“Papua” Or "New

Guinea?”

[To the Editor] One of your correspondents, in his let ter headed “Civilisation Versus Savag ery” mentioned that he hates the modern, unhistoric and stupid name “Papua,” and prefers New Guinea.

Apparently he has not a very good memory and is not very strong on Pa puan history, or he would recollect that in his boyhood days, and long before that, all atlases showed the country as “Papua or New Guinea”—the names be ing shown in that order.

Papua was first named by Don Jorge de Menisis in 1526. In 1528, Alvarez de Savaedra called it Isla Del Oro or Isle of Gold, on account of having found traces of gold at various places on the northern coast. In 1545, Inigo de Retes called it Nueva Guinea, or New Guinea, because of the resemblance of the na tives to those of the Guinea coast, in Africa. So the name Papua was the first name given it by Europeans in the old, historic days, and being over 400 years old, it is therefore not modern or unhistoric.

It may interest him and others to know why the official name was changed from British New Guinea to “Papua.”

At least two good reasons were ad vanced at the time, and there were probably others. The principal one was that much of the early day correspond

ence to New Guinea was sent in error to British Guiana, in South America, and to the Guinea coast, in Africa, the names being somewhat similar. Inci dentally, for the past 30 years I have been receiving from New York, “The Importers and Exporters’ Journal,” and it always has been and still is addressed thus: C/o. Burns & Co., Phillip, Port Moresby, British New Guiana, S. America.

The “Port Moresby” alone brings it home, and reflects credit on the P.O. officials.

Another reason was that Papua or British Papua (the name proposed by me when sole unofficial member of the Legislature there) seemed more euphoni ous than British New Guinea and the New Guineans.

As for the name being stupid: Well, it was selected by the first Commonwealth Government. I am, etc.,

“Papuan Pioneer."

Sydney, 4/12/32.