Historical ecological influences on the word for cacao in ka'apor
Trustees of Indiana UniversityAnthropological LinguisticsHistorical-Ecological Influences on the Word for Cacao in KaaporAuthor(s): William BaléeSource: Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Fall, 2003), pp. 259-280Published by: The Trustees of Indiana University on behalf of Anthropological LinguisticsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30028895 .Accessed: 25/04/2011 23:13Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tiu. .Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact email@example.com.Trustees of Indiana University and Anthropological Linguistics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Anthropological Linguistics.http://www.jstor.org
Historical-Ecological Influences on the Wordfor Cacao in KaaporWILLIAMBALgETulane UniversityAbstract. Factors of historical ecologyseem to have affected plant nomen-clature in Kaapor,a Tupi-Guaranilanguage of eastern Amazonia,specificallythe term for cacao. Several languages in at least three different subgroupsofTupi-Guaranihave terms for a widespreadnondomesticatedspecies of cacaoaswell as for domesticated cacao that are superficially similar to reconstructedMesoamericanterms fordomesticatedcacao.Kaaporseems to have borrowedwith phonologicallyconventionalmethodsa term forcacao.Such a borrowingiscounterintuitive because cacao was a preexisting plant of Amazonia and itwas evidently not significant in aboriginalKaaporculture or economy.Afterthe term had been borrowedby Spanish froma Mesoamericandonorlanguage,it arguablyfollowedthis path:fromSpanishto Portuguese,fromPortuguesetoLinguaGeralAmazonica(a Tupiancreolespokenwidelyin the colonialAmazonregion at a time when cacao was its major export crop) and from there toKaapor.In contrast, an observedsimilarity ofthe cacaoterms in several otherTupi-Guaranilanguages to Mesoamericanterms forcacaodoes not seem to bethe result ofborrowingfromLinguaGeralAmaz6nica,but rather of an autoch-thonous linguistic process in Amazonia.The borrowingof an ultimately Meso-american term for cacao by Kaapor but not by other Tupi-Guarani groupssupplies evidence of intricate contact between Kaapor society and colonialLuso-Braziliansociety of the eighteenth century. The economicand ecologicalsignificance of the cacaoexportsector of the eighteenth-century colonialAma-zonwhen comprehendedtogether with LinguaGeralAmaz6nicaas the contactlanguage helps illuminate nuances of Kaapor vocabularyregarding naturalthings, the history of Kaapormigrations, and close connectionsofthe Kaaporto the geographicallydistant Wayapipeople.1. Introduction: affinities and history of Kaapor. The Kaaporlanguage(also known as Urubu, Urubdi, and Urubu-Kaapor) is one of about forty lan-guages in Tupi-Guarani, itself one of ten branches of the Tupi family (Jensen1999; Rodrigues 1999; Rodrigues and Cabral 2002). Kaapor is spoken in ex-treme eastern Amazonia in the Brazilian state of Maranhaio, specifically in theGurupi and Turiaqu river basins, though it has recent historical origins to thewest, in the present state of Para. Eight subgroups of Tupi-Guarani have beenidentified, chiefly in terms of phonological criteria (Jensen 1999; Rodrigues1986; Rodrigues and Cabral 2002), though there is some disagreement overwhat languages should be included in each of the subgroups (see Mello 2002).Kaapor has been classified in subgroup 8 in three slightly different versions ofthis model; for the purpose of consistency, I use here specifically the revisedclassification of Tupi-Guarani proposed by Rodrigues and Cabral (2002), withthe caveat that minor revisions in that model may become standard in the259
260 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO.3future. Subgroup8 also includesWayipi, Guaja,and at least seven other livingand deadlanguages (Jensen 1999;cf. Mello2002).Beatriz Correa da Silva (1997:83) argued that Kaapor is very close toWayapiin terms ofphonologicalcriteria. Indeed, Kaaporinformantshave toldme that, judging from their contacts with Wayipi speakers (of the Wayam-pipuku dialect) in the Casa do fndio near Belem, Para, they can understandWayapibetter than other Tupi-Guaranilanguages they have heard, in spite ofdifferences in stress patterns in the two languages and a number of Caribborrowingsin Wayipi not occurringin Kaapor.Detailed evidence fromritualalso indicates an intimate association between Kaapor and Wayapi culturesthat would have existed about three hundred years ago (Balee 2000). Butaccording to Correa da Silva (1997:83), Kaapor is unlike Wayapi in certainmorphologicalrespects. In fact, she claims Kaaporis more like Lingua GeralAmaz^nica,a Tupi-Guaranicreoleknownalso as Nheengatdigoodtalk (Jensen1999:127)that is classified in subgroup3, in terms of person-markerprefixes,pronominalsystem, andthe person-markingsystem on verbs(alsosee CorreadaSilva 2002).Correa da Silva (1997:88-89) registered numerous, apparently borrowed,lexical items that were presumablypresent in Kaaporbefore 1928, when rela-tions of the Kaapor ancestors with Brazilian authorities and society becamepeaceful, such as wordsforcaboclo(Amazonianpeasant), Catholicpriest, com-rade (ornon-Indianperson),Christian,mother (vocative),and father (vocative)(also see Balee [1994:29-30] for similar evidence). The supposition is thatLingua Geral Amaz6nicawas the donorlanguage of these and other borrowedterms in Kaapor.Wayipi also underwent Lingua Geral Amazonica influence(Jensen 1990), but perhaps not so much as Kaapor.Where and how did thisinfluence originate, and what, if any, implications does it have for Kaapornomenclatureregardingnatural things in their environment?LinguaGeralAmazonicamade its appearancein Amazoniasome time afterthe Portuguesefoundeda fort(FortedoPresepio)in 1616that wouldbecomethecity of Belem. Lingua GeralAmazonicawas based on Tupinambaspoken in theLowerAmazonian Portuguese colonycalled the Province of Maranhio e GraoPara, and it underwent significant Portuguese lexical influence. Lingua GeralAmaz6nicawas partly the linguistic productofmarriagesbetween Tupinambaiwomen and Portuguese soldiers and colonists (Correa da Silva 1997:83-84;Rodrigues 1986:102),and partly the influence of learned Jesuits who broughtmany aspects ofthe language with them fromcoastalBrazil.(TheuniformityofTupinambaalongthe coast of Brazil has been widely noted.)The Tupi-Guaranicreole of southern Brazil-Lingua Geral Paulista or Tupi Austral--developed inquite parallel circumstances (Jensen 1999:127). Jesuit missionaries arrived inthe region of the estuary and Lower Amazon in 1636 (Cruz 1973), and theyhelped institutionalize Lingua Geral Amaz~nica in mission settings. By 1655,there were fifty-four Jesuit missions in Amazonia, mostly along the Amazon
