in other parts of Polynesia. He saw a proper shark rope at Leone, 

about 22 ft long; netting sharks in Samoa were rare, as were catching them with a hook (1930: 

421). 

There were two kinds of bait used in shark fishing: the float bait to lure the shark near to the 

boat, and the near bait (usually a bonito head) to get the shark near for noosing. The bonito head 

was preferred as bait because of the strong odor; it might be that they used a shark rattle also to 

lure the shark near to the boat (it mimicked the movement and activity of small fish). When the 

shark came near the canoe, the expert managed the noose. As the shark bit the bonito head bait, 

the expert slipped the noose over the shark’s head and pulled the noose when it was beyond the 

lower jaw. He had to accomplish this when the head was directed downwards or his hand could 

be bitten. After the shark was in the noose, they used a club to kill the shark when it was next to 

the canoe; often they jammed a shark spear (taova’a) into its mouth so that it couldn’t bite 

(Hiroa, 1930: 424-25). 

In Ta’u, shark nets (‘upenga malie) were sometimes used and were made of the thick three-ply 

twisted cord of matiata bast.14 The mesh was large; the length about 50 yards, and the depth 18 

ft. Floats made of breadfruit wood were attached to the upper rope at about 2 ft apart. Large 

stone sinkers were attached at either end, with a lighter one in the middle (Hiroa, 1930: 487). 

One of these stones, with a well-marked longitudinal groove on either side, was secured by 

Albert Judd at Leone for the Bishop Museum and was said to be an anchor for special bait used 

in connection with the net. It could serve both purposes. The bait of fish attracted sharks and 

other large fish which, in trying to secure the bait, got caught by the gills in the meshes of the 

net. The net was set outside the reef and at right angles to it. The net was set in the afternoon and 

left until morning; the fish were caught by the gills at night. When the net was set, it was 

 

14 Another name for mati (Ficus tinctoria); “the bast fibers of one species, perhaps Ficus tinctoria, were formerly 

used to make fishing nets and possibly fishing lines” (Whistler, 2000: 182). 
23 

described as fa’atofa le ‘upenga (putting the net to sleep for the night), a phrase used only with a 

shark net (Hiroa, 1930: 487). 

Sharks could be fished with hooks when many sharks appeared in a lagoon. In this method, the 

shark bites the hook and is dragged to shallow water, where it eventually dies of exhaustion 

(Krämer, 1995: 228). 

Shark fishing, as with bonito fishing (see next section for description), was surrounded by 

ceremony. When a tautai caught a shark, the boats would make a procession home with the 

tautai in the lead canoe. He stood in the canoe and jiggled his oar as a sign of a successful catch 

but no shouting or singing occurred, as, like bonito fishing, all noise, loud talk, and similar 

actions were forbidden. Then the tautai who had noosed the shark was met with a mat by his 

wife on shore; after this, he gave the shark to the chiefs because it was a forbidden fish (i’a sā) 

for commoners, and he retired to his house; he sat in his house looking sad (i.e., gave the 

appearance of mourning) and returned to the group only after being summoned by the chiefs to 

come to them and receive his title of tautai ali’i (Thilenius, 1900: 129; Krämer, 1995 : 228). 

By contrast, in Leone in 1903 there was a lively arrival of the boats after sharks were caught. In 

the Governor’s Annual Report for fiscal year ending June 30, 1903, Commander E. B. 

Underwood states that shark fishing took place frequently when there were no trade winds and 

the Samoans could take their boats to the feeding grounds of the sharks. He says that the boats 

went out for one day, stayed out all night and returned the following day. Large numbers of 

sharks were caught, and the boats arrived back displaying a sign of their good luck: 

The return of the boat is a picturesque sight, the natives singing while laboring at the 

oars, and there being displayed from a mast or pole a towel, handkerchief, or other 

similar token for each shark caught. I have seen a returning boat with nine of these 

signals flying (Underwood, July 10, 1903). 

There was a large species of shark called naiufi that was regarded by fishermen as the king of 

sharks and treated with ceremonial respect. Speeches were given to the shark and if it was seen 

but not fished, the head fisherman gave a speech about how he would return to meet it. It was 

considered a great honor to kill a naiufi. As the canoe came in with a naiufi, the shell trumpet 

was sounded and the canoe paraded backward and forward before the village. The canoe owner 

met the returning fishermen at the landing with a fine mat and touched the head of the shark with 

it. The mat was given to the tautai and the shark was given to the canoe owner and the village 

chiefs, where it was ceremonially divided among them. The tautai who noosed a naiufi thus 

established his authority. The son of a successful tautai might succeed him after he retired. 

According to Hiroa, in an argument between two aspirants to the position, the decision in favor 

of one is clinched if it can be said, “His father caught a naiufi” (Hiroa, 1930: 521). 

On Tutuila there were festivities prior to fishing for sharks, and, as with bonito, there were 

special words for parts of the shark, for example, tulāgogo (dorsal fin), which is called “resting 

place for seagulls” (Krämer, 1995: 228). The shark, like the bonito, was cut into ceremonial 

divisions, with certain parts given to certain people according to rank. For example, the shark’s 

stomach and intestines were regarded as the best parts of the fish and they were shared by the 

talking chief and the head fisherman (Hiroa, 1930: 125). The village of Leone on Tutuila was 
24 

divided into seven parts, each with its own chiefs, so when the canoes came in, they took their 

catch to their own part of the village, only to come together again later for a communal meal and 

’ava (Hiroa, 1930: 125). In these situations, chiefs from neighboring villages might hear of the 

catch and would then ask for their official shares. The only acceptable excuse for refusing them 

was if the shares were already eaten or given away; otherwise, this request could not be denied 

because these exchanges were central to the social organization of the village (Hiroa, 1930: 126). 

L. Becke (1901) tells this story of a particular technique for hunting the tānifa (shark) at Vaivasa 

River, Upolu. The tānifa seldom exceeds 10 ft in size, but the shark has a solitary nocturnal habit 

of haunting the mouths of shallow streams; they were a serious threat to people using or crossing 

the streams. After one was seen, the Samoans failed to catch it with a metal hook or shoot it with 

a rifle. Then two sharks appeared, each about 8 ft long. An old man took two strips of green 

bamboo, charred the pointed ends, and coiled them into a small ball, bound by the skin of a fish 

known as the “leatherjacket.” At that point, two dogs were killed and eviscerated, and the 

bamboo coils were put into the stomachs of the dogs in order to use the dogs as bait. The dogs 

were snatched by the sharks when they came near. As soon as the dogs were digested, the skin of 

the fish was intended to break and the coil would fly apart, killing the shark. A week later they 

found one dead shark with the bamboo protruding from its belly and assumed that the other had 

died at sea. 

Bonito Fishing 

One of the earliest recorded contacts between Europeans and Samoans was made by Captain 

Roggeveen and his crew in 1722, when they traded 4-5 strings of glass beads for 4-5 flying fish 

off Ofu. Here, Roggeveen and his men saw very neat and fast canoes with three paddles. At Ta’ū

he noted that some canoes were not made of hollowed-out trees but were made of planks very 

neatly joined together (Roggeveen, 1970: 151-153). In both cases, he seems to be describing 

bonito canoes, which were made of planks and typically were manned by three men (although it 

could be two men in Western Samoa). Hiroa reports that the sight of bonito canoes far out at sea 

in the 18th century caused Bougainville to call the Samoan Group the Navigator Islands (1930: 

509). Other authors (most recently, Severance and Franco, 1989; Linnekin et al., 2006) have 

written about Samoan bonito fishing, perhaps because, as Krämer writes, it was “the most 

elegant sport on Samoa” (1995: 225). Bonito fishing required a special boat (va’aalo) and great 

strength and endurance in the crew. Every person of high status had a bonito canoe (Hiroa, 1930: 

417). In 1926, when he was purchasing material items for the Bishop Museum, Alfred Judd 

reports that there were few va’aalo available on Tutuila, while it was still possible to buy one in 

Ofu for a price ranging up to $50 (Judd, 1926: 84). 

According to Krämer (1995: 225), the bonito season began in April or May, when the rainy 

season was over and the consistent trade winds began to blow. At this point, especially if the 

winds were mild and gentle, the fishermen were able to move out to sea under the best conditions 

for canoe fishing. However, Hiroa (1930: 509) gives slightly different information. The author 

states that there were three seasons in the year for catching bonito, and they corresponded to the 

breadfruit seasons. The first was at the beginning of the year (January and February), the second 

was during May, June, and July, and the third was at the end of the year, in October, November, 

and part of December. Here, too, the condition of the sea determined whether or not the boats 

went out. Bonito fishing was further classified according to the days of the month, when certain 
25 

days were considered to be appropriate fishing days. These classifications are (Hiroa, 1930: 

509): 

 ̓Atu pulapula Bonito of the new moon 

 ̓Atu fa’afitu Bonito of the 7th day 

 ̓Atu oa toa Bonito of the full moon 

 ̓Atu o ngafoa Bonito of the half-moon waning 

The bonito sought at the end of the month, when they were scarce, were called  ̓Atu o le sela ma 

le miti loa, or “bonito of weariness and profuse perspiration” (Hiroa, 1930: 509). 

Building the bonito boat was a special task, done by a specialist who belonged to Sā Tagaloa, the 

builders’ guild.15 The canoe was paid for by the chief, who commissioned it with a gift of a fine 

mat over a ceremonial bowl of ’ava. After they agreed on the conditions, the builder and his 

party built the canoe. During the process, they had to be fed the best of food and attended to with 

respect by the chief’s family. Interim payments were made as the work progressed, much the 

same as with house building. When the canoe was finished, more mats, food, and gifts were 

given. If the builders were unhappy, they could make the canoe unlucky, either by changing the 

number of lashings or by leaving in one small wooden wedge. If they changed the correct 

number of lashings, for example, the canoe would never catch more than 10 bonito (Hiroa, 1930: 

416). 

Krämer claims that four woods were used for building the boat: the breadfruit (or ulu) 

(Artocarpus), Hibiscus, Afzelia,16 and Jatropha17 (1995: 226). Hiroa (1930: 403), however, has a 

more complete description of what wood was used for each section of the canoe and his list, in 

Samoan, seems to be more accurate: ulu (Artocarpus), fau (Hibiscus), fu’afu’a (Kleinhovia), futu 

(Barringtonia), poumuli (Flueggea), and toa (Casuarina) (see Whistler 2000 for plant names). 

The bow and stern covers of the boat were decorated with a row of wooden knobs on which were 

mounted white ovula shells (Krämer, 1995: 225; Krämer, 1995: 226, Illustration #68; Hiroa, 

1930: 401). Hiroa reports that the number of shells varies, but on a boat in Ta’ū, the bow set 

consisted of eight shells while the stern set consisted of nine. According to Hiroa, the shells were 

difficult to get in Samoa and often came to chiefs as presents. As a result, by 1927, some of the 

sets had been in the possession of the families for quite some time, and some boats did not have 

shells at all because the family did not have a set of shells available. In Ta’ū, lashing the shell to 

the end of the middle boom was a sign of distinction. Hiroa says this was the privilege of the Tui 

Manu’a and the Fiti family (1930: 402). Thilenius (1900: 127) claimed that the shells were a sign 

that the boat belonged to a master fishermen. Krämer, however, reports that all the bonito canoes 

in Manu’a were decorated with these shells during the time of his visit, while in Western Samoa 

at that same time the shells had disappeared almost completely (1995: 237, footnote 112; 1995: 

290). In 1927, Hiroa says that he only saw the shell ornamentation in Manu’a, although the 

wooden knobs remained in other regions and became the decoration (1930: 403; see Hiroa, 1930: 

402, Fig. 246, lashing shells to the boat). 

 

15 See the video, “Vea: Tufuga Samoa,” for one of the last of the specialists at work on Manu’a in 1972. 16 Thilenius (1900: 127) reports that ifelele (Afzelia) is used for the boats’ planks in Savai’i, whereas breadfruit 

(Artocarpus) is used for the planks in Upolu. Ifelele today is labeled Intsia bijuga by Whistler (2000: 170). 17 It’s not clear what wood he is referring to here. 
26 

The bonito hook is very important in fishing. It is also made by a specialist and it is important to 

tie the hook correctly. Krämer reports that Samoans said that if the hook was done wrong, 

misfortune followed and no bonito or shark would be caught. 

When the boats and hooks were ready, the bonito boats left shore and went outside the reef as a 

fleet under the command of the tautai. He decided on the movements at sea. Krämer reports that 

some left at twelve o’clock at night while others left at four o’clock in the morning. Beyond the 

reef, the man sitting in the bow looked for schools of bonito or for flocks of sea birds which 

pursue schools of small fish. The canoes raced to intercept the birds because often bonito were 

following the schools of small fish. When the crew saw the bonito school, they dropped the hook 

from the back of the boat and rowed through the school of fish, rowing quickly to keep with the 

school and so that the hook rested in the water. When the tautai at the back of the boat caught a 

fish, he yelled and swung the fish from the right side into the middle of the canoe. A skillful 

fisherman could flip the rod so that the hook jerked free in the air while the fish landed in the 

canoe. Hiroa explains that the hooks were not barbed because time spent in unhooking a fish 

would be time lost, and a barbed hook would be a drawback in bonito fishing. Some boats could 

catch as many as 100 bonito (Krämer, 1995: 227). Krämer says that, while fishing for bonito, if 

the tautai saw a shark, he would leave the school of bonitos so that he could go after the shark 

with a noose (Krämer, 1995: 227). Once the school of bonito got past the canoe, the hooks trailed 

in the water and the fishing was over (Hiroa, 1930: 508). 

Bonito fishing was so special that there were many taboos, or restrictions, regarding it. To begin 

with, bonito was considered a fish for chiefs, and even the supreme god, Tagaloa, wanted a 

bonito. According to Pratt, cited by Krämer, the bonito is called pau in poetry and on Tutuila 

simply i’a. There are many other special terms and phrases related to bonito. For example, the 

first bonito of the season is called gatogiā and should be given to the high chief; the first bonito 

in a new canoe is called o le i’a a Tagaloa (Tagaloa’s fish); sopoliu means to transgress the laws 

of bonito fishing by stepping over the canoe, and so on (Krämer, 1995: 227). As with the special 

language for chiefs, there are special words used for bonito. For example, the common name of 

bonito is  ̓atu (or  ̓aku), but it has the honorific names of pau and pa ‘umasumu. In counting 

bonito, they were grouped in tens expressed by prefixing tino to a unit, such as tinolua (20 

bonito) (Hiroa, 1930: 520). One saying refers to the fact that bonito chased by a sawfish will 

often take cover under a bonito canoe. The Samoans did not attempt to catch the bonito in this 

case for fear that the sawfish may charge if it sees the bonito being taken out of the water. Hence 

the saying of a hard-pressed man to a more powerful chief: “O lo’o tuli mata’i nei le  ̓atu i le 

sa’ula” (“The bonito is now carefully watching the sawfish,” in other words, “It’s your move”) 

(Hiroa, 1930: 508-09). 

