Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Historical ecological influences on the word for cacao in ka'apor
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Historical ecological influences on the word for cacao in ka'apor

141
views

Published on

Published in: Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
141
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Trustees of Indiana University Anthropological Linguistics Historical-Ecological Influences on the Word for Cacao in Ka'apor Author(s): William Balée Source: Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Fall, 2003), pp. 259-280 Published by: The Trustees of Indiana University on behalf of Anthropological Linguistics Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30028895 . Accessed: 25/04/2011 23:13 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may 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 printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Trustees of Indiana University and Anthropological Linguistics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anthropological Linguistics. http://www.jstor.org
  • 2. Historical-Ecological Influences on the Wordfor Cacao in Ka'apor WILLIAMBALgE Tulane University Abstract. Factors of historical ecologyseem to have affected plant nomen- clature in Ka'apor,a Tupi-Guaranilanguage of eastern Amazonia,specifically the term for cacao. Several languages in at least three different subgroupsof Tupi-Guaranihave terms for a widespreadnondomesticatedspecies of cacaoas well as for domesticated cacao that are superficially similar to reconstructed Mesoamericanterms fordomesticatedcacao.Ka'aporseems to have borrowed with phonologicallyconventionalmethodsa term forcacao.Such a borrowingis counterintuitive because cacao was a preexisting plant of Amazonia and it was evidently not significant in aboriginalKa'aporculture or economy.After the term had been borrowedby Spanish froma Mesoamericandonorlanguage, it arguablyfollowedthis path:fromSpanishto Portuguese,fromPortugueseto LinguaGeralAmazonica(a Tupiancreolespokenwidelyin the colonialAmazon region at a time when cacao was its major export crop) and from there to Ka'apor.In contrast, an observedsimilarity ofthe cacaoterms in several other Tupi-Guaranilanguages to Mesoamericanterms forcacaodoes not seem to be the result ofborrowingfromLinguaGeralAmaz6nica,but rather of an autoch- thonous linguistic process in Amazonia.The borrowingof an ultimately Meso- american term for cacao by Ka'apor but not by other Tupi-Guarani groups supplies evidence of intricate contact between Ka'apor society and colonial Luso-Braziliansociety of the eighteenth century. The economicand ecological significance of the cacaoexportsector of the eighteenth-century colonialAma- zonwhen comprehendedtogether with LinguaGeralAmaz6nicaas the contact language helps illuminate nuances of Ka'apor vocabularyregarding natural things, the history of Ka'apormigrations, and close connectionsofthe Ka'apor to the geographicallydistant Wayapipeople. 1. Introduction: affinities and history of Ka'apor. The Ka'aporlanguage (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 (Jensen 1999; Rodrigues 1999; Rodrigues and Cabral 2002). Ka'apor is spoken in ex- treme eastern Amazonia in the Brazilian state of Maranhaio, specifically in the Gurupi and Turiaqu river basins, though it has recent historical origins to the west, in the present state of Para. Eight subgroups of Tupi-Guarani have been identified, chiefly in terms of phonological criteria (Jensen 1999; Rodrigues 1986; Rodrigues and Cabral 2002), though there is some disagreement over what languages should be included in each of the subgroups (see Mello 2002). Ka'apor has been classified in subgroup 8 in three slightly different versions of this model; for the purpose of consistency, I use here specifically the revised classification of Tupi-Guarani proposed by Rodrigues and Cabral (2002), with the caveat that minor revisions in that model may become standard in the 259
  • 3. 260 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO.3 future. Subgroup8 also includesWayipi, Guaja,and at least seven other living and deadlanguages (Jensen 1999;cf. Mello2002). Beatriz Correa da Silva (1997:83) argued that Ka'apor is very close to Wayapiin terms ofphonologicalcriteria. Indeed, Ka'aporinformantshave told me that, judging from their contacts with Wayipi speakers (of the Wayam- pipuku dialect) in the Casa do fndio near Belem, Para, they can understand Wayapibetter than other Tupi-Guaranilanguages they have heard, in spite of differences in stress patterns in the two languages and a number of Carib borrowingsin Wayipi not occurringin Ka'apor.Detailed evidence fromritual also indicates an intimate association between Ka'apor and Wayapi cultures that would have existed about three hundred years ago (Balee 2000). But according to Correa da Silva (1997:83), Ka'apor is unlike Wayapi in certain morphologicalrespects. In fact, she claims Ka'aporis more like Lingua Geral Amaz^nica,a Tupi-Guaranicreoleknownalso as Nhe'engatdi'goodtalk' (Jensen 1999:127)that is classified in subgroup3, in terms of person-markerprefixes, pronominalsystem, andthe person-markingsystem on verbs(alsosee Correada Silva 2002). Correa da Silva (1997:88-89) registered numerous, apparently borrowed, lexical items that were presumablypresent in Ka'aporbefore 1928, when rela- tions of the Ka'apor ancestors with Brazilian authorities and society became peaceful, 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 that Lingua Geral Amaz6nicawas the donorlanguage of these and other borrowed terms in Ka'apor.Wayipi also underwent Lingua Geral Amazonica influence (Jensen 1990), but perhaps not so much as Ka'apor.Where and how did this influence originate, and what, if any, implications does it have for Ka'apor nomenclatureregardingnatural things in their environment? LinguaGeralAmazonicamade its appearancein Amazoniasome time after the Portuguesefoundeda fort(FortedoPresepio)in 1616that wouldbecomethe city of Belem. Lingua GeralAmazonicawas based on Tupinambaspoken in the LowerAmazonian Portuguese colonycalled the Province of Maranhio e Grao Para, and it underwent significant Portuguese lexical influence. Lingua Geral Amaz6nicawas partly the linguistic productofmarriagesbetween Tupinambai women and Portuguese soldiers and colonists (Correa da Silva 1997:83-84; Rodrigues 1986:102),and partly the influence of learned Jesuits who brought many aspects ofthe language with them fromcoastalBrazil.(Theuniformityof Tupinambaalongthe coast of Brazil has been widely noted.)The Tupi-Guarani creole of southern Brazil-Lingua Geral Paulista or Tupi Austral--developed in quite parallel circumstances (Jensen 1999:127). Jesuit missionaries arrived in the region of the estuary and Lower Amazon in 1636 (Cruz 1973), and they helped institutionalize Lingua Geral Amaz~nica in mission settings. By 1655, there were fifty-four Jesuit missions in Amazonia, mostly along the Amazon
