Of Harold and Chimbu revisited

Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 46, No. 2, August 2005ISSN 1360-7456, pp135–142

Of Harold and Chimbu revisited

Paula BrownProfessor Emerita Department of Anthropology, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Abstract: This paper discusses my collaboration with Harold Brookfield in the study of Chimbuland and society. We began in 1958 at the Australian National University and worked together until1965 in joint fieldwork and writing, and then collaborated occasionally after that. It began both ofour professional contributions that continued throughout our professional careers. The work couldnever have been done by one person, either geographer or anthropologist. Our joint paper of 1990may be the only multigenerational land study in anthropology/geography. Our long-term study ofthe Mintima area is a constant reminder of the hazards of short-sighted development projections.Brookfield always knew what he wanted to find out, and always constructed original methods ofresearch and analysis. The Chimbu–Mintima maps were redrawn many times with many differentmeasuring methods, new air photography and increasing precision. He always connected any specificstudy and report of work to general theory and would compare a wide range of related findings inother places. His work is a model of scientific method and its place in geographical theory.

Keywords: tropical agriculture, Papua New Guinea, Chimbu, anthropology and geography, land andsociety

The art of cross-disciplinary collaboration

I begin this paper in happy recollection of ouryears of collaboration, and how we learned fromeach other. It was the combination of our in-terests and methods, beginning in Canberra in1958, and our local field study, which madeour Chimbu writings notable and pioneering. Ahuge body of ethnographic and historical andcomparative work in New Guinea over the past45 years has followed, some by students and col-leagues. Likewise, many studies have exploredarchaeology, ecology, botany, agriculture, an-thropology and geography in New Guinea andelsewhere.

Our collaboration began by coincidence atthe Australian National University. Each of us,from the departments of anthropology andgeography, planned to go to the New Guineahighlands for field research in 1958. TheChimbu area was selected for several reasons.From first contact in 1933 there were some gov-ernment reports and missionary anthropologypapers as background to a study of change.Points of special interest to both of us wereChimbu’s dense population, a people now paci-

fied, settled and experiencing social and cul-tural change and development projects. At theAustralian National University we could plan along-term study. We did not know how longthat would be! I remember viewing stereo-scopic photographs that showed frighteninglysteep slopes in the Chimbu valley. This did notbecome the field site. We decided on CentralChimbu, accessible by the highlands road witha wide range of altitude and soil types. After ar-riving I learned of Luluai Kondom of Naregu, anadministration favourite and a leading figure fordevelopment and change. I had the governmentrest house at Mintima re-roofed and some newbuildings and renovations made to begin thestudy. After Harold joined me we concentratedon two clans of the Naregu tribe: Harold mea-suring plot size by pacing and directions withcompass, and altitude. I took notes on the peo-ple, their relationships, residence, household ac-tivities and traditions including settlement andland use. Looking at grassy slopes across theWahgi valley we saw clear marks of ditchesmade by cultivators in the past. In our localarea we inquired about crop rotations, times ofcultivation and fallow, planting, harvesting and

C© Victoria University of Wellington, 2005. Published by Blackwell Publishing.

P. Brown

replanting; we took histories of particular gardenplots and areas, houses, families and territories.Together we attended marriages and funerals,observed and recorded gardens, houses, workparties and many other activities and also lis-tened to speeches at political meetings. Eachday’s working notes were reviewed: Haroldmapped the land information as I organised dataon families and residence. The intensive workof traversing, note-taking and sketch-mappingwas occasionally relieved by community eventsthat provided a basis for much of my separateand later writing (Brown, 1972, 1978, 1995). Ialso attended a large ceremonial food distribu-tion later. There were large pig ceremonies inthe area in 1959 and 1960. We had field peri-ods together or separately in the next few years,and together we did an urban study of the PortVila area, Vanuatu, in 1964 and 1965. Harold,of course, went on to work in many other placesand projects as well as returning to Chimbu afew times. I left the Australian National Univer-sity in 1965.

