The Abandoned Narcotic: Kava and Cultural Instability in Melanesia

228 Pages·2007·5.54 MB·English

by  Ron Brunton

Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology
General Editor: Jack Goody
69
THE ABANDONED NARCOTIC
A list of books in the series will be found at the end of the volume.
The abandoned narcotic
Kava and cultural instability in Melanesia
RONBRUNTON
The right of the
University of Cambridge
to print and sell
all manner of books
was granted by
Henry VIII in 1534.
The University has printed
and published continuously
since 1584.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge
New York Port Chester
Melbourne Sydney
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521373753
© Cambridge University Press 1989
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 1989
This digitally printed version 2007
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data
Brunton, R. (Ron).
The abandoned narcotic: kava and cultural instability
in Melanesia / Ron Brunton.
p. cm. - (Cambridge studies in social anthropology: 69).
Revision of thesis (Ph.D.) - La Trobe University, 1988.
Bibliography.
ISBN 0 521 37375 1
1. Tanna (Vanuatu people) — Drug use. 2. Kava (Beverage) — Vanuatu.
3. Kava ceremony - Vanuatu. 4. Rivers, W. H. R. (William Halse
Rivers), 1864-1922. 5. Tanna (Vanuatu people) - Social conditions.
I. Title. II. Series: Cambridge studies in social anthropology: no. 69.
DU760.B84 1989
394.1'4 - dc20 89-31240 CIP
ISBN 978-0-521-37375-3 hardback
ISBN 978-0-521-04005-1 paperback
Contents
List of illustrations and tables page vi
Acknowledgements vii
1 Introduction: W.H.R. Rivers and kava 1
2 The traditional distribution of kava drinking 7
3 Reconsidering Rivers' argument: the evidence 27
4 Reconsidering Rivers' argument: assessment and
implications 75
5 Kava on Tanna: traditional ritual and contemporary
modifications 95
6 Kava on Tanna: the development of secular patterns of
consumption 114
7 The problems of Tannese society 129
8 Conclusion 168
List of references 179
Glossary of Tannese words 204
Index 206
Illustrations and tables
Plates
1 and 2 Entry of the kueria during the nikoviaar page 147
Diagram
I Relationship between suatu and nukulu 136
Maps
1 Traditional distribution of kava in the Pacific 4
2 Traditional distribution of kava in Madang 9
3 Traditional distribution of kava in southern New Guinea 13
4 Traditional distribution of kava in Vanuatu 19
5 Kava cognates, Set 1: Pacific 40
6 Kava cognates, Set 1: Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands 41
7 Kava cognates, Set la: New Guinea 43
8 Kava cognates, Set lb: New Guinea 45
9 Kava cognates, Set lc: New Guinea 48
10 Kava cognates, Set 2: Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands 50
II Kava cognates, Set 3: Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands 52
12 Kava cognates, Set 4: New Guinea 54
13 Traditional method of preparing kava 73
14 Suggested transmission routes for kava 84
15 Tanna, showing the major places referred to in the text 99
16 Suatu passing through Irakik 134
Tables
1 Kava cognates, Set 1 37
2 Kava cognates, Set la 42
3 Kava cognates, Set lb 44
4 Kava cognates, Set lc 46
5 Kava cognates, Set 2 49
6 Kava cognates, Set 3 51
7 Kava cognates, Set 4 53
vi
Acknowledgements
Part of this book is based on ten months' fieldwork in Vanuatu, mainly in
Irakik and surrounding areas of Tanna, but also among Tannese living and
working in Efate. This fieldwork was undertaken during a number of visits
between 1972 and 1980, with an additional brief visit in 1986. I am truly
grateful to the many Tannese who made my research possible, but
especially to three men, all of whom sadly are now dead: David Nasu, who
was willing to take the risk of allowing me to stay at Irakik, and argued my
case in the face of some opposition to my research; Jake Yasu who was
perhaps my closest friend on Tanna and a highly intelligent informant; and
Jake Yahoi, whose knowledge of traditional culture was unrivalled in the
area in which I worked. I would also like to thank Jimmy Rauh, Pelpel,
Wara, Lemai, Mary Tangap, Yawilum and Mouk of Irakik, Mowiagin,
Yasgapel, Yewus and Poita of Lomtihekel, Yewus, Nasei and Yemakse of
Inapukil, Nias of Laruanu, Matua, Napwat and Nuknow of Loutahiko,
Kumei, Sotei and Nasei of Lounapkaulanges, and Nakau of Lounekeuk, for
the generosity of their assistance and hospitality. While what I have written
may be very different to what they desired, I hope they will accept that I
have tried to remain true to what they told me.