In bonito fishing, as in netting mullet, the fishermen wore nothing but a ti leaf kilt, later a cloth 

kilt as at the time of Hiroa’s visit in 1927 (Hiroa, 1930: 520). The upper body was to be bare, and 

nothing could be worn on the head except lime to protect the fisherman from the sun. The crew 

members were prohibited from spinning their paddles in the air, leaning back in the seat, or 

stretching their legs over the topsides (Hiroa, 1930: 520). 
27 

On Manu’a in the 1950s, as reported by Lowell Holmes, the families of the crews and boat 

owners were forbidden to do any work while the fleet was out. They were expected to remain 

idle and pray for the fishing. The idle people were called “the family of Tuiatua,” since Tuiatua 

was a kind of patron saint of fishing (Holmes, 1974: 48). 

When the tautai decided the fishing was over, the fleet returned to shore. Before reaching the 

shore, however, he made a levy against all the canoes, by going to each one and asking, “How 

many?” Based on the answer, he demanded his share, which he used for a ceremonial meal for 

the fishermen. Holmes (1974: 48) reports that, in Manu’a, all the crew shared the ceremonial 

meal of raw bonito, the aleaga, before the boats came ashore individually. In general, fishermen 

were to give a fish or a portion of a fish to anyone they met in the water of the lagoon or on the 

shore. Hiroa reports, without specifying who they were, that the people who had not been fishing 

– and were termed tui atua – were entitled to a share of the catch by custom (Hiroa, 1930: 519). 

Likewise, any matai the fisherman met on his way home should be given a fish or could demand 

a fish. A set division and allocation of the parts of the bonito was customary, with the head going 

to the high chief, the sides to the talking chief, and the back to the other chiefs. The belly was put 

aside and the tail was discarded (Hiroa, 1930: 124). The bonito was a favorite dish for eating 

raw. It was cut up into small pieces in a large wooden bowl with water and lime in it and served 

as portions in half-coconut shells (Hiroa, 1930: 124). 

This one type of fishing, this elegant sport with its specially built canoe, was full of ritual and 

social significance in Samoa, especially when the bonito was about 60 cm in size and classified 

as trevalli or malauli (Krämer, 1995: 226, Illustration #69). At this stage in its growth, it was the 

food of chiefs and a common fisherman was supposed to give it over to the chiefs and not eat it 

himself. A transgression of this rule was the basis for the famous “Skipjack Case” in American 

Samoa in 1900, when the American colonial government intruded into, and denied, Samoan 

customary law (Gray, 1960: 132; Wright, n.d.). In this case, in the Western District, a junior 

matai named Fagiema caught and cooked a malauli which he should have given to High Chief 

Letuli. As punishment, Letuli ordered that Fagiema’s house be burnt to the ground and that his 

taro and bananas be uprooted (a traditional punishment). Fagiema sought refuge in Leone with 

High Chief Fai’ivae and Paramount Chief Tuitele, who was also the District Governor (it was the 

custom also to give refuge). When Tuitele called Letuli to him to explain, Letuli disobeyed 

Tuitele and did not come. Tuitele (or, Wright suggests, a representative of the London 

Missionary Society) reported Letuli to Commander Tilley and there was an American-style court 

hearing. Much of the deliberation focused on the size of the fish. A skipjack about 24 in long is a 

malauli,

18 and as such it is to be given to the high chief. When it is lupo (small) or grown so that 

it can eat a mullet (soponae) or full grown (ulua), it can be eaten by anyone. The hearing judged 

against Letuli and he was fined, lost his title for a year, and was confined to Pago Pago for 1 

year. From Letuli’s perspective, he was following fa’a- Samoa (Samoan tradition), but Tilley 

(and Dorn who wrote the judgment) saw it as taking the law into his own hands (Wright, n.d.). 

While an incident about a fish may not have seemed especially significant to the Americans, 

Samoan Paramount Chiefs Mauga and Tuitele later told Governor Graham in the 1920s that this 

incident was one of many that undermined the local matai system because the senior matai

 

18 There is a discrepancy here: Krämer says a malauli is 60 cm (23.6 inches) in size, whereas Milner (1966) defines 

it as being 12 inches. Twelve inches seems to be too small. Gray (1960: 132) reports the weight to be about 40 lbs, 

indicating the larger size. 
28 

(Letuli) could not punish a junior one according to Samoan custom (Gray, 1960: 134; Keesing, 

1934: 243; Olsen, 1976: 78). That same matai system was important in managing the local 

resources and remains important today for the same reasons, although now government agencies 

(such as the Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources and the Environmental Protection 

Agency) are also in the mix. 

Technique: Fish Poisoning 

Samoans are reported to have used as many as four different types of plant-based poisons to stun 

fish so that they could be easily collected. The poisons reported by various authors include the 

seeds of the futu (Barringtonia asiatica) (Stokes, 1921: 230; Judd, 1926: 63; Hiroa, 1930: 443; 

Coulter, 1941: 30 and 1957: 98; Milner, 1966: 73; Cox, 1979: 398; Moyle, 1984: 227; Krämer, 

1995: 204; Whistler, 2000: 137); the leaves, stems, and roots of the ‘avasā (Tephrosia purpurea) 

(Stokes, 1921: 230; Pratt, 1893: 81; Judd, 1926: 63; Milner, 1966: 37; Whistler, 2000: 137); fue 

‘o’ona (Derris trifoliata) (Whistler, 2000: 137); and ‘ava niukini, in English “New Guinea kava” 

(Derris malaccensis) (O’Meara, 1990: 88; Whistler, 2000: 137). 

Whistler (2000: 137), citing Buck (a.k.a. Hiroa), says there was also a Samoan word for a plant 

called ‘au’u’u, but he suspects that it is another term for Derris trifoliata as he says that it 

“appears” that ‘au’u’u may be cognate with the Tongan term kavahuhu for the same plant. 

However, Judd (1926: 63) notes that the Hawaiian term ‘auhuhu (which appears to be a closer 

match) refers to Tephrosia piscatorial (syn. Tephrosia purpurea) so it could instead be another 

term for ‘avasa. Note that Stokes (1921) describes the use of ‘auhuhu as a fish poison in Hawaii. 

Methods for using poisons varied slightly. The poison from the futu seed was used by scraping 

the seed with a piece of coral lapa, or sometimes it was pounded in stone mortars and then the 

particles were scattered in the water at reef pools during a low tide (Stokes, 1921: 230; Hiroa, 

1930: 443; Coulter, 1941: 30 and 1957: 98). Hiroa says that the scrapings were mixed with wet 

sand to form balls and then introduced into the water. Stokes says that a Mr. Mooker (who 

witnessed the process many times between 1901 and 1912 on Tutuila) told him that “soon after 

grating the prepared meal the fishermen threw it into the water by the handfuls, where it sank 

slowly” (Stokes, 1921: 230). It is said to have stunned the fish that were collected with nets 

(Moyle, 1984: 227; Krämer, 1995: 204). Krämer (1995: 204) states that balls of the poison were 

made and the fisherman would dive down and push them into crevices in the coral. 

The ‘avasā was prepared by pounding the leaves, stems, and roots with stones. The mash was 

then formed into a ball and released around the reef (Hiroa, 1930: 444; Whistler, 2000: 137). 

Hiroa (1930: 444) notes that in addition to the poisoning of pools (oloolo) that the ‘avasā was 

also used in lauloa fish drives to drive the fish out of their hiding places. Stokes (1921: 23-31), 

citing Brown (1910), says that ‘avasā was mixed with taro when applied. 

Tim O’Meara (1990: 88) reports that ‘ava niukini was also pounded and wrapped in leaves. 

Again, a fisherman would dive down, open the leaves, and spread the poison around coral heads. 

This poison, though its use is illegal and banned by village councils, is still used occasionally by 

fishermen. Herdrich saw it in use in 1986. The stunned fish were collected by hand and placed in 
29 

baskets woven from coconut leaves. Whistler (2000: 137) states that ‘ava niukini was introduced 

into Samoa sometime prior to 1929 and likely came from, as the name implies, New Guinea. The 

likelihood is good, as Verdcourt says that Derris malaccensis is “Used by some tribes [in New 

Guinea] as a fish poison, an emulsion being made from the roots...” (Verdcourt, 1979: 323). 

Lewella Churchill (1902) in her book Samoa ‘Uma describes the use of a vine that was used as a 

fish poison. She does not identify the vine, but Stokes speculates that it might be Ipomea pescaprae, I. terebrethum, or Derris uliginosa that was apparently used in Fiji to poison fish. 

Perhaps of more interest is that Churchill noted that after a sufficient quantity of fish were 

collected, the poison vines were collected from the reef tidal pool and put into a reef channel to 

be carried away so that its poison would not continue to harm the fish sheltering in the reef. 

Churchill felt that this was evidence of Samoan “recognition of the principles of game 

preservation” (Churchill, 1902: 125). 

We were unable to find descriptions of the uses of the fue o’ona, nor have we seen reference to it 

other than in Whistler (2000). 

Other Types of Fishing 

Squid Lures: Catching Octopus 

The squid lure has been described and diagramed by several authors (Beasley, 1921; Hiroa, 

1930: 435-36; Krämer, 1995: 229-30), and we include a drawing made by Cartwright in 1927. 

(Note that the terms squid, cuttlefish, and octopus were used interchangeably by early explorers, 

missionaries, and other observers, but as far as we can tell from the context of use and 

descriptions, they were all speaking of octopus and not true squid or cuttlefish. To the extent that 

we use the terms squid or cuttlefish it is in keeping with our sources, but we are confident that in 

all cases they were referring to octopus.) Octopuses were caught at low tide by women using a 

stick to poke in the holes in the reef. But men caught octopus by using lures inside the reef when 

the tide was in. Using a small paopao (small outrigger canoe), a man paddled backwards and 

forwards in the parts of the lagoon where he was likely to find an octopus. While paddling, he 

managed the line of the lure. The lure was lowered to just above the bottom and kept in motion 

by constant jiggling. This motion was said to look like a rat, and when the shells clicked the 

stone, it was said to sound like the squeaks of a rat (this method is still used). The octopus was 

attracted to the lure, and as the lure was drawn away, the octopus held onto it even more with its 

tentacles. The fisherman drew it out of the water and as both Hiroa and Krämer report, the 

octopus was bitten between the eyes to kill it. 

This fishing method, perhaps more than any other, is accompanied by a mythological story, 

which explains the style of the lure and why it should resemble the actions of a rat. Hiroa (1930: 

438) gives a version of the tale that he collected on Tutuila. Here is another version, very similar, 

collected by Bruce Cartwright in the Western District of Tutuila during the same trip in 1927: 
30 

Vaotuua’s Tale 

Why squid are caught with imitation rat 

Once upon a time ‘I SUMU (the rat), UNA (the coconut crab) and VE’A (the rail-bird) 

met at the land of ‘Ā and decided to make a pilgrimage to a celebrated and sacred place 

located on Cape TAPUTAPU.19 The rat and the rail-bird wanted to make the journey on 

foot but the coconut crab objected saying that he could not walk so far. He suggested that 

they build a “waa” (canoe) in which they could all sail. This was agreed to – so the 

coconut crab climbed up a coconut tree that hung over a large rock and cut off a coconut 

which fell onto the rock and split to pieces. The meat in one half was cleaned out by the 

rat and the coconut crab. It was placed in the sea and they got aboard – the rat sitting in 

the coconut-crab’s lap while he held on to the rail-bird’s legs. The rail-bird flapped his 

wings and the canoe sped over the water. When they had nearly reached their destination 

a hurricane came down upon them and wrecked the canoe. The coconut crab sank into the 

water where he was perfectly at home. The rail flew to safety but the rat had to swim. He 

soon tired in the angry sea and cried out in his distress. A FE’E heard him and coming to 

the surface told him to climb up on its head and he would take him ashore safely. This the 

rat did. As they neared the shore and the rat realized he was saved he deposited some 

pellets on the squid’s head. Finally the squid came to the beach and the rat jumped ashore 

and started for the bush. “You have not thanked me,” said the squid. “You will find your 

reward on top of your head,” replied the rat over his shoulder as he hurried away. 

Thereupon, the squid reached one of his tentacles up to the top of his head and discovered 

what had been deposited there. He was frightfully angry and grievously insulted and 

made an oath that forever after when it was in the power of a squid to catch a rat he 

would kill it without hesitation. (Cartwright Field Notebook II: 58-59, from the Bishop 

Museum Archives) 

 

19 Cape Taputapu is a real location in the Western District of Tutuila. 
31 

Drawing by Bruce Cartwright, 1927, Field Notebook II: 60, from the Bishop Museum Archives 

Collection20

Traps and Pots: Fish, Crabs, Crayfish, Lobsters 

Various versions of fish pots were used as traps to catch fish, crabs, crayfish, and lobsters. For 

fish, bait was put in the pot and the pot was set in likely looking pools or passages from the reef 

(Hiroa, 1930: 451). The open bottom of the trap was fitted on the sand and stones were put 

around the fish trap, which also served to attract to the spot other rock-frequenting kinds of fish. 

Often rocks were piled up in shallow water, without a pot, to attract fish. After a week or so, a 

net was put around the rocks and the villagers lifted the rocks out of the net, thus catching the 

fish attracted to the rocks (Judd, 1926: 98). 

The crab pots, which Hiroa saw at Nu’uuli in Tutuila, were built just like the fish pots, only 

stronger. Hiroa observed the pots being baited and set at Nu’uuli, where tupa land crabs 

(Cardisoma sp.) were broken into pieces and used to bait the traps. The traps were taken out into 

the lagoon where the water was about waist deep. The fisherman made a depression in the sand 

and put the trap into it; he also put a stone in the bottom to anchor it. There were no stones 

around the outside as with the fish pot. Each trap had a float attached to it, and the traps were set 

about 20 yards apart. The pots were set in the evening and picked up the next morning (Hiroa, 

1930: 453). Cartwright gives us an idea of how the crabs were stored in Nu’uuli: 

When the rain let up Chief SOLIAI took us for a walk around the village. We saw crab 

traps and learned that these crabs only occur here and at Leone (occasionally). They can 

 

20 This illustration is covered by copyright restrictions. Permission to reproduce it must be obtained from the Bishop 

Museum Archives, Honolulu, Hawai’i. 
32 

be kept out of water in baskets filled with leaves for a month – saw one which had been 

out of water a week was very lively. Dr Buck has description of trap and method of 

capture. (Cartwright Field Notebook II: 13, from the Bishop Museum Archives) 

The crayfish pot was of the same type and technique as the fish pot and was used only for sea 

crayfish. The pot Hiroa saw was stronger than the crab pot used at Nu’uuli. Sometimes a young 

crayfish was placed in the pot as a decoy (Hiroa, 1930: 454). 

The funnel type of lobster pot (‘enu) was still made in Tutuila and Manu’a when Hiroa visited in 

1927, where it was sometimes used to catch i’a sina (Hiroa, 1930: 455). Judd obtained one of 

these ‘enu at Fitiuta for the Bishop Museum (Judd, 1926: 96). In Leone, Ripley told Judd that the 

fish trap known on Manu’a as ‘enu was known on Tutuila as faga (Judd, 1926: 23). 

Turtles 

Krämer reports that turtle fishing employed a large net made of coconut sennit with meshes 

about the size of 1 foot. The fishing had to take place at high tide, no matter what time of day. 

The net was taken out to the outer reef or reef channel on a boat and unrolled in deep water. Ten 

to twenty people stayed near the net while others came from the beach, striking the sea. The 

turtles swam into the net and people dove down and brought them up, putting them into the boat. 