Harold found many new methods and statis-tical analyses for the study of landholdings anduse, settlement, distances etc. From the begin-ning he sought precision in land measurementand mapping. In 1963 we hired a small planefor air photography: removing a door, Haroldhung over the terrain with a camera, and (whenI was able to open my eyes) I noted the alti-tude. We covered the area on foot recordingland use, residence and land ownership severaltimes in the period 1958–1965. Then in 1984a portion of the area was again traversed andstudied to become the basis of our full gen-eration study of one group of Mintima peopleand their land (Brown et al., 1990). By that timemapping and measurements made a really pre-cise study of landholding, ownership and usepossible. Harold’s interests in cycles and in in-ternal and external change in land managementhave continued. My continuing interests are incommunity life and social change.

A quick write-up of the 1958 findings waspublished (Brown and Brookfield, 1959). Al-though our separate disciplines certainly shapedour interests and writing, the discussion ofresidence, household composition, map in-formation, land ownership, group territories,groupings at the ceremonial grounds, historiesof settlement and migrations depended upon

the combination of our enquiries. Neither of uscould have done it alone. In this first joint paper,cultivation cycles and pig ceremony cycles arementioned but little could be said about change;it is mostly descriptive. Its title, Chimbu land andsociety, forecasts the combination of our inter-ests and disciplines that shaped all our work to-gether. I think there has always been a differencein our approach too: Harold places his observa-tions in relation to comparative studies and tocurrent theoretical interests in geography; myethnography is based upon field observationsand discussion of anthropological concerns ofthe time, such as descent groups and politicalchange.

In the years 1958–1965 we had several fieldperiods both together, and separately. The bookStruggle for Land became our major publicationand we clearly state how the work relates to in-terests in our disciplines (Brookfield and Brown,1963: xi–xiv). It concentrates on agriculture andgroup territories with a discussion of Chimbu incomparison to other places, both in the high-lands and elsewhere. The questions of carryingcapacity and the relation of landholding andacquisition to territorial organisation are exam-ined. Collaborative efforts such as ours were andstill are, rare, and we observe in the final chap-ters the paucity of comparable material on landallocation, group territories and the relations ofland use and population density to land andagriculture. Harold refers to man–land relation-ships and to cultural and human ecology in hiswritings.

I like to think that my anthropological con-cerns influenced his thinking. His writings onChimbu and geographical topics introducedconcepts of social and cultural features: landmanagement (later farm management) and cul-tural ecology. Harold’s early paper on agricul-tural systems (Brookfield, 1969) refers to manystudies of anthropologists. He is critical of geog-raphers and economists for their use of macrostudies rather than precise local analyses. Thesearch for repetitive systems, cycles and sim-ple relations is limited by the variations foundwithin the local area studied and changes tak-ing place in New Guinea. Comparative studydiscerns many more variables and complexitiesin continuity and change.

Harold always combines thorough local ob-servation and description with comparative

136 C© Victoria University of Wellington, 2005

Harold and Chimbu revisited

discussion and general and theoretical concerns(Brookfield, 1962). From Chimbu observationsthe accepted typology of agricultural systemsis questioned. At that time geographers wroteof shifting cultivation or swidden agriculture,which contrasts as a dichotomy with permanentgardens. Slash-and-burn describes land prepa-ration technique; hoe and dibble describe tools.None of these terms is appropriate to whatwe found in Chimbu. Long fallow and crop-rotation must be rejected also, since there aremany varieties of agricultural practice in dif-ferent locations (Brookfield and Brown, 1963:161–167). Chimbu practice includes pollardingand cutting down trees, clearing bush and grass,burning, land preparation by tillage and dig-ging square ditches and planting sweet potatoin small mounds. There may be repeated plant-ing of a garden plot with the same or differentcrops; fallow can vary from a few months tomany years, with and without casuarina plantedin fallow. Garden areas are fenced to keep pigsout. Some pandanus trees are specially culti-vated in single stands or groves and coffee hasbecome the main cash crop. Harold’s discussion(Brookfield, 1969) distinguishes many aspectsof agricultural systems, technique and manage-ment: soil management and tillage, rotationalpractices, water control, direct nutrient control,erosion control and conservation measures togain a broader perspective on practices. Therecognition of multiple factors and influenceson human action nullifies simple categorisation.His theoretical and comparative approach hereis a good example of the breadth and perspectivehe applies to problems of definition and classi-fication. It has wide application.

