4 - Reconsidering Rivers' argument: assessment and implications

Summary

Although I drew some inferences from the evidence presented in the last chapter, a proper assessment of Rivers' argument requires a systematic examination of the three possible explanations for the patchy distribution of kava drinking. This will also enable us to consider various routes through which the custom may have been transmitted.

Possibility 1: independent discovery of kava in a number of regions

The arguments against the independent discovery and development of the psychoactive properties of Piper methysticum in a number of different regions are compelling. The botanical evidence, despite its gaps, strongly suggests that Piper methysticum is a sterile plant which has been produced and dispersed by a process involving human selection and propagation. The presence of words for the plant or drink which certainly seem to be cognates of kava in all of the kava-drinking regions, including the non-Austronesian language areas of southern New Guinea, provides additional support for believing that kava originated in a single location. There is also the fact that every people who utilize the psychoactive properties of Piper methysticum prepare a drink from the plant, even though there do not appear to be any pharmacological reasons or widespread cultural models for doing so. Finally, there is the occurrence in Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia of similar, apparently arbitrary, cultural associations of kava.

Possibility 2: direct links between kava-drinking regions

The above discussion shows that there can be little doubt that kava drinking had a single point of origin.