"Kava has been used in The Pacific Islands for 3,000 years"

[FijiFreshKava]

I see this stated in many places on the internet, but seldom properly referenced. The original claim was made in the book:

Lebot, Vincent. & Merlin, Mark David. & Lindstrom, Lamont Carl. 1992, Kava : the Pacific drug / Vincent Lebot, Mark Merlin, and Lamont Lindstrom Yale University Press New Haven

I don't have access to a copy of the book, but I was able to find this scholarly review by Timothy Johns. The reviewer seems to believe the claim of 3,000 years but noted some tendencies for the book to stray away from its data sources toward more of a narrative development.

"Kava, the root stock of Piper methysticum is, used to prepare a traditional psychoactive beverage of Melanesia and Polynesia, which is enjoying a renaissance in the Pacific and beyond. This volume examines kava, past and present, from multiple biological and cultural perspectives. It draws on data ranging from historical records to molecular biology and, as such, it represents a fine model of modern interdisciplinary and collaborative work in ethnobotany.

A consideration of the botany of kava follows a classical ethnobotanical approach in focusing on the origin of the domesticated species. Evidence from isozyme and numerical analyses complements information from taxonomy, morphology, geography, and linguistics to offer a convincing case that P. methysticum was domesticated in northern Vanuatu some 3,000 years ago from sterile clones of the wild Piper wichmannii and from there diffused throughout the Pacific Islands.

A chapter on the chemistry of kava combines a historical account with a thorough consideration of the physiology of kavalactones, the mildly narcotic and hypnotic active constituents of kava. Experimental data on the selection by humans for preferred kavalactone chemotypes during domestication provides a valuable complement to the previous chapter.​

The chapter entitled "Ethnobotany: cultivation, classification, preparation, and medicinal use" furthers the development of the book as an integration of plant and human biology. This is unfortunately the least satisfactory chapter of the volume. I question its narrow view of ethnobotany as strictly indigenous knowledge as opposed to a field of scientific study; more unsettling is that in the process of describing aspects of cultivation techniques, folk classification and folk medicine, the chapter is uncharacteristically negligent in not providing descriptions of study methods or documentation of its sources of information.

Fortunately the scholarly form is regained in the subsequent chapter, which uses mythological and ethnographic data to offer insights into the religious and psychological attributes of kava that have made it a centerpiece of Pacific culture and society for generations.The following chapter examines the recent commercialization of kava. In the end the merging of the biological and cultural perspectives left me with a satisfying understanding of this intriguing case of human biology."​

-TIMOTHY JOHNS, Center for Nutrition and the Environment of Indigenous Peoples,McGill University, Ste.-Anne-de-Belleviue, Quebec, Canada

Lebot's evidence for kava use back to 3,000 years ago is based on a synthesis of many different pieces of information. (Nobody discovered an ancient kava bowl that I am aware of). Arguments that combine numerical analysis, taxonomy, linguistics, geography, and morphology to draw a conclusion should probably be repeated with a bit more caution. After all, the book was clearly written for a wide audience, not scientists, and wasn't peer reviewed. For that reason, I'm not sure if we should blindly accept the statement that kava has been used for 3,000 years. I probably has, but...

 

[Alia]

I see this stated in many places on the internet, but seldom properly referenced. The original claim was made in the book:

Lebot, Vincent. & Merlin, Mark David. & Lindstrom, Lamont Carl. 1992, Kava : the Pacific drug / Vincent Lebot, Mark Merlin, and Lamont Lindstrom Yale University Press New Haven

I don't have access to a copy of the book, but I was able to find this scholarly review by Timothy Johns. The reviewer seems to believe the claim of 3,000 years but noted some tendencies for the book to stray away from its data sources toward more of a narrative development.

"Kava, the root stock of Piper methysticum is, used to prepare a traditional psychoactive beverage of Melanesia and Polynesia, which is enjoying a renaissance in the Pacific and beyond. This volume examines kava, past and present, from multiple biological and cultural perspectives. It draws on data ranging from historical records to molecular biology and, as such, it represents a fine model of modern interdisciplinary and collaborative work in ethnobotany.