At Mintima we found an uncommon landtenure situation for Melanesia. Chimbu recog-nise tribe, clan and subclan territories; plots areowned by individuals when cultivated and after-wards. The designated land owner might allowothers to use portions of the plot to plant andharvest, with or without recompense, and wefound some sharing. After clearing and ditchingthe land is allocated to women, including somewho are not members of the family, for planting,tending and harvesting. The long-term study, tothe next generation, shows succession to indi-vidual land plots (Brown et al., 1990).

From 1958 to 1965 our repeated inquiries andthe mapping of land, residence, fencing, claims

to land plots, cultivation and social groupingsin this densely populated area became a massof data that was subject to many different anal-yses (Brookfield and Brown, 1963; Brown andBrookfield, 1967; Brown et al., 1990). For thelong-term study we investigated cycles of landuse, pig ceremonial cycles and family cycles andreplacement; at the same time there were cashcrops (primarily coffee), education, political andeconomic changes that modified the traditionalpatterns and cycles. The mixed subsistence andceremonial economy requires fencing to sep-arate pig browsing areas from cultivation. Thefirst maps of fence patterns in the study areaneatly show large areas where pigs were fencedout (Brown and Brookfield, 1959: 10). It wouldseem a necessity, but this practice has not con-tinued: pig ceremonies are no longer regularlyheld and coffee groves are more permanent thanfood crop land. Land use has changed greatlywhile individual and family land rights havecontinued.

For both of us, return visits and extension ofthe study for years helped us to understand agri-culture and social and cultural change. The years1958–1965 saw many new things in Chimbu,for example, coffee cash cropping and increas-ing use of money, representative government inlocal councils and national assemblies. The lo-cal leader, Kondom, was influential in both, andtold his people to give up ceremonial distribu-tions of food and pig raising while turning tocoffee production and wok bisnis. We beganwith Australian administration and local lead-ers, while our last visits were some years afterthe independence of Papua New Guinea.

Searching for patterns, cycles and trends

Our 1959–1965 re-surveys of the area resultedin increasingly accurate base maps showinghow the people built and replaced houses, oc-cupied the area and made gardens and moved inrelation to group territories and gardens. Therewas a distinct trend towards settlement closer tothe road and also to family houses rather thanthe sexual segregation of earlier times. Haroldmeasured the distances from residences of menand women to gardens (Brown and Brookfield,1967). Each time we might have expected ageneral practice, such as to minimise distanceand time between houses and gardens for men

C© Victoria University of Wellington, 2005 137

P. Brown

and women; our combined information showedgreat individual variation and a multitude of ex-planations for personal choice and local differ-ences. Our careful and detailed observationsmade the usual matter-of-fact generalisationsunsupportable. Houses are dispersed in rela-tion to group territories, individual garden plots,fence and pig browsing areas.

Harold attempted to see Chimbu in the lightof then-current central place theory, expectedwhere population densities found in Chimbuexist. We learned that the eastern Chimbu vil-lage settlements had been influenced by govern-ment officers’ urging, and did extend the easternhighlands village settlement pattern into east-ern Chimbu, but this had not so far affectedcentral Chimbu. Mission teaching, pacificationand education broke the segregation of men inlarge communal houses, and encouraged fam-ily houses, often clustered. Where the highlandshighway passes through Naregu territory, road-side shops, sales points for coffee transportationto provincial headquarters, jobs, medical facili-ties and other community facilities draw peopleand their houses towards the road.

