Fwd: Re: kava people and betel people

[Thomas H. Slone]

This message was posted on ASAONET today, which should enlighten us 
on further etymology on kawawar.  John Burton has the immediate Tok 
Pisin etymology as coming from the Kuanua language.

>>Date:         Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:50:52 +1100
>>Reply-To: John Lynch <lynch_j at VANUATU.USP.AC.FJ>
>>Sender: Oceanic Anthropology Discussion Group <ASAONET at LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
>>From: John Lynch <lynch_j at VANUATU.USP.AC.FJ>
>>Subject: Re: kava people and betel people
>>Comments: To: Richard Scaglion <scaglion+ at PITT.EDU>
>>To: ASAONET at LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>>
>>I have a paper coming out in the December 2002 issue of Oceanic Linguistics
>>partly on this topic ("Potent roots and the origin of kava"), and partly as
>>a result of the many responses received to my earlier enquiry on this list
>>about the ritual use of ginger.
>>
>>I conclude that there was a Proto Oceanic term *kawaRi meaning 'root with
>>special properties - one or more of Zingiber zerumbet (wild ginger), Piper
>>wichmannii (wild kava) and/or fish-poison plants (Derris, etc.)'. This term
>>has reflexes in a number of New Guinea and Solomons languages, speakers of
>>which also chew betelnut.
>>
>>This term changed its meaning in northern Vanuatu when kava seems to have
>>been first domesticated, and applied to the new "root of choice" - kava. The
>>development of kava saw the abandonment of betelnut roughly at the modern
>>Solomons/Vanuatu border.
>>
>>Kava was introduced into parts of Micronesia from Polynesia, and possibly
>>into the few New Guinea areas where it is used from Micronesia (but maybe by
>>Polynesians coming from Micronesia).
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Richard Scaglion [mailto:scaglion+ at PITT.EDU]
>>Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2002 1:13 a.m.
>>To: ASAONET at LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>>Subject: kava people and betel people
>>
>>>  That's hilarious! But I'm curious to know the context/publication from
>>>  which Rivers' kava/betelnut competition theory was extracted? There
>>>  must be some source for it but it sounds too bizarre to be true!
>>
>>It isn't anywhere as strange as it sounds, for it was an early attempt by
>>Rivers to distinguish between the Austronesian and non-Austronesian
>>(Papuan) peoples of Melanesia. To quote from Rivers (v. 2 p. 250):
>>
>>"The distribution of kava and betel thus suggests the presence in Oceania of
>>two cultures which may be called the kava-culture and the betel-culture
>>respectively. I propose to adopt as a working assumption for the rest of
>>this book that these two cultures belong to two immigrant peoples whom I
>>shall call the kava-people and the betel-people. When I use these terms in
>>the future, it must be borne in mind that they are not terms for the people
>>of Oceania who use kava and betel now, but are terms for the hypothetical
>>bodies of immigrants who introduced the use of these two substances."
>>
>>And as we know from our recent discussions of fast trains, slow boats, and
>>genetics, the details of how the kava (Austronesian) and betel (Papuan)
>>peoples did or did not mix are still pretty murky.
>>
>>Cheers, Rich
>
>
>--
>Thomas H. Slone
>Carcinogenic Potency Project
>University of California at Berkeley
>tom at potency.berkeley.edu
>Phone: (510)547-7071; FAX: (510)547-7073


--