History of Tobacco use

[PlantTeacher]

Noticed 'history' on Tobaconist University contained a brief sentence on pre-Columbus smoking. Um, autopsies on Egyptian mummies have turned up significant levels of nicotine. And the Phoenicians smoked as well. Probably less significant contribution to the cite but it would be interesting stuff.

 

[deluxestogie]

Re: History of Tobacco use thread

Tobacco Varieties Before Columbus: http://fairtradetobacco.com/showthread.php?181-Tobacco-Varieties-Before-Columbus

Bob

 

[istanbulin]

Re: History of Tobacco use thread

Bob's thread is a good source about tobacco before Colombus in America but as you know there're plenty of local varieties of tobacco. For example Australia has native varieties of tobacco but there's very limited information about their usage by Aborigines.

 

[Jitterbugdude]

Re: History of Tobacco use thread

As far as I know there is no reputable evidence that anyone other than the natives of South America as being the only ones smoking tobacco until they gave it to Columbus. Many cultures claim to to be the first to smoke tobacco but research has never proven this to be true. Many cultures did smoke, but they smoked herbs, not real "tobacco" .

 

[deluxestogie]

Re: History of Tobacco use thread

There are over 70 species of Nicotiana, many of which are apparently native to scattered regions of the world. These are not Nicotiana tabacum or Nicotiana rustica. Some are smokable, though most are too toxic, or taste awful. I agree with JBD that there isn't much in the way of convincing evidence that these other species were locally smoked by past aboriginal people in those regions. What is more likely is that, like many other herbs, some were used medicinally in some form other than smoking.

Here is my (surely incomplete) list of the cataloged species of Nicotiana:
tabacum
rustica

acaulis
acuminata
africana
alata
ameghinoi
amplexicaulis
arentsii
attenuata
azambujae
benavidesii
benthamiana
bonariensis
burbidgeae
cavicola
clevelandii
cordifolia
corymbosa
cutleri
debneyi
excelsior
exigua
forgetiana
fragrans
glauca
glutinosa
goodspeedii
gossei
hesperis
heterantha
ingulba
kawakamii
knightiana
langsdorffii
linearis
longibracteata
longiflora
maritima
megalosiphon
miersii
mutabilis
nesophila
noctiflora
nudicaulis
occidentalis
obtusifolia
otophora
paa
palmeri
paniculata
pauciflora
petuniodes
plumbaginifolia
quadrivalvis
raimondii
repanda
rosulata
rotundifolia
setchellii
simulans
solanifolia
spegazzinii
stenocarpa
stocktonii
suaveolens
sylvestris
thrysiflora
tomentosa
tomentosiformis
truncata
umbratica
undulata
velutina
wigandioides
wuttkei

Bob

 

[BarG]

Re: History of Tobacco use thread

And if you aint got tobacco, theres always grapevine. Thats what we used before I was a big kid.

 

[PlantTeacher]

Jitterbugdude, that are many species of tobacco in Africa that have been smoked for thousands of years. It's only that, for whatever reason (pride maybe, or politics) clear and extensive archeological evidence available for anyone research is thrown out all the time because it contradicts the accepted story line. For instance Leif Erikson discovered what we now call North America long before Christopher Columbus and the Phoenicians discovered it before him. The mummy of Ramses III- 1300 BC was stuffed with tobacco leaves. His tissues were found to contain significant levels of nicotine, cocaine and cannabis. The Egyptians were very fond of smoking.

 

[Jitterbugdude]

PlantTeacher, If you have specific references I'd love to read them! Everything I've read is that these claims are always proven false. 100 or 200 years ago when tobacco was "the thing" every culture was claiming that they smoked it first. The Irish, Turks, Egyptians etc. When data was scrtutinized it was found to be bogus. The Irish pipes really were not 1000 years old, the Egyptian "tobacco" was not tobacco but some unidentified burned substance that Egyptians extrapolated into tobacco. Marco Polo in all of his travels never mentions once of any culture possessing tobacco.... and he mentions tons and tons of stuff!

Like I said, If you can point me toward some "real scientific" info I'd love to read it.

 

[istanbulin]

I've never came accross any claim that Turks smoked tobacco first in any reference. As you know this is already impossible. BTW, there used to be a claim that American Natives' ancestors were Turkic origin but it was disproved by a genetic study in the US. But there're still different thesis about this issue in the World.

 

[darren1979]

This is an intresting point, I've seen articles before that state mummys have been found with cocaine in their system.