  • 4. 2003 WILLIAMBAL8E 261 Riveritself and south of it (Leonardi1999:56).LinguaGeralAmazonicabecame the dominant language in the Brazilian Amazon and would be supplanted (for the most part, by Portuguese) only about two hundred years later, during the rubber boom, beginning in the latter half of the nineteenth century, when hundreds of thousands of monolingual immigrants from northeastern Brazil arrived 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 Ka'apor as a people were isolated from and hostile to rubber tappers and Luso-Brazilian society generally (Balee 1984, 1988). At one time, however, the Ka'apor as a peopleapparentlyenjoyedrelatively peacefulthough probablysubordinaterela- tions with representatives ofthe Iberianmetropole,especially Jesuit mission- aries with whomthey wouldhavebeen in daily,face-to-facecontactat least until the expulsion of the Jesuits from Brazil in 1759 (Azevedo 1930:375; Bal~e 1988:157). Judging from ethnohistory, oral history, and linguistic data relating to toponyms, Ka'aporsociety originated at least fourhundred kilometers to the west oftheir present habitat,probablyin the basin ofthe TocantinsRiverbefore 1800 (Balee 1994:30-32) (see map 1). Before 1759, the Ka'aporprobablylived even fartherwest, muchnearerto the XinguRiver.This new suggestionderives fromrecent evidence of a close historical connectionthat seems to have existed between the Wayipi andthe Ka'aporwithin the last three hundredyears. The Ka'aporandWayapishare some esoteric details of a girl's pubertyrite that are most likely not due to chance (Balee 2000:412). The details center on the ant ordeal,which, in both societies' ritual practices,involves the applicationofven- omous stings on the initiate's skin from the same species of wasplike ant (Pachycondylacommutata).That ant is called by apparently cognate terms in the two languages (Ka'aportapiiia'l and Wayapi tapia'i). This ant ordeal at a pubescent girl's initiation has not been described for any other pair of Tupi- Guaranisocieties,which constitutes a strongindicationofshared innovationby Ka'aporandWayipi ancestralsocioculturalandritual systems. The ant ordeal, therefore,indicates a close historical connectionbetween the two peoplesin the comparativelyrecent past, and that further supports their linguistically close pairing in subgroup 8 of Tupi-Guarani. In other words, shared innovations between Ka'aporandWayipi are evident both in language and culture. Today the Wayapi and Ka'aporlive about nine hundred kilometers apart andbetween them lies the estuary ofthe AmazonRiveritself (see map 2). With- out the ethnographicand linguistic evidencethus far adduced,a closehistorical connectionbetween 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, the precursors of the Wayapi lived in the lower Xingu River basin (on the southern side of the Amazon River), and some of them for a time at least became settled into one of three Jesuit missions existing there (Grenand 1982:260; Fisher
  • 5. 262 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO.3 50'.wi mou Of the ama ATLNV A 45 o :Am .. 1. 58-SS' 020O km * fDireatiwaof migratio 18es Oateof oppeoranoeIn roGs 50Nw 48. W Map1.MigratorymovementsoftheKa'aporpeopleovertimeinLowerAmazonia. 2000:46).EvidencefromKa'apormythologyandtheir knowledgeofspecies,such as the Brazil nut tree, which are not present in their currenthabitat but which dooccurin the TocantinsandXingudrainages,indicatesan originat least as far west as the Tocantins River, called i-takasi 'Smoke River' in Ka'apor. (The lower Tocantins River couldbe said to have a smoky appearance due to tidal
  • 6. 2003 WILLIAMBALBE 263 action, and the concomitant infusion into the area of whitewater sediments [Balee 1994:24-25].) Further, because of their close linkages to Wayipi, from the perspective both of ritual (that is, of culture) and language, antecedents of the Ka'apor people can be logically placed even farther west than the Tocantins, indeed, much closer to the Xingu River, in the early eighteenth century. :u'w ,:, , Suriname Preach G~m s-N Ki 0 200 400 asIWvp AtlanticOcean ~o. Brazil 4rw Ama ta Ass xin Arawet~ Temb~ kaapor ga capi pi gu 5s Ar pa Map 2. Locations of some Tupi-Guarani peoples mentioned in text in Lower Amazonia. The impact of Lingua Geral Amazinica on the Ka'apor language, together with Luso-Brazilian-specifically Jesuit-influences on Ka'apor culture, seem to be related to what at one time was the principal commodity extracted by the Iberian metropole from Amazonia: cacao. Tracing the origin of this one word in the Ka'apor language actually yields significant insights into Ka'apor history and culture. The word for cacao in Ka'apor betokens a past that was distinct from other Tupi-Guarani societies. The argument here is that ancestral Ka'apor speakers had a closer association with Jesuit missionaries than many other Tupf-Guarani groups (perhaps excepting Wayipi) of the Lower Amazon region.
  • 7. 264 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTIcs 45NO.3 TheJesuit missionaries ofthe eighteenth centuryspokeLinguaGeralAmazon- ica in their LowerAmazonmissions, including those ofthe lowerXingu River. The Wayipi ancestors(orGuayapias they evidentlywere called)were described in the early 1700s as mission dwellers speaking "LingualGeral,"which at that time could refer to Lingua Geral Amaz6nica specifically or any Tupi-Guarani language (Grenand1982:260).I proposethat the ancestral Ka'apor(wholikely were one people with the ancestral Wayipi in the first half of the eighteenth century) borroweda wordfor cacaofrom Lingua GeralAmaz6nicathanks to a strongJesuit economicand linguistic presence,even though cacao,as a species, already existed in their environmentand they no doubtalreadyhad a wordfor it. TheJesuit chroniclerPadreBetendorfhad this to say in 1699aboutthe lower XinguRiverand its abundanceofcacaotrees: "Theislands that occur[here]are not useful exceptto collecthigh quality cacaofromthem and in fact many cacao trees grow spontaneously on them" (Betendorf 1910:29,my translation). The evidence indicates that the Ka'aporlanguage borroweda new term for cacao from Lingua Geral Amazdnica because of an intense economic relationship between the ancestral Ka'aporandJesuit missionaries. In this sense, a change in the material and economiclandscape--namely, the ascendancyof cacaoas a commodityand the acquisition of native laborto gather it-may have affected the Ka'aporlanguage in the domainofplant nomenclature. 2. Problems with the linguistic and ecological history of cacao. Where did 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 to be doubtedthat any conclusionssatisfactory to everyonewill ever be reached" (1956:107). Written before an explosion of historical linguistic and epigraphic research in Mesoamerica, Thompson was perhaps too pessimistic, though it must be granted that all linguistic reconstruction, like much archaeological interpretation,must remain speculative, howeverinformedandenlightening. At least one way of approachingThompson'sproblemwouldbe to seek the wordwhere the plant itself originated. This exercise involves consideration of cultural factors, since the cacaoof commerce(Theobromacacao L.) is a domes- ticate. Twosubspecies of cacao are recognized(Cuatrecasas 1964:512-13), and the principal subspecies of modem commerce, T. cacao ssp. cacao (with four formae),was the only domesticatedone foundin Mexicoand CentralAmericaat the time of the HispanicConquest.Twocommercialtypes are known:criollo(T. cacao ssp. cacao) and forastero(which may include other subspecies, all from South America). Criollo has "elongated, ridged, pointed fruits and white cotyle- dons," while forastero has "short, roundish, almost smooth fruit and purplish cotyledons" (Cuatrecasas 1964:506; also see Schultes 1984 and Coe and Coe 1996:27). The criollo variety of Mexico and Central America does not grow spontaneously; in contrast, other forastero subspecies can be found growing