2003 WILLIAMBAL8E 261Riveritself and south of it (Leonardi1999:56).LinguaGeralAmazonicabecamethe dominant language in the Brazilian Amazon and would be supplanted (forthe most part, by Portuguese) only about two hundred years later, during therubber boom, beginning in the latter half of the nineteenth century, whenhundreds of thousands of monolingual immigrants from northeastern Brazilarrived in the region to take up a life of rubber tapping (Leonardi 1999:75;MoreiraNeto 1988:43-45). By the time of the rubberboom,the Kaapor as apeople were isolated from and hostile to rubber tappers and Luso-Braziliansociety generally (Balee 1984, 1988). At one time, however, the Kaapor as apeopleapparentlyenjoyedrelatively peacefulthough probablysubordinaterela-tions with representatives ofthe Iberianmetropole,especially Jesuit mission-aries with whomthey wouldhavebeen in daily,face-to-facecontactat least untilthe expulsion of the Jesuits from Brazil in 1759 (Azevedo 1930:375; Bal~e1988:157).Judging from ethnohistory, oral history, and linguistic data relating totoponyms, Kaaporsociety originated at least fourhundred kilometers to thewest oftheir present habitat,probablyin the basin ofthe TocantinsRiverbefore1800 (Balee 1994:30-32) (see map 1). Before 1759, the Kaaporprobablylivedeven fartherwest, muchnearerto the XinguRiver.This new suggestionderivesfromrecent evidence of a close historical connectionthat seems to have existedbetween the Wayipi andthe Kaaporwithin the last three hundredyears. TheKaaporandWayapishare some esoteric details of a girls pubertyrite that aremost likely not due to chance (Balee 2000:412). The details center on the antordeal,which, in both societies ritual practices,involves the applicationofven-omous stings on the initiates skin from the same species of wasplike ant(Pachycondylacommutata).That ant is called by apparently cognate terms inthe two languages (Kaaportapiiial and Wayapi tapiai). This ant ordeal at apubescent girls initiation has not been described for any other pair of Tupi-Guaranisocieties,which constitutes a strongindicationofshared innovationbyKaaporandWayipi ancestralsocioculturalandritual systems. The ant ordeal,therefore,indicates a close historical connectionbetween the two peoplesin thecomparativelyrecent past, and that further supports their linguistically closepairing in subgroup 8 of Tupi-Guarani. In other words, shared innovationsbetween KaaporandWayipi are evident both in language and culture.Today the Wayapi and Kaaporlive about nine hundred kilometers apartandbetween them lies the estuary ofthe AmazonRiveritself (see map 2). With-out the ethnographicand linguistic evidencethus far adduced,a closehistoricalconnectionbetween the two societies would seem counterintuitive,as the Ama-zon River is usually taken to be a barrier to diffusion. But in the early 1700s, theprecursors of the Wayapi lived in the lower Xingu River basin (on the southernside of the Amazon River), and some of them for a time at least became settledinto one of three Jesuit missions existing there (Grenand 1982:260; Fisher
262 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO.350.wimou Of theamaATLNV A45o:Am..1.58-SS020O km* fDireatiwaof migratio18es Oateof oppeoranoeIn roGs50Nw 48. WMap1.MigratorymovementsoftheKaaporpeopleovertimeinLowerAmazonia.2000:46).EvidencefromKaapormythologyandtheir knowledgeofspecies,suchas the Brazil nut tree, which are not present in their currenthabitat but whichdooccurin the TocantinsandXingudrainages,indicatesan originat least as farwest as the Tocantins River, called i-takasi Smoke River in Kaapor. (Thelower Tocantins River couldbe said to have a smoky appearance due to tidal
2003 WILLIAMBALBE 263action, and the concomitant infusion into the area of whitewater sediments[Balee 1994:24-25].) Further, because of their close linkages to Wayipi, from theperspective both of ritual (that is, of culture) and language, antecedents of theKaapor people can be logically placed even farther west than the Tocantins,indeed, much closer to the Xingu River, in the early eighteenth century.:uw,:, ,Suriname PreachG~ms-N Ki 0 200 400asIWvpAtlanticOcean~o.Brazil4rwAmataAssxinArawet~Temb~kaaporgacapipigu 5sAr paMap 2. Locations of some Tupi-Guarani peoples mentioned in text in Lower Amazonia.The impact of Lingua Geral Amazinica on the Kaapor language, togetherwith Luso-Brazilian-specifically Jesuit-influences on Kaapor culture, seemto be related to what at one time was the principal commodity extracted by theIberian metropole from Amazonia: cacao. Tracing the origin of this one word inthe Kaapor language actually yields significant insights into Kaapor historyand culture. The word for cacao in Kaapor betokens a past that was distinctfrom other Tupi-Guarani societies. The argument here is that ancestral Kaaporspeakers had a closer association with Jesuit missionaries than many otherTupf-Guarani groups (perhaps excepting Wayipi) of the Lower Amazon region.
264 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTIcs 45NO.3TheJesuit missionaries ofthe eighteenth centuryspokeLinguaGeralAmazon-ica in their LowerAmazonmissions, including those ofthe lowerXingu River.The Wayipi ancestors(orGuayapias they evidentlywere called)were describedin the early 1700s as mission dwellers speaking "LingualGeral,"which at thattime could refer to Lingua Geral Amaz6nica specifically or any Tupi-Guaranilanguage (Grenand1982:260).I proposethat the ancestral Kaapor(wholikelywere one people with the ancestral Wayipi in the first half of the eighteenthcentury) borroweda wordfor cacaofrom Lingua GeralAmaz6nicathanks to astrongJesuit economicand linguistic presence,even though cacao,as a species,already existed in their environmentand they no doubtalreadyhad a wordforit. TheJesuit chroniclerPadreBetendorfhad this to say in 1699aboutthe lowerXinguRiverand its abundanceofcacaotrees: "Theislands that occur[here]arenot useful exceptto collecthigh quality cacaofromthem and in fact many cacaotrees grow spontaneously on them" (Betendorf 1910:29,my translation). Theevidence indicates that the Kaaporlanguage borroweda new term for cacaofrom Lingua Geral Amazdnica because of an intense economic relationshipbetween the ancestral KaaporandJesuit missionaries. In this sense, a changein the material and economiclandscape--namely, the ascendancyof cacaoas acommodityand the acquisition of native laborto gather it-may have affectedthe Kaaporlanguage in the domainofplant nomenclature.2. Problems with the linguistic and ecological history of cacao. Wheredid the word for cacao come from?Mesoamericanist J. Eric S. Thompson in-dicatedthat "Theorigins ofthe words cacaoand chocolateare not easily found.There has been a considerableamountof speculationon the subject,but it is tobe doubtedthat any conclusionssatisfactory to everyonewill ever be reached"(1956:107). Written before an explosion of historical linguistic and epigraphicresearch in Mesoamerica, Thompson was perhaps too pessimistic, though itmust be granted that all linguistic reconstruction, like much archaeologicalinterpretation,must remain speculative, howeverinformedandenlightening.At least one way of approachingThompsonsproblemwouldbe to seek thewordwhere the plant itself originated. This exercise involves consideration ofcultural factors, since the cacaoof commerce(Theobromacacao L.) is a domes-ticate. Twosubspecies of cacao are recognized(Cuatrecasas 1964:512-13), andthe principal subspecies of modem commerce, T. cacao ssp. cacao (with fourformae),was the only domesticatedone foundin Mexicoand CentralAmericaatthe time of the HispanicConquest.Twocommercialtypes are known:criollo(T.cacao ssp. cacao) and forastero(which may include other subspecies, all fromSouth America). Criollo has "elongated, ridged, pointed fruits and white cotyle-dons," while forastero has "short, roundish, almost smooth fruit and purplishcotyledons" (Cuatrecasas 1964:506; also see Schultes 1984 and Coe and Coe1996:27). The criollo variety of Mexico and Central America does not growspontaneously; in contrast, other forastero subspecies can be found growing