In the time of our early work (1958–1965)our disciplines drove ethnographers and geog-raphers to seek regularities, classify data, findtrends and make generalisations. Our data couldbe placed in systematic classes and types, suchas clans, lineages, soil types, land belts and res-idential groups. Our early publications use cat-egories of these kinds. Both of us, together andmore often separately, have in more recent pub-lications denounced these systematising effortsthat overlook the complexity and variability ofbehaviour and the multitude of factors we foundto shape decisions and actions of individuals(Brown, 1972, 1987, 1995; Brown et al., 1990;Brookfield, 1996, 2001b). In common with re-cent anthropology we look to agency and in-dividual choice. In Chimbu we found a greatrange of practices between individual men andtheir families, on different land types or terrain orsections of the area, at different times, in relationto plans for a celebration of food or pig feast, cli-matic temperature and rainfall variations, cropsand crop changes. Variations could be in fallow-ing, crop choice and rotation, water and erosioncontrol or any aspect of farm management.

Some observations might have been calledpatterns, cycles or trends. We had the opportu-

nity to observe Mintima over several years, andthen occasionally for further decades. At firstwe hypothesised agricultural cycles of cultiva-tion and fallowing, combining this with the cycleof pig feasts. We took histories of garden plots,fencing patterns and pig ceremonies; some gen-eral outlines of cycles emerged. Trends, how-ever, notably modernisation, introduction ofcash crops, migration and education, did af-fect these. Harold (Brookfield, 1968) predictedgreater change and in different areas than hasin fact occurred. In the years that we visited andobserved the local community, change, politicaland economic development followed no cleartrajectory. Cycles and trends did not proceedwith regularity. Harold reconsidered this matterin 1973 and again in 1996, each time revis-ing, correcting or commenting upon his previ-ous conclusions and graciously admitting errorsof interpretation as additional data show thatthe expected did not take place. The complexsituation and repeated visits give him materialand new interpretations of cycles and trends inChimbu. They involve food gardens and newfood sources, decline of ceremonials involvingpigs and vegetable produce, cash cropping andmonetisation of the economy and a place in in-ternational economy. Chimbu has continued tohave a dense population. Many Chimbu peopleare unable to derive satisfactory income fromcoffee sales because of location, transportationand land shortage. There is a very high rate of mi-gration to cities, in search of employment. Pro-jections based on internal development factorsdo not deal with these matters.

When Harold (Brookfield, 1973) takes up theacceptance of a coffee cash crop economy inthe light of demand for money and goods, hesees the competing demands of pig husbandryand coffee production. The enthusiastic plantingand hopes for future wealth and modernisationwere, too obviously, unfulfilled, and the failureof the cooperative, decline in prices and income,brought not only disappointment to the Chimbu,but also destruction of those hopeful predictionsall too common in the 1960s. Later, in 1996, heagain reconsiders and retracts some thoughts.The wealth that the people looked forward tohas not come about; income remains low, livingstandards have hardly improved and the joyousceremonies of food and pork distributions haveceased.



Harold has taken a more comparative andgeneral view of agricultural change in termsof land management. His important work onland degradation (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987)is particularly concerned with change, and hisobservations are characterised by two terms:adaptation and innovation. This is a kind of turn-ing point for him I think, beginning to aban-don the unidirectional concept of evolution andrecognising the many kinds of change in agricul-ture and land management his studies and othershave found. More recent papers and discussionsfocus on varieties of adaptation and innova-tive agricultural technology, crops, rotations etc.Thus in discussing transformation following de-forestation in South-East Asia (Brookfield et al.,1995), he describes the environment and waysthat communities have adapted in agricultureand land management following deforestation.These new circumstances must be seen as adap-tation, not evolution or degradation.