  • 8. 2003 WILLIAMBALE 265 spontaneously in various parts ofthe AmazonBasin (Huber1904;Cuatrecasas 1964:401;Cavalcante 1988:63)and the Guianas (Cuatrecasas 1964:494[map]). Indeed,two morphologicalvariants are noted, an UpperAmazonForasteroand a LowerAmazonForastero(Motamayoret al. 2000).Todayforasterosubspecies and varieties derivedfrom T. cacao ssp. sphaerocarpumhave becomethe most important in commerce(G6mez-Pompa,Flores, and Fernaindez1990:249), ac- countingforabout80 percentofworldproduction(Coeand Coe 1996:28,201-2). The precontactdistribution, whereby many spontaneous varieties occurredin SouthAmericaand only one,fully domesticated,variety in Mesoamerica,raised the possibilitythat cacaooriginatedin headwatersofthe AmazonRiver,crossed the Andes into northern Colombia,and ultimately made its way into Central Americaand 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-twoknownTheobroma species were originallyfoundin the AmazonBasin and adjoiningGuianas, and only three (T.cacao, T. angustifolium, and T. bicolor)have ever grownoutside that region. Cuatrecasas confidently asserted, nevertheless, that the first pre- historic cultivation and selection of cacao occurred in Mexico and Central America(1964:507),and subsequent writers have tended to supportthat claim (e.g., Stone 1984:69). G6mez-Pompa,Flores, and Fernandez (1990) presented recent evidence for a possible ancestral formto domesticatedcacao,which was notedto be growingin a sinkholein northernYucatAn.Thisvarietyis the rare T. cacao L. ssp. cacao forma lacandonicaCuatrecasas, which was previouslyonly known from the Lacandon Maya area of Chiapas, Mexico (Coe and Coe 1996:26-27). Linguistic evidence to date also seems to support an original domesticationof cacaoin Mesoamerica,thoughthe precise language of originis a 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 this view, many Mixe-Zoqueanagricultural terms were borrowedby Mayan and other Mesoamerican language groups, reflecting perhaps the prestige of the proposed first agricultural civilization of the region, the Olmecs. The Olmec civilization 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 is actuallya term coinedby speakersofNahuatl, perhapsthe peoplewhose capital city 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 term 'cacao', the use of cacao in Classic Maya culture (ca. 200 B.C.-600 A.D.)is now well established. Biochemical evidence for theobromine, one of cacao's charac- teristic alkaloids, has now been determined to exist on remains of spouted
  • 9. 266 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO.3 vessels (called"chocolatepots")in northernBelizethat datefrom600 B.C.to 250 A.D.,i.e., from the time of the Preclassic Maya culture to the beginnings of Classic Maya culture(Hurst 2002;Powis et al. 2002). By Classictimes, cacaois evidently a local cropgrownwidely in Mesoamerica,includingperipheralareas such as the medium-sized village site of Ceren in El Salvador (Lentz and Ramirez-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 chocolatein the Europeanmarketplaceandthe rapidconditioningofthe Westernpalate by it, the term cacaobecamewidely diffusedto numerouslanguages worldwide.In HanundoofMindoroIsland, Philippines,two ofthe three wordsforfolk species of cacaoexhibit the morphemekakaw(Conklin1954:418),no doubtborrowings from Spanish. In the Quichua language of Amazonian Ecuador,all compound names fortwo species of Theobroma(T. cacao and T. subincanum)incorporate the term cacao (Kohn 2002:432). Many other Amazonian and Lowland South Americangroupsborroweda term forcacaothat entered the continentthrough the Spanish or Portuguese languages. What is of most interest is why would they, and in particularthe Ka'apor,have borroweda term fora plant that they alreadyhad, especially if it were a domesticatedplant? According to the historical-linguistic principle of prestige, whereby in a contact situation goodsand services associated with the dominantsociety that were not previously present in the subordinate society tend to be borrowedby the subordinatesociety(see Campbell1999:59-60),the wordforcacaowouldnot have been borrowedby the Ka'aporlanguage, since it already occurredin the Ka'aporenvironment, unless cacao had acquiredsome prestige and economic valorization far above and beyond what it held in native Amazonia. Ethno- botanist Richard Evans Schultes (1984:33) observed that it was difficult to explain why AmazonianIndians wouldhave been motivated to disperse a tree "theuse of which lay solely in a sweet pulp on which one might suck"(also see Coe and Coe [1996:26]for a similar view). Cacaocultivation in Mesoamericais probablyas old as, if not olderthan, the Tupi-Guaranibranchofthe Tupifamily, dating back at least to the beginning of the CommonEra and probablymuch earlier (cf.Alden 1976:104;see Young 1994:17),even if the wordforcacaomay be morerecent than its originalcultivation(Dakin andWichmann2000). Plant geneticist Charles Clement (1999:201)pointed out that T. cacao and its close relative T. bicolor(which,unlike T. cacao,may growspontaneously in the Maya lowlands, though it is of lesser quality and desirability [Thompson 1956:107])were probablysemidomesticated crops grown as stimulants in the Upper Amazon during late prehistoric times. But the use of cacao beans as stimulants is seldom found outside the Upper Amazon. The Kofan of the Ecuadorian Amazon toast and eat the beans of T. bicolor (which they term mazk'aui)(Pinkley 1973:69), as do the Lowland Quichua of Ecuador (Eduardo