2003 WILLIAMBALE 265spontaneously in various parts ofthe AmazonBasin (Huber1904;Cuatrecasas1964:401;Cavalcante 1988:63)and the Guianas (Cuatrecasas 1964:494[map]).Indeed,two morphologicalvariants are noted, an UpperAmazonForasteroanda LowerAmazonForastero(Motamayoret al. 2000).Todayforasterosubspeciesand varieties derivedfrom T. cacao ssp. sphaerocarpumhave becomethe mostimportant in commerce(G6mez-Pompa,Flores, and Fernaindez1990:249), ac-countingforabout80 percentofworldproduction(Coeand Coe 1996:28,201-2).The precontactdistribution, whereby many spontaneous varieties occurredinSouthAmericaand only one,fully domesticated,variety in Mesoamerica,raisedthe possibilitythat cacaooriginatedin headwatersofthe AmazonRiver,crossedthe Andes into northern Colombia,and ultimately made its way into CentralAmericaand lands farthernorth (Cheesman 1944;Cuatrecasas 1964:507).The age-area hypothesis (or"least-moves"hypothesis [JudithMaxwell p.c.2000])is clearlystrengthenedby the factthat all twenty-twoknownTheobromaspecies were originallyfoundin the AmazonBasin and adjoiningGuianas, andonly three (T.cacao, T. angustifolium, and T. bicolor)have ever grownoutsidethat region. Cuatrecasas confidently asserted, nevertheless, that the first pre-historic cultivation and selection of cacao occurred in Mexico and CentralAmerica(1964:507),and subsequent writers have tended to supportthat claim(e.g., Stone 1984:69). G6mez-Pompa,Flores, and Fernandez (1990) presentedrecent evidence for a possible ancestral formto domesticatedcacao,which wasnotedto be growingin a sinkholein northernYucatAn.Thisvarietyis the rare T.cacao L. ssp. cacao forma lacandonicaCuatrecasas, which was previouslyonlyknown from the Lacandon Maya area of Chiapas, Mexico (Coe and Coe1996:26-27). Linguistic evidence to date also seems to support an originaldomesticationof cacaoin Mesoamerica,thoughthe precise language of originisa matter ofdispute.One accountarguedfor a sourceof Mayan *kakaw in Mixe-Zoquean(Jus-teston et al. 1985:59),a putativesourceofborrowingsin MayanandotherMeso-americanlanguage groups(Campbelland Kaufman1976:84).Accordingto thisview, many Mixe-Zoqueanagricultural terms were borrowedby Mayan andother Mesoamerican language groups, reflecting perhaps the prestige of theproposed first agricultural civilization of the region, the Olmecs. The Olmeccivilization might have been associated with speakers of Mixe-Zoquean(Campbell and Kaufman 1976:84), though this inference, too, is debatable(Wichmann 1999). More recently, an argument has been made that cacao isactuallya term coinedby speakersofNahuatl, perhapsthe peoplewhose capitalcity was Teotihuacan(Dakin andWichmann2000).Regardless of which Mesoamerican linguistic group (i.e., Uto-Aztecan,Mayan, or Mixe-Zoquean) is eventually determined to be the source of the termcacao, the use of cacao in Classic Maya culture (ca. 200 B.C.-600 A.D.)is nowwell established. Biochemical evidence for theobromine, one of cacaos charac-teristic alkaloids, has now been determined to exist on remains of spouted
266 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO.3vessels (called"chocolatepots")in northernBelizethat datefrom600 B.C.to 250A.D.,i.e., from the time of the Preclassic Maya culture to the beginnings ofClassic Maya culture(Hurst 2002;Powis et al. 2002). By Classictimes, cacaoisevidently a local cropgrownwidely in Mesoamerica,includingperipheralareassuch as the medium-sized village site of Ceren in El Salvador (Lentz andRamirez-Sosa2002). In otherwords,it was evidentlya cropnot only ofthe elite,but of the commonpeople living on the peripheryof urban civilization as well.This finding suggests considerableantiquity forcacaoin Mesoamerica.After the Spanish conquestof Mesoamerica,with the debut of chocolateinthe Europeanmarketplaceandthe rapidconditioningofthe Westernpalate byit, the term cacaobecamewidely diffusedto numerouslanguages worldwide.InHanundoofMindoroIsland, Philippines,two ofthe three wordsforfolk speciesof cacaoexhibit the morphemekakaw(Conklin1954:418),no doubtborrowingsfrom Spanish. In the Quichua language of Amazonian Ecuador,all compoundnames fortwo species of Theobroma(T. cacao and T. subincanum)incorporatethe term cacao (Kohn 2002:432). Many other Amazonian and Lowland SouthAmericangroupsborroweda term forcacaothat entered the continentthroughthe Spanish or Portuguese languages. What is of most interest is why wouldthey, and in particularthe Kaapor,have borroweda term fora plant that theyalreadyhad, especially if it were a domesticatedplant?According to the historical-linguistic principle of prestige, whereby in acontact situation goodsand services associated with the dominantsociety thatwere not previously present in the subordinate society tend to be borrowedbythe subordinatesociety(see Campbell1999:59-60),the wordforcacaowouldnothave been borrowedby the Kaaporlanguage, since it already occurredin theKaaporenvironment, unless cacao had acquiredsome prestige and economicvalorization far above and beyond what it held in native Amazonia. Ethno-botanist Richard Evans Schultes (1984:33) observed that it was difficult toexplain why AmazonianIndians wouldhave been motivated to disperse a tree"theuse of which lay solely in a sweet pulp on which one might suck"(also seeCoe and Coe [1996:26]for a similar view). Cacaocultivation in Mesoamericaisprobablyas old as, if not olderthan, the Tupi-Guaranibranchofthe Tupifamily,dating back at least to the beginning of the CommonEra and probablymuchearlier (cf.Alden 1976:104;see Young 1994:17),even if the wordforcacaomaybe morerecent than its originalcultivation(Dakin andWichmann2000).Plant geneticist Charles Clement (1999:201)pointed out that T. cacao andits close relative T. bicolor(which,unlike T. cacao,may growspontaneously inthe Maya lowlands, though it is of lesser quality and desirability [Thompson1956:107])were probablysemidomesticated crops grown as stimulants in theUpper Amazon during late prehistoric times. But the use of cacao beans asstimulants is seldom found outside the Upper Amazon. The Kofan of theEcuadorian Amazon toast and eat the beans of T. bicolor (which they termmazkaui)(Pinkley 1973:69), as do the Lowland Quichua of Ecuador (Eduardo
2003 WILLIAMBAL9E 267Kohn p.c. 2001). The practice of toasting these beans before consuming themseems fairlywidespreadin the UpperAmazon,despite the avowedlylow qualityofthe beans andfruitwhen comparedto otherspeciesof Theobroma(Cavalcante1988:66).In any case, no prehistoricAmazoniangroupsareknownto have madechocolate (Schultes 1984:33; Stone 1984:69; G6mez-Pompa, Flores, andFernandez 1990:249).Rather, almost everywhere outside the UpperAmazon,native Amazonianshave eaten only the sweet, white pulp aroundthe beans andthen discardedthebeans; in some cases, the pulp around the beans has been made into an un-fermented"wine"(Coeand Coe 1996:26),or vinhoin Portuguese ofthe Amazonregion. Given the low aboriginal prestige of cacao in the Amazon region, thedirectionalityofborrowingofthe term is probablynot, basically,fromAmazoniato Mesoamerica; instead, the reverse now seems much more probable. It isunlikely that Mixe-Zoqueanspeakers, who may have been already associatedwith complex,intensive agriculturalsociety, wouldhave borrowedan Amazon-ian term for a semidomesticated (or perhaps even wild) cropthat had not yetdevelopeduses as chocolate.Andthe possibilityremainsthat the developmentofchocolateproductionin Mesoamericabegan with criollo trees that had arisenfromspontaneousmutations and subsequent genetic drift along the Isthmus ofPanama, not far from the northernmost edge of the presumed original distri-bution of cacao (Purseglove 1968; Young 1994:14-15). It is possible thereforethat cacaowas not dispersedinto Mesoamericaby humans and was part oftheoriginal distribution of wild forms of cacao, such as the forma