Krämer says they could catch 10 or more turtles this way (Krämer, 1995: 219). 

On Savai’i, where Hiroa watched villagers netting turtles, the net was used along the coast where 

there was no reef. Villagers beat the water and worked the lines of the net inwards to trap the 

turtles’ heads and fins in the net. In daylight, the turtles were easily removed from the net but at 

night the turtle and net were bundled together and taken to the shore (Hiroa, 1930: 488). 

Prawns 

Bruce Cartwright has a short description of how boys practiced catching prawns in a mountain 

stream near Fagasa in 1927: 

Our boys went down to the stream and brought us back taro-leaf cups full of delicious 

cold water. They then returned to the stream to catch prawns, many of which could be 

seen from where we were. They were about six inches long and when approached, 

snapped backward, with their tails like all members of the shrimp family. 

The boys took coconut leaf mid-ribs at the ends of which they tied small nooses of sennit. 

These nooses, one to a mid-rib, they tried to place directly behind the prawn. When they 

succeeded in doing this, which seemed quite difficult, they splashed the water in front of 

the prawn. This caused him to snap back into the noose, when he was thrown up on the 

bank. They had great fun, but only caught two prawns, which Fepulea’i casually picked 

up, pinched the heads off, and ate without comment. (Cartwright Field Notebook I: 97-

98, from the Bishop Museum Archives) 
33 

Eels 

At Malaeloa, Tutuila, Hiroa (1930: 492) went with a local fisherman to observe how he fished 

for eels. The fishing ground was a marshy spot where the stream flowed over flat ground to form 

a lagoon. They waded in; the bottom was soft and muddy and occasionally they sank up to their 

armpits in water. The fisherman baited a hook with a grub, tied the hook to a small branch with 

leaves, so that the branch and leaves acted like a float. The hooks were set at different places in 

the evening and left overnight. In the early morning the fisherman picked up the hooks and he 

could tell immediately by the way the branches floated in the water whether or not he had caught 

an eel. The tail of the fresh water eel went to the chief (Hiroa, 1930: 126). 

Hiroa (1930: 492) says that the process of making the hook (matau) is called fafau matau. On 

Tutuila, the matau tuna was used in 1927 in the freshwater lagoon at Malaeloa and in the 

freshwater stream at Aoloau. Alfred Judd collected some of these eel hooks from Ngangi of 

Malaeloa for the Bishop Museum (Judd, 1926: 62). 

Sea eels were caught with snares and traps. When a sea eel was located among the rocks inside 

the reef, the fisherman used a bait stick to lure the eel, and as the eel followed the bait, he caught 

it by throwing a noose around its head (Hiroa, 1930: 422). The trap was also used inside the 

lagoon. Here, bait was put into a tube-styled trap, with an inside slit of coconut fabric. Once the 

eel had passed through the slit toward the bait, it could not find its way out (Hiroa, 1930: 469). 

LEGENDS: SIGNIFICANCE AND CONTINUITY

Many myths and legends are associated with various places and activities in Samoa. Like other 

artisans, fishermen had their special gods and the fishery was subject to superstitions and 

mysticisms (Krämer, 1995: 198). A common legend was that, just as Pili taught the Samoans to 

plant taro and to cook, he taught them to fish, above all, with a net (Krämer, 1995: 196). In 

Manu’a (and maybe elsewhere), Pili was said to learn fishing from the female demon 

Sasa’umani, whose son Pulele’i’ite absconded with his wife. Sināsa’umani, Sasa’umani’s sister, 

had been caught by Tagaloaaui (the son of the girl Ui and the god Tagaloa) in his net and so 

Sasa’umani also caught everything she could get (Krämer, 1994: 9). She was a great fisher 

woman of the olden days and the friend of Fe’e, the octopus who carried on at the Utumanu’a 

cape on Ta’ū (story in Krämer, 1995: 197). On Ta’ū, Krämer visited “Sa’umani’s net lowering 

rock,” where people formerly offered sacrifices (Krämer, 1995: 509). 

Hiroa found that the mesh of a hand scoop in Ta’ū was called mata ‘upenga a Sasaumani, which 

indicated extra knotting of mesh (Hiroa, 1930: 472-73). He was told that these meshes were said 

to be derived from the nets of the Sasaumani [sic], an early fishing community on Ta’ū (Hiroa, 

1930: 472). This community was said to have left Manu’a and migrated to Savai’i due to a 

number of causes, one of which reportedly being the theft of a turtle belonging to the Tui Manu’a 

(the highest title holder in Manu’a). According to legend, the Tui Manu’a had a special 

monopoly on turtles (Hiroa, 1930: 522). 
34 

Along with these legends about fishing, special rocks were considered to be attractors for certain 

marine resources and this was likely part of a wider practice around Polynesia. Hiroa (1935: 51) 

points out that Polynesians understood the activities of the animals and birds around them, not 

only as food sources, but also for nonconsumptive reasons. In traditional Polynesian society, 

inanimate gods were believed to influence the movements of living bodies in order to convey 

messages to their followers. Birds were typically seen as the messengers of the gods. A further 

step was taken when families and groups selected certain living things – such as the eel – to 

represent their specific god, in which case the species became taboo to all followers of the god at 

all times (Hiroa, 1935: 51). 

There were also inanimate objects – such as stones, shells, teeth – that were believed to have 

favorable powers (Hiroa, 1935: 85-86). Without naming the exact place, Hiroa tells the following 

story about a bonito rock that could bring good luck (1930: 510): 

There is a myth about a rock in a river in Savai’i to which the bonito came and left part of 

their flesh as an offering. If a bonito is caught off of Savai’i with a portion of its flesh 

missing, it is held to have been to the rock. Such a fish caught on a new hook is a lucky 

omen for the owner. 

We found attractor stones in American Samoa at several locations and Kirch (1985: 152) has 

found evidence of similar stone fishing shrines in the Hawaiian archaeological record. While 

Hiroa gives the bonito example, these stones are often associated with atule and sometimes they 

are more general. 

Atule Stones: Aoloau 

Bruce Cartwright has a description of Aoloau in 1927, where he describes a stone that was meant 

to lure atule into the lagoon (Cartwright, 1939: 79-80). The account begins with a description of 

the types of canoes in Aoloau and the division of labor in the village. Aoloau is no longer 

occupied at this location; the villagers have moved up the mountain. This is a description of the 

village when it was sited along the shore. 

The village of Aoloau is quite primitive and shows very little outside influence. Behind 

the guest house near the bank of a trickling stream some men were building canoes. One, 

a large bonito canoe, and two small pau-pau. In every house the women were busy 

making mats, tapas, nets and other articles. 

Chief Fuimaono said that formerly there was a stone, which lay in the water near the 

beach. It was an atuli [sic] stone. It had two holes in it, and was very sacred. Large 

schools of atuli came to the vicinity of Aoloau and visited this stone. I asked him if the 

atuli still came to visit the stone. He replied that atuli still came to Aoloau at certain 

times, but that their numbers were not as great as formerly, and they did not visit the 

stone because it had been removed from the sea and now adorned the western corner of 

the pae pae of his home. We asked if he would show us the atuli stone, and he replied 
35 

that he would do so with pleasure. ... On the way there I picked up several stone adzes 

which lay in the path, as did Dr. Buck. 

The stone was set in the pae pae about 1 foot from the ground and about 2 ft from the 

western corner of the pae pae. It was a round waterworn black basalt lava stone, with a 

small overlap of lava on the edge of which were two natural holes, probably bubbles, 

about a half inch in diameter and an inch deep. Chief Fuimaono knew nothing more about 

it than what he had told us. I asked him if Sina had anything to do with the stone. He said 

that Sina was a celebrated traditional woman who had a lot to do with most things 

Samoan, and that it was quite possible that her name was connected with the stone, but he 

did not remember ever having heard her name used in connection with it. In Hawaii the 

fish god was KU and his wife was HINA. Hina and Sina would be the same person in 

Samoa. 

Atule Stones: Fagasa 

A similar relation of stones to atule is found in Fagasa, on the north coast of Tutuila, where the 

legend can be found today. In Fagasa, two sacred stones are believed to attract atule to the 

lagoon. Here is the story of the stones, as recorded by Cartwright in 1927, along with his 

illustration of the stones: 

FAGATELE – up at dawn 

We were taken by Talking Chief Sala and the pastor’s father to the pro-wall back of the 

pastor’s to see the two sacred stones placed on a stone “alu” about 2 feet high and 

surrounded by a hedge of croton bushes. These stones were water-worn and flattish – 

about 1 foot across 

one stone is SIGA, daughter of LIIAWAA, has two holes 

other stone is TOGAMANA, son of ALO 

Talking Chief Sala’s Tale 

One stone was once TOGA MANA the son of chief ALO the other stone was once SIGA, 

the daughter of chief LII-A-WAA. 

LII-A-WAA came from PULOTU, an island to the West – then he arrived at UPOLU and 

could get no food there – he then went to MANU’A for water and food but found none. 

He heard in Manu’a that there was plenty of food and water on TUTUILA so he came 

here – to FAGATELE. The people of the village got FAPUTU, and the boat was loaded 

with food. Chief LII-A-WAA told his daughter SIGA (HINA in Hawaii) to go to the 

stream and fill 10 water bottles with water. While she was searching for a nice pool (to 

get the water from) chief LII-A-WAA ordered the boat, a canoe of ALIA type with over 

100 passengers, to leave – so they started off and were soon out of sight. 
36 

SIGA came back from the stream with her 10 full water bottles and saw just the tip of the 

sail on the horizon. She ran along the shore in desperation dropping water bottles now 

and then – these places where these bottles fell and broke are now springs – welled up 

where people bathe – then she ran out into the water and the 10th water bottle, that 

belonged to her father, fell into the water – at the place where there is now a fresh water 

spring cut on the reef under the salt water. She went as far as she could toward the distant 

sail, but the villagers went out and got her and brought her to the village where they built 

a house for her and took care of her. 

In the meantime the canoe sailed on – SIGA’S absence unnoticed until her father LII-AWAA wanted  ̓ava. He called for his daughter and taupou but she was not on the alia 

(double canoe). LII-A-WAA took each passenger and threw them overboard telling them 

to find SIGA and bring her back to him. They turned into 2 varieties of fish – the ATULE 

(AKULE in Hawaii) and the MUMUA (for when the latter are skinned you can see their 

human hands – 4 fingers and a thumb and they are tattooed on the sides – you will also 

find in their stomachs the food that was prepared for them by the people of Fagatele). The 

mumua [dolphins] always come to Fagasa before the atule – the latter following them – 

when they are sighted a paddle is raised as a signal to the village. A chief with a fan and 

clad in a fine mat then stands on the shore and waves the fan and invites the fish to come 

in by singing the following song: 

VALOGA AU UKI I MA SALOGA 

AUTAI MALIU MAI I UTA 

MA LE APULUPULU OLE TAI 

UA LILIU LE SONA UA ITA INA 

UA LE IFO MAINAINA IFO 

MAIō

(Song written by Malama, the son of Le’oso, on the spot) 

SIGA married TOGAMANA of FAGATELE and before they died, they turned into the 

stones. (Cartwright Field Notebook I: 82-84, from the Bishop Museum Archives) 
37 

Illustration from Bruce Cartwright, 1927, Field Notebook I: 81, from the Bishop Museum 

Archives21

A similar version of the Fagasa legend was collected by Brother Herman (1970 [1955]) in the 

early 20th century, although here the emphasis is on the dolphins: 

The Dolphins of Fagasa 

The boat came from the west and called at Fagasa for a rest. It was the boat of Li’ava’a, 

the king of Fiji, who was on a voyage with his daughter Sina. It was the king’s custom to 

have his kava daily while sailing on the high seas. 

While they were in Fagasa, Li’ava’a asked Sina if she had filled her water bottles. The 

girl answered, “No.” So Li’ava’a sent her to draw water. The girl took the coconut bottles 

and went to the spring Vaitilofia inland of the place called Taputapu. When Sina had 

filled the bottles, she wished to pick some Job’s tears. The plant grew near the spring. 

She put down the bottles and got busy picking the berries. 

When the Fijians were about to resume their journey, Li’ava’a asked whether Sina had 

returned. The crew answered that she was asleep. But it was not so; the girl was still 

engaged picking Job’s tears. Li’ava’a ordered: “Raise the anchor and let us go.” 

 

21 This illustration is covered by copyright laws. Permission to reproduce it must be obtained from the Bishop 

Museum Archives, Honolulu, Hawai’i. 
38 

When the canoe was far out in the sea, Li’ava’a suddenly said, “Awaken Sina that she 

may chew some kava.” They searched and searched, but the girl was not to be found. 

Li’ava’a now knew that she had been left behind in Fagasa. Then Li’ava’a took hold of 

the paletua (a stick for the steersman to lean against) and beat the men. The crew cast 

themselves into the sea and begged Li’ava’a to spare their lives. He answered, “No, you 

shall die this very day.” Then he threw bananas at them. The crew said, “Li’ava’a, please 

command what we are to do.” Li’ava’a replied, “Be changed into dolphins and rise in 

Fagasa Bay every year.” 

When Sina had finished picking the berries, she went with her water bottles toward the 

sea. She stood on the beach. She looked, but there was no boat. Only the mast could still 

be seen in the distance. Then the girl cried and one of her water bottles cracked. A spring 

bubbled up which exists to this day. It is called Tufu. Then the girl waded into the sea 

with the other coconut bottle. She stood on a rock in the sea. She waved her white fan, 

but no one saw her. The boat was too far away. She cried again and the other bottle 

cracked. A spring bubbled up from under the rock in the sea. Even at high tide its water is 

fresh to the present day. 

While Sina was standing there weeping, Togamana, who had been out fishing, came 

along. He asked, “Why do you cry?” The girl replied, “I have been left behind by my 

father and his crew.” So he made Sina jump into his canoe and took her ashore. Then 

Sina lived with Togamana in wedlock. 

Before long, Li’ava’a’s boat was seen approaching. Li’ava’a said to Togamana, “Did you 

notice those dolphins in the sea?” Togamana replied, “Yes, I saw them.” Li’ava’a then 

said, “They shall be Sina’s dowry to your Excellency and come to you every year.” 

In Fagasa there still are two rocks known as “Sina’s Rock” and “Li’ava’a’s Rock.” And 

to this very day the dolphins appear every year in the Bay of Fagasa. 

What makes this story especially interesting is that the stones are still in Fagasa, and in July 2007 

they were washed as part of a ceremony to celebrate the return of the atule. During this time, the 

lagoon was made ‘sa.’ In 2007, High Chief Lilio provided a copy of his version of the legend 

associated with the stones. It is presented below with his permission. 

The Blessing of the Rocks, Fagasa 

The Story of Sina and Liava’a as told by High Chief Lilio Aliitai 

We believe that the akule [a linguistic variation of the term atule] is a blessing from God 

and was given to our ancestors hundreds of years ago and to this day, still provides food 

for the village. 