  • 10. 2003 WILLIAMBAL9E 267 Kohn p.c. 2001). The practice of toasting these beans before consuming them seems fairlywidespreadin the UpperAmazon,despite the avowedlylow quality ofthe beans andfruitwhen comparedto otherspeciesof Theobroma(Cavalcante 1988:66).In any case, no prehistoricAmazoniangroupsareknownto have made chocolate (Schultes 1984:33; Stone 1984:69; G6mez-Pompa, Flores, and Fernandez 1990:249). Rather, almost everywhere outside the UpperAmazon,native Amazonians have eaten only the sweet, white pulp aroundthe beans andthen discardedthe beans; in some cases, the pulp around the beans has been made into an un- fermented"wine"(Coeand Coe 1996:26),or vinhoin Portuguese ofthe Amazon region. Given the low aboriginal prestige of cacao in the Amazon region, the directionalityofborrowingofthe term is probablynot, basically,fromAmazonia to Mesoamerica; instead, the reverse now seems much more probable. It is unlikely that Mixe-Zoqueanspeakers, who may have been already associated with complex,intensive agriculturalsociety, wouldhave borrowedan Amazon- ian term for a semidomesticated (or perhaps even wild) cropthat had not yet developeduses as chocolate.Andthe possibilityremainsthat the developmentof chocolateproductionin Mesoamericabegan with criollo trees that had arisen fromspontaneousmutations and subsequent genetic drift along the Isthmus of Panama, not far from the northernmost edge of the presumed original distri- bution of cacao (Purseglove 1968; Young 1994:14-15). It is possible therefore that cacaowas not dispersedinto Mesoamericaby humans and was part ofthe original 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 northern coast ofHonduras,on Columbus'sfourthvoyage(Alden 1976:104).Rapidly,the chocolate drink made fromit became highly esteemed in Europe(Alden 1976: 109), and it became well known to explorers as a valuable export crop.Cacao plantations begin in Ecuadorand Venezuela by the late 1500s and early 1600s. The crop,therefore, may have been recognizableto the Spaniard Cristoval de Acufia,who noted in 1641 that in some places groves of cacaotrees along the AmazonRiverwere so thick that the woodcould serve to lodge an entire army (1963:76).Cacaoexportsfromthe Amazonwere reportedby 1678-81, andthese beans were being collected fromspontaneously occurringtrees, not plantation trees (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 exported distinctive commodities to Lisbon. The Rio fleet shipped gold, hides, and silver; Pernambuco sent wood and sugar; and "the fleets of the north [i.e., lower Amazon], of Grao Para and Maranhio carried cacao" (Maxwell 1973:5). The cacao export sector of the eighteenth-century Luso-Brazilian economy was perhaps minor compared to gold in Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro and later
  • 11. 268 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45NO.3 coffee in Sfio Paulo (Baer 1995:15-19), but it seems in many ways to be the precursorof the rubberexport economyof the nineteenth century as concerns the Amazonregion. The cacao export sector of the colonial Amazonian economyfell under the controlofJesuit missionaries, who induced Indians undertheir tutelage to col- lect cacao in the interior from spontaneous trees, whereas significantly less cacao came fromplantations (Alden 1976:121-22; Hemming 1987:43;Coe and Coe 1996:194-95). These spontaneous trees were most likely from Theobroma cacao and not from nondomesticated species of Theobroma.Although Theo- bromaspeciosumWilld.,a nondomesticatedand very widespreadcacaospecies known regionally as cacaui 'little cacao',producesedible pulp and seeds from which 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 except Septemberto Decemberat the market in Belem (Cavalcante1988:64). Remarkably, as a percentage of the total exports fromthe LowerAmazon during 1730-55, cacaoaloneranges between 43.5 percentand96.6 percent,with the highest proportionof total exports fromthat region occurringin the years 1730-45 (Alden 1976:118).The cacaotrade begins to decline in the 1740s and 1750s, and this coincideswith native population declines due to smallpox and measles epidemics widely reported during the period 1743-50 (Balee 1984: 34-35; Hemming 1987:43;MoreiraNeto 1988:23-24). Africanslavery revived the trade after the 1750s, so that what is now the Brazilian state of Para was exporting715 to 850 tons of cacaoperyear, which constituted about90 percent of the total from Brazil (Hemming 1987:43). Even after the expulsion of the Jesuits from the Portuguese Empire in 1759-60, most of the export fromthe Amazonstill camefromcollectingexpeditionsrather than fromcultivated trees (Alden 1976:123-24), and cacaowouldnot becomea dominantexportcropfrom the Brazilian state ofBahia until the late nineteenth century(Baer 1995:19). The impact in Amazonia of a cacao export economycombinedwith Jesuit controlseems to have affectednative languages. Indeed,the significanceofthe cacaoexportsectorin the LowerAmazoncannotbe overestimatedin terms ofits effectson localindigenoussocieties and their languages that were involvedin it. In 1743, cacao is clearly the most important of all the drogas do sertio (the variousforest and gardenproductsfromAmazoniathat were shippedto Europe for 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 were observedto be circulating as money amongthe Amazonianpeasantry (not dis- similarto the way cacaobeans had serveda monetarypurposein Aztecmarkets) and cacaobeans ownedwere figuredinto calculations of an individual'swealth (Bruno 1966:59). In the colonial era, cacao assumed an economicand cultural importancenot beforeseen in aboriginalAmazonia. Cacao was a central commodity in the "Jesuit century," as David Block
  • 12. 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 (Block 1994:98)--indeed, they refined the cacaobeans into chocolatebars for export, whereas the Jesuits of the LowerAmazon apparently only exportedthe beans themselves. 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 the beans came fromthe islands on the Xingu Riverthat were well populatedwith cacao trees. In fact, had it not been for the Jesuits and their organizational savvy,Amazoniaas a regioncouldnot have met Europeandemandforchocolate (Aubertin 1996:33).The drogas do sertio--a bona fide term forwhat today one might call "tropicalforest products"(see Cleary2001:83-86)--constitute a very long list of wild and cultivated plant and animal materials, but in terms of economicimpact both in the Amazon and in the Europeanmarketplace, cacao was clearly at the top of this list duringthe early eighteenth century (Di Paolo 1985:76). The Jesuits used Lingua Geral Amazonica, a creole language partially derived from Tupinamba, in their missions. Many Lingua Geral Amazonica vocabularyitems are borrowedfromPortuguese. In cases of language contact, vocabularyitems for native plants, animals, and landscape features are most often borrowedby the dominant or prestige language, while vocabularyitems related 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 term cameoriginallyfromsome Amazonianlanguage. In regardspecificallyto Lower Amazonian history, the evidence suggests that cacao was a Portuguese word borrowed from Spanish cacao that was in turn a borrowing from a Meso- americanlanguage,wherethe cacaoplant first attainedpreeminencein terms of world commerce.Controversialfindings indicate that a word for cacao can be reconstructed 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 of Tehuantepec, as *kakawa(Campbell and Kaufman 1976:84). The possibility remains that Proto-Mixe-Zoquean borrowed the term from an Amazonian language on the basis of need, if the crop, indeed, originated there (though perhaps not as a fully domesticated crop), as some biogeographic data suggest. But the prestige principle and the known time frame militate against that hypothesis.