lacandonica(G6mez-Pompa,Flores, and Fernandez 1990:249),but this remains controver-sial (Stone 1984;Young 1994:14).The first Europeanobservationofcacaooccurredin 1502 alongthe northerncoast ofHonduras,on Columbussfourthvoyage(Alden 1976:104).Rapidly,thechocolate drink made fromit became highly esteemed in Europe(Alden 1976:109), and it became well known to explorers as a valuable export crop.Cacaoplantations begin in Ecuadorand Venezuela by the late 1500s and early 1600s.The crop,therefore, may have been recognizableto the Spaniard Cristoval deAcufia,who noted in 1641 that in some places groves of cacaotrees along theAmazonRiverwere so thick that the woodcould serve to lodge an entire army(1963:76).Cacaoexportsfromthe Amazonwere reportedby 1678-81, andthesebeans were being collected fromspontaneously occurringtrees, not plantationtrees (Alden 1976:114-15). By about 1725, a cacaoboomstarted in the Amazon,and cacaobecomesthe "dominantexportstaple"ofthe region(Alden 1976:118;cf. Hemming 1987:43). By the mid-1700s, different regions of Brazil exporteddistinctive commodities to Lisbon. The Rio fleet shipped gold, hides, and silver;Pernambuco sent wood and sugar; and "the fleets of the north [i.e., lowerAmazon], of Grao Para and Maranhio carried cacao" (Maxwell 1973:5). Thecacao export sector of the eighteenth-century Luso-Brazilian economy wasperhaps minor compared to gold in Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro and later
268 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45NO.3coffee in Sfio Paulo (Baer 1995:15-19), but it seems in many ways to be theprecursorof the rubberexport economyof the nineteenth century as concernsthe Amazonregion.The cacao export sector of the colonial Amazonian economyfell under thecontrolofJesuit missionaries, who induced Indians undertheir tutelage to col-lect cacao in the interior from spontaneous trees, whereas significantly lesscacao came fromplantations (Alden 1976:121-22; Hemming 1987:43;Coe andCoe 1996:194-95). These spontaneous trees were most likely from Theobromacacao and not from nondomesticated species of Theobroma.Although Theo-bromaspeciosumWilld.,a nondomesticatedand very widespreadcacaospeciesknown regionally as cacaui little cacao,producesedible pulp and seeds fromwhich chocolatecan andhas been made, its fruitingseason is onlybetween Feb-ruary and April, hardly enough time to qualify as a majorexport crop. Ama-zonian Theobromacacao,in contrast,canbe foundforsale in all months exceptSeptemberto Decemberat the market in Belem (Cavalcante1988:64).Remarkably, as a percentage of the total exports fromthe LowerAmazonduring 1730-55, cacaoaloneranges between 43.5 percentand96.6 percent,withthe highest proportionof total exports fromthat region occurringin the years1730-45 (Alden 1976:118).The cacaotrade begins to decline in the 1740s and1750s, and this coincideswith native population declines due to smallpox andmeasles epidemics widely reported during the period 1743-50 (Balee 1984:34-35; Hemming 1987:43;MoreiraNeto 1988:23-24). Africanslavery revivedthe trade after the 1750s, so that what is now the Brazilian state of Para wasexporting715 to 850 tons of cacaoperyear, which constituted about90 percentof the total from Brazil (Hemming 1987:43). Even after the expulsion of theJesuits from the Portuguese Empire in 1759-60, most of the export fromtheAmazonstill camefromcollectingexpeditionsrather than fromcultivated trees(Alden 1976:123-24), and cacaowouldnot becomea dominantexportcropfromthe Brazilian state ofBahia until the late nineteenth century(Baer 1995:19).The impact in Amazonia of a cacao export economycombinedwith Jesuitcontrolseems to have affectednative languages. Indeed,the significanceofthecacaoexportsectorin the LowerAmazoncannotbe overestimatedin terms ofitseffectson localindigenoussocieties and their languages that were involvedin it.In 1743, cacao is clearly the most important of all the drogas do sertio (thevariousforest and gardenproductsfromAmazoniathat were shippedto Europefor a variety of purposes:food,spice, medicine, oil, hides, skins, timber,waxes,gums, and so on [see Cleary 2001:83-841), for at that time cacao beans wereobservedto be circulating as money amongthe Amazonianpeasantry (not dis-similarto the way cacaobeans had serveda monetarypurposein Aztecmarkets)and cacaobeans ownedwere figuredinto calculations of an individualswealth(Bruno 1966:59). In the colonial era, cacao assumed an economicand culturalimportancenot beforeseen in aboriginalAmazonia.Cacao was a central commodity in the "Jesuit century," as David Block
2003 WILLIAMBAIUE 269(1994:98)has so aptly characterizedthe eighteenth centuryin eastern Bolivia--a term that can applywith slight modificationsalso to AmazonianBrazil,coast-al Brazil, and the mission zones of Paraguay and Argentina. The Jesuits intro-duced cacao into the MojosPlains of eastern Bolivia (also known as the Beni),where it had not even existed in the wild before, as an export crop (Block1994:98)--indeed, they refined the cacaobeans into chocolatebars for export,whereas the Jesuits of the LowerAmazon apparently only exportedthe beansthemselves. Cacaowas probablynot typically planted in pre-ColumbianAma-zonia,but the Jesuits, using native labor,cultivated it successfullyin the vicini-ty of their Amazon missions (Aubertin 1996:32;Bruno 1966:61). Perhaps thebeans came fromthe islands on the Xingu Riverthat were well populatedwithcacao trees. In fact, had it not been for the Jesuits and their organizationalsavvy,Amazoniaas a regioncouldnot have met Europeandemandforchocolate(Aubertin 1996:33).The drogas do sertio--a bona fide term forwhat today onemight call "tropicalforest products"(see Cleary2001:83-86)--constitute a verylong list of wild and cultivated plant and animal materials, but in terms ofeconomicimpact both in the Amazon and in the Europeanmarketplace, cacaowas clearly at the top of this list duringthe early eighteenth century (Di Paolo1985:76).The Jesuits used Lingua Geral Amazonica, a creole language partiallyderived from Tupinamba, in their missions. Many Lingua Geral Amazonicavocabularyitems are borrowedfromPortuguese. In cases of language contact,vocabularyitems for native plants, animals, and landscape features are mostoften borrowedby the dominant or prestige language, while vocabularyitemsrelated to politics, religion, and finance are most often borrowedby the sub-ordinate or nonprestige language, based on contrasting principles of prestige(i.e., "luxury"loans)orneed (Campbell1999:59-60). Cacaois a native Amazon-ian plant, so by the principle of need, it is reasonable to argue that the termcameoriginallyfromsome Amazonianlanguage. In regardspecificallyto LowerAmazonian history, the evidence suggests that cacao was a Portuguese wordborrowed from Spanish cacao that was in turn a borrowing from a Meso-americanlanguage,wherethe cacaoplant first attainedpreeminencein terms ofworld commerce.Controversialfindings indicate that a word for cacao can bereconstructed in Proto-Mixe-Zoquean, which dates from about 3500 B.P.(Campbell1999:349;also see Campbelland Kaufman1976;Justeson et al. 1985)and is plausibly associatedwith the ancient Olmeccivilizationofthe Isthmus ofTehuantepec, as *kakawa(Campbell and Kaufman 1976:84). The possibilityremains that Proto-Mixe-Zoquean borrowed the term from an Amazonianlanguage on the basis of need, if the crop, indeed, originated there (thoughperhaps not as a fully domesticated crop), as some biogeographic data suggest.But the prestige principle and the known time frame militate against thathypothesis.