A consideration of the botany of kava follows a classical ethnobotanical approach in focusing on the origin of the domesticated species. Evidence from isozyme and numerical analyses complements information from taxonomy, morphology, geography, and linguistics to offer a convincing case that P. methysticum was domesticated in northern Vanuatu some 3,000 years ago from sterile clones of the wild Piper wichmannii and from there diffused throughout the Pacific Islands.

A chapter on the chemistry of kava combines a historical account with a thorough consideration of the physiology of kavalactones, the mildly narcotic and hypnotic active constituents of kava. Experimental data on the selection by humans for preferred kavalactone chemotypes during domestication provides a valuable complement to the previous chapter.​

The chapter entitled "Ethnobotany: cultivation, classification, preparation, and medicinal use" furthers the development of the book as an integration of plant and human biology. This is unfortunately the least satisfactory chapter of the volume. I question its narrow view of ethnobotany as strictly indigenous knowledge as opposed to a field of scientific study; more unsettling is that in the process of describing aspects of cultivation techniques, folk classification and folk medicine, the chapter is uncharacteristically negligent in not providing descriptions of study methods or documentation of its sources of information.

Fortunately the scholarly form is regained in the subsequent chapter, which uses mythological and ethnographic data to offer insights into the religious and psychological attributes of kava that have made it a centerpiece of Pacific culture and society for generations.The following chapter examines the recent commercialization of kava. In the end the merging of the biological and cultural perspectives left me with a satisfying understanding of this intriguing case of human biology."​

-TIMOTHY JOHNS, Center for Nutrition and the Environment of Indigenous Peoples,McGill University, Ste.-Anne-de-Belleviue, Quebec, Canada

Lebot's evidence for kava use back to 3,000 years ago is based on a synthesis of many different pieces of information. (Nobody discovered an ancient kava bowl that I am aware of). Arguments that combine numerical analysis, taxonomy, linguistics, geography, and morphology to draw a conclusion should probably be repeated with a bit more caution. After all, the book was clearly written for a wide audience, not scientists, and wasn't peer reviewed. For that reason, I'm not sure if we should blindly accept the statement that kava has been used for 3,000 years. I probably has, but...

We may not be able to say 3,000 ... but certainly well over a millineum. Consider the lengh of time it would take to grow out those Piper wichmannii to wait for enough somatic mutations to achieve a (generally believed to be) separate species of plant entirely with different morphology not to mention "active ingredients".

 

[FijiFreshKava]

We may not be able to say 3,000 ... but certainly well over a millineum(sic)...

I can agree with this statement. It just bothers me that the exact year 3,000 is used so often now and there is no hard evidence for this number. And the way the number is quoted exactly. I mean, come on. This is just a guess! an approximation!

 

[verticity]

You should grab a copy of that book from Amazon... It's true it was a mass market book and the book itself would not have been peer reviewed, but the style is scholarly, and he backs up his arguments with references to his and others published research.

The crux of Lebot's argument is this (p. 53, 1997 edition):

"Piper methysticum, clearly a human creation, appears to be a young crop with little genetic variation. It may be less than 2500 to 3000 years old, based on the date of arrival of Austronesian settlers in Vanuatu... These conclusions challenge existing theories about the origins and dispersal history of kava. Most recent commentators ... presume that kava .... was domesticated in the New Guinea region..."

In other words, prior to Lebot, everyone else believed that the domesticated crop, kava, was probably significantly older than 3000 years, and originated in PNG. Lebot presented a novel hypothesis based on his research that kava originated in Vanuatu (specifically northern Vanuatu), so the 3000 year figure is essentially an upper bound based on when people are believed to have migrated there, backed up by other evidence you mentioned (linguistics, genetics, etc.), and he even suggests it might be younger.

Then the lower bound basically comes from the time the Polynesian islands were settled, e.g. Hawaii, believed to be 1000-2000 years ago, and evidence that kava was brought as a canoe plant...

