3 - Reconsidering Rivers' argument: the evidence

Summary

In this chapter and the one that follows I want to consider the most important question raised in Rivers' work: given the strange distribution of kava drinking, are we justified in concluding that at one stage it was used by many more Melanesian societies? I will consider four types of evidence relevant to this question: archaeological, botanical, linguistic and ethnological. Although no one piece of data could be said to establish an infallible case, taken as a whole the evidence shows that there are compelling grounds for believing that, in a number of areas of Melanesia, kava was once used and then abandoned before European contact. From this conclusion a number of important ethnological and anthropological problems arise.

Archaeological evidence

The presence of kava remains in a site located in an area where kava was not known to be drunk at any time during the post-contact period would obviously provide the firmest and most desirable evidence. Unfortunately, Pacific environments are generally unsuitable for the preservation of plant remains in archaeological contexts (Yen 1974: 27). Even pollen analysis offers very little prospect of providing relevant information, as the pollen of Piper methysticum is very small grained and difficult to identify (Jocelyn Powell, personal communication).

To the best of my knowledge, Piper methysticum is not present in the archaeological record in Melanesia.