As the legend goes, years ago a member of the Royal Tongan family, Liava’a, and his 

daughter Sina sailed to Tutuila in search of the pure waters of Fagasa. Upon arrival, Sina 

set off with her coconut shells to locate the beautiful springs. Her father, not realizing 

that his daughter was on land, ordered the boat to leave as soon as they had filled their 

containers with water. 
39 

When Sina returned to the shore and found her father’s boat gone, she knelt, crying 

loudly in despair at having been left behind. To this day, three fresh water underground 

streams in Fagasa still flow, signifying the fresh water spilled as Sina ran along the shore, 

crying for her father’s return. 

Miles out to sea, her father called for Sina to prepare the  ̓ava. Learning that his beautiful 

daughter was not on board, he became enraged and threw his entire crew into the sea with 

orders to return to Fagasa to take care of Sina. The blessings were upon the men and they 

were changed to dolphins to hasten their return to Fagasa. Spotting a school of akule 

outside the bay, they quickly herded the akule into shore to make certain all who cared 

for Sina would be well fed. 

Meanwhile, Sina was taken in by High Chief Lilio of Fagasa who loved her dearly and 

adopted her as his own. Her death, and the love of her father were forever preserved in 

stone. From that day on, Chief Lilio and his family are the keepers of the rocks and are 

given the responsibility of preserving the legendary practice of showing appreciation for 

the generous harvest of akule. 

Atule Rock: Asili 

Arielle Levine and Fatima Sauafea-Leau (n.d.) also report on contemporary stories collected 

from elder fishermen regarding stones of significance to fishing in American Samoa. As part of a 

series of interviews with elder fishermen throughout Tutuila and the Manu’a Islands in 2007 and 

2008, High Talking Chief Maugaotega of Asili reported a fishing rock, called Afagaila, which 

was significant to atule fishing in his village. Like in Fagasa, the rock was ceremonially washed 

before atule harvests. The chief believed thatatule was absent today because the rock was no 

longer being washed. High Talking Chief Maugaotega explained the beliefs surrounding the 

Afagaila during an interview22 with Taito Fale Tuilagi in 2007: 

According to legends, our family has a special rock out in the reefs. This rock is called 

Afagaila... Early in the morning, if you spotted the akule [atule] near the shore, you must 

summon me first. You will come and say to me, "Mauga, the akule is closing in near the 

shore." In my beliefs, and also that of my family, this rock was treated like an idol. There 

are only two people who can bathe this rock: first is whoever is the oldest and the wisest 

of the family, and second is the one who holds the title Maugaotega. If there is no older 

one, then Maugaotega will bathe the rock. 

After my children and I finish bathing the rock, as the morning comes and sunlight hits 

this rock, it will shine. This is why it is called Afagaila. So once the aku sees this, it will 

come in and start biting this rock. It will keep biting and biting until the tide goes out. 

Well, the akule is preoccupied with biting the rock and forgets about the tide, so 

afterwards, when it tries to go back out, it can't exit because it is too shallow. Then the 

akule will swim into a lagoon that we called Apiolefaga... Apiolefaga is where the fish 

 

22 Translated from the original Samoan by Joe Iosua, Samoan Studies Program, American Samoa Community 

College. 
40 

will stay and hope for the tide to come in. Well, here is where it meets its doom... when 

people come by and see that the fish are trapped and stranded, then they say, “the fish has 

met its end.” This is some of the evidence that I am trying to share with you about our 

legend and the akule. Different villages have different idols, but this rock is ours. 

Fishing Rock: Fagamalo 

The village of Fagamalo also has a legendary rock that is tied to fishing (Ofisa and Ripley, 

1976). The legend was presented in an interview conducted in 1976 by students from the 

American Samoa Community College. The students interviewed Chief Loa Mailei and High 

Talking Chief Moi Falelua of the village of Fagamalo. The story concerns the legendary Siamese 

twins Taema and Tilafaiga who were said to have been split apart when a wave threw them 

against a rock in a section of Fagamalo Village (Ofisa and Ripley, 1976: 69). 

During the interview when asked if the section of the village where this event happened still 

exists Chief Moi responded and told the students the following: 

Moi: Yes, this part of the village still exists. People often go fishing there. There is that 

rock that I mentioned earlier, a flat rock (the rock that split apart the twins), which the 

people of Fagamalo go to fish. It is said that if you cast your nets over that rock your 

fishing will prosper. But there is one catch to this rock. The moment you touch the rock 

the fish will disappear. You have to collect the net without touching the rock. For some 

strange reason once you touch that rock one cannot see a fish or living organism in that 

area of water. 

A preacher wanted so much to see if this legend was true. He journeyed to this part of the 

village and touched the rock. To his surprise he did not see a fish in the sea for miles. 

Whether you believe it or not is left up to you. 

Cheri: Does it affect you, if you touch it? Will any harm come to you? 

Moi: No. It would not affect you or harm you at all. 

Solo: What if you do not believe in this saying about touching that rock? 

Moi: There will be no fish for your catch whether you believe it or not because as soon 

as you touch that flat rock no fish can be seen for miles (Ofisa and Ripley, 1976: 71-73). 

CONCLUSION 

Our sources all report the importance of marine resources in Samoan diet and culture, as well as 

the extensive knowledge that Samoans had about their environment and the behavior of these 

creatures. So long as the population was relatively low in relation to available land and 
41 

resources, and so long as food was produced and consumed locally, the system remained in 

balance over long cycles. That is, there were times of large catches, particularly related to mass 

spawning events, but these harvests were episodic and the fish were caught for local subsistence 

consumption. The whole system was under the supervision of the village fono and the matai. If 

they determined that certain resources were threatened, they could put a ‘sa’ on all activities until 

they were satisfied that the situation was again suitable for fishing or gathering. By the 1930s, 

our observers report the importation and circulation of canned fish, signaling the beginning of 

substantial changes that would take place in traditional Samoan systems of food production, 

consumption, and distribution. 

Natural resources are always more than just food; every group adds cultural significance and 

makes distinctions. Samoan culture and religion, as documented in the 19th century, considered 

certain species to be animate representations of the gods. For example, some marine resources, 

and the number of gods they represent, were: turtle (5), stingray (2), octopus (7), eel (4), sea-eel 

(4), mullet (5), sea urchin (1), cockle (1), and land crab (1) (Hiroa 1935: 53, Table 1). These 

species were often considered to be sacred and declared taboo, resulting in a prohibition of 

consumption of these species in certain villages. Such beliefs provided a cultural logic for the 

protection of natural resources. The introduction of Christianity replaced the belief in animist 

gods in Samoan culture and removed a number of consumption taboos. While a respect for 

natural resources remains an element of Samoan culture today, the religious basis for these 

beliefs has shifted dramatically, limiting the utility of certain traditional beliefs and taboos for 

modern resource management. 

The introduction of new technologies for fishing, food production, food preservation, and 

transportation in the 20th century also altered Samoan interactions with the marine environment. 

In particular, new technology promoted greater commercial food production. It became easier to 

fish, food was produced far from where it was consumed, and new incentives to harvest more 

than could be immediately consumed in order to generate an economic profit developed. At the 

same time, the Samoan population grew steadily during the 20th century, adding to the pressure 

on natural resources (although this has been mitigated by out-migration after 1950). In American 

Samoa in particular, food production has shifted significantly from the local to the global, 

bringing with it a shift in the exploitation of resources and reducing American Samoans’ 

subsistence reliance on local marine produce. This change in the Samoan diet and lifestyle has 

brought with it resultant health problems of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, among others 

(Keighley et Al., 2007). This report provides evidence, when compared to currently reported 

practices from other sources, that there has been a shift in the production and consumption of 

marine resources over time. It also illustrates the importance of food produced locally – how the 

social, cultural and natural are intertwined – and how local systems of production and local 

interactions with marine resources are a critical component to consider and to incorporate into 

the management of ocean fisheries at the regional, national, and international levels. 
42 

PHOTOGRAPHS 

Polynesian Photo Archives Photographs 

The Polynesian Photo Archives located in the Feleti Barstow Public Library, Tutuila Island, 

American Samoa contains over 4,000 historic photographs of Polynesia, with a focus on 

American Samoa. A keyword search of the archives revealed 11 historic photographs of fishing 

methods, gear, techniques and legendary sites related to the same. Following are the 

photographs, with a brief description of each photograph. (The photographs in this report are low 

resolution copies of the original photographs, but high resolution copies are available from the 

Feleti Public Library upon request.) 

Of particular note are a set of three photographs of “atule rocks” and their traditional ceremonial 

care and use. Atule, bigeye scad (Selar crumenophthalmus), are prized fish that are historically 

known to spawn in great numbers in waters adjacent to the village of Fagasa, Tutuila Island, 

American Samoa. The atule rocks relate to a legend associated with the origin of the fish and 

their continued abundance. The rocks are still in existence and the traditions and ceremonies 

associated with them, as well as historically known fishing techniques, are still practiced by the 

Fagasa villagers. 

Krämer (1995: 217-218) reported that “many, many thousands” of atule were harvested in the 

reef flat area off of Ta’ū Village, Ta’ū Island, American Samoa during his visit in May, 1898. 

He provides two photographs of a rock weir technique being used by Ta’ū villagers (1995: 238 

[Plate 1] and 217 [Illustration #65]). Atule have been harvested in a similar fashion from the 

waters adjacent to Ofu Village, Ofu Island, American Samoa as recently as 2002 (Craig et al., 

2008). P. Craig et al., (2008) report that a historic fishing technique using a rock V-shape weir, a 

large basket, and villagers to herd the fish is still used by the Ofu villagers in their harvest of the 

atule. 
43 

Plate 1. Two Atule rocks from Fagasa, Tutuila Island, American Samoa (PH-137-A). 
44 

Plate 2. Two Atule rocks on altar at Fagasa, Tutuila Island, American Samoa (PH-137-B). 
45 

Plate 3. High Talking Chief (HTC) Tua Faima (sitting with bottle), Left to Right: HTC Atuatasi 

Talosaga, High Chief Alo Su’esu’emanogi W. Steffany, and HTC Mata’u Auvasa; washing of 

Atule Rocks in front of Faletalimalo of Mata’u at Fagatele, Fagasa, Tutuila Island, American 

Samoa (PH-137-C). 
46 

Plate 4. Paopao boat; fishing nets in the background, circa 1945 (PH-140-19). 

Plate 5. People in several paopao boats at Fagasa Bay circa 1950 (PH-CR-14). 
47 

Plate 6. Paopao boats in Fagasa Bay circa 1950 (PH-CR-18). 
48 

Plate 7. A young fisherman posing with a string of fish in Amouli, Tutuila Island, American 

Samoa, 1941 (PH-JK-27). 
49 

Plate 8. Enu (fish trap). Traditional fish trap woven with sennit; displayed at Jean P. Haydon 

Museum, Fagatoga, Tutuila Island, American Samoa (PH-M-08). 

Plate 9. Paopao boat with fish nets in the background, circa 1929 (PH-VM-118-x). 
50 

Plate 10. Paopao boat and fishermen, circa 1940 (PH-WF-132-2). 

Plate 11. Young Samoan boys spear fishing, Pago Pago Harbor, Tutuila Island, American 

Samoa, circa 1940 (PH-WF-132-9). 

Recent Atule Rock Photographs 

In addition to the photographs of the atule rocks in the Polynesian Photo Archives, Volk, 

et al., (1992) provide a photograph of a rock altar, presented below. 
51 

Plate 12. Fagasa Atule Rocks 1992 (Volk et al.) (Photo: D. Herdrich). 

Evelyn Lilio: Atule Rock and Traditional Fishing Photographs 

Furthermore, recent photographs (August 2007) of the atule rock ceremony and the traditional 

fishing practices used to catch the atule were obtained through the cooperation of High Chief 

Lilio Aliitai, Evelyn Lilio, and the Village Council (fono) of Fagasa. With regard to the atule

rock photographs and photographs of traditional fishing in Fagasa, High Chief Lilio consulted 

with the Village Council of Fagasa, who consented to the release of the photographs for this 

report. A sample of the photographs, shot by Evelyn Lilio, is presented below. 23

 

23 The Lilio photographs are presented with the understanding that they are to be used for educational purposes only 

and not for any commercial purposes. High Chief Lilio Aliitai and Evelyn Lilio expressed willingness to allow the 

photographs to be used also in the video documentary that is a part of the overall project. 
52 

Plate 13. L to R: Vasaoaiga Talalelei Lilio, Matiu Suani, Salevao La’auli Tua, and Epati Lilio 

stand behind Atule Rocks resting on rock altar, Fagasa, American Samoa, August 2007 (Photo E. 

Lilio). 
53 

Plate 14. An atule rock is taken into Fagasa Bay to undergo traditional ritual washing, August 

2007 (Photo E. Lilio). 
54 

Plate 15. Fagasa villagers use a traditional launiu (coconut frond) weir to encircle and catch 

atule, August 2007 (Photo E. Lilio). 
55 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Anonymous. 

1928 The Samoan division of time. Journal of the Polynesian Society 37: 228–240. 

Information about fish and palolo seasons; months and moon for palolo.

Auapa'au, S. 

1956 Fishing methods used by Samoans. In: Laufasi Ola. Vol. 1, No. 3: 1-6. 

A good list of fishing methods in Samoan, with a short description in English; tells where 

the methods are practiced, although specific to Upolu and Savai’i, with no mention of 

locations in American Samoa; short description of spawning of Tilipia. 

AusAid. 

2000 “Increasing rural incomes: an evaluation of three rural sector projects in Samoa”. 

Quality Assurance Series, No. 19, July. A description of the results of Australian-funded 

development projects related to fishing in independent Samoa. 

Barradale, V. A. 

1907. Pearls of the Pacific being sketches of missionary life and work in Samoa and other 

islands in the South Seas. London: London Missionary Society (Simpkin, Marshall, 

Hamilton, Kent & Co. Ltd.) 

Beasley, H. G. 

1921. Some Polynesian cuttlefish baits. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. G. B. Irel. Vol. 51:100-114. 

Includes descriptions and drawings of Samoan octopus lures. 

1980 [1928]. Fish hooks (Pacific Island Records). Facsimile Reprint, London: John Hewett. 

Section on Samoan fishhooks, comparative data; drawings. 

Becke, L. 

1901. The Tanifa of Samoa. In: By Rock and Pool: on an Austral Shore and Other Stories. 

London: T. Fisher Unwin, pp. 165-173. Tanifa is the Samoa term for a large man-eating 

shark; this provides a description of a unique way to kill sharks. 

1909. The palolo worm of Samoa. In: ‘Neath Austral Skies. London: John Milne, pp. 289-

293. A basic description of harvesting the palolo. 

Blackwell, E. M. Commander. 

1948. Blackwell Genealogy. Richmond, Virginia: Old Dominion Press, Inc. 

Blackwell was in Pago Pago with Commander Tilley in 1900; he has a description of a 

fish drive in Pago Harbor and also a description of the Skipjack Case. 

Brown, G. 

1910. Melanesians and Polynesians: their life-histories described and compared. London: 

MacMillan, 451 p. 
56 

Carpenter, K. E., M. Abrar, G. Aeby, R. B. Aronson, S. Banks, A. Bruckner, A. Chiriboga, J. 

Cortes, J. C. Delbeek, L. DeVantier, G. J. Edgar, A. J. Edwards, D. Fenner, H. M. Guzman, B. 