His argument makes sense to me, although the controversial part is not at the lower bound, but the upper bound (i.e. did kava originate in Vanuatu or PNG?)

 

[verticity]

I can agree with this statement. It just bothers me that the exact year 3,000 is used so often now and there is no hard evidence for this number. And the way the number is quoted exactly. I mean, come on. This is just a guess! an approximation!

Definitely just an approximation. Lebot's argument is detailed and does not claim an exact figure...

 

[FijiFreshKava]

...so the 3000 year figure is essentially an upper bound based on when people are believed to have migrated there, backed up by other evidence you mentioned (linguistics, genetics, etc.), and he even suggests it might be younger....

I don't have any problems at all with the argument Lebot makes. It's very interesting. But looking around online I see:

" the use of kava among the people of Oceania goes back at least 3000 years"
"It has been used safely for over 3,000 years, without any reported withdrawal..."
"... has been enjoyed socially, spiritually, and medicinally for over 3,000 years. ... "
"Kava has been used in Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia in the South Pacific for over 3,000 years"
- This one is just egregious. People didn't live in Polynesia so long ago.
"Anthropological evidence (?) suggests that Kava has been cultivated and consumed by humans for well over 3000 years ."
"While the exact origin of Kava is unknown, its history of use by humans goes back over 3,000 years"

Would you say that people are interpreting his conclusion correctly or stretching the truth to make kava seem more safe? I think a more correct interpretation of the book is to say 'kava may have been used as long ago as 3,000 years'.

 

[Alia]

You should grab a copy of that book from Amazon... It's true it was a mass market book and the book itself would not have been peer reviewed, but the style is scholarly, and he backs up his arguments with references to his and others published research.

The crux of Lebot's argument is this (p. 53, 1997 edition):

"Piper methysticum, clearly a human creation, appears to be a young crop with little genetic variation. It may be less than 2500 to 3000 years old, based on the date of arrival of Austronesian settlers in Vanuatu... These conclusions challenge existing theories about the origins and dispersal history of kava. Most recent commentators ... presume that kava .... was domesticated in the New Guinea region..."

In other words, prior to Lebot, everyone else believed that the domesticated crop, kava, was probably significantly older than 3000 years, and originated in PNG. Lebot presented a novel hypothesis based on his research that kava originated in Vanuatu (specifically northern Vanuatu), so the 3000 year figure is essentially an upper bound based on when people are believed to have migrated there, backed up by other evidence you mentioned (linguistics, genetics, etc.), and he even suggests it might be younger.

Then the lower bound basically comes from the time the Polynesian islands were settled, e.g. Hawaii, believed to be 1000-2000 years ago, and evidence that kava was brought as a canoe plant...

His argument makes sense to me, although the controversial part is not at the lower bound, but the upper bound (i.e. did kava originate in Vanuatu or PNG?)

Excellent commentary @verticity The fact that Vanuatu has so many cultivars and PNG has relatively few. Also that today we see such consumption in Vaunatu still happening. Not to mention their postage stamps!

 

[verticity]

I don't have any problems at all with the argument Lebot makes. It's very interesting. But looking around online I see:

" the use of kava among the people of Oceania goes back at least 3000 years"
"It has been used safely for over 3,000 years, without any reported withdrawal..."
"... has been enjoyed socially, spiritually, and medicinally for over 3,000 years. ... "
"Kava has been used in Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia in the South Pacific for over 3,000 years"
"Anthropological evidence (?) suggests that Kava has been cultivated and consumed by humans for well over 3000 years ."
"While the exact origin of Kava is unknown, its history of use by humans goes back over 3,000 years"

Would you say that people are interpreting his conclusion correctly or stretching the truth to make kava seem more safe? I think a more correct interpretation of the book is to say 'kava may have been used as long ago as 3,000 years'.

I think your "more correct" interpretation is more correct...

 

[verticity]

The 3000 years is maybe in part based on archeological evidence. Archeological evidence has been used to estimate how long kava has been present in tahiti and tonga (much shorter, maybe less than 1000 years)
But it may also be cobsistent with the length of human settlement on those islands.