  • 13. 270 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO.3 3. Cacao words and Tupf-Guarant languages. In several Tupi-Guarani languages ofAmazonia, Theobromacacao L. ssp. sphaerocarpumis referredto by words that seem cognate by inspection (see table 1), the exceptions being Ka'apor(becauseofthe initial k--see below),Parintintin, and Wayfipi.What is puzzling is that the other, seemingly cognate, words resemble the word cacao in their phonetic shape. At least some of these languages might be presumed to have undergone little if any influence from Lingua Geral Amaz6nica,espe- cially Guajai(a languageofhunter-gathererswho have onlybeen in contactsince the 1970s) and Arawete (a language of trekkers only in contact also since the 1970s).But bothofthese languageshave a wordfor"comrade"(Guaja zkamarar, Arawete kamara--both terms from my own field notes), borrowed evidently frommedieval Portuguese camarada. Correspondingborrowedterms are also known from Ka'apor (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 Ka'aporpeople, 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-Guarani Languages LANGUAGE SUBGROUP TERM GLOSS SOURCE Arawete 5 aka-'i L-stem Bal6e,fieldnotes 1985 AssurinidoXingu 5 aka-'iwa L-stem Balde,field notes 1986 Guaj 8 ako'o-'i L-stem Balee, fieldnotes 1989 Ka'apor 8 kaka L Balee,field notes 1985 Tembe 4 aka-'iw-ete L-stem-true Balee, fieldnotes 1986 (cf.Boudin1978) LinguaGeralAmaz6nica 3 akaiut L Stradelli 1929 Parintintin 6 fiumi- L Betts 1981 Wayipi 8 walapulu L Grenand1989 NOTE: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 the eight recognized subgroups of the Tupi-Guarani branch of the Tupi family (Jensen 1999; Rodrigues and Cabral 2002). The phonologicalstructure of the terms, apart from the Ka'apor word in table 1, does not suggest borrowing among the different languages. It is possible that Ka'apor has conserved an initial *kin the word for cacao and that the initial consonant was deleted in Arawet6,Assurini doXingu, Guaja, and Tembe.The protolanguageterm may have been *kaka,and this wouldbe far olderthan the cacaoexporteconomyof lowerAmazoniain the 1700s. But this hypothesis seems unlikely.The principle
  • 14. 2003 WILLIAMBALAE 271 of prestige would tend to preclude a nonprestige language from borrowing a term for a native plant that was not of commercialor agriculturalimportance. The nondomesticated, widely occurring cacao species Theobromaspeciosum Willd.is either designatedby the same term (as in AssurinidoXinguandGuaja) or it is linguisticallymarkedas thoughit is perceivedas being a closerelative of domesticated cacao (fromthe point of view of nomenclature, not classification per se), as canbe seen in table 2.1 Table 2. Words for Nondomesticated Cacao (Theobroma speciosum Willd.) in Several Tupf-Guarant Languages LANGUAGE SUBGROUP TERM GLoss SOURCE Arawete 5 aka-a-wi-'i L-fruit-thin-stem Bal6e,fieldnotes, 1985 AssurinidoXingu 5 aka-'iwa L-stem Balee,fieldnotes,1986 Auri andAura 8 aka-ud L-large(?) Bal6e,fieldnotes, 1987 Guaji 8 ako'o-'i L-stem Bal6e,fieldnotes, 1989 Ka'apor 8 kaka-ran-'i L-false-stem Balde,fieldnotes, 1985 Tembe 4 aka'u-'iw L-stem Bal6e,fieldnotes, 1986, (Cf.Boudin1978) Wayipi 8 aka-'iw L-stem Grenand1989 Proposedreconstruction *ako'o-ifi L-stem NOTE:See notes for table 1. In other words,in keeping with the prestige principle,one wouldnot anticipate borrowingofterms fornondomesticated,seeminglyunimportantplants (though noludomesticatedcacao,especially TheobromaspeciosumWilld.,like its domes- ticated congener, does have a sweet, edible pulp, and people gather it for that purpose). But that evidently happened in Ka'apor. The Ka'apor words for Protium trees (Burseraceae),Lacmelleatrees (Apocynaceae),and Mabeatrees (Euphorbiaceae),all of which are foundin high forest and are never cultivated per se, seem to have been borrowedalso fromLingua Geral Amaz6nica(Balde 1994). It is plausible that productsfromthese trees were part of the drogas do sert~o transoceanic trade; Protium trees, for example, exude a resin that is highly prizedas boat caulking,and caulkswere one ofthe Amazoniandrogasdo sert~o. Wayapi,which like Ka'aporis fromsubgroup8, denotes domesticatedcacao as walapulu, clearly a borrowingfrom one of several Carib languages in the Guianas (Grenand 1989). Yet the Wayapiterm for nondomesticated cacao, T. speciosum,is aka-'i, an apparent cognate with the terms in table 2 (except for the Ka'aporterm). Frangoise Grenand (1989:121) etymologically derives aka fromaki 'head' and suggests also a comparisonwith Lingua GeralAmazonica kakao-i 'little cacao'. Her etymology 'head' seems problematic,however, since not only Wayipi, but also the cognate terms in the five other Tupi-Guarani
  • 15. 272 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO.3 languages in tables 1 and 2 show nonnasalized vowels. It seems unlikely that nasalization in this wordforwild cacaowouldhave been droppedin all ofthese languages, 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 common in the world'slanguages than initial vowel loss (Campbell1999:32-33). On the basis of this mounting evidence, one can logically argue that (i) the original term in Wayipi for nondomesticated cacao is a sequence of a literal morpheme (aka), by which is meant a nonpolysemous,monomorphemicplant term (Balee and Moore1991), and a term meaning 'stem' or 'tree' ('i); (ii) the Ka'aporterms for cacao and nondomesticatedcacaomost likely are borrowed; and (iii) the donorlanguage for the cacaoterms in Ka'aporwas Lingua Geral Amazonica. The Lingua GeralAmazonicaterm forcacaofruit is kakAiu(Stradelli 1929). In Lingua Geral Amaz6nica,dipthongs may occurin word final position. The combinationoftwo vowels "inprinciple"represents two syllables (Taylor1985: 11-12). But, in Lingua GeralAmazonica,one does not canonicallyfindthe sort ofword-finalsequenceshownin (1). (1) V[+high,+back,+vocalic]# This combinationofphonemes is commonin Portuguese, on the other hand, as in piu 'wood, tree' and kakdiu'cacao'. It can therefore be proposed that the directionality ofborrowingwas fromLingua GeralAmazonicato Ka'apor,and not the reverse. Ka'aporretained the initial k when it borrowedthe term, and phonological substitution (in this case, by deletion of final vowel or apocope [Campbell1999:32,61]) accounts for the absence of the unstressed final, high back vowel in Ka'aporkaka. Ka'aporalso extended the rootlexeme's semantic range to nondomesticatedcacao,analogousto the extension notedby FranCoise Grenandabove(1989:121)forLinguaGeralAmazonica. The term fornondomesticated cacaopersisted in Wayapiperhaps because Wayipi was less affected by mission influences than Ka'apor and because nondomesticatedcacaowas not an item ofprestige,whereas domesticatedcacao was a prestigious commodity,thanks to Jesuit and Luso-Brazilianvalorization, cultivation, and exportof it. It is striking,nevertheless, that the Wayapihave a Caribloanwordfordomesticatedcacao.This evidence, and the findings related to a strong historical association between the ancestral Ka'apor and Wayipi peoples,lead one to speculatethat Wayipi oncehad a term like kakain Ka'apor and exchanged this for walapulu at a later date, after crossing the Amazon River from the south, but to date it has not yet gone so far as to replace the term for nondomesticated cacao (and remodel it by analogy on walapulu or some other borrowed term for cacao). Ka'apor, on the other hand, arguably borrowed kaka and extended it to coverthe nondomesticatedcacaospecies oftheir habitat. This argument leaves open whether the other Tupi-Guarani languages in