W. Hoeksema, G. Hodgson, O. Johan, W. Y. Licuanan, S. R. Livingstone, E. R. Lovell, J. A. 

Moore, D. O. Obura, D. Ochavillo, B. A. Polidoro, W. F. Precht, M. C. Quibilan, C. Reboton, Z. 

T. Richards, A. D. Rogers, J. Sanciangco, A. Sheppard, C. Sheppard, J. Smith, S. Stuart, E. 

Turak, J. E. N. Veron, C. Wallace, E. Weil, and E. Wood. 

2008. One-third of reef-building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate change and 

local impacts. Science 321(5888): 560-563. 

Caspers, H. 

1984. Spawning periodicity and habitat of the palolo worm Eunice viridis (Polychaete: 

Eunicidae) in the Samoan Islands. Mar. Biol. 79:229–236. A biologist’s description 

of the palolo; describes the relationship between the moon and tides and the appearance 

of the worm; includes a good historic chart of the known dates of the appearance of the 

worm. 

Christie, P. 

2004. Marine protected areas as biological successes and social failures in Southeast Asia. 

Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 42:155–164. 

Cinner, J., and S. Aswani. 

2007. Integrating customary management into marine conservation. Biol. Conserv. 140: 201-

216. 

Churchill, L. P. 

1902. Samoa ‘uma: where life is different. New York: Forest and Stream Publishing. 

Churchward, W. B. 

1971 [1887]. My Consulate in Samoa: a record of four years’ sojourn in the Navigators 

Islands, with personal experience of King Malietoa Laupepa, his country and his men. 

Folkstone: Dawsons (The Colonial History Series). 

Clark, J. T. 

1980. Historic preservation in American Samoa: program evaluation and archaeological site 

inventory. Report on file, American Samoa Historic Preservation Office, Pago Pago, 

American Samoa. A basic inventory of archaeological sites, some of which relate to 

traditional fishing practices on Tutuila and Manu’a. 

Clark, J. T., and J. E. Landrum III. 

n.d. The Va’oto Site: Excavations at a coastal site on Ofu Island, American Samoa. 
57 

Cleghorn, P. L., W. Shapiro, J. Robins, and K. Latinis. 

2000. Archaeological data recovery report for the proposed Ta‘u Road reconstruction 

at Faga and Fitiuta, Ta‘u Island, Manu‘a, American Samoa. Prepared for U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. Kailua, Hawaii: Pacific Legacy, Inc. Describes some fish and 

shellfish remains recovered at Faga prehistoric village on Ta’ū. 

Copp, J. D. 

1984 [1950]. The Samoan Dance of Life: an anthropological narrative. Westport, 

Connecticut: Greenwood Press. A first-hand account of bonito and shark fishing, eastern 

Tutuila; good descriptions of dividing the catch. 

Coulter, J. W. 

1941. Land utilization in American Samoa. Bishop Museum Bulletin 170. 

Describes fishing based on 1937 field research; comments on rods and lines, spears and 

nets, traps, poison, types of fish caught, palolo, and the increased consumption of tinned 

fish. 

1957. The Pacific dependencies of the United States. New York: The Macmillan Company, 

pp. 66-126 (Chapters on American Samoa). Descriptions of fishing and fishing methods 

in American Samoa such as net throwing, poisoning, and trolling. 

Cox, P. 

1979. The use of indigenous plants as fish poisons in Samoa. Econ. Bot. Vol. 33, No. 4: 397-

399. 

Craig, P., A. Green, and F. Tuilagi. 

2008. Subsistence harvest of coral reef resources in the outer islands of American 

Samoa: modern, historic and prehistoric catches. Fish. Res. 89: 230-240. 

Compares modern and prehistoric fish catches and concludes that there is continuity in 

practices; based on archaeological data from the Toaga site, Ofu Island, and modern 

surveys of annual harvests. 

Demandt, E. 

1913. Die Fischerei Der Samoaner; Eine Zusammenstellung Der Bekanntesten 

Methoden Des Fanges Der Seetiere Bei Den Eingeborenen; Im Anhang: Die 

Samoanischen Und Zoologischen Namen Der Seetiere. Hamburg: L. Grafe&Sillem. 

Compilation of Samoan fishing methods, cited by Hiroa. 

1914. Seefauna und Fischerei in Samoa. Mitt. Deutsch. Seefisch. Vol. 30, No. 3: 106-117. 

Types of marine animals and the fishing practices of the Samoans; cited by Hiroa. 

Des Rochers, K. and F. Tuilagi 

1993. American Samoa subsistence fishing survey. Technical report, Department 

of Marine and Wildlife Resources, American Samoa. 
58 

Dye, T. S., and T. R. Graham. 

2004. Review of archaeological and historical data concerning reef fishing in Hawaii and 

American Samoa. On file American Samoa Historic Preservation Office. 

http://www.tsdye2.com/reports/028/report.pdf A basic review of sources; can be used as 

a reference for other research but not very descriptive about American Samoa. 

Eisler, D. 

1995. Fagaitua Bay Phase II Research Project: final report on the American Samoa 

Power Authority waterline project from Alega to Alofau. Apia, American Samoa: 

American Samoa Power Authority. 

Enright, J., S. Ortquist, and R. LaTour. 

n.d. Fa‘atautaiga: Traditional Samoan fishing methods. Pago Pago: American Samoa 

Council on Culture, Arts & Humanities. A popular description of fishing methods with 

drawings; a small booklet. 

Fa’asili, U., and F. Sauafea. 

2001. Technical input into the Community Fisheries Management Program of American 

Samoa. Secretariat of the Pacific Community Field Report No. 5. 

Firth, R. 

1965. Primitive Polynesian Economy. NY: Norton. This is a comparative work, based on 

Firth’s data from fieldwork in Tikopia in the 1920s and 1930s; it gives a comparative 

picture of the use of traditional fishing resources in Polynesia. 

1975 (original 1939). Primitive Polynesian Economy. NY: Norton. This is a comparative 

work, based on Firth’s data from fieldwork in Tikopia in the 1920s and 1930s; it gives a 

comparative picture of the use of traditional fishing resources in Polynesia. 

Gray, J. A. C. 

1960. Amerika Samoa: A history of American Samoa and its United States Naval 

Administration. Annapolis, Maryland: U.S. Naval Institute. This contains a description of 

the conflict between traditional practices related to fishing and the U.S. Naval 

Administration, in particular the Skipjack Case on Tutuila. 

Green, R., and J. Davidson. 

1969. Archaeology in Western Samoa, Vol. 1. Bull. Auckl. Inst. Mus., Auckland. 

Halpern, B. S., S. Walbridge, K. A. Selkoe, C. V. Kappel, F. Micheli, C. D'Agrosa, J. F. Bruno, 

K. S. Casey, C. Ebert, H. E. Fox, r. Fujita, D. Heinemann, H. S. Lenihan, E. M. P. Madin, M. t. 

Perry, e. R. Selig, M. D. Spalding, R. S. Steneck, and R. Watson. 

2008. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319: 948-952. 

Hart, J. W. 

1996. Samoan culture. Ati’s Samoan Print Shop, Apia. Revised edition, originally 

published 1966. A popular description of Samoan fishing methods, with drawings. 
59 

Herdrich, D. J. 

1991. Towards an understanding of Samoan star mounds. Journal of the Polynesian Society

Vol. 100 (4): 381-435. This is a description of the star mounds and how they were used 

for catching pigeons; the method of catching pigeons can be compared to the method for 

catching mullet with nets. 

Herdrich, D., J. R. Moore, N. Kilzer, and J. Kennedy. 

1996. A Cultural Resource Evaluation Phase I and II for a Portion of Road 1b, 

Phase 1 of the Ta‘u Road Reconstruction, Ta‘u Island, Manu‘a, American Samoa. 

Prepared for McConnel Dowell. Hale‘iwa, Hawaii: Archaeological Consultants of 

the Pacific, Inc. Report describing fish and shell remains excavated on Ta’u. 

Herman, B. 

1970 [1955]. Tales of ancient Samoa. The Book Shop, Samoan Church, Pago Pago, 118 

pages; Contains myths and legends, some of which are related to beliefs about fish and 

fishing practices; describes the legend of the dolphins at Fagasa. 

Hill, H. B. 

1978. The use of near shore marine life as a food resource by American Samoans.

Miscellaneous Work Papers 1, Pacific Islands Program, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 

MA thesis: contains data and charts on the frequent and basic fishing techniques found in 

eastern Tutuila during the fieldwork period of 8 months in 1975-76; a focus on three 

villages – Faga’itua, Lauli’ifou, and Aua – and their use of the reefs, based on 

observations and interviews with local fishermen. 

Hiroa, T. R. (Peter Buck). 

1930. Samoan material culture. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 75. 

Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. The section on fishing methods pages 418-522: 

Detailed descriptions of traditional Samoan fishing methods, including drawings, figures 

and photographs; this is the most comprehensive text for traditional Samoan fishing 

methods, based on fieldwork in 1927; he covers techniques on Tutuila and Manu’a, in 

addition to Upolu and Savai’i. 

1935. Material representatives of Tongan and Samoan gods. Journal of the Polynesian 

Society 44: no. 173 (48-53), no. 174 (85-96), no. 175 (153-162). This is an explanation of 

the ways in which Tongans and Samoans made contact with their inanimate gods prior to 

their conversion to Christianity. 

Holmes, L. 

1974. Samoan village. Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology, Stanford University, 108 

pages. He describes the variety of fishing methods for Fitiuta, for both men and women; 

also claims that people were not fishing so much – but eating tinned fish (during 1950s); 

has some data about taboos and restrictions on Ta’ū; comments on the work of Margaret 

Mead. 
60 

Hornell, J. 

1950. Fishing in many waters. University Press, Cambridge. 

Johannes, R. E. 

1978. Traditional marine conservation methods in Oceania and their demise. Ann. Rev. 

Ecol. Syst. Vol. 9: 349-364. An overview of methods in Oceania; stresses the importance 

of village level restrictions on rights to fish the adjacent waters; gives an example from 

Samoa about how a ‘sa’ (restriction) was put on the area where sea turtles lay their eggs 

so that villagers would not take them; makes the argument that Oceania has a different 

approach to fishing than Western society and that a market economy changes traditional 

practices of conservation. 

1982. Reef and lagoon resource management in Western Samoa. Report to the Government 

of Western Samoa and the South Pacific, 22 pages. 

1984. Marine conservation in relation to traditional life-styles of tropical artisanal fishermen. 

The Environmentalist Vol. 4 (Supp. 7): 30-35. This is a shorter version of the 1978 

article, making much the same argument. 

2002. Did indigenous conservation ethic exist? SPC Traditional Management Bulletin 14: 3-

7. 

Jordan, D. S., and A. Seale. 

1906. The fishes of Samoa: description of the species found in the archipelago, with a 

provisional checklist to the fishes of Oceania. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 25 

(December 15): 173-455. Includes Samoan and scientific names of fish based primarily 

on fieldwork conducted between February and May, 1888. 

Keesing, F. 

1934. Modern Samoa: its government and changing life. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 

Keesing, an anthropologist, compares developments in Western Samoa and American 

Samoa based on field research in 1930; he has good descriptions of the social structure 

and how Samoan cultural practices continue under two separate governments. 

Keighley E. D., S. T. McGarvey, C. Quested, C. McCuddin, S. Viali, and U. Maga. 

2007. Nutrition and health in modernizing Samoans: temporal trends and adaptive 

perspectives. In: Ohtsuka R. and Ulijaszek S. J. (editors), Health Change in the AsiaPacific Region. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 147-91. 

Kikuchi, W. K. 

1963. Archaeological surface ruins in American Samoa. Unpublished M.A. thesis. 

University of Hawaii. On file, the American Samoa Historic Preservation Office, Pago 

Pago, American Samoa. A description of fishing stone heaps on Tutuila; legendary sites 

in Fagasa related to Sina; bait cups on Manu’a. 
61 

King, M., and U. Faasili. 

1999. Community-based management of subsistence fisheries in Samoa. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 

6: 133-144. This article reports on the successful community-owned Fisheries 

Management Plan instigated in independent Samoa during the 1990s. The project 

depends on the fact that fishing communities are repositories of valuable traditional 

knowledge and have a high awareness of the marine environment. Within the first two 

years of the project, 44 villages produced Village Fisheries Management Plans and 38 of 

these villages established community-owned Marine Protection Areas. 

Kirch, P. V. 

1985. Feathered gods and fishhooks: an introduction to Hawaiian archaeology and 

prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Contains comparative data, drawings 

and photos of fishhooks and fishing shrines. 

Kirch, P.V., and R. C. Green. 

2001. Hawaiki, ancestral Polynesia: an essay in historical anthropology. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. Using archaeological, ethnographic and linguistic data, the 

authors construct a model of ancestral Polynesian subsistence patterns, material culture, 

social and political organization, and gods, seasons, and rituals. 

Kirch, P. V., and T. L. Hunt. (Eds.) 

1993. The To‘aga Site: three millennia of Polynesian occupation in the Manu‘a 

Islands, American Samoa. Number 51 in Contributions of the University of California 

Archaeological Research Facility, University of California, Berkeley, CA. 

A detailed description and analysis of shellfish and fish remains from a large sample; 

descriptions of prehistoric fishhooks, shell rings, beads, shell bead abraders, coral 

abraders, sea-urchin spine abraders, and a drilled shark’s tooth; this is a major 

archaeological site in American Samoa; it is the data set that Craig et al., were using in 

their study. 

Krämer, A. 

1994 and 1995. The Samoa Islands: an outline of a monograph with particular consideration 

of German Samoa. Vol. I (1994; orig. 1901) and Vol. II (1995; orig. 1903). Honolulu: 

University of Hawai‘i Press. Contains a section on fishing, pages 196-233, and boat 

building, pages 281-308; based on field research circa 1900 throughout the Samoan 

islands, with detailed descriptions of fishing methods, including drawings and 

photographs; also has various legends related to fishing including the Fagasa legend of 

the dolphins; often cited by Hiroa and others following. 

La Perouse, J.-F. d. G. 

1799. A Voyage Round the World, Performed in the Years 1785, 1786, 1787, and 

1788. London: A. Hamilton. Includes descriptions of fishing methods; this was the illfated trip where they were attacked at Aasu; he notes fishing methods such as line, hooks, 

nets and spears; also a description of outrigger canoes. 
62 

Latinis, K., J. R. Moore, and J. Kennedy. 

1996. A cultural resources evaluation Phases I and II for the Ta‘u Secondary Road located on 

Ta‘u Island, American Samoa. Prepared for American Samoa Disaster Recovery Office. 

Hale‘iwa, Hawaii: Archaeological Consultants of the Pacific, Inc. This contains a 

description of a small sample of fish and shell remains, Ta’ū. 

Levine, A., and F. Sauafea-Leau. 

n.d. Traditional knowledge of marine resource use and management in American Samoa; 

based on interviews with elder fishermen (2007-2008). Elder fishermen from Tutuila and 

Manu’a islands were interviewed regarding changes in marine resource use and 

abundance over time, traditional fishing techniques, traditional management methods 

(historical and contemporary), legends related to fishing, and other aspects of traditional 

knowledge. 

Lewthwaite, G. R. 

1962. Land, life, and agriculture to mid-century. In: Western Samoa: land, life and 

agriculture. Christchurch, New Zealand: Whitcombe & Tombs Ltd. pp. 130-176. 