Lebot mentions what little archeological evidence there is (which is next to nothing of that age): certain ancient Lapita pottery bowls from Fiji and Tonga that resemble later wooden tanoas (p. 26) as well as a single fossilized stem from a large pepper plant that might or might not be kava found on an island north of PNG (p. 25).

It seems like archeology was useful generally in figuring out the migration patterns of ancient Pacific people, but not much specifically kava-related there..

 

[FijiFreshKava]

The 3000 years is maybe in part based on archeological evidence. Archeological evidence has been used to estimate how long kava has been present in tahiti and tonga (much shorter, maybe less than 1000 years)
But it may also be cobsistent with the length of human settlement on those islands.

I interpret that to mean the archeological evidence shows the existence of human settlements during those times. Vanuatu was settled around 4000 years ago but many other places in the South Pacific only settled around 1500 years ago. It's plausible that kava has been used since people first landed on Vanuatu, but there is no concrete evidence other than the ethnobotanical theory that kava and Pacific Island cultures evolved and migrated together.

 

[FijiFreshKava]

Well, there are no photographs, written logbooks or video recordings, but we can gather some info on the baaus local oral traditions and myths. E.g. the storues about ancient kava trade links between tonga and vanuatu that were interupted by a massive volcanic eruption

Are you referring to this event in the mid 15th century, about 500 years ago? The volcanic explosion of Kuwae? This event took place well after the formation of many modern European cities.

The article above also emphasizes there is much mythology wrapped up in the history of kava. (I'm reading this article now; it's very interesting)

 

[Zac Imiola (Herbalist)]

Yeah that's America/ western culture for ya lol.

 

[verticity]

Does anyone have the full text of this article? @Henry ? It claims to have actually found kavalactones in "archaeological artefacts" but the abstract doesn't specify how old the artifacts were or where they were found...
Hocart, C. H., Fankhauser, B. and Buckle, D. W. (1993), Chemical archaeology of kava, a potent brew. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom., 7: 219-224.

"Abstract
Kava lactones, which are present in the intoxicating Pacific Island drink, kava, have now been detected in a number of archaeological artefacts using selected-ion monitoring techniques in conjunction with gas chromatography/electron impact-mass spectrometry. Thus it is now possible to link unequivocally kava drinking, a major aspect of the ceremonial culture of many Pacific societies, to the archaeological record. In addition, a new variation of the kava lactone skeleton was tentatively identified in the form of 7,8-dihydro-5,6-dehydrokawain and 7,8-dihydro-5,6-dehydromethysticin."

 

[FijiFreshKava]

Does anyone have the full text of this article?

I found it here: https://eurekamag.com/pdf/008/008304878.pdf

At first glance I don't see any detail (age) on the archeological artifacts.

 

[sɥɐʞɐs]

I definitely think the 3,000 year quote is used to both play up it's safety (as a selling point) and also to show how long they've revered it (selling point). "Wow, they've been safely drinking the same drug/medicine for 3,000 yrs...it must be great...I feel safe about about buying some now."

As for the actual date, I'm not really sure, I don't doubt they've been using it for 3,000 years...but I understand we can't say it's an empirical fact without evidence. It's not like changing the phrasing from "3,000 years" to "at least 1,000 years" changes anything about it's safety for consumption, it really only takes a generation of regular users to see what the long term effects are.

Something I've noticed though, as the years go by, I continuously see scientific news headlines about pushing back the dates that were previously considered fact...on things like civilization, specific ancient inventions or arrivals of humans to certain parts of the world. Following this logic, I'd bet they were drinking kava longer than 3,000 years. Especially if you include Piper Wichmannii.

 

[verticity]

I found it here: https://eurekamag.com/pdf/008/008304878.pdf

At first glance I don't see any detail (age) on the archeological artifacts.