  • 16. 2003 WILLIAMBAL9E 273 the sample also borrowedthe wordforcacaofromLingua GeralAmazonica.To suppose that they have would imply deletion of initial k in all the languages, which seems unlikely. The only reason for considering borrowingat all is the Parintintin form(table 1),whichrepresents a peculiardeparturefromthe other languages. Parintintin is from subgroup 6 of Tupi-Guarani; it is spoken in southwesternAmazonia,close, in fact,to where Proto-Tupi-Guaraniis believed (using the least-moves hypothesis) to have originated; and it evidently has undergonelittle or no Lingua Geral Amaz6nicainfluence, for it seems to have been beyond the distribution of the Jesuit missions. Parintintin has the focal generic name riumi- for cacao and many of its relatives (Betts 1981; Waud Krackep.c. 2001).2Parintintin is also located in the richest area of the genus Theobromain the Amazon Basin. It is at least conceivable, therefore, that Parintintin has retained the Proto-Tupi-Guaraniterm for cacao, and that the other languages have acquiredtheir term from some other source. Still, even though the term in the remaining languages, aka (Arawet6,Assurini doXingu, Tembe, and Wayapi)or ako'o (Guaja),does somewhat resemble Lingua Geral Amaz nica kakau,this resemblanceseems morelikely to be due to coincidence than 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 in branchesofTupianotherthan Tupi-Guarani.That is because word-initialepen- thesis of a consonant is unlikely (Campbell1999:33).The only published data currently available on another branch of Tupian is from Munduruku, of the Munduruku branch, and its word for cacao is kakau (Stromer 1932:62; but Croftsand Sheffler[1981:18]indicatekarobaas the Mundurukutermforcacao), which also appearsto be a borrowingfromLinguaGeralAmazonica. 4. Discussion. In the Ka'apor habitat of today, there are four species of Theobromaother than T. cacao and T. speciosum. These are T. grandiflorum (Willd.Ex Spreng.)Schum.,calledkipihu'iin Ka'aporand T.subincanumMart., called kipi'a'i (forwhich there is also a synonym, nukipi'i [Balee 1994: 3071). These terms donot appearto be relatedto the Ka'aporterms for T.cacaoand T. speciosum and they are in a different folk genus. Indeed, the fruit of kipihu'i, which is widely known in the Amazonregion as cupuaqu,is apparently much more esteemed (to judge by the significantly greater time that is given to its gathering) by the Ka'apor 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 of cacao:it is the sweet pulp aroundthe beans in the podthat one eats, but in the case of cupuaqu, this somewhat tart pulp is much more copious. Cupuaqu terms exhibit a tendency to cognate forms also: Guaja kipi'i, Tembe kupi'a'iw, Wayipi
  • 17. 274 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO.3 kapiai (Balee 1994:307;Grenand 1989:112),for which one could logically pro- pose the tentative reconstruction *kipi'a'if in Proto-Tupi-Guarani. (Inciden- tally, Parintintin is once again the oddmemberofthis language grouping,with iumitahim, in referenceto the cupuaqufruit only [Betts 1981:268].But given the 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,Ka'apor,Tembe, and Wayaipihave re- mained phonologicallysimilar because cupuaqudid not becomea majorexport crop, as did cacao. (The increasing popularity of cupuaquice cream and other productsmade fromits sweet pulp in Amazoniaand Brazilmoregenerally may presage, however, a different future for cupuaqu).A change in the economic landscape, in which a less-than-salient species, cacao,unexpectedly surged up highly in value and in terms of a monetaryvalorizationsystemnot beforeknown in Amazonia, had the effect of influencing the languages most involved in its collectionand exportation.Hence,whateverthe originalwordKa'aporhad forT. cacao (it may have resembled, for example, aka'i or a name containing this form), that earlier term was replaced by a new, borrowedterm from Lingua GeralAmazonica,the contactlanguage,and, at the time andplaceunder discus- sion,the prestige language.In addition,whateverthe originalKa'aporterm was forwild cacao (T. speciosum)-this wouldhave been very close, if not identical, to aka'i (from Proto-Tupi-Guarani *aka'ip; see table 2)-that term too was replaced, when the plant was modeled by analogy on T. cacao. In other words, Ka'aporkakaran'i, in a broadsense, can be glossed as 'tree resembling cacao tree'. It is possible, indeed, that before the mercantile valorization of cacao and before Ka'aporcontact with colonial Luso-Braziliansociety, T. speciosum was more psychologically salient than T. cacao. That is because T. speciosum is much more ecologicallyimportant and commonin oldfallowforests (wherethe Ka'aporonce lived in settled villages between forty and one hundred or more years ago, but which have since seen a return of forest cover [Balee 1994:371). Indeed,T. cacaois onlyoccasionallyplantedin dooryardgardensby the Ka'apor oftoday and it is not seen in the high forest orin fallowforests oftheir habitat, which is to be expectedof a domesticatedspecies. Cacaois relativelyuncommon comparedto wild cacao and probablythis was also the case aboriginallyin the Xingu andTocantinsbasins. If T. speciosum were more psychologically salient than T. cacao before contact, it may be the case that the term for cacao was the marked form in Ka'apor,andwild cacaowas unmarkedlinguistically.In otherwords,the impact of contact together with landscape modification by the Jesuit mission system, the reordering and transforming of native labor and work priorities, and the sudden high value of T. cacao within an imposed, alien system of exchange and valorization not only could have caused the substitution of the Lingua Geral