A number of expatriates helped me in various ways. I would particularly
like to thank Keith Woodward, Gordon and Liz Norris, David and Socorro
Browning, Tessa Fowler, Bob, Kath and Russell Paul, and Pere Sacco, who
at different times did much to make my visits both successful and enjoyable.
As will be clear from the numerous references to personal communi-
cations, especially in the first half of this book, I have been very dependent
on the goodwill of a large number of people. I would particularly like to
thank those who went to the trouble of providing me with written answers to
questions or access to their unpublished papers and/or material, or who
allowed themselves to be subjected to lengthy interviews: Michael Allen,
Wai Ambrose, Byron Bender, Joel Bonnemaison, Nancy Bowers, Mark
Busse, Wee-Lek Chew, Geoff Dennis, Bob Depew, Tom Dutton, R. N.
Duve, Don Gardner, Jacques Guy, Gerard Haberkorn, Allan Hanson,
Terry Hayes, Alan Healey, E. E. Henty, Robin Hide, Kirk Huffman, Ian
vii
Acknowledgements
Hughes, Alan Jones, David Kausimae, Roger Keesing, Jack Keitade,
Raymond Kelly, Mait Kilil, Bruce Knauft, Peter Lawrence, Don Laycock,
Monty Lindstrom, Tom Ludvigson, John Lynch, Holly McEldowney,
Romola McSwain, Mac Marshall, Louise Morauta, Nigel Oram, Malcolm
Ross, Bob Rubinstein, Buck Schieffelin, Graham Scott, Daniel Shaw,
Christopher Smith, Matthew Spriggs, Robert Theodoratus, Darrell Tryon,
Roy Wagner, David Walsh, Pamela Watson, James Weiner, Fred West-
brook, Geoff White, Mike Wood, Doug Yen, and Michael Young. I would
also like to thank the staff of the Rijksherbarium in Leiden, the Botany
Division of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, New
Zealand, the Queensland Herbarium, the Australian National Herbarium
and the National Herbarium of Victoria. My father-in-law, Emile Rod,
kindly offered to translate a number of French texts, and some of the more
difficult German ones. He did an excellent job, and I am deeply apprecia-
tive of all the time that he spent on it.
Of all the researchers who assisted me, there is one whom I must single
out for special mention. In a lengthy correspondence that began in 1984,
Vincent Lebot was extraordinarily generous in sharing his knowledge about
the botany of kava. I had the pleasure of meeting him during my visit to
Vanuatu in 1986, when he spent many hours showing me the results of his
work, providing me with additional information, and commenting on my
ideas.
This book is a revised version of my Ph.D. thesis, presented to the
Department of Sociology at La Trobe University in 1988.1 am very grateful
to my supervisor, Martha Macintyre, for the warmth of her encouragement
and the intelligence and good sense of her advice and comments. I would
also like to thank my examiners, Michael Allen, Terry Hays and Michael
Young, for their generous and constructive criticisms and suggestions.
My wife Tess, my mother and my step-father were unstinting in their
support and forbearance during the course of my research. They know how
much it was appreciated.
vin
Introduction: W. H. R. Rivers and kava
In 1914 W. H. R. Rivers published The History of Melanesian Society, his
heroic attempt to unravel the complexities of Oceanic cultures. Noting that
the distribution of the two major drugs in Oceania appeared to be almost
mutually exclusive, he suggested that they had been brought by two
separate - though culturally related - waves of immigrants, the kava-people
and the betel-people. Both these peoples brought other elements of culture
with them, and the interaction of the immigrants with the original popu-
lation and each other, together with processes of internal development, had
produced the great cultural diversity that characterized the region.