Linnekin, J., T. Hunt, L. Lang, and T. McCormick. 

2006. Ethnographic assessment and overview, National Park of American Samoa. DRAFT.

203 pp mimeo. Cooperative Parks Study Unit. UH Manoa. 

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/basch/uhnpscesu/pdfs/LinneknRptdraft.pdf

Review of fishing methods, legends, and restrictions applying to the National Park areas 

around Vatia and in Manu’a; they used the “free list data” method where they asked 

people to name the most important fish and marine species in order to assess local 

cultural knowledge. 

Lockwood, B. 

1970. Economic statistics of Samoan village households. Canberra: Research 

School of Pacific Studies, Department of Economics, Australian National University. 

1971. Samoan village economy. New York, London: Oxford University Press. 

Based on field research in the 1960s, a study of 4 village economies in Western Samoa 

and the transition to a market economy; looks at the source of cash and the dependence 

on traditional forms of subsistence; not particularly focused on fishing but some data on 

fishing methods and contribution of fishing to household economy. 

Lundie, G. A. 

1846. Missionary Life in Samoa, as Exhibited in the Journals of the Late George Archibald 

Lundie During the Revival in Tutuila in 1840-41, edited by his mother, Mary Lundie 

Duncan. Edinburgh: William Oliphant and Sons. This contains early descriptions by a 

missionary of Leone village, American Samoa; food presented at feasts. 
63 

Matagaluega o le Autalavavou, Taaloga and Aganuu 

[1990?]. O le mafuala o upu o le faigafaiva: O le Tusi Faamatala Upu o le Gagana Samoa. 

96 p. A Samoan language dictionary of fishing terms that has been produced by the 

church groups in the villages of Taaloga and Aganuu, independent Samoa. 

Maruyama, K. 

2001. The abstracts of the excavations in the village of Utumea, Eastern Tutuila, American 

Samoa, June and July 2001. This is an unpublished report on file in the American Samoa 

Historic Preservation Office, Pago Pago, American Samoa. A small sample of fish and 

shellfish remains are noted. 

Mauss, M. (in collaboration with H. Beuchat). 

1979 [1950] Seasonal Variations of the Eskimo: A Study in Social Morphology. Translated 

with a Foreword by J. J. Fox. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. his is an early analysis 

of the relation of culture and natural systems. 

McGerty, L., R. L. Spear, P. L. Cleghorn, and W. A. Shapiro. 

2002. Archaeological data recovery of a trail feature within the Faga Village site (AS11–1), 

Ta‘u Island, Manu‘a Island Group, American Samoa. Prepared for U. S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District. Honolulu: SCS/CRMS. 

Mead, M. 

1930. Social organization of Manu’a. Bishop Museum Bulletin 76, Honolulu, Hawaii. 

A description of Manu’a social organization and restrictions surrounding fishing, 

distribution of fish; fishing methods; bonito fishing; legends; dreams. 

Milner, G. B. 

1961. The Samoan vocabulary of respect. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. G. B. Irel. Vol. 91, No. 2 

(Jul. – Dec.): 296-317. A description of the respect language used for chiefs; shows how 

language is related to the system of hierarchy and social structure. 

1966. Samoan dictionary. London: Oxford University Press. Excellent dictionary of 

Samoan/English; many terms regarding fish and fishing techniques; also proverbs related 

to fishing. 

Moore, C. (Director). 

1972. Vea: Tufuga Samoa. KZVK-TV, Pago Pago, American Samoa. (29-minute video) On 

file, American Historic Preservation Office, Pago Pago, American Samoa. An 

educational video produced in 1972 that features the construction of a traditional va’alo, 

or bonito boat, on Ta’ū, using traditional construction techniques. 
64 

Moore, J. R., and J. Kennedy. 

1996a. Archaeological resources on Lau‘agae Ridge: A Phase II cultural resource 

evaluation of site AS-21-100, the Lau‘agae Ridge Quarry for Phase III ofthe Onenoa 

Road Project located in East Vaifanua County, Tutuila Island, American Samoa. 

Prepared for Samoa Maritime Company. Hale‘iwa, Hawaii: Archaeological 

Consultants of Hawaii, Inc. 

1996b. A cultural resource evaluation Phase I and II for the Ofu-Olosega Road Improvement 

Project, Phases I and II, located on Ofu and Olosega Islands, Manu‘a, American Samoa. 

Prepared for American Samoa Power Authority. Hale‘iwa, Hawaii: Archaeological 

Consultants of the Pacific, Inc. 82. 

1999. Results of an archaeological cultural resource evaluation Phases I and II for the Tafuna 

Plains Sewer System, Phase IIa, located in Tualauta County, Tutuila Island, American 

Samoa. Prepared for American Samoa Power Authority. Hale‘iwa, Hawaii: 

Archaeological Consultants of the Pacific, Inc. 

Moyle, R. 

1984. The Samoan journals of John Williams 1830 and 1832. Pacific History Series No. 11, 

Australian National University Press, Canberra. Describes a fish gorge with float, notes 

nets, shell hooks, spears, fish drives, poisoning and the use of a stick; verifies the flying 

fish float technique; also notes they use the shell of the turtle to make rings, fish hooks, 

neck and ear ornaments. 

Neich, R. 

1985. Material culture of Western Samoa - persistence and change. Bulletin No. 23, National 

Museum of New Zealand. Description of canoes and fishing. 

Ofisa, S., and C. Ripley. 

1976. Loa Mailei ma Moi Falelua. FaaSamoa Pea Vol. 1, No. 3: 62-82. This contains the 

story of the fishing rock at Fagamalo, American Samoa. 

Olsen, F. H. 

1976. The Navy and the white man’s burden: Naval Administration of Samoa. Ph.D. 

dissertation. Department of History, Washington University, St. Louis Missouri. 

A review of the history of American Samoa based mainly on documents from the Naval 

Administration in the National Archives; includes mention of the Skipjack Case. 

O’Meara, J. Tim. 

1990. Samoan planters: tradition and economic development in Polynesia. Fort Worth: Holt, 

Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology. He discusses 

traditional fishing methods and some quantitative data from a three-week fishing survey 

during fieldwork in the early 1980s in Western Samoa; nothing about American Samoa. 
65 

Pearl, F., and W. Sauck. 

2007. Paper presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. 

On file, American Samoa Historic Preservation Office, Pago Pago, American Samoa. 

Contains a discussion of fishhooks and harvested sea urchins found in an archaeological 

context. 

Ponwith, B. 

1992. The shoreline fishery of American Samoa: A 12-year comparison. DMWR Biological 

Report Series 22, Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, Pago Pago, American 

Samoa. 

Powell, T. 

1877. On the nature and mode of use of the vegetable poisons employed by the Samoan 

Islanders. Linnean Society Journal of Botany Vol. 16: 55-60. 

Pratt, Reverend George 

1893. A grammar and dictionary of the Samoan language, with English and Samoan 

vocabulary (3rd and Revised Edition), First Published by the London Missionary Society, 

London. An older dictionary of Samoan terms than Milner, useful as a cross-reference 

and for dating terms and techniques; used by Hiroa in his research in order to judge 

continuity in certain practices or to verify stories about what had been done in the past. 

Pritchard, W. T. 

1985 [1866]. Polynesian reminiscences, or life in the South Sea Islands. With a preface by 

Dr. Seeman. Papakura, N.Z.: Southern Reprints. 

Richards, R. 

1988. Samoa’s forgotten whaling heritage: American whaling in Samoan Waters 1824-1878, 

a chronological selection of extracts from primary sources, mainly whaling logbooks, 

journals and contemporary news items. Wellington, New Zealand: Lithographic Services, 

Ltd. Notes on what was being traded with the Samoans by the whaling fleets; the 

Samoans were interested in metal fishhooks, muskets; they provide fish, turtle shell, and 

different kinds of shells. 

Roggeveen, J. 

1970. The Journal of Jacob Roggeveen. Edited by Andrew Sharp. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 

Describes the first European contact with the Samoan group; observations of bonito 

canoe at Ta’ū and Ofu; trade of flying fish for glass beads. 

Safford, W. E. 

1906. Glossary of principal words composing native names of Samoan fishes. U.S. 

Department of Commerce and Labor Bulletin. 
66 

Saipele, Nuuiali’i Mulipola Ma’ilo. 

1990. Proverbs of Samoa. Wellington, New Zealand: Snap Printing Ltd. Contains 25 Samoan 

language proverbs related to fishing. 

Saucerman, S. 

1994. The inshore fishery of American Samoa, 1991 to 1993. DMWR Biological Report 

Series 55, Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, Pago Pago, American 

Samoa. 

1995. The inshore fishery of American Samoa, 1991 to 1994. DMWR Biological Report 

Series 77, Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, Pago Pago, American Samoa. 

Severance, C. J., and R. Franco. 

1989. Justification and Design of Limited Entry Alternatives for the Offshore Fisheries of 

American Samoa, and an examination of preferential fishing rights for native people of 

American Samoa within a limited entry context. Final Report, Western Pacific Regional 

Fishery Management Council, Honolulu. Reviews historical fishing techniques and 

documents practices up to 1980, focusing on proverbs, the importance of bonito fishing, 

ceremonial cuts and distribution of certain fish; asked informants their opinions about 

restricted fishing. 

Schultz, E. 

1994. Samoan proverbial expressions. Auckland, New Zealand: Polynesian Press. 

Contains proverbial expressions related to fishing. 

Shapiro, W. A., and P. L. Cleghorn. 

1999. Archaeological Monitoring for the Construction of the Ta’ū Road, Fagā and Fitiuta, 

Ta’ū Island, Manu‘a, American Samoa. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Honolulu: Pacific Legacy. 

Solomon, K. H., J. A. Beck, and P. Cleghorn. 

2005. Data Recovery Fatumafuti Village, Tutuila Island, American Samoa. Report prepared 

for Fulton Hogan, Ltd. On file, American Samoa Historic Preservation Office, Pago 

Pago, American Samoa. 

Stair, J. B. 

1897. Palolo, a sea worm eaten by Samoans. Journal of the Polynesian Society 6:141–144. 

Notes small funnel-shaped baskets, beautifully made, to catch palolo; remarks about the 

distinctive name of the day; small fish said to appear just before palolo. 

1983 [1897]. Old Samoa, or flotsam and jetsam from the Pacific Ocean. Papakura, New 

Zealand: R. McMillan. Descriptions of canoes and fishing methods; can be compared 

with others, like Krämer. 
67 

Stokes, J. F. G. 

1921. Fish poisoning in the Hawaiian Islands, with notes on the custom in Southern 

Polynesia. B.P. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 7 (10): 219-33. Describes fish 

poisoning method on Tutuila; notes other methods used in Samoa generally. 

Thilenius, G. 

1900. Bonito und Haifang in Alt-Samoa. Globus Vol. 78: 127-129. About bonito and shark 

fishing in traditional Samoa; the bonito sections are much like Hiroa; the shark-hunting 

adds some different details about the head fisherman on shore. 

Tuiteleleapaga, Chief, N. A. 

1980. Samoa yesterday, today and tomorrow. Great Neck, New York: Todd & Honeywell, 

Inc. Brief discussion of taboos on fish and turtles and sharks; story of shark fishing in 

Leone. 

Turner, G. 

1861. Nineteen years in Polynesia: missionary life, travels and researches in the islands of the 

Pacific. Includes a lot about Samoa: discussion of fish taboos, canoes, fishing nets and 

fish hooks. 

1989 [1884]. Samoa: a hundred years ago and long before. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pacific 

Studies, University of the South Pacific. Discussion of fish prohibitions and the 

manufacture of various types of fishing gear. 

Turner, P. 

Jan 1, 1836 – June 11, 1839 Journal Book 4 and 5. A missionary’s descriptions of 

distributions of fish and food, large exchanges and quantities. 

1837. Journal of Peter Turner, Book 5, Wenesday July 19, 1837. Books 4 and 5, covering the 

period January 1, 1836-June 11, 1839, contain a missionary’s descriptions of distributions 

of fish and food, large exchanges and quantities. 

Underwood, E.B. Commander. 

1903. Governor’s annual report for fiscal year ending June 30, 1903. This annual report, as 

was the custom, was sent to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Naval Department, 

Washington D.C. 

Van Pel, H. 

1959. Fisheries in American Samoa, Fiji, and New Caledonia. South Pac. Bull. 9(3): 26-27. 

Veitayaki, J. and V. Ram-Bidesi, E. Matthews, L. Gibson, and V. Vuki. 

1995. Overview of destructive fishing practices in the Pacific Islands Region. Suva, Fiji: 

University of the South Pacific. Summary of destructive fishing methods used in the 

Pacific islands region, including American Samoa; good chart. 
68 

Verdcourt, B. 

1979. A manual of New Guinea legumes. Office of Forests, Lae, Papua New Guinea. 

Volk, R. D., P. A. Knudsen, K. D. Kluge, and D. J. Herdrich. 

1992. Towards a territorial conservation strategy and the establishment of a conservation 

areas system for American Samoa. Pago Pago: Le Vaomatua, Inc. On file, American 

Samoa Historic Preservation Office, Pago Pago, American Samoa. Contains photographs 

of a turtle petroglyph and Fagasa atule rocks. 

von Bulow, W. 

1902. Fishing rights of the natives of German Samoa.” Globus 82: 40–41. 

von Kotzebue, O. 

1967 [1830]. A new voyage round the world in the years 1823-1826. New York: Da Capo 

Press. 

Walsh, W. J., I. D. Williams, R. E. Schroeder, A. M. Friedlander, B. L. Richards, and 

K. A. Stamoulis. 

2008. Assessing the importance of fishing impacts on Hawaiian coral reef fish assemblages 

along regional-scale human population gradients. Environ. Conserv. 35: 261-272. 

Wass, R. C. 

1980. The shoreline fishery of American Samoa – past and present. In: Marine and coastal 

processes in the Pacific: ecological aspects of coastal zone management; Papers 

Presented at a Unesco Seminar Held at Motupore Island Research Centre. University of 

Papua New Guinea, 14-17 July 1980, pp 51-83. Jakarta: Regional Office for Science and 

Technology for Southeast Asia, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Organization. 

Watters, R. F. 

1958a. Culture and environment in Old Samoa. Studies of man and environment in the 

western Pacific. Pages 41-70. Includes a discussion of sea resources; a brief description 

of the importance of fish resources for the Samoan diet. 

1958b. Cultivation in Old Samoa. Economic Geography Vol. 34, No. 4 (Oct.): 338-351. 

Much the same points as Watters 1958a. 

Whistler, W. A. 

2000. Plants in Samoan culture: The Ethnobotany of Samoa. Honolulu: Isle Botanica. 

Descriptions of fish poisons and fish traps. 

White, A. T., A. Salamanca, and C. A. Courtney. 

2002. Experience with marine protected area planning and management in the Philippines. 

Coastal Management 30:1-26. 
69 

Wilkes, Charles 

1844. U.S. Exploring Expedition, 1838-42, Vol. II. Philadelphia: C. Sherman. The expedition 

visited Tutuila in 1839; includes a description of fishhooks and fishing; the La Perouse 

affair, and Rev. Murray’s activities with the London Misssionary Society on Tutuila. 