I guess we should be looking at this as unknown trade routes from America and the rest of the world long before Columbus. If i remember correctly there was a nordic(viking) settlement found in Canada?(I maybe wrong i wouldnt be suprised if i was) maybe they headed south.

 

[johnlee1933]

This is an intresting point, I've seen articles before that state mummys have been found with cocaine in their system.

I guess we should be looking at this as unknown trade routes from America and the rest of the world long before Columbus. If i remember correctly there was a nordic(viking) settlement found in Canada?(I maybe wrong i wouldnt be suprised if i was) maybe they headed south.

Wikipedia says cocaine was first synthesized in 1855. Obviously the effects of to coco leaf was known centuries before that. It just goes to demonstrate the internet will tell you anything you want to hear if you search long enough.

 

[deluxestogie]

I'll say that I have an open mind on everything. But the only thing that changes my mind is a preponderance of data. The greater the controversy, the greater the need for specific, valid references.

I'm fine with the Easter Bunny laying eggs, so long as you show me the supporting data.

Bob

 

[Seanz]

That is the problem with Wikipedia A lot of the information on there is hard to swallow. We were not allowed to use it as a resource while I was studying. As its not easy to reference the information and find the original source

 

[SmokesAhoy]

Wikipedia says cocaine was first synthesized in 1855. Obviously the effects of to coco leaf was known centuries before that. It just goes to demonstrate the internet will tell you anything you want to hear if you search long enough.

this. makes all the junkies happy to read what they want to read.

i would hope all those drugs would assist these guys in practicing critical thinking a little more if nothing else.

 

[PlantTeacher]

I'll get on it. Probably take a little while.

Don't read much on Wikipedia, either and always try to find references elsewhere unless said author provides them.

But dismissed does not always mean disproved. I like how debunkers are not usually required to present actual documented information disproving a theory. All they have to do is present an alternate explaination that most people think is good enough, then they are automatically given credit for disproving something.

 

[Jitterbugdude]

I All they have to do is present an alternate explaination that most people think is good enough, then they are automatically given credit for disproving something.

The burden is on the person that proposes the theory/ idea.

 

[PlantTeacher]

Hmm, I don't see this so much as a burden. This being just my opinion, dismissing evidence because it contradicts what is accepted seems complacent. It's just much easier to dismiss something without proof than it is to attempt a full vetting, then it usually requires half the century (or more) before what is called modern science to acknowledge it and only because its the new generation, who then practice similiar prejudices on evidence discovered during their tenure. Common example but how long did 'natural philosophy' (aka "science") claim that the world was flat?) With the information age this seems to be changing but still at a languid pace.

 

[johnlee1933]

Hmm, I don't see this so much as a burden. This being just my opinion, dismissing evidence because it contradicts what is accepted seems complacent. It's just much easier to dismiss something without proof than it is to attempt a full vetting, then it usually requires half the century (or more) before what is called modern science to acknowledge it and only because its the new generation, who then practice similiar prejudices on evidence discovered during their tenure. Common example but how long did 'natural philosophy' (aka "science") claim that the world was flat?) With the information age this seems to be changing but still at a languid pace.

Very well said.

 

[Jitterbugdude]

PlantTeacher, My comment was not directed to you. It was directed at any researcher that posits a new theory. For instance, back in the '90's researchers said they discovered nicotine in mummies. People came back and said the researchers probably used "modern" mummies and/or the mummies had absorbed nicotine from the smoke of tens of thousands of smokers that had come to see them on display. They also pointed out that an Egyptian trans Atlantic route was unheard of and down right impossible. It is up to the researchers to come back with some solid evidence that would refute the so called nay-sayers. They never have done this yet people still run around saying nicotine has been discovered in ancient mummies. The burden of proof lies with the researchers that made this claim. The mummy issue is interesting. It appears that in the 1800's or so there was a thriving black market in "making mummies". The bodies were obtained by killing drunks/cocaine heads and turning them in to "mummies" for a quick profit.

 

[Knucklehead]

I say irrevocable proof has yet to be presented by either side of the argument. That proof still lies under the sand somewhere or in the musty library of some ancient book/manuscript collector who prefers owning his treasures to reading them. However, both schools of thought have presented enough evidence to move their hypothesis into the realm of theories, but not proven scientific law. Someday, perhaps, but not at the present time. Therefore, you are all wrong and I am right, but I will be generous and call this one a tie. You are welcome.