270 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO.33. Cacao words and Tupf-Guarant languages. In several Tupi-Guaranilanguages ofAmazonia, Theobromacacao L. ssp. sphaerocarpumis referredtoby words that seem cognate by inspection (see table 1), the exceptions beingKaapor(becauseofthe initial k--see below),Parintintin, and Wayfipi.What ispuzzling is that the other, seemingly cognate, words resemble the word cacaoin their phonetic shape. At least some of these languages might be presumedto have undergone little if any influence from Lingua Geral Amaz6nica,espe-cially Guajai(a languageofhunter-gathererswho have onlybeen in contactsincethe 1970s) and Arawete (a language of trekkers only in contact also since the1970s).But bothofthese languageshave a wordfor"comrade"(Guaja zkamarar,Arawete kamara--both terms from my own field notes), borrowed evidentlyfrommedieval Portuguese camarada. Correspondingborrowedterms are alsoknown from Kaapor (kamarar) and Lingua Geral Amaz8nica (kamara~ra)(Correada Silva 1997:89),though the range of meaning among them is some-what divergent, since at least in Guaja kamarar refers to the Kaaporpeople,whereas in the other languages mentioned the cognate term refers to non-Indians, oris even, in the case ofArawet6,a personalname fora man.Table 1. Words for Cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) in Several Tupi-GuaraniLanguagesLANGUAGE SUBGROUP TERM GLOSS SOURCEArawete 5 aka-i L-stem Bal6e,fieldnotes 1985AssurinidoXingu 5 aka-iwa L-stem Balde,field notes 1986Guaj 8 akoo-i L-stem Balee, fieldnotes 1989Kaapor 8 kaka L Balee,field notes 1985Tembe 4 aka-iw-ete L-stem-true Balee, fieldnotes 1986(cf.Boudin1978)LinguaGeralAmaz6nica 3 akaiut L Stradelli 1929Parintintin 6 fiumi- L Betts 1981Wayipi 8 walapulu L Grenand1989NOTE:Dashes indicatemorphemeboundaries.In the gloss column,"L"refersto a literal,monomorphemic,essentially nonpolysemous plant term (see Balee and Moore 1991).(English plant morphemesthat heuristically meet this criterionwould be oak, maple,andpine.)7his term refersto the fruit ofthe cacaotree only.These five languages are in three different subgroups (4, 5, and 8) of theeight recognized subgroups of the Tupi-Guarani branch of the Tupi family(Jensen 1999; Rodrigues and Cabral 2002). The phonologicalstructure of theterms, apart from the Kaapor word in table 1, does not suggest borrowingamong the different languages. It is possible that Kaapor has conserved aninitial *kin the word for cacao and that the initial consonant was deleted inArawet6,Assurini doXingu, Guaja, and Tembe.The protolanguageterm mayhave been *kaka,and this wouldbe far olderthan the cacaoexporteconomyoflowerAmazoniain the 1700s. But this hypothesis seems unlikely.The principle
2003 WILLIAMBALAE 271of prestige would tend to preclude a nonprestige language from borrowing aterm for a native plant that was not of commercialor agriculturalimportance.The nondomesticated, widely occurring cacao species TheobromaspeciosumWilld.is either designatedby the same term (as in AssurinidoXinguandGuaja)or it is linguisticallymarkedas thoughit is perceivedas being a closerelative ofdomesticated cacao (fromthe point of view of nomenclature, not classificationper se), as canbe seen in table 2.1Table 2. Words for Nondomesticated Cacao (Theobroma speciosum Willd.) inSeveral Tupf-Guarant LanguagesLANGUAGE SUBGROUP TERM GLoss SOURCEArawete 5 aka-a-wi-i L-fruit-thin-stem Bal6e,fieldnotes,1985AssurinidoXingu 5 aka-iwa L-stem Balee,fieldnotes,1986Auri andAura 8 aka-ud L-large(?) Bal6e,fieldnotes, 1987Guaji 8 akoo-i L-stem Bal6e,fieldnotes,1989Kaapor 8 kaka-ran-i L-false-stem Balde,fieldnotes,1985Tembe 4 akau-iw L-stem Bal6e,fieldnotes, 1986,(Cf.Boudin1978)Wayipi 8 aka-iw L-stem Grenand1989Proposedreconstruction *akoo-ifi L-stemNOTE:See notes for table 1.In other words,in keeping with the prestige principle,one wouldnot anticipateborrowingofterms fornondomesticated,seeminglyunimportantplants (thoughnoludomesticatedcacao,especially TheobromaspeciosumWilld.,like its domes-ticated congener, does have a sweet, edible pulp, and people gather it for thatpurpose). But that evidently happened in Kaapor. The Kaapor words forProtium trees (Burseraceae),Lacmelleatrees (Apocynaceae),and Mabeatrees(Euphorbiaceae),all of which are foundin high forest and are never cultivatedper se, seem to have been borrowedalso fromLingua Geral Amaz6nica(Balde1994). It is plausible that productsfromthese trees were part of the drogas dosert~o transoceanic trade; Protium trees, for example, exude a resin that ishighly prizedas boat caulking,and caulkswere one ofthe Amazoniandrogasdosert~o.Wayapi,which like Kaaporis fromsubgroup8, denotes domesticatedcacaoas walapulu, clearly a borrowingfrom one of several Carib languages in theGuianas (Grenand 1989). Yet the Wayapiterm for nondomesticated cacao, T.speciosum,is aka-i, an apparent cognate with the terms in table 2 (except forthe Kaaporterm). Frangoise Grenand (1989:121) etymologically derives akafromaki head and suggests also a comparisonwith Lingua GeralAmazonicakakao-i little cacao. Her etymology head seems problematic,however, sincenot only Wayipi, but also the cognate terms in the five other Tupi-Guarani
272 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO.3languages in tables 1 and 2 show nonnasalized vowels. It seems unlikely thatnasalization in this wordforwild cacaowouldhave been droppedin all oftheselanguages, just as deletion of initial k in the cacaowordin three different sub-groupsofTupi-Guaranialso seems unlikely-assuming, as I do,that these sub-groups are essentially valid. Initial consonantloss is, in any case, less commonin the worldslanguages than initial vowel loss (Campbell1999:32-33).On the basis of this mounting evidence, one can logically argue that (i) theoriginal term in Wayipi for nondomesticated cacao is a sequence of a literalmorpheme (aka), by which is meant a nonpolysemous,monomorphemicplantterm (Balee and Moore1991), and a term meaning stem or tree (i); (ii) theKaaporterms for cacao and nondomesticatedcacaomost likely are borrowed;and (iii) the donorlanguage for the cacaoterms in Kaaporwas Lingua GeralAmazonica.The Lingua GeralAmazonicaterm forcacaofruit is kakAiu(Stradelli 1929).In Lingua Geral Amaz6nica,dipthongs may occurin word final position. Thecombinationoftwo vowels "inprinciple"represents two syllables (Taylor1985:11-12). But, in Lingua GeralAmazonica,one does not canonicallyfindthe sortofword-finalsequenceshownin (1).(1) V[+high,+back,+vocalic]#This combinationofphonemes is commonin Portuguese, on the other hand, asin piu wood, tree and kakdiucacao. It can therefore be proposed that thedirectionality ofborrowingwas fromLingua GeralAmazonicato Kaapor,andnot the reverse. Kaaporretained the initial k when it borrowedthe term, andphonological substitution (in this case, by deletion of final vowel or apocope[Campbell1999:32,61]) accounts for the absence of the unstressed final, highback vowel in Kaaporkaka. Kaaporalso extended the rootlexemes semanticrange to nondomesticatedcacao,analogousto the extension notedby FranCoiseGrenandabove(1989:121)forLinguaGeralAmazonica.The term fornondomesticated cacaopersisted in Wayapiperhaps becauseWayipi was less affected by mission influences than Kaapor and becausenondomesticatedcacaowas not an item ofprestige,whereas domesticatedcacaowas a prestigious commodity,thanks to Jesuit and Luso-Brazilianvalorization,cultivation, and exportof it. It is striking,nevertheless, that the Wayapihave aCaribloanwordfordomesticatedcacao.This evidence, and the findings relatedto a strong historical association between the ancestral Kaapor and Wayipipeoples,lead one to speculatethat Wayipi oncehad a term like kakain Kaaporand exchanged this for walapulu at a later date, after crossing the AmazonRiver from the south, but to date it has not yet gone so far as to replace the termfor nondomesticated cacao (and remodel it by analogy on walapulu or some otherborrowed term for cacao). Kaapor, on the other hand, arguably borrowed kakaand extended it to coverthe nondomesticatedcacaospecies oftheir habitat.This argument leaves open whether the other Tupi-Guarani languages in