  • 18. 2003 WILLIAMBALAE 275 Amaz6nica term for the native name of cacao in Ka'apor,but may also have brought about a marking reversal with regard to the Ka'apor term for T. speciosum.Althoughthis assertion cannot be provenat the present moment, it is clearlya plausible scenariowithin the contextof a historicallysignificantand intricate contactsituation. 5. Conclusions. In summary, it can be hypothesized that in the Ka'apor language, as in some other Amazonian languages such as Quichua, the cacao words (for Theobromacacao and Theobromaspeciosum) were borrowed,and that this borrowingoccurredprobablybecausecacao,as a majorexportcrop,had a profoundimpacton Indianlaborofthe LowerAmazonregionin the eighteenth century andbecause that laborwas to some extent controlledby Jesuit mission authorities, for which Lingua Geral Amaz8nica was the contact language. ContemporaryTupi-Guaranilanguages can be ruled out as immediate sources for the Ka'apor word for cacao as well as for the English, Spanish, and Portuguese words for cacao. The evidence here presented of borrowingof the cacaoterm by Ka'aporfurther refines comprehensionof the Ka'aporpast and their relations to other living Amazoniangroups.This borrowingfurtherhelps situate the antecedentsofthe Ka'aporhistoricallyin a setting--such as a Jesuit mission, or near such a mission-where Lingua Geral Amazonica was the contactlanguage and the language of prestige in the area. Such a borrowingis most likely to have occurredfartherwest than the Tocantins,wherethe Wayapi were also locatedat least for a while in a Jesuit mission in the early eighteenth century, along the Xingu River. This finding further strengthens the hypo- thesized close pairing of Wayapi and Ka'apor within subgroup 8 of Tupi- Guarani. Finally, the impact of the cacao export economyshows that a native species in the environment,even a relatively unimportantone, can be renamed in local languages when its historical-ecologicalsetting in the worldeconomyis completely transformed, and when the people speaking those local languages are involvedin the laborandtechnologyofthat transformation,as was the case with Amazonian cacao. Comprehendingthe history and uses of cacao and pro- bablyof otherhighly commercializedspecies ofthe past can be most instructive for understanding the historical-ecologicalimpact that the expansion of Luso- Brazilian society had on native Amazonian languages and associated plant vocabularies.Likewise, understandingthe origins ofthe wordsforsuch species in given languages can sometimes help illuminate a historical past for the societies associatedwith those languages, forwhich usually few, if any, reliable documentsorotherwritten sourcesexist. Notes Acknowledgments.IthankBeatrizCarrettaCorr~adaSilvaandJudithMaxwellfor insightfulandgenerousdiscussionandclarificationoflinguisticissues.I amgratefulto StevenDarwinforusefulcommentaryonmattersofsystematicbotany.I acknowledge carefulreadingandconstructivecriticismon the articleby SorenWichmannandan
  • 19. 276 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO.3 anonymous reviewer for AnthropologicalLinguistics. Helpful advice on various other points made in this article was also kindly given in the context of various discussions with Eduardo Kohn, EduardoViveiros de Castro, and James Welch. The article was originallypresented,in differentform,as a paperat the AnnualMeetingofthe Societyof Ethnobiologyat Durango,Colorado,in March2001. I thank Tulane University for assis- tance in attending that meeting and I gratefully acknowledgethe EdwardJohn Noble Foundation, the Wenner-GrenFoundation, the Biodiversity Support Program of the WorldWildlife Fund, and the Stone Center for Latin American Studies (Tulane Uni- versity)forprincipalfundingofthe fieldworkin BrazilianAmazoniaon whichthis article is based. 1.Auraand Aura,mentionedhere, arethe onlyknownspeakersof a newly recorded Tupi-Guarani language originally spoken between the Xingu and Tocantins Rivers (Jensen 1999:128;Mello 1996). I first met them in October1987, in the habitat where they 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 subgroup 6, denotesa nondomesticatedcacaoofthe forestofcentralRond6nia(inthe southwestern Amazonregionof Brazil)as nimita-hima or imita-hima (Balee,field notes 1992).These terms arguablycanbe glossedas 'smoothcacao'.The initial syllablesin these terms (the differencesbetween whichmay be due to free variation)are quite similarto Parintintin num -. References Acufia,Cristovalde 1963 A New Discovery of the Great River of the Amazons. Translated by Clements R. Markham.In Expeditions into the Valley of the Amazons. Hakluyt Society.Reprintof 1859 edition, translated fromoriginalof 1641. New York:B. Franklin. Alden,Dauril 1976 The Significance of Cacao Production in the Amazon Region during the Late Colonial Period:An Essay in ComparativeEconomicHistory. Pro- ceedings ofthe AmericanPhilosophicalSociety 120(2):103-35. Aubertin,Catherine 1996 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, Werner 1995 The Brazilian Economy: Growth and Development. 4th ed. Westport, Conn.:Praeger. Balde,William 1984 The Persistence ofKa'aporCulture.Ph.D. diss., ColumbiaUniversity. 1988 The Ka'aporIndianWarsof LowerAmazonia,ca. 1825-1928. In Dialectics and Gender:AnthropologicalPerspectives,editedby RichardR. Randolph, David M. Schneider, and May N. Diaz, 155-69. Boulder,Colo.:Westview Press. 1994 Footprints of the Forest:Ka'aporEthnobotany-the Historical Ecologyof Plant Utilizationby an AmazonianPeople.New York:ColumbiaUniversity Press.
  • 20. 2003 WILLIAMBAIgE 277 2000 Antiquity of Traditional Ethnobiological Knowledge in Amazonia: The Tupi-GuaraniFamily andTime.Ethnohistory47(2):399-422. Balee, William,andDenny Moore 1991 SimilarityandVariationin Plant Names in Five Tupi-GuaraniLanguages (Eastern Amazonia).Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History, BiologicalSciences 35(4):209-62. Betendorf,Joao Fellipe 1910 Chronica da missio dos padres da Companhia de Jesus no estado do Maranhio. Revista do Institute Hist6rico e GeogrdficoBrasileiro 72(1): 1-697. Betts, LaVera 1981 Dicionarioparintintin-portugues,portugues-parintintin.Brasilia:Summer Institute ofLinguistics. Block,David 1994 Mission Culture on the Upper Amazon:Native Tradition, Jesuit Enter- prise, and Secular Policy in Moxos, 1660-1880. Lincoln: University of NebraskaPress. Boudin,MaxH. 1978 Dicion*riode tupi moderno:dialeto tembe-tin~tehar do alto rio Gurupi.2 vols. S&oPaulo:ConselhoEstadual deArtes e CienciasHumanas. Bruno,Ernani Silva 1966 Hist6ria do Brasil: geral e regional. Vol. 1, Amaz6nia. Sao Paulo:Editora Cultrix. Campbell,Lyle 1999 HistoricalLinguistics:An Introduction.Cambridge,Mass.:The MITPress. Campbell,Lyle, andTerrenceKaufman 1976 ALinguisticLookat the Olmecs.AmericanAntiquity41(1):80-89. Cavalcante,Paulo B. 1988 Frutas comestiveis da Amaz6nia. 4th ed. Bel6m: MCT/CNpq, Museu Paraense EmilioGoeldi. Cheesman,E. E. 1944 Notes on the Nomenclature, Classification and Possible Relationships of CacaoPopulations.TropicalAgriculture21(8):144-59. Cleary,David 2001 Towardsan EnvironmentalHistoryofthe Amazon:FromPrehistoryto the Nineteenth Century.LatinAmericanResearchReview 36(2):65-96. Clement,Charles 1999 1492 and the Loss of AmazonianCropGenetic Resources. I. The Relation between Domesticationand Human PopulationDecline. EconomicBotany 53(2):188-202. Coe,SophieD., andMichaelD. Coe 1996 The TrueHistoryofChocolate.New York:Thames andHudson. Conklin,HaroldC. 