nevertheless allowed to hawk their goods throughout the other districts. When they have plenty of articles on hand, they go to the other places, and ask for yams, coco-nuts, fish, and betel-nut, and for some ornaments, such as turtle shell, earrings and spondylus beads. They sit in groups and display their wares, saying “You have plenty of coco-nuts, and we have none. We have made fine wooden dishes. This one is worth forty nuts, and some betel-nut, and some betel pepper.” The others then may answer, “Oh, no, I do not want it. You ask too much.” “What will you give us?” An offer may be made, and rejected by the pedlars, and so on, till a bargain is struck.
Again, at certain times, people from other villages may need some of the objects made in Kuboma, and will go there, and try to purchase some manufactured goods. People of rank as a rule will do it in the manner described in the previous paragraph, by giving an initial gift, and expecting a repayment. Others simply go and barter. As we saw in the description of the kabigidoya, the Sinaketans and Vakutans go there and purchase goods before each Kula expedition to serve for the subsidiary trade.
Thus the conception of pure barter (gimwali) stands out very clearly, and the natives make a definite distinction between this and other forms of exchange. Embodied in a word, this distinction is made more poignant still by the manner in which the word is used. When scornfully criticising bad conduct in Kula, or an improper manner of giving gifts, a native will say that “it was done like a gimwali.” When asked, about a transaction, whether it belongs to one class or another, they will reply with an accent of depreciation “That was only a gimwali—(gimwali wala!)” In the course of ethnographic investigation, they give clear descriptions, almost definitions of gimwali, its lack of ceremony, the permissibility of haggling, the free manner in which it can be done between any two strangers. They state correctly and clearly its general conditions, and they tell readily which articles may be exchanged by gimwali.
Of course certain characteristics of pure barter, which we can perceive clearly as inherent in the facts, are quite beyond their theoretical grasp. Thus for instance, that the element of mutual advantage is prominent in gimwali; that it refers exclusively to newly manufactured goods, because second-hand things are never gimwali, etc., etc. Such generalisations the ethnographer has to make for himself. Other properties of the gimwali embodied in custom are: absence of ceremonial, absence of magic, absence of special partnership—all these already mentioned above. In carrying out the transaction, the natives also behave quite differently here than in the other transactions. In all ceremonial forms of give and take, it is considered very undignified and against all etiquette, for the receiver to show any interest in the gift or any eagerness to take it. In ceremonial distributions as well as in the Kula, the present is thrown down by the giver, sometimes actually, sometimes only given in an abrupt manner, and often it is not even picked up by the receiver, but by some insignificant person in his following. In the gimwali, on the contrary, there is a pronounced interest shown in the exchange.
There is one instance of gimwali which deserves special attention. It is a barter of fish for vegetables, and stands out in sharp contrast therefore to the wasi, the ceremonial fish and yam exchange. It is called vava, and takes place