Willis, L. 

1889. The story of Laulii, daughter of Samoa. Edited by W. H. Barnes. San Francisco: Jos. 

Winterburn & Co.A discussion of reef fishing, including gathering shellfish, fish 

poisoning, groping and nets; palolo; fish drives. 

Unpublished Sources 

Bougainville, L. De 

1772. A voyage round the world, in the years 1766, 1767, 1768, and 1769. Translated from 

the French by John Reinhold Forster. London: printed by J. Nourse, Bookseller to His 

Majesty; reprinted in 1967 by the Gregg Press, Inc., Ridgewood NJ. 

Cartwright, B. 

September 1927 Field Notebooks I and II, Bishop Museum Archives, Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Extensive notes about the Bishop expedition in 1927, in the company of Alfred Judd and 

Te Rangi Hiroa (Peter Buck); good personal observations; some drawings and 

descriptions about fishing; fishing shrines; places visited on Tutuila. 

Cartwright, B. 

1939. My Samoa; manuscript (typescript) in Pacific Collection, Hamilton Library, University 

of Hawaii. This documents his visit in 1927; a more polished form of the field notebooks. 

Drees, F. J. 

n.d. Samoa and her people: A group of anecdotes about my travels by longboat and trail over 

a large part of the Islands of Samoa. Personal copy of Charles Myers, Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Covers period around 1935 when Drees was Superintendent, Department of Education, 

American Samoa; good photos; some notes about fish eaten and exchanged; canoes. 

Edwards, E. 

1915. Voyage of the H.M.S. ‘Pandora’: dispatched to arrest the mutineers of the ‘Bounty’ in 

the South Seas, 1790-91. Being the narratives of Captain Edward Edwards, the 

commander, and George Hamilton, the surgeon, with an Introduction and Notes by Basil 

Thomson. London: Francis Edwards. 

Ellitott, J. L. 

1839. Journals of J. L. Ellitott, a member of the Wilkes Expedition, Microfilm, University of 

Hawaii Hamilton Library. Describes how Samoans worship aitu (spirits) of fish and 

others; travels around Tutuila. 
70 

Hudson, Captain W. 

1839. Fieldnotes; unpublished journal notes taken during the Wilkes Expedition; Microfilm, 

University of Hawaii Hamilton Library. Describes how Samoans move around according 

to food availability. 

Judd, A. 

1926. Expanded notes on the ethnology of American Samoa. Bishop Museum Archives, 

Honolulu, Hawaii. Some observations about fishing and canoes, based on a 1926 field 

trip. 

Wright, J. 

n.d. The Skipjack Case, 1900. Unpublished Manuscript, Territorial Archives, American 

Samoa. Wright was the Territorial Archivist and wrote this description of the Skipjack 

Case based on three sources in the Territorial Archives; describes the problem caused 

when a man took a malauli home rather than giving it to the high chief, according to 

custom; much of the debate surrounded the size of the fish because only at the stage when 

it is malauli does it have to be presented to the chief; larger or smaller fish are not 

affected by this custom; Western District, Tutuila. 
 A-1 

 

APPENDIX A: TRADITIONAL FISHING CHRONOLOGY 

1722 (June) Roggeveen and Bouman: At Ta’ū and Ofu they see canoes that are likely 

bonito canoes (i.e. they have plank construction, are “neat and fast” and have “three 

paddles”). At Ofu they trade beads for a mat and flying fish (Roggeveen 1970: 151-

153). 

1768 (May) De Bougainville: Between Ta’ū and Ofu-Olosega; traded, some of the items 

received were fishhooks made of fish bone and “some pieces of very fine shell.” 

Described what are likely to be bonito canoes with outriggers and line of white shells 

on pegs on the back and fore deck. “They did not choose to have any iron: they 

preferred little bits of red stuffs (cloth) to nails, knives, and earings, which we had 

had so great a success at Taiti” (De Bougainville 1772: 280-281). 

1787 (December) La Perouse: At Tutuila describes canoes, notes fishing with line and 

hooks, hooks made of “tortoise” (turtle) shell and “inclosed in a sort of case of 

mother-of-pearl, or white shell, skillfully wrought in the resemblance of a flying 

fish..” La Perouse traded for “tunny, bonetfish, or dorado.” Says the largest fish 

would be traded for a few beads. Observed “arrows” that he thinks are likely small 

spears for spearing fish. Also notes the use of sweep net and types of fish caught, also 

observed “greatly ornamented” canoes (La Perouse 1799: 110, 112-113). 

1791 (June) Edwards HMS Pandora: At Tutuila notes that islanders have canoes. No 

explicit mention of fish or fishing; saw canoes and traded. Also that, “Natives have 

blue, mulberry and other coloured beads about their necks, and we understood they 

got them from Captain Cook at Tongataboo.” Also notes some natives covered in 

turmeric (Edwards 1915: 55-56). 

1824 (April) Von Kotzebue: “Our visitors proved to be merry fishermen, for their carefully 

constructed little canoes adorned with inlaid muscle-shells, were amply provided with 

large angling hooks made of mother-of-pearl, attached to long fine lines, and various 

kinds of implements for fishing, and contained an abundance of fine live fish of the 

mackerel kind” (Von Kotzebue 1967: 268). 

“An expression of openness and confidence sat on the countenances of this people. 

Our purchases were carried on with much gaiety and laughter on both sides. They 

gave us their fish, waited quietly for what we gave them in return, and were perfectly 

satisfied with their barter” (Von Kotzebue 1967: 268-69). 

1824 Captain Richard Macy in the Maro says that “natives fond of blue beads” (Richards 

1988: 20). 

1826 (December) William Plasket: Traded for shell clubs with blue and green beads 

(Richards 1988: 22). 
A-2 

1827 (January) William Plasket: During trading obtained “shells of different kinds” 

(Richards 1988: 22). 

1827 (September) Captain Benjamin Vanderford in the Clay traded three hundred pounds 

of sennit for “the value of twenty cents in beads, hooks, etc.” (Richards 1988: 20). 

1830 John Williams: Notes that various fish, such as Anae (grey mullet Velamugil sp), 

shells, and eels were held sacred as gods. He also notes that fish were presented along 

with pigs in ceremonial exchanges which involved reciprocal gifts of tapa cloth 

(siapo) and fine mats (Moyle 1984: 126 and 133). 

1832 John Williams: Describes gorge fishing device with floats and fish bones for the 

gorges. Also notes the use of fishing nets, pearl and turtle shell hooks, spears, and the 

coconut leaves for fish drives as well as the use of the futu seeds for fish poisoning. 

He also notes that there are water snakes and that these are “held sacred by some 

particular Chiefs being the object in which the Spirit of his god resides and is called 

his Etu” (Moyle 1984: 227). 

1835 (June) Salem Trader ship Emerald at Savaii: “Canoes came off with coconuts and a 

white man came off, he says there is no shell which is our object in stopping here.” 

They note about shell “Thirty to 40 head of shell may be picked up here in the months 

of April, May, and June at the rate of a musket a head. (Shell averaged at the rate of 

2 1/4 pounds per head.) Thirteen pieces of shell of one Turtle or head” (Richards 

1988: 44 and 46). 

Also, Upolu: “Our principal object was Hogs and Turtleshell;” “we traded for about 

70 grunters and three turtles. We gave them one musket for ten good sized hogs and 

one musket for one turtleshell” (Richards 1988: 47). 

“Told the natives to bring all their shell this am as we intended to leave this noon. 

Canoes came along side loaded with hogs for the most of which we traded with 

bayonets giving one bayonet for a small sized pig. This am we bought all the 

turtleshell they had which amounted to 8 lbs” (Richards 1988: 48). 

1836 Turner, P.: Notes that fish are an important part of exchange ceremonies and feasts. 

For example: opening of a "leaders house." "It is 28 feet by 57 and very handsomely 

wrapped.” (Elsewhere he claims it is the largest house in Samoa.) "After a sermon 

we distributed a large feast prepared by the teachers and some of the people. Pigs 

260, baskets of tarro 1,900, fish 600, bananas 60 bunches" (Turner 1836-1839: 66). 

1839 Wilkes at Ofu: Gives fishhooks as presents. At Tutuila, notes that at Fagasa Chief Toa 

had fresh water eels as his aitu (spirit god). He said with regard to the eels that he 

“constantly fed [them] in the brook near the village. I visited it, and requested him to 

catch one, which he attempted to do; but after a long search, turning over large stones, 

and examining holes, he was unsuccessful. He said there were many in it formerly, 

and quite tame; but since he had embraced Christianity, they had all been caught and 
A-3 

destroyed; on farther questioning him, he told me that he had himself eaten them; that 

formerly if any one had touched, disturbed, or attempted to catch one, he should have 

killed him immediately” (Wilkes 1844: 72-73, 81). 

Fishing is described as a great employment. Wilkes has a detailed description of a 

fish drive in Savaii with the use of nets and coconut leaves. Says that, “About a canoe 

load was caught, comprising thirty different kinds of fish, some of which were six or 

eight pounds in weight, but the majority were smaller. The haul was considered an 

unsuccessful one, which was attributed to some misunderstanding and 

mismanagement among the natives, by which a large stone fell on the net, and 

allowed many of the fish to escape” (Wilkes 1844: 84). 

In addition, the cast net is also used. He notes that fish and taro are the principle 

food, mullet being usually caught, and that they also eat shellfish and a large kind of 

worm. Also describes a fish drive in waters off Savaii that caught 30 different kinds 

of fish (Wilkes 1844: 84, 87, 117). 

Ellitott: Notes that animate and inanimate objects were deified including birds, fish, 

stones. He says that, “The fisherman the farmer and the voyager had each their Gods 

who were deified for the skill they had evinced in those products.” Has a brief 

description of plank built canoes. Notes the use of nets with floats and stone sinkers. 

Notes that crabs and lobsters are found among the rocks. Describes processing of 

arrowroot with the use of a coral grater. Provides human population numbers: “The 

population of the Samoan Islands is about 50,000 of whom about 40,000 are on the 

islands of Savaii, Upolu, Apolima, and Manono. The remainder are distributed on 

Tutuila, Olosenga and Ofu.” Also, “This Island [Upolu] contains nearly 30000 

inhabitants” (Ellitott 1839). 

Hudson: Interesting discussion of the reasons for malaga trips, including scarcity of 

food and the fact that virtually the entire village would go on a three-month trip. 

Provides population numbers for Upolu: 20,000 are Christian, and 5,000 “heathen” 

(Hudson 1839: 333 and 335). 

1840 Lundie: Fish are part of exchange ceremonies. Notes that Samoans pay “religions 

honors” to fish and birds. And that they would worship wood and stones. He also 

noted the great pleasure Samoans express in receiving a fishhook (presumably metal). 

He says, "The ecstatic joy they experienced on receiving a fish-hook, was expressed 

by shouting and whooping at the highest pitch of their voices" (Lundie 1846: 109, 

145, and 232). 

1841-1860 Turner, G.: Turner reports on an extensive number of Samoan gods that were 

“incarnate in” various fish and sea creatures, prohibitions against consuming them, 

sanctions against violators, and prohibitions on using lagoons during festivals related 

to the deities (Turner 1861). 
A-4 

After 1840 there are extensive descriptions of fishing and fishing related activities in Turner 

(1861), Stair (1897), (Krämer 1994, 1995) and Hiroa (1930). 
 B-1 

 

APPENDIX B: FISH TERMS AND SIZE 

This appendix provides two descriptions of Samoan fish terms. The first is organized 

alphabetically, by terms used in this paper. The second are terms taken from Milner (1966) and 

are grouped by genus and/or species and size. Note that there is some variation related to terms 

that refer to more than one genus and terms that are also related to genus by location and other 

characteristics. Some descriptions from Milner are not consistent with current fish terms in use 

today. 

Samoan fish terms (organized alphabetically): 

‘anae: mullet, 20-40cm length (family: Mugilidae) 

‘ata’ata – large grouper (family: Serranidae) 

atu (aku): bonito (family: Scombridae) 

atule: big eye scad (Selar crumenophthalmus)

āua: young mullet, 8 – 12cm length (family: Mugilidae) 

i’asa – turtle 

i’asina: juvenile goat fish (family: Mullidae) 

fe’e – octopus 

fo: cardinalfish (genus: Apogon) 

fuga: parrotfish (family: Scaridae) 

galo: parrotfish, greater than 50cm length (family: Scaridae) 

gatala – small grouper (family: Serranidae)

laea: parrotfish, 20-50cm length (family: Scaridae) 

lō: rabbitfish (family: Siganidae) 

lupo: jack/travally smaller than 8cm length (family: Carangidae) 

malai – snapper (family: Lutjanidae)

malau – squirrelfish (genus: Myripristis) 

malauli – jacks/trevally, 20-50cm length (family: Carangidae) 

malie: shark (family: Carcharhinidae) 

mali’o: common crab (Sesarma rotundata) 

malolo – flying fish (family: Exocoetidae) 

matamu – bigeye emperor (Monotaxis grandoculus) 

naiufi: shark (family: Carcharhinidae) 

nefu: anchovy (Encrasicholina devisi) 

palagi: surgeonfish, larger size (genus: Acanthurus) 

palai’a: striped bristletooth (Ctenochaetus striatus) 

palolo: marine worm (Eunice viridis) 

patagaloa – wrasse (Thalassoma purpureum) 

pone: striped bristletooth (Ctenochaetus striatus) 

sugale – wrasses (family: Labridae) 

tupa – land crab 

tu’u’u – angelfish (family: Chaetodontidae) 

ulua – jack/trevally, 50-80cm length (family: Carangidae) 

umiumia – threadfins (genus: Polydactylus) 
B-2 

Fish terms from Milner (1966) 

Abudefduf

filimana n. Fish (Abudefduf sp.). p. 65 

i’usamasama n. Fish (Abudefduf sp.) p. 89 

mutu2 n. Fish (Abudefduf sp.). p. 153 

pipi3 n. Fish (Abudefduf sp.). p. 184 

tāupou2

 n. Name given to certain fishes (Pomacentrus sp. & Abudefduf sp. (pcw tapou1.) p. 

255 

vaiuli n. Fish (Pomacentrus sp.) (also Abudefduf sp.). p. 311

Acanthurus

afinamea n. Fish (Acanthurus sp.) p. 6 

alogo n. Fish (Acanthurus sp.) when full grown. p. 17 

‘iliū n. Name given to certain fishes of genera Zebrasoma and Acanthurus, the skin of which is 

said to be poisonous. p. 84 

i’usina n. Fish (Pomacentrus sp.; also Acanthurus sp.) p. 89 

logouli n. Whitebait of certain surgeon fishes (Acanthurus & Ctenochaetus). p. 110 

māmāpalagi n. Fish (Acanthurus sp.) known as i’usina when small. p. 128 

manini n. Fish (Acanthurus sp.) when full-grown. p. 129 

maomao n. Whitefishbait of fish belonging to genera Acanthurus and Ctenochaetus, when very 

small. p. 131 

maono n. Small fish (Acanthurus sp.) p.131 

palagi n. Name given to certain fishes of genus Acanthurus (surgeon fishes) when about 1 ft 

long. p. 173 

pala’ia n. Name given to whitebait of fishes of genera Acanthurus and Ctenochaetus (surgeonfishes) when it is large. p. 173 

pe’ape’a2

 n. Small fish; name given to two species of genus Acanthurus when 2-3 inches long. 

p. 179 

pone2

 n. Name given to certain surgeon fishes (genus Acanthurus) when about 6 inches long. p. 