2003 WILLIAMBAL9E 273the sample also borrowedthe wordforcacaofromLingua GeralAmazonica.Tosuppose that they have would imply deletion of initial k in all the languages,which seems unlikely. The only reason for considering borrowingat all is theParintintin form(table 1),whichrepresents a peculiardeparturefromthe otherlanguages. Parintintin is from subgroup 6 of Tupi-Guarani; it is spoken insouthwesternAmazonia,close, in fact,to where Proto-Tupi-Guaraniis believed(using the least-moves hypothesis) to have originated; and it evidently hasundergonelittle or no Lingua Geral Amaz6nicainfluence, for it seems to havebeen beyond the distribution of the Jesuit missions. Parintintin has the focalgeneric name riumi- for cacao and many of its relatives (Betts 1981; WaudKrackep.c. 2001).2Parintintin is also located in the richest area of the genusTheobromain the Amazon Basin. It is at least conceivable, therefore, thatParintintin has retained the Proto-Tupi-Guaraniterm for cacao, and that theother languages have acquiredtheir term from some other source. Still, eventhough the term in the remaining languages, aka (Arawet6,Assurini doXingu,Tembe, and Wayapi)or akoo (Guaja),does somewhat resemble Lingua GeralAmaz nica kakau,this resemblanceseems morelikely to be due to coincidencethan to borrowing,given the absenceofinitial k.If aka is closerto the originalProto-Tupi-Guaraniwordforcacaothan kaka,then the term for cacao was most likely not borrowedby Mesoamericanlan-guages fromTupi-Guaranilanguages, even if aka turns out to have cognates inbranchesofTupianotherthan Tupi-Guarani.That is because word-initialepen-thesis of a consonant is unlikely (Campbell1999:33).The only published datacurrently available on another branch of Tupian is from Munduruku, of theMunduruku branch, and its word for cacao is kakau (Stromer 1932:62; butCroftsand Sheffler[1981:18]indicatekarobaas the Mundurukutermforcacao),which also appearsto be a borrowingfromLinguaGeralAmazonica.4. Discussion. In the Kaapor habitat of today, there are four species ofTheobromaother than T. cacao and T. speciosum. These are T. grandiflorum(Willd.Ex Spreng.)Schum.,calledkipihuiin Kaaporand T.subincanumMart.,called kipiai (forwhich there is also a synonym, nukipii [Balee 1994: 3071).These terms donot appearto be relatedto the Kaaporterms for T.cacaoand T.speciosum and they are in a different folk genus. Indeed, the fruit of kipihui,which is widely known in the Amazonregion as cupuaqu,is apparently muchmore esteemed (to judge by the significantly greater time that is given to itsgathering) by the Kaapor people than are its congeners, cacao and non-domesticated cacao.There is no reason to suppose that this differential appre-ciation of cupuaqu, on the one hand, and the various cacao fruits, on the other,was different in precontact times. The fruit of cupuaqu is eaten as is the fruit ofcacao:it is the sweet pulp aroundthe beans in the podthat one eats, but in thecase of cupuaqu, this somewhat tart pulp is much more copious. Cupuaqu termsexhibit a tendency to cognate forms also: Guaja kipii, Tembe kupiaiw, Wayipi
274 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO.3kapiai (Balee 1994:307;Grenand 1989:112),for which one could logically pro-pose the tentative reconstruction *kipiaif in Proto-Tupi-Guarani. (Inciden-tally, Parintintin is once again the oddmemberofthis language grouping,withiumitahim, in referenceto the cupuaqufruit only [Betts 1981:268].But giventhe underdifferentiationofthe large variety of Theobromaspecies in the Parin-tintin language, it is unlikely that this term is a retention from Proto-Tupi-Guaram).These terms for cupuaquin Guajai,Kaapor,Tembe, and Wayaipihave re-mained phonologicallysimilar because cupuaqudid not becomea majorexportcrop, as did cacao. (The increasing popularity of cupuaquice cream and otherproductsmade fromits sweet pulp in Amazoniaand Brazilmoregenerally maypresage, however, a different future for cupuaqu).A change in the economiclandscape, in which a less-than-salient species, cacao,unexpectedly surged uphighly in value and in terms of a monetaryvalorizationsystemnot beforeknownin Amazonia, had the effect of influencing the languages most involved in itscollectionand exportation.Hence,whateverthe originalwordKaaporhad forT.cacao (it may have resembled, for example, akai or a name containing thisform), that earlier term was replaced by a new, borrowedterm from LinguaGeralAmazonica,the contactlanguage,and, at the time andplaceunder discus-sion,the prestige language.In addition,whateverthe originalKaaporterm wasforwild cacao (T. speciosum)-this wouldhave been very close, if not identical,to akai (from Proto-Tupi-Guarani *akaip; see table 2)-that term too wasreplaced, when the plant was modeled by analogy on T. cacao. In other words,Kaaporkakarani, in a broadsense, can be glossed as tree resembling cacaotree.It is possible, indeed, that before the mercantile valorization of cacao andbefore Kaaporcontact with colonial Luso-Braziliansociety, T. speciosum wasmore psychologically salient than T. cacao. That is because T. speciosum ismuch more ecologicallyimportant and commonin oldfallowforests (wheretheKaaporonce lived in settled villages between forty and one hundred or moreyears ago, but which have since seen a return of forest cover [Balee 1994:371).Indeed,T. cacaois onlyoccasionallyplantedin dooryardgardensby the Kaaporoftoday and it is not seen in the high forest orin fallowforests oftheir habitat,which is to be expectedof a domesticatedspecies. Cacaois relativelyuncommoncomparedto wild cacao and probablythis was also the case aboriginallyin theXingu andTocantinsbasins.If T. speciosum were more psychologically salient than T. cacao beforecontact, it may be the case that the term for cacao was the marked form inKaapor,andwild cacaowas unmarkedlinguistically.In otherwords,the impactof contact together with landscape modification by the Jesuit mission system,the reordering and transforming of native labor and work priorities, and thesudden high value of T. cacao within an imposed, alien system of exchange andvalorization not only could have caused the substitution of the Lingua Geral
