ABSTRACT
The archetypal Melanesian leader, 1 the ‘big man’ has become one of the most identifiable figures and concepts in anthropology. But what is the basis of the big man’s leadership and of the particular fascination that this figure has exercised in Melanesian anthropology and beyond? The big man is typically described as a local village leader who achieves a position of influence through careful work in organising enduring relations of obligation among his followers; in particular those obligations that were realised in major ceremonial exchange (see below) and life-cycle transition events. The big man was not himself separate from such cycles of obligation, but merely occupied a particular leading position within them; one that he constantly had to work to maintain. So, for example, A.L. Epstein (1969: 14–15; footnote added) describes the Tolai big man of Papua New Guinea’s East New Britain Province, in the following terms.
[t]here were usually one or two persons marked out by their possession of large stocks of shell-money who were known as ‘big men’ (ngala). Such men served as bankers to the group, and were able to bind their supporters to them by maintaining an elaborate series of debt-relationships … Having access to large resources of tambu 2 they alone were in a position to initiate large-scale mortuary rites and ceremonial dances or to sponsor the activities associated with the cult of the tubuan and dukduk [masquerades], all of which involved the participation of, and competition between individuals and groups, from a number of different parishes, and so served to extend the effective range of social relationships.