188 

ponepone n. Name given when about 2-3 inches long. [see above] p. 188 

pone i’umūmū n. Fish (Acanthurus sp.). p. 188 

‘unavau n. Kind of poisonous fish (Acanthurus sp. ) or perhaps a morbid condition of fishes of 

genus Sardinella. ‘Ua ‘o se ~ (pv. 520: He is like a ~ (i.e. he is a dangerous person). p. 301 

Caranx

atugaloa n. Namve given to two species of fish of genus Caranx when about 2 ft long. p. 29 

lālāfutu n. Fish (Caranx sp.) (also alaalafutu). p. 96 

lupo n. Name given to certain fishes of genus Caranx when 2 to 3 inches long. p. 116 

lupolago n. Name given to whitebait of certain species of genus Caranx. p. 116 

lupotā n. Name given to certain fishes of genus Caranx when about 6 inches long. (s. also 

malauli.) p. 116 
B-3 

malauli n. Name given to certain fishes of the genus Caranx (considered to be fit for chiefs) 

when about 1 ft. long (s. also lupo and ulua.) p. 123 

sapo’anae n. Name given to certain species of fish genus Caranx when they are more than 3 ft. 

long (s. also ulua.) [note sapo is v. to catch.] p. 201 

ulua n. Name given to two species of fish of genus Caranx when about 3 ft. long, and considered 

to be a present fit for a chief. (s. also malauli and sapo’anae.) p. 300

Centropodus

toto2 n. Name given to a fish (Centropodus sp.) when immature. (s. also valevale.) p. 277 

valevale2 n. Name given to a fish of genus Centropodus when fully grown. (s. also toto2.) p. 312 

Cheilinus

lalafi2

 n. name given to fishes of genus Cheilinus when between 6 in. and 1 ft. long. p. 96 

tagafa2

 n. Name given to fishes of genus Cheilinus when 3 ft. long or more (also tanafa). p. 227 

Chromis

i’a lanumoana n. Fish (Chromis sp.); ~ mai moana (po.): Bonito. p. 81-82 

teatea n. Fish (Chromis sp.). p. 260 

tu’u’u n. Name given to certain small and queer fishes of genus Abudefduf, Pomacentrus, and 

Chromis. E otagia fo’i le ~ (fs): Even the ~ can be eaten raw (i.e. everybody has his qualities, it 

takes all kinds to make a world, said when s.o. comments adversely on a person’s appearance, 

the tu’u’u being regarded as an ugly fish) (cf. proverbial saying concerning sugale). p. 293 

Epinephelus

gatala n. Name given to certain fishes (sea-basses or groupers) belonging to genus Epinephelus, 

when about 6 inches long. (s. also ‘ata’ata.) p. 77 

mata’ele n. Fish (Epinephelus sp.) p. 135 

papa3

 n. Fish (Epinephelus sp.). p. 175 

tinaelega n. Fish (Epinephelus sp.). p. 265 

tonu2

 n. Name given to fishes of genus Epinephelus when about 3 ft. long or more. 9s. also 

gatala.) p. 276 

‘uo’uo n. Fish (? Epinephelus sp.). p. 302 

Equula

lufi2

 n. Fish (Equula sp.). (s. also mumu

2

.) p. 114 

mumu2 n. Name given to a fish (lufi2; Equula sp.) when small. p. 152 

Gerres

matu n. Fish (Gerres sp.) when about 6 inches long. p. 138 

matuloa n. Name given to the last [i.e. matu] when fully grown. p. 138 
B-4 

Holocentrus

malau1 n. Name given to red squirrel-fishes belonging to the genera Holocentrus & Myripristis

and of which many species are distinguished by name. p.123 

tāmalau n. Name given to certain fishes of genus Holocentrus when full-grown, i.e. about 1 ft. 

in length. (s. also malau1

.) p. 240

Katsuwonu

atu3 n. Fish. (Katsuwonus sp.), the bonito. p. 28 

‘aui1 cp. Classifying particle used with numerals in reference to bonito (in tens). E lua ~.: 

Twenty bonito; e toluga~: Thirty bonito; e sefulu~.: One hundred bonito. (N.B. this particle is 

prefixed to numerals from two to ten and is used mainly in Upolu and American Samoa; s. also 

tino3

.) p. 34 

tino-3

 cp. Classifying particle used with numerals in reference to bonito (in tens). E ~ tasi: Ten 

bonito (also ‘atoa); ‘ua ~tolu le va’a: The bonito-boat has caught thirty bonito; e ~selau: One 

hundred bonito. (N.B. This particle is used mainly in Savaii; s. also ‘aui1.) p. 266 

inafo n. Shoal of bonito. p. 86 

ta’uo n. Kind of large bonito caught by trawling from cutters. p. 255 

tavatava n. Name give to bonito when about 1 ft. long. p. 259 

Kuhlia

‘inato n. Freshwater fish (Kuhlia sp.) when full-grown (i.e. about 1 ft. long). p. 86 

safole n. Fish (Kuhlia sp.). p. 196 

salele n. Fish (Kuhlia sp.). p. 198 

sesele n. Name given to a freshwater fish (inato, Kuhlia sp.) when immature. p. 207 

Lethrinus

filoa n. Name given to fishes of genera Lethrinus and Lethrinella when fully grown (i.e. about 2 

ft. long); ~ va’a n. Name given to one species when about 3 ft. long. p. 65 

i’ufiloa n. Name given to one of the stages of growth of filoa. p. 89 

mata’ele’ele n. Name given to certain fishes of genus Lethrinus when about 1 ft. long. p. 135 

mūmū 3

 n. Name given to certain fishes of genus Lethrinus when about 6 inches long. (s. also 

mu

1

). p. 152 

Lutjanus

mala’i n. Name given to a fish the genus Lutjanus when about 1 ft, long. (s. also taiva.) p. 123 

mūmea n. Fish (Lutjanus sp.) which is said to be poisonous in certain districts. p. 152 

nanue n. Name given to certain fishes (? of genus Lutjanus). p. 154

savane n. Name given to a fish of genus Lutjanus when about 1 ft. long p. 203 

tāiva n. Name given to a fish of genus Lutjanus when about 2 ft. long. (s. also mala’i.) p. 231 
B-5 

tamala1

 n. Name given to certain fishes of genus Lutjanus when not above 1 ft. in length (also 

tagau1). (s. also ‘a’a2.) p. 240 

uiui n. Fish (Lutjanus sp.). p. 297 

Mulloichthys

i’asina n. Fish (name given to small fry of genus Mulloichthys). p. 82 

vete2 n. Fish (Mulloichthys sp.). p. 316 

Mulloides

memea2 n. 1. Name given to afinemea (a fish) before it is fully grown. 2. Fish (Mulloides sp.). 

p. 144 

Myripristi

mānifinifi2

 n. Fish (Myripristis sp.). p. 129 

Naso

’ili’ilia2 n. Name given to fishes of genus Naso when about 2 to 3 inches long. p. 84 

ume n. Name given to mature fishes of genus Naso when about 1 ft. long and over. p. 300 

umelei n. Name given to ume when about 6 inches long. (s. also ’ili’ilia.) p. 300 

Pempheris

foa’ao n. Fish (Pempheris sp.). p. 67

manifi2

 n. Fish (Pempheris sp.). p.129 

pula3 n. Fish (Pempheris sp.). p. 191 

Pomacentrus

alamu1 n. Name given to certain fishes of genera Pomacentrus, Halacanthus, and Pygoplites. 

p. 14 

i’usina n. Fish (Pomacentrus sp.; also Acanthurus sp.) p. 89 

tāupou2

 n. Name given to certain fishes (Pomacentrus sp. & Abudefduf sp. 

(pcw tāpou1.) p. 255

tu’u’u n. Name given to certain small and queer fishes of genus Abudefduf, Pomacentrus, and 

Chromis. E otagia fo’i le ~ (fs): Even the ~ can be eaten raw (i.e. everybody has his qualities, it 

takes all kinds to make a world, said when s.o. comments adversely on a person’s appearance, 

the tu’u’u being regarded as an ugly fish) (cf. proverbial saying concerning sugale). p. 293 

vaiuli n. Fish (Pomacentrus sp.) (also Abudefduf sp.). p. 311 
B-6 

Pseudupeneus

matūlau n. Fish (Pseudupeneus sp.). p. 139 

moana3

 n. Name given to certain fishes of genus Pseudupeneus. p. 146 

ta’uleia n. Name given to two fishes of genus Pseudupeneus, both edible and which has barbels. 

p. 254 

Scarus

fuga2 n. General name given to fishes of genus Scarus (parrot-fishes) when about 1 ft. long (also 

fugafuga). fugamea n. Reddish-brown species. fugausi n. Greeny-blue species (s. also galo2, 

laea, mamanu, ulapo, and usiusi.) p. 72

galo2

 n. Name given to parrot-fishes of genus Scarus when about 3 ft. long and over. p. 75

laea n. Name given to a green and blue species of genus Scarus (parrot-fishes) when it is about 

2 ft. long. (s. also fuga.) p. 93 

mamanu2 n. Name given to reddish-brown species of genus Scarus (parrot-fishes when about 1 

1/2 –2 ft long. (s also fuga2) p. 128 

ulapo n. Name given to the lighter-coloured species of genus Scarus (parrot-fishes) when about 

6 inches long. (s. also fuga2.) p. 298 

usiusi n. Name given to dark-colored species of genus Scarus (parrot-fishes) when about 6 

inches long. (s. also fuga2.) p. 303 

Siganus

lō3 n. Name given to fishes of genus Siganus. p. 109 

pa’u’ulu n. Name given to a fish of genus Siganus. (s. also la3

.) p. 179 

tito n. Name given to a fish of genus Siganus when fully-grown (i.e. 1 ft. long). (s. also lō3). p. 

267 

Trachurops

atule n. Fish (Trachurops sp.), the horse mackerel, caught mainly in March and April. p. 29 

Velamugil

afomatua n. Name given to grey mullet (‘anae) when 2 ft. long and above. p. 6 

‘ana’anālagi n. Name given to adult grey mullet when found in fresh water. p. 20 

‘anae n. Fish (Velamugil sp.), the grey mullet. p. 20 

āua n. Name given to grey mullet (‘anae) when about 2-3 inches in length. ‘A lamo i le ‘anae, 

‘o lona ta’u ‘o le ~: When mullet is small it is called ~. po. Word used (instead of ‘anae) for 

grey mullet in Falelatai. p. 32 

matapona n. Name given to grey mullet (‘anae) when about 6 inches long. p. 135 

poi2

 n. Kind of fish, said to be an immature stage of ‘anae. E tele ‘au~: There are many shoals 

of ~. (s. also poipoi3

.) p. 186 

poipoi3

n. Whitebait of grey mullet (‘anae). (s. also poi2.) p. 186 
B-7 

Zebrasoma

‘iliū n. Name given to certain fishes of genera Zebrasoma and Acanthurus, the skin of which is 

said to be poisonous. p. 84 

samasama n. Fish (Zebrasoma sp.). p. 199 
B-8 

(This page is intentionally left blank.)
 

 

 C-1 

APPENDIX C: DICTIONARY OF SAMOAN TERMS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT 

‘aiga n. Family 

alangamea n. Mullet hand net 

aualuma n. Sons of the matai of a village 

aumaga n. Young men’s group in the village 

ava n. Prepared kava root; An opening in the reef 

‘ava niukini n. Poison root used for fishing (Derris trifoliate)

avasā n. Fish poison 

ele ‘ele n. Earth, dirt 

enu n. Traditional fishing basket 

fale n. House 

faleali’i n. House of the village chief 

fau v. To build 

fono n. A meeting, council 

gatogiā n. First bonito caught in the season 

i’a n. Fish or marine creature 

lauloa n. Method of fishing involving using coconut leaves/branches as sweeps 

malaga v. To travel/journey; n. Travelling party from one village visiting another village 

masina n. The moon; Month 

masina motusaga n. The first real appearance of the palolo 

masina tatelega n. The great scooping up of palolo 

masina usunoa n. The first day of the appearance of the palolo 

mata-liki n. The pleiades 

matai n. Head of family group; Person holding family title 

mua adj. First 

muli adj. Last 

ola n. Fishing basket 

pa n. Wall; Fish hook 

pa i’a n. Fish weir made of coral stone 

palusami n. Traditional dish of taro leaves cooked in coconut cream 

pangi n. Bait for flying fish 

paopao n. Outrigger canoe 

pua palolo n. The smell of the reef during palolo season 

pule n. Authority, power 

sa adj. Sacred; forbidden 

safunua n. Fishing method performed by a group of women in Samoa 

sasa’e n. Fishing method performed by women in Samoa 

tai n. Tide 

taivale n. Poor season when fish are scarce 

taova’a n. Shark spear 

tapu v. Forbid; Make off limits (kapu, tabu) 

tausaga n. Year 

tautai n. Fishing expert (master fisherman) of a village 

tolo matu n. Long net 

tufuga n. Skilled person (often carpenter, tattoo artist) 

tulāgogo n. Dorsal fin 
C-2 

tutui (or tuinga) n. Fishing method performed by women in Samoa 

umusā n. Sacred meal 

‘upega n. A net 

‘upenga malie n. Shark net 

uto n. Float used for fishing 

va’a n. Canoe 

va’aalo n. Bonito boat 

vaipalolo n. Wet season 

vili n. Drill 
 

 

AVAILABILITY OF NOAA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NMFS 

Copies of this and other documents in the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS series issued 

by the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center are available online at the PIFSC Web site 

http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov in PDF format. In addition, this series and a wide range of other 

NOAA documents are available in various formats from the National Technical Information 

Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, U.S.A. [Tel: (703)-605-6000]; URL: 

http://www.ntis.gov. A fee may be charged. 

Recent issues of NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS–PIFSC are listed below: 

NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-18 Clinical observations of ocular disease in Hawaiian monk 

seals. 

M. T. HANSON, A. A. AGUIRRE, and R. C. BRAUN 

(March 2009) 

19 American Samoa as a fishing community. 

A. LEVINE, and S. ALLEN 

(March 2009) 

20 Demand for Hawaii bottomfish revisited: incorporating 

economics into total allowable catch management. 

J. HOSPITAL, and M. PAN 

(September 2009) 

21 Shark predation on Hawaiian monk seals: Workshop II & 

post-workshop developments, November 5-6, 2008. 

K. S. GOBUSH 

(June 2010) 

22 Status review of Hawaiian insular false killer whales 

(Pseudorca crassidens) under the Endangered Species Act. 

E. M. OLESON, C. H. BOGGS, K. A. FORNEY, M. B. 

HANSON, D. R. KOBAYASHI, B. L. TAYLOR, P. R. WADE, 

and G. M. YLITALO 

(July 2010) 

23 Hawaiian monk seals and their prey: assessing characteristics 

 of prey species fatty acid signatures and consequences for 

 estimating monk seal diets using quantitative fatty acid signature 

 analysis. 

 S. IVERSON, J. PICHÉ, and W. BLANCHARD 

 (March 2011)