About intensification

Harold has discussed agricultural intensity manytimes. After Ester Boserup’s influential book(Boserup, 1965), which linked increased agri-cultural production and technological improve-ments to population growth, comments oftenconcern the technology input that increases pro-duction. Most of them oversimplify the process.In an important paper (Brookfield, 1969) Harolddiscussed numerous factors contributing to in-creased production beyond the common notionof reduced fallow. We had found in one Chimbutribal territory a considerable variety of practicesin the agricultural system, including varying fal-low time and treatment of fallowed fields, ro-tational practices, erosion and water controlsand soil management. It was already evidentthat fallow time is not the only or the most sig-nificant criterion. After presenting comparativedata from the Pacific he concludes that ecologyand agricultural methods must be placed in acontext of human behaviour: a better theory ofproduction and a wider view of cultural ecol-ogy are needed. Here was an early use of theconcept of farm management, which, with in-novation and agrodiversity, is the foundation ofhis contemporary view of land and society. In thecourse of 30 years of commentary Harold leavesBoserup’s theory, limited to the relation of pop-

ulation and technology, far behind. Research re-ports from the many scholars that have followedhis leads provide a great body of data with ex-amples of every situation and form of labour,agricultural technique, crop, ecology and farmmanagement.

His work has taken a number of steps. Hisearly comparative work on Melanesia includesconsideration of food crops and ecologicalconditions as well as agricultural techniques(Brookfield and Hart, 1971: 92). New Guinea,especially the highlands, has been an importantarea for discussion and comparison. Highlandspeoples, who made sweet potato their main andstaple crop, have a wide range of cultivationpractices and population densities on a varietyof land types, within general altitude and cli-matic similarities. As detailed observations aremade, many of them by students and colleaguesof Harold Brookfield (e.g. Waddell, 1972) therehas developed a considerable body of observa-tions that make comparisons possible. Researchby Brookfield and others, worldwide, in the largeseries of People, Land Management and Envi-ronmental Change project (PLEC)1 studies hasexpanded greatly the range of information avail-able to apply to this question. Harold’s contri-butions to this matter are numerous and verysignificant. From the first he has emphasisedthe importance of ‘context of human behaviour. . . theory of production . . . and to adopt awider view in work in cultural ecology’ (Brook-field, 1972: 46). No need to labour this point(see Brookfield, 1969); our early collaborationand anthropological contribution to the studyof ecology, geography, agriculture and land is ademonstration of this.

In 1972 he discusses intensification and dis-intensification, mostly in the Pacific area. In-tensification adds inputs of capital, labour andskills to increase production on constant land.He compares the theories of Malthus, Geertzand Boserup, all theories of single causes thatmay lead to technological improvements. Hisdiscussion begins with ‘a population’ adopting asystem (Brookfield, 1972: 34), but from here onHarold frequently refers to archaeological andanthropological studies and stresses the human,cultural factors in agriculture and production(see also Brookfield, 1984). Measures of agri-cultural production and observations of com-munity activities show that producing food for


P. Brown

subsistence is only part of the story. He goeson to show how agricultural production is com-posed of more than subsistence production: heintroduces the terms ‘social production’ and‘trade production’ to incorporate both tradi-tional and new production demands. An exam-ple is to examine how and why people raisecrops and livestock beyond their subsistencerequirements, whether for competitive pig andvegetable feasts and distributions or for sale touse money for household or prestige purchases.He elaborates a Chimbu example describing thecycle of festival production of pigs, and also thegrowth of coffee production for trade. Furthercomparative examples are given. In conclusionHarold points to the importance of understand-ing human needs and desires, need for a broadcomparative theory of production and a widerview in cultural ecology. At this time and in laterarticles he presents examples of fluctuation inagricultural practice, intensity and population:change and innovation are rarely unidirectional.

Some 10 years later Harold begins a paper(Brookfield, 1984: 15) saying ‘in the subsequentyears I have become increasingly dissatisfiedwith my 1972 paper’ and ‘concluded that itfailed to take adequate account of the socialvariables’. He discusses the then popular ma-terialist viewpoint, with reference to Wittfogel,Sahlins and Chayanov, on the organisation oflabour and domestic production. Here he uses‘innovation’, that is, new practices in the agri-cultural system, to cover far more than in-puts of labour in relation to population change.These include combinations of factors, landtenure change, water management, organisationof labour and land improvement. The qualita-tive changes build to a theory taking accountof the dynamic relationship of society, environ-ment and production. He comments upon sev-eral areas known historically or archaeologicallywhere water control and some other innovationswere developed, but not widely or permanentlyadopted – the Papua New Guinea highlands,Fiji, Java, Borneo, Mexico and Madagascar.