2003 WILLIAMBALAE 275Amaz6nica term for the native name of cacao in Kaapor,but may also havebrought about a marking reversal with regard to the Kaapor term for T.speciosum.Althoughthis assertion cannot be provenat the present moment, itis clearlya plausible scenariowithin the contextof a historicallysignificantandintricate contactsituation.5. Conclusions. In summary, it can be hypothesized that in the Kaaporlanguage, as in some other Amazonian languages such as Quichua, the cacaowords (for Theobromacacao and Theobromaspeciosum) were borrowed,andthat this borrowingoccurredprobablybecausecacao,as a majorexportcrop,hada profoundimpacton Indianlaborofthe LowerAmazonregionin the eighteenthcentury andbecause that laborwas to some extent controlledby Jesuit missionauthorities, for which Lingua Geral Amaz8nica was the contact language.ContemporaryTupi-Guaranilanguages can be ruled out as immediate sourcesfor the Kaapor word for cacao as well as for the English, Spanish, andPortuguese words for cacao. The evidence here presented of borrowingof thecacaoterm by Kaaporfurther refines comprehensionof the Kaaporpast andtheir relations to other living Amazoniangroups.This borrowingfurtherhelpssituate the antecedentsofthe Kaaporhistoricallyin a setting--such as a Jesuitmission, or near such a mission-where Lingua Geral Amazonica was thecontactlanguage and the language of prestige in the area. Such a borrowingismost likely to have occurredfartherwest than the Tocantins,wherethe Wayapiwere also locatedat least for a while in a Jesuit mission in the early eighteenthcentury, along the Xingu River. This finding further strengthens the hypo-thesized close pairing of Wayapi and Kaapor within subgroup 8 of Tupi-Guarani. Finally, the impact of the cacao export economyshows that a nativespecies in the environment,even a relatively unimportantone, can be renamedin local languages when its historical-ecologicalsetting in the worldeconomyiscompletely transformed, and when the people speaking those local languagesare involvedin the laborandtechnologyofthat transformation,as was the casewith Amazonian cacao. Comprehendingthe history and uses of cacao and pro-bablyof otherhighly commercializedspecies ofthe past can be most instructivefor understanding the historical-ecologicalimpact that the expansion of Luso-Brazilian society had on native Amazonian languages and associated plantvocabularies.Likewise, understandingthe origins ofthe wordsforsuch speciesin given languages can sometimes help illuminate a historical past for thesocieties associatedwith those languages, forwhich usually few, if any, reliabledocumentsorotherwritten sourcesexist.NotesAcknowledgments.IthankBeatrizCarrettaCorr~adaSilvaandJudithMaxwellforinsightfulandgenerousdiscussionandclarificationoflinguisticissues.I amgratefultoStevenDarwinforusefulcommentaryonmattersofsystematicbotany.I acknowledgecarefulreadingandconstructivecriticismon the articleby SorenWichmannandan
276 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO.3anonymous reviewer for AnthropologicalLinguistics. Helpful advice on various otherpoints made in this article was also kindly given in the context of various discussionswith Eduardo Kohn, EduardoViveiros de Castro, and James Welch. The article wasoriginallypresented,in differentform,as a paperat the AnnualMeetingofthe SocietyofEthnobiologyat Durango,Colorado,in March2001. I thank Tulane University for assis-tance in attending that meeting and I gratefully acknowledgethe EdwardJohn NobleFoundation, the Wenner-GrenFoundation, the Biodiversity Support Program of theWorldWildlife Fund, and the Stone Center for Latin American Studies (Tulane Uni-versity)forprincipalfundingofthe fieldworkin BrazilianAmazoniaon whichthis articleis based.1.Auraand Aura,mentionedhere, arethe onlyknownspeakersof a newly recordedTupi-Guarani language originally spoken between the Xingu and Tocantins Rivers(Jensen 1999:128;Mello 1996). I first met them in October1987, in the habitat wherethey first came to the attention of Brazilian authoritiesin the National Indian Founda-tion (FUNAI).2. The closely related Uru-eu-wau-wau language (also called Yupauior Tupi-Kawahib[JamesWelchp.c.2002;RodriguesandCabral2002]),whichis also in subgroup6, denotesa nondomesticatedcacaoofthe forestofcentralRond6nia(inthe southwesternAmazonregionof Brazil)as nimita-hima or imita-hima (Balee,field notes 1992).Theseterms arguablycanbe glossedas smoothcacao.The initial syllablesin these terms (thedifferencesbetween whichmay be due to free variation)are quite similarto Parintintinnum -.ReferencesAcufia,Cristovalde1963 A New Discovery of the Great River of the Amazons. Translated byClements R. Markham.In Expeditions into the Valley of the Amazons.Hakluyt Society.Reprintof 1859 edition, translated fromoriginalof 1641.New York:B. Franklin.Alden,Dauril1976 The Significance of Cacao Production in the Amazon Region during theLate Colonial Period:An Essay in ComparativeEconomicHistory. Pro-ceedings ofthe AmericanPhilosophicalSociety 120(2):103-35.Aubertin,Catherine1996 Heurs et malheurs des ressources naturelles en Amazonie bresilienne.Cahierdes SciencesHumaines 32(1):29-50.Azevedo,Jose L.1930 Osjesuitas no Gri-Pard. Coimbra.Baer, Werner1995 The Brazilian Economy: Growth and Development. 4th ed. Westport,Conn.:Praeger.Balde,William1984 The Persistence ofKaaporCulture.Ph.D. diss., ColumbiaUniversity.1988 The KaaporIndianWarsof LowerAmazonia,ca. 1825-1928. In Dialecticsand Gender:AnthropologicalPerspectives,editedby RichardR. Randolph,David M. Schneider, and May N. Diaz, 155-69. Boulder,Colo.:WestviewPress.1994 Footprints of the Forest:KaaporEthnobotany-the Historical EcologyofPlant Utilizationby an AmazonianPeople.New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
2003 WILLIAMBAIgE 2772000 Antiquity of Traditional Ethnobiological Knowledge in Amazonia: TheTupi-GuaraniFamily andTime.Ethnohistory47(2):399-422.Balee, William,andDenny Moore1991 SimilarityandVariationin Plant Names in Five Tupi-GuaraniLanguages(Eastern Amazonia).Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History,BiologicalSciences 35(4):209-62.Betendorf,Joao Fellipe1910 Chronica da missio dos padres da Companhia de Jesus no estado doMaranhio. Revista do Institute Hist6rico e GeogrdficoBrasileiro 72(1):1-697.Betts, LaVera1981 Dicionarioparintintin-portugues,portugues-parintintin.Brasilia:SummerInstitute ofLinguistics.Block,David1994 Mission Culture on the Upper Amazon:Native Tradition, Jesuit Enter-prise, and Secular Policy in Moxos, 1660-1880. Lincoln: University ofNebraskaPress.Boudin,MaxH.1978 Dicion*riode tupi moderno:dialeto tembe-tin~tehar do alto rio Gurupi.2vols. S&oPaulo:ConselhoEstadual deArtes e CienciasHumanas.Bruno,Ernani Silva1966 Hist6ria do Brasil: geral e regional. Vol. 1, Amaz6nia. Sao Paulo:EditoraCultrix.Campbell,Lyle1999 HistoricalLinguistics:An Introduction.Cambridge,Mass.:The MITPress.Campbell,Lyle, andTerrenceKaufman1976 ALinguisticLookat the Olmecs.AmericanAntiquity41(1):80-89.Cavalcante,Paulo B.1988 Frutas comestiveis da Amaz6nia. 4th ed. Bel6m: MCT/CNpq, MuseuParaense EmilioGoeldi.Cheesman,E. E.1944 Notes on the Nomenclature, Classification and Possible Relationships ofCacaoPopulations.TropicalAgriculture21(8):144-59.Cleary,David2001 Towardsan EnvironmentalHistoryofthe Amazon:FromPrehistoryto theNineteenth Century.LatinAmericanResearchReview 36(2):65-96.Clement,Charles1999 1492 and the Loss of AmazonianCropGenetic Resources. I. The Relationbetween Domesticationand Human PopulationDecline. EconomicBotany53(2):188-202.Coe,SophieD., andMichaelD. Coe1996 The TrueHistoryofChocolate.New York:Thames andHudson.Conklin,HaroldC.1954 The Relation of Hanundo Culture to the Plant World.Ph.D. diss., YaleUniversity.Correada Silva, Beatriz Carretta1997 Urubii-kaap6r:da gramiticahist6ria: a trajet6ria de um povo. M.A.thesis, Universidade de Brasilia.2002 A codifica&odos argumentosem kaapor:sincroniae diacronia.In linguasindigenas brasileiras:fonologia,gram~ticae histdria,editedby Ana SuellyArrudaChmaraCabraland AryonDallIgna Rodrigues,343-51. Atas do I