1954 The Relation of Hanundo Culture to the Plant World.Ph.D. diss., Yale University. Correada Silva, Beatriz Carretta 1997 Urubii-ka'ap6r:da gramitica ' hist6ria: a trajet6ria de um povo. M.A. thesis, Universidade de Brasilia. 2002 A codifica&odos argumentosem ka'apor:sincroniae diacronia.In linguas indigenas brasileiras:fonologia,gram~ticae histdria,editedby Ana Suelly ArrudaChmaraCabraland AryonDall'Igna Rodrigues,343-51. Atas do I
  • 21. 278 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO.3 Encontro Internacional do Grupo de Trabalho sobre Linguas Indigenas ANPOLL.Bel6m,Pard:EDUFPA. Crofts,Marjorie,andMargaretSheffler 1981 Dicionario bilingue em portugues e mundurukdi:soat a'6 dup wuya'Sm pariwata'omtak. 2d ed. Brasilia:SummerInstitute ofLinguistics. Cruz,Ernesto 1973 Hist6ria doPark.Vol. 1.Belem:GovernodoEstado doPara. Cuatrecasas,Jose 1964 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 SorenWichmann 2000 CacaoandChocolate:A Uto-AztecanPerspective.AncientMesoamerica11: 55-75. Di Paolo,Pasquali 1985 Cabanagem:a revolugqopopulardaAmaz6nia.Belem,Pard:CEJUP. Fisher, William 2000 Rainforest Exchanges: Industry and Communityon an Amazonian Fron- tier. Washington,D.C.:SmithsonianInstitution Press. G6mez-Pompa,Arturo,JosdSalvadorFlores, andMarioAliphatFernandez 1990 The Sacred Cacao Groves of the Maya. Latin American Antiquity 1(3): 247-57. Grenand,Franqoise 1989 Dictionnaireway!pi-franqais.Paris:Peeters/SELAF. Grenand,Pierre 1982 Ainsi parlaient nos ancetres. Travaux et Documents de L'ORSTOM,No. 148. Paris:ORSTOM. Hemming,John 1987 AmazonFrontier:The Defeat ofthe BrazilianIndians.London:MacMillan. Huber,Jacques 1904 Materiaes para a flora amaz6nica:notas sobre a patria e distribuiqio geo- graphicadas arvoresfructiferasdoPard.BoletimdoMuseu Goeldi(Museu Paraense)4:392-95. Hurst, W.Jeffrey 2002 The Identificationof CacaoResidue in Samples ofArchaeologicalInterest. Paper presented at the One Hundred and First Annual Meeting of the AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,24 November,New Orleans,La. Jensen, Cheryl 1990 O desenvolvimento hist6rico da lingua wayampi. Campinas: Editora UNICAMP. 1999 Tupi-Guarani.In TheAmazonianLanguages,editedby R M.W.Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 125-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Justeson, John. S., WilliamN. Norman,LyleCampbell,andTerrenceKaufman 1985 The Foreign Impact on Lowland Mayan Languages and Script. Middle American Research Institute Publication 53. New Orleans: Tulane Uni- versity. Kohn,Eduardo 2002 Natural Engagements and EcologicalAesthetic amongthe Avila Runa of AmazonianEcuador.Ph.D. diss., University ofWisconsin-Madison. Lentz, David L., andCarlosR.Ramirez-Sosa 2002 Ceren Plant Resources:Abundanceand Diversity. In Before the Volcano
  • 22. 2003 WILLIAMBAIgE 279 Erupted:The Ancient CerenVillage in CentralAmerica,editedby Payson Sheets, 33-44. Austin:University ofTexas Press. Leonardi,Victor 1999 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 Souza 1996 Genetic Affiliationof the Language of the Indians Aur6and Aura.Opci6n 12(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 Dall'Igna Rodrigues,338-42. Atas doI EncontroInternacionaldoGrupode Trabalho sobreLinguas IndigenasANPOLL.Belem, Para:EDUFPA. MoreiraNeto, Carlosde Arauijo 1988 Indios da Amazonia:de maioria a minoria(1750-1850). Petrdpolis,Riode Janeiro:Vozes. Motamayor,J. C.,A.M.Risterucci,V. Laurent,A.Moreno,and C.Lanaud 2000 The Genetic Diversity of Criollo Cacao and Its Consequence in Quality Breeding. Memorias del Primero Congreso Venezolano del Cacao y su Industria. [Available:http://cacao.sian.info.ve/memorias/html/03.html. Accessedon 2 June 2002.] Pinkley, Homer 1973 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,AryonDall'Igna 1986 Linguasbrasileiras:parao conhecimentodas linguas indigenas.Sio Paulo: EdigSesLoyola. 1999 Tupi. In The Amazonian Languages, edited by R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 107-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rodrigues,AryonDall'Igna, andAna Suelly ArrudaC maraCabral 2002 Revendo a classifica~io interna da familia tupi-guarani. In Linguas indigenasbrasileiras:fonologia,gramaticae hist6ria, editedby Ana Suelly ArrudaCamaraCabraland AryonDall'Igna Rodrigues,327-37. Atas do I Encontro Internacional do Grupo de Trabalho sobre Linguas Indigenas ANPOLL.Belem, Para:EDUFPA. Schultes, RichardEvans 1984 Amazonian Cultigens and their Northward and Westward Migration in Pre-ColumbianTimes. In Pre-ColumbianPlant Migration,editedby Doris Stone, 19-37. Papers of the PeabodyMuseum of Archaeologyand Ethno- logy 76. Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversity. Stone, Doris 1984 Pre-Columbian Migration of Theobromacacao Linnaeus and Manihot esculenta Crantz from Northern South America into Mesoamerica: A
  • 23. 280 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 45 NO. 3 Partially HypotheticalView. In Pre-ColumbianPlant Migration,editedby Doris Stone, 67-83. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeologyand Ethnology76. Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversity. Stradelli, Ermano 1929 Vocabularios da Lingua geral portuguez-nheengatui e nheengatu- portuguez,precedidosde um esboqode grammaticanheenga-umbue-saua mirie seguidosde contosem lingua geralnheengatWiporanduua.Revistado Instituto Hist6ricoe GeographicoBrasileiro,Tomo104,Vol. 158:11-768. Strimer, C. 1932 Die Sprache der Mundurukri:WOrterbuch,Grammatikund Texte eines Indianeridioms am oberen Tapajoz, Amazonasgebiet. Anthropos 11:vii- 146. Taylor,Gerald 1985 Apontamentossobreo nheengatii falado no RioNegro, Brasil. Amerindia 10:5-24. Thompson,J. Eric S. 1956 Notes on the Use of Cacaoin MiddleAmerica.Notes on Middle American ArchaeologyandEthnology 128:95-116. Wichmann,Soren 1999 A ConservativeLookat Diffusion InvolvingMixe-ZoqueanLanguages. In Archaeologyand Language II:CorrrelatingArchaeologicaland Linguistic Hypotheses, 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.