In a review (Brookfield, 1986) assessing a col-lection of studies of prehistoric intensive agri-culture, he notes many ways of managing wetand dry cultivation. Over time population fluc-tuates; the relation between population and in-tensification varies greatly in time as well asin space. Some prehistoric agricultural systems

were labour intensive and managed by author-ity, but did not become permanent.

In a later paper (Brookfield, 2001a) Harolddeals still another blow to Boserup’s treatise onintensification showing that it is never unilineal,always complex and fluid. Farm managementis local activity, dependent upon human actionand decisions, innovative, adaptive, flexible, op-portunistic. Multivariate, it can involve capital,resources, investment, soil, livestock and diver-sification (Brookfield 2001a, 2001b). By now thedatabase for examples and variations is world-wide and founded on a great many local studiesby the sources he uses and by the field work-ers he trained or has collaborated with. It is agrand achievement. The 2001 symposium in-dicates its influence, mainly in New Guineaand among Australian researchers (see Clarke,2001). It also brings together many concerns thatemerged from our first field study, how produc-tion for ceremonial distribution fits into commu-nity agricultural and other activities, and howproduction of cash crops and other agriculturalproducts become parts of the economy to re-place home crafts with manufactured goods. Ina global context, the place of agricultural pro-duction can be better understood.

In retrospect Harold’s growing intellectualawareness, in the 1970s and 1980s, of the inher-ent complexity of human experience was bornof another major geographical and methodolog-ical shift in his research practice that was of sim-ilar importance to his entry into the world of theChimbu. From Papua New Guinea and Vanuatuhe stepped briefly into the smaller West Indianislands, then moving on to eastern Fiji. The latteroccurred in the context of a major UNESCO re-search initiative entitled Man-and-the-BiosphereProgramme, Harold joining a group of scien-tists drawn from a broad spectrum of disciplineswhose mandate was to investigate the Ecologyand Rational Use of Island Ecosystems. In hiscase it was both a significant geographical step,to the interface between Melanesia and Poly-nesia (and to island realms in general), and amajor methodological step in its commitmentto working for an international agency. A linkbetween scholarly research and action on thepart of the global community was established.Logically, given Harold’s ongoing commitmentto local study and to participantobservation, thisled, in the 1990s, to a radically new initiative,



namely the direct implication of land users inthe study of the dynamics of farming systemsthroughout the developing tropics and subtrop-ics. A creative link was thereby established be-tween scientific experts, expert farmers and in-ternational agencies, within the framework ofthe PLEC project. From being separate realmsof human endeavour, theory and practice weredrawn close together in a major international re-search initiative reflecting a new global reality.Contemporary small farmers are in many waysnow a part of world economy, producing cropsfor exchange and sale, purchasing householdgoods as well as seeds and fertilisers, sometimesabandoning subsistence production and engag-ing in non-farm activities.

Production today includes subsistence, ex-change, trade that is internal, regional andglobal. There is a vast, borderless network of in-terconnected persons, traders and local groups.Gross economic export and import figures donot clarify the ways that a family and a commu-nity are involved in the region or the boundariesof their economy. The bridge between this mea-sure of the local economy and the national orinternational cannot be negotiated with any ofthe tools we have. The regional network, or aregional view of production that includes ex-change between persons and groups and trade,both internal and external, linking the individ-ual in the local community to the region, na-tion, and globe, lies ahead2 It needs to find away to include variation within the local com-munity, production for ceremony, exchange anddistribution within the community and beyond,production for trade both traditional and con-temporary, linking the farmer in his communityto the global economy. And it needs to draw di-rectly on local experience and be attentive tolocal voices. Harold’s research and writings areclearly oriented in this direction, with PLEC as akey experience.