278 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO.3Encontro Internacional do Grupo de Trabalho sobre Linguas IndigenasANPOLL.Bel6m,Pard:EDUFPA.Crofts,Marjorie,andMargaretSheffler1981 Dicionario bilingue em portugues e mundurukdi:soat a6 dup wuyaSmpariwataomtak. 2d ed. Brasilia:SummerInstitute ofLinguistics.Cruz,Ernesto1973 Hist6ria doPark.Vol. 1.Belem:GovernodoEstado doPara.Cuatrecasas,Jose1964 Cacao and Its Allies: A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Theobroma.Contributionsfromthe United States National Herbarium,Vol. 35, Part 6,pp. 378-614. Washington,D.C.:Smithsonian Institution.Dakin, Karen,and SorenWichmann2000 CacaoandChocolate:A Uto-AztecanPerspective.AncientMesoamerica11:55-75.Di Paolo,Pasquali1985 Cabanagem:a revolugqopopulardaAmaz6nia.Belem,Pard:CEJUP.Fisher, William2000 Rainforest Exchanges: Industry and Communityon an Amazonian Fron-tier. Washington,D.C.:SmithsonianInstitution Press.G6mez-Pompa,Arturo,JosdSalvadorFlores, andMarioAliphatFernandez1990 The Sacred Cacao Groves of the Maya. Latin American Antiquity 1(3):247-57.Grenand,Franqoise1989 Dictionnaireway!pi-franqais.Paris:Peeters/SELAF.Grenand,Pierre1982 Ainsi parlaient nos ancetres. Travaux et Documents de LORSTOM,No.148. Paris:ORSTOM.Hemming,John1987 AmazonFrontier:The Defeat ofthe BrazilianIndians.London:MacMillan.Huber,Jacques1904 Materiaes para a flora amaz6nica:notas sobre a patria e distribuiqio geo-graphicadas arvoresfructiferasdoPard.BoletimdoMuseu Goeldi(MuseuParaense)4:392-95.Hurst, W.Jeffrey2002 The Identificationof CacaoResidue in Samples ofArchaeologicalInterest.Paper presented at the One Hundred and First Annual Meeting of theAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,24 November,New Orleans,La.Jensen, Cheryl1990 O desenvolvimento hist6rico da lingua wayampi. Campinas: EditoraUNICAMP.1999 Tupi-Guarani.In TheAmazonianLanguages,editedby R M.W.Dixon andAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 125-63. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Justeson, John. S., WilliamN. Norman,LyleCampbell,andTerrenceKaufman1985 The Foreign Impact on Lowland Mayan Languages and Script. MiddleAmerican Research Institute Publication 53. New Orleans: Tulane Uni-versity.Kohn,Eduardo2002 Natural Engagements and EcologicalAesthetic amongthe Avila Runa ofAmazonianEcuador.Ph.D. diss., University ofWisconsin-Madison.Lentz, David L., andCarlosR.Ramirez-Sosa2002 Ceren Plant Resources:Abundanceand Diversity. In Before the Volcano
2003 WILLIAMBAIgE 279Erupted:The Ancient CerenVillage in CentralAmerica,editedby PaysonSheets, 33-44. Austin:University ofTexas Press.Leonardi,Victor1999 Historiadorese os rios:natureza e ruina na Amazoniabrasileira. Brasilia:Fundaaio Universidadede Brasilia.Maxwell,Kenneth R.1973 Conflicts and Conspiracies:Brazil and Portugal, 1750-1808. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.Mello,Ant6nioAugusto Souza1996 Genetic Affiliationof the Language of the Indians Aur6and Aura.Opci6n12(19):67-81.2002 Evidencias fonol6gicas e lexicais para o sub-agrupamento interno tupi-guarani. In Linguas indigenas brasileiras:fonologia,gramaticae hist6ria,edited by Ana Suelly Arruda Cimara Cabral and Aryon DallIgnaRodrigues,338-42. Atas doI EncontroInternacionaldoGrupode TrabalhosobreLinguas IndigenasANPOLL.Belem, Para:EDUFPA.MoreiraNeto, Carlosde Arauijo1988 Indios da Amazonia:de maioria a minoria(1750-1850). Petrdpolis,RiodeJaneiro:Vozes.Motamayor,J. C.,A.M.Risterucci,V. Laurent,A.Moreno,and C.Lanaud2000 The Genetic Diversity of Criollo Cacao and Its Consequence in QualityBreeding. Memorias del Primero Congreso Venezolano del Cacao y suIndustria. [Available:http://cacao.sian.info.ve/memorias/html/03.html.Accessedon 2 June 2002.]Pinkley, Homer1973 The Ethno-ecologyofthe KofdnIndians. Ph.D. diss., HarvardUniversity.Powis,TerryG., FredValdez,Jr., ThomasR. Hester, W.Jeffrey Hurst, and Stanley M.Tarka,Jr.2002 SpoutedVessels and CacaoUse amongthe PreclassicMaya.Latin Ameri-can Antiquity 13(1):85-106.Purseglove,J. W.1968 TropicalCrops:Dicotyledons.New York:J. Wiley and Sons.Rodrigues,AryonDallIgna1986 Linguasbrasileiras:parao conhecimentodas linguas indigenas.Sio Paulo:EdigSesLoyola.1999 Tupi. In The Amazonian Languages, edited by R. M. W. Dixon andAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 107-24. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Rodrigues,AryonDallIgna, andAna Suelly ArrudaC maraCabral2002 Revendo a classifica~io interna da familia tupi-guarani. In Linguasindigenasbrasileiras:fonologia,gramaticae hist6ria, editedby Ana SuellyArrudaCamaraCabraland AryonDallIgna Rodrigues,327-37. Atas do IEncontro Internacional do Grupo de Trabalho sobre Linguas IndigenasANPOLL.Belem, Para:EDUFPA.Schultes, RichardEvans1984 Amazonian Cultigens and their Northward and Westward Migration inPre-ColumbianTimes. In Pre-ColumbianPlant Migration,editedby DorisStone, 19-37. Papers of the PeabodyMuseum of Archaeologyand Ethno-logy 76. Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversity.Stone, Doris1984 Pre-Columbian Migration of Theobromacacao Linnaeus and Manihotesculenta Crantz from Northern South America into Mesoamerica: A
280 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO. 3Partially HypotheticalView. In Pre-ColumbianPlant Migration,editedbyDoris Stone, 67-83. Papers of the Peabody Museum of ArchaeologyandEthnology76. Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversity.Stradelli, Ermano1929 Vocabularios da Lingua geral portuguez-nheengatui e nheengatu-portuguez,precedidosde um esboqode grammaticanheenga-umbue-sauamirie seguidosde contosem lingua geralnheengatWiporanduua.RevistadoInstituto Hist6ricoe GeographicoBrasileiro,Tomo104,Vol. 158:11-768.Strimer, C.1932 Die Sprache der Mundurukri:WOrterbuch,Grammatikund Texte einesIndianeridioms am oberen Tapajoz, Amazonasgebiet. Anthropos 11:vii-146.Taylor,Gerald1985 Apontamentossobreo nheengatii falado no RioNegro, Brasil. Amerindia10:5-24.Thompson,J. Eric S.1956 Notes on the Use of Cacaoin MiddleAmerica.Notes on Middle AmericanArchaeologyandEthnology 128:95-116.Wichmann,Soren1999 A ConservativeLookat Diffusion InvolvingMixe-ZoqueanLanguages. InArchaeologyand Language II:CorrrelatingArchaeologicaland LinguisticHypotheses, edited by Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs, 297-323.London:Routledge.Young,Allen M.1994 The ChocolateTree:A NaturalHistoryof Cacao.Washington,D.C.:Smith-sonian Institution Press.