Great! Yes it looks like they found KL-related compounds in a couple of excavated pieces of pottery in Fiji (as well as pieces of coconut shell and human skull!), and their only comment about their age is that I can find is

"... it should be noted that these artefacts are at least several hundred years old" (p. 221)

So this is not proof that kava was drunk thousands of years ago.. but at least it's timely for the Halloween season. They are literally suggesting that these people at least several hundred years ago were drinking kava out of a human skull:

"The accompanying kava cups may also be made of pottery, or coconuts or more exotically, from a human skull, as in one of the samples analysed here." (p. 223)

 

[sɥɐʞɐs]

Great! Yes it looks like they found KL-related compounds in a couple of excavated pieces of pottery in Fiji (as well as pieces of coconut shell and human skull!), and their only comment about their age is that I can find is

"... it should be noted that these artefacts are at least several hundred years old" (p. 221)

So this is not proof that kava was drunk thousands of years ago.. but at least it's timely for the Halloween season. They are literally suggesting that these people at least several hundred years ago were drinking kava out of a human skull:

"The accompanying kava cups may also be made of pottery, or coconuts or more exotically, from a human skull, as in one of the samples analysed here." (p. 223)

There might be some data from when the skill of pottery was lost or went out of favor.
From that you could infer A date...if that specific piece pottery was dated, even more so.

edit: A quick, krunk-eyed, rudimentary google search tells me that the Lapita (and hence their pottery) period began around 1,500 BC reached Samoa by 1,000 BC and ended around 500 BC...making it likely that any kavalactones found on pottery would be at least ~2,518 yr old and at most ~3,518 years old, right? Though I acknowledge pieces of their pottery could have survived beyond their time and saved/passed down through generations.

 

[verticity]

There might be some data from when the skill of pottery was lost or went out of favor.
From that you could infer A date...if that specific piece pottery was dated, even more so.

edit: A quick, krunk-eyed, rudimentary google search tells me that the Lapita (and hence their pottery) period began around 1,500 BC reached Samoa by 1,000 BC and ended around 500 BC...making it likely that any kavalactones found on pottery would be at least ~2,518 yr old and at most ~3,518 years old, right? Though I acknowledge pieces of their pottery could have survived beyond their time and saved/passed down through generations.

Yeah, it's doubtful any KLs could survive that long...

I found this article with a really detailed discussion of tanoas...

Boissonnas, Valentin. "Beyond the Rim: A Comparative Study of Kava Bowls from Samoa, Tonga and Fiji." The Journal of the Polynesian Society (2014): 357-382.

It says about ceramic Fijian kava bowls:

"Circular, round-bottomed earthenware yaqona drinking bowls (dariniyaqona or sedreniyaqona in two different dialects) appear in the archaeological record from AD 1500 onwards (Marshall et al. 2000: 92).... Nowadays, pottery dariniyaqona production only continues along the Sigatoka River. Nevertheless the bowls are still traded throughout Viti Levu and have recently been recorded in use among the Nasau of Ra Province (Cayrol-Baudrillart 1996-97: 44)."

So, the oldest ones of that type (that they definitely know are kava bowls) that they have found are 500 years old, and are still used in some places. They are not the same as the Lapita pottery which apparently has distinctive patterns and is thousands of years old, although the latter have been found in Fiji...

If the shards they found had the Lapita markings, indicating thousands of years, they certainly would have mentioned that fact in the article...so hundreds of years seems more likely...

 

[FijiFreshKava]

...They are literally suggesting that these people at least several hundred years ago were drinking kava out of a human skull:
"The accompanying kava cups may also be made of pottery, or coconuts or more exotically, from a human skull, as in one of the samples analysed here." (p. 223)

At first I thought this might suggest a connection between cannibalism and kava, but after reading about the various origin myths wherein kava was discovered growing out of the body of a dead person, I think it's more of an homage to the myth: drink kava from a human body, because that's how it was first discovered.

The following passage is from The Abandoned Narcotic: Kava and Cultural Instability in Melanesia
By Ron Brunton (p.68)

 

[verticity]

At first I thought this might suggest a connection between cannibalism and kava, but after reading about the various origin myths wherein kava was discovered growing out of the body of a dead person, I think it's more of an homage to the myth: drink kava from a human body, because that's how it was first discovered.

It could have been both...??