Notes

1 See Uitto in this issue.2 See Guyer (1997).

References

Blaikie, P. and H. Brookfield (1987) Land Degradation andSociety. London: Methuen.

Boserup, E. (1965) The conditions of agricultural growth:The economics of agrarian change under populationpressure. London: Allen and Unwin.

Brookfield, H.C. (1962) Local study and comparativemethod: An example from Central New Guinea, An-nals of the Association of American Geographers 52:242–254.

Brookfield, H.C. (1968) The money that grows on trees:The consequences of an innovation within a man–environment system, Australian Geographical Studies6: 97–119.

Brookfield, H.C. (1969) New directions in the study of agri-cultural systems in tropical areas, in E.T. Drake (ed.),Evolution and environment: A symposium presentedon the occasion of the One Hundredth Anniversary ofthe foundation of the Peabody Museum of Natural His-tory at Yale University, pp. 413–439. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

Brookfield, H.C. (1972) Intensification and disintensificationin Pacific agriculture: A theoretical approach, PacificViewpoint 13(1): 30–48.

Brookfield, H.C. (1973) Full circle in Chimbu: A study oftrends and cycles, in H.C. Brookfield (ed.), The Pacificin transition: Geographical perspectives on adaptationand change, pp. 127–160. London: Edward Arnold.

Brookfield, H.C. (1984) Intensification revisited, PacificViewpoint 25(1): 15–44.

Brookfield, H.C. (1986) Intensification intensified: Prehis-toric intensive agriculture in the tropics, Archaeologyin Oceania 21(3): 177–180.

Brookfield, H.C. (1996) Untying the Chimbu circle: An es-say in and on hindsight, in H. Levine and A. Ploeg(eds.), Work in progress: Essays in New Guinea high-lands ethnography in honour of Paula Brown Glick,pp. 63–84. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Land EuropaischerVerlag der Wissenschaften.

Brookfield, H.C. (2001a) Intensification, and alternative ap-proaches to agricultural change, Asia Pacific Viewpoint42: 181–192.

Brookfield, H.C. (2001b) Exploring agrodiversity. New York:Columbia University Press.

Brookfield, H.C. and P. Brown (1963) Struggle for land: Agri-culture and group territories among the Chimbu of theNew Guinea highlands. Melbourne: Oxford UniversityPress.

Brookfield, H.C. and D. Hart (1971) Melanesia: A geographi-cal interpretation of an island world. London: Methuen.

Brookfield, H.C., L. Potter and Y. Byron (1995) In place ofthe forest: Environmental and social transformation inBorneo and the Eastern Malay Peninsula. Tokyo: INUPress.

Brown, P. (1972) The Chimbu: A study of change inthe New Guinea highlands. Cambridge: MassachusettsSchenkman Publ. Co.

Brown, P. (1978) Highland peoples of New Guinea. NewYork: Cambridge University Press. XIV, 258.

Brown, P. (1987) New men and big men: Emerging socialstratification in the third world, a case study from theNew Guinea highlands, Ethnology 27: 87–106.

Brown, P. (1995) Beyond a mountain valley: The Simbu ofPapua New Guinea. Honolulu: University of Hawai’iPress.


P. Brown

Brown, P. and H.C. Brookfield (1959) Chimbu land and so-ciety, Oceania 30: 1–75.

Brown, P. and H.C. Brookfield (1967) Chimbu set-tlement and residence: A study of patterns,trends and idiosyncracy, Pacific Viewpoint 8: 119–151.

Brown, P., H. Brookfield and R. Grau (1990) Land tenureand transfer in Chimbu, Papua New Guinea: 1958–1984: A study in continuity and change, accommo-

dation and opportunism, Human Ecology 18: 21–49.

Clarke, W.C. (2001) Conclusion, Asia Pacific Viewpoint 42:325–333.

Guyer, J.I. (1997) Diversity and intensity in the scholarshipon African agricultural change, Reviews in Anthropol-ogy 26: 13–32.

Waddell, E. (1972) The mound builders. Seattle: Universityof Washington Press.


Documents

Of Harold and Chimbu revisited