Rivers thought that both the kava-people and the betel-people had
migrated into the Pacific from south-east Asia. The kava-people came first,
and as well as kava they brought shell money, the bow and arrow, the
wooden gong, the pig, and the fowl. They also had secret societies, and
associated with these were a cult of the dead, totemism, and the practice of
taboo. The betel-people came later, and they also brought the custom of
head hunting (1914, vol. 2: 226-7, 250-60, 533).
Betel chewing requires at least three ingredients: the nut of the areca
palm (Areca catechu), the leaf, catkin or stalk of the betel pepper (Piper
betle), and lime.1 Rivers believed that, because it was a complex practice,
combining substances with no obvious common associations, it must have
developed in stages. First the betel leaf was chewed, then the other
ingredients were added later, one at a time. Either the kava-people left their
homeland before the other ingredients had been discovered, or these were
not initially available to them in their travels. But they did find Piper
methysticum - the kava plant - in Oceania, and Rivers supposed that they
substituted this for the betel pepper, first chewing the leaves, then discover-
ing 'that the root furnished a more potent means whereby to procure the
desired effect' (ibid.: 256). At a later stage people learnt to make a drink
from the plant, and this became the universal way of consuming kava.
1 Some people add other substances, such as tobacco, cloves, gambier (Uncara gambir) and
sap from the breadfruit tree, to the betel quid (Theodoratus 1953: 31, 44-5, 51 and passim;
Crawford 1981: 97).
1
The abandoned narcotic
When the betel-people finally arrived in Melanesia, they brought betel
chewing with them as a fully developed practice. To Rivers it seemed
obvious that it had a number of advantages over kava: the constituents of
betel were freely available, easy to carry about, and ready to be used
immediately, whereas the supply of kava was rarely plentiful, the drink
required prolonged preparation, and its use was restricted. Consequently,
he believed that in the places where the betel-people came into contact with
the kava-people, the use of kava was gradually abandoned in favour of the
superior drug (ibid.: 252-5).
Rivers' work stimulated an interest in kava as an important marker of
past migrations (e.g. Churchill 1916; Haddon 1916, 1920; Riesenfeld 1950;
Schmitz 1960). But this was relatively short lived in British and Common-
wealth anthropology. With the dominance of structural-functionalism after
the 1920s, the questions Rivers raised were pushed to the margins of the
discipline, appropriate for ethnologists and folklorists, but not social
anthropologists. Detailed accounts of kava use continued to appear,
particularly in the writings of those who had worked in Polynesia (e.g. Firth
1967; Newell 1947). Yet anthropologists who studied people who drank
kava, either at the time of their fieldwork or in the past, sometimes did not
even think it necessary to mention the fact in their publications. As the late
Peter Lawrence, who was one of them, told me: 'When I was studying the
Garia [in the late 1940s and 1950s] these things were only incidentals.'1 It
was only in the 1970s, following the development of more general interests
in both psychoactive substances and the interpretation of ritual, that
anthropological interest in kava revived. Nevertheless, as we will see, there
is still a surprising degree of confusion in the literature, even in regard to
rather straightforward matters.
While Rivers was given credit for his contributions to the development of
kinship studies, his speculations on Oceanic culture history were ridiculed.
Of course, from a contemporary perspective, nearly three-quarters of a
century after the functionalist revolution, and as a result of the accumu-
lation of high-quality ethnographic data and the increased anthropological
sophistication that followed, it is easy to criticize his work. There was a
circularity to his arguments; for instance, he identified specific institutions
as belonging to the kava-people on rather tenuous grounds, and then
supposed that wherever these institutions were found he had evidence for
the earlier presence of the kava-people. He made unrealistic assumptions
about the coherence of cultural complexes and consequently neglected
1 Lawrence eventually referred to the Garia's use of kava in his monograph (1984: 224). Other
anthropologists who have informed me that they worked among people who used kava, but
who have not yet mentioned this in their publications, are Romola McSwain, Louise Morauta,
and Buck Schieffelin.