text:
Coca

Coca is any of the four cultivated plants in the family Erythroxylaceae, native to western South America. Coca is known worldwide for its psychoactive alkaloid, cocaine.

Different early-Holocene peoples in different areas of South America independently transformed Erythroxylum gracilipes plants into quotidian stimulant and medicinal crops now collectively called Coca. Archaeobotanical evidence show that Coca crops have been grown for well over 8,000 years in South America. They have had and still have a significant role in spiritual, economic, social and political dimensions for numerous indigenous cultures in the Andes and the Western Amazon arising from the use of the leaves as drugs and mild, daily stimulant.

The plant is grown as a cash crop in the Argentine Northwest, Bolivia, Alto Rio Negro Territory in Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Peru, even in areas where its cultivation is unlawful. There are some reports that the plant is being cultivated in the south of Mexico, by using seeds imported from South America, as an alternative to smuggling its recreational product cocaine. It also plays a fundamental role in many traditional Amazonian and Andean cultures as well as the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta in northern Colombia.

The cocaine alkaloid content of dry Erythroxylum coca var. coca leaves was measured ranging from 0.23% to 0.96%. Coca-Cola used coca leaf extract in its products from 1885 until about 1903, when it began using decocainized leaf extract. Extraction of cocaine from coca requires several solvents and a chemical process known as an acid–base extraction, which can fairly easily extract the alkaloids from the plant.

Description
The coca plant resembles a blackthorn bush, and grows to a height of 2 to 3 m. The branches are curved, and the leaves are thin, opaque, oval, and taper at the extremities. A marked characteristic of the leaf is an areolated portion bounded by two longitudinal curved lines, one line on each side of the midrib, and more conspicuous on the under face of the leaf.

The flowers are small, and disposed in clusters on short stalks; the corolla is composed of five yellowish-white petals, the anthers are heart-shaped, and the pistil consists of three carpels united to form a three-chambered ovary. The flowers mature into red berries.

The leaves are sometimes eaten by the larvae of the moth Eloria noyesi.

Species and evolution
There are two species of coca crops, each with two varieties:
 * Erythroxylum coca
 * Erythroxylum coca var. coca (Bolivian or Huánuco Coca) – well adapted to the eastern Andes of Peru and Bolivia, an area of humid, tropical, montane forest.
 * Erythroxylum coca var. ipadu (Amazonian Coca) – cultivated in the lowland Amazon Basin in Peru and Colombia.
 * Erythroxylum novogranatense
 * Erythroxylum novogranatense var. novogranatense (Colombian Coca) – a highland variety that is utilized in lowland areas. It is cultivated in drier regions found in Colombia. However, E. novogranatense is very adaptable to varying ecological conditions. The leaves have parallel lines on either side of the central vein. These plants are called "Hayo" or "Ayu" among certain groups in Venezuela and Colombia.
 * Erythroxylum novogranatense var. truxillense (Trujillo Coca) – grown primarily in the Cajamarca and Amazonas states in Peru, including for the Empresa Nacional de la Coca S.A. and export by Coca-Cola for beverage flavoring.

All four of the cultivated cocas were domesticated from Erythroxylum gracilipes in pre-Columbian times, with significant archaeological sites reaching from Colombia to northern Chile, including the Las Vegas Culture in Ecuador, the Huaca Prieta site in Peru, and the Nanchoc valley in Peru – where leaf fragments and lime "cal" additives have been dated to over 8,000 years before present.

An initial theory of the origin and evolution of the cocas by Plowman and Bohm suggested that Erythroxylum coca var. coca is ancestral, while Erythroxylum novogranatense var. truxillense is derived from it to be drought tolerant, and Erythroxylum novogranatense var. novogranatense was further derived from Erythroxylum novogranatense var. truxillense in a linear series. In addition, E. coca var. ipadu was separately derived from E. coca var. coca when plants were taken into the Amazon basin.

Genetic evidence (Johnson et al. in 2005, Emche et al. in 2011, and Islam 2011 ) does not support this linear evolution. None of the four coca varieties are found in the wild, despite prior speculation by Plowman that wild populations of E. coca var. coca occur in the Huánuco and San Martín provinces of Peru. Recent phylogenetic evidence shows the closest wild relatives of the coca crops are Erythroxylum gracilipes Peyr. and Erythroxylum cataractarum Spruce ex. Peyr, and dense sampling of these species along with the coca crops from throughout their geographic ranges supports independent origins of domestication of Erythroxylum novogranatense and Erythroxylum coca from ancestor Erythroxylum gracilipes. It is possible that Amazonian coca was produced by yet a third independent domestication event from Erythroxylum gracilipes.

Thus, different early-Holocene peoples in different areas of South America independently transformed Erythroxylum gracilipes plants into quotidian stimulant and medicinal crops now collectively called coca.

Herbicide resistant varieties
Also known as supercoca or la millionaria, Boliviana negra is a relatively new form of coca that is resistant to a herbicide called glyphosate. Glyphosate is a key ingredient in the multibillion-dollar aerial coca eradication campaign undertaken by the government of Colombia with U.S. financial and military backing known as Plan Colombia.

The herbicide resistance of this strain has at least two possible explanations: that a "peer-to-peer" network of coca farmers used selective breeding to enhance this trait through tireless effort, or the plant was genetically modified in a laboratory. In 1996, a patented glyphosate-resistant soybean was marketed by Monsanto Company, suggesting that it would be possible to genetically modify coca in an analogous manner. Spraying Boliviana negra with glyphosate would serve to strengthen its growth by eliminating the non-resistant weeds surrounding it. Joshua Davis, in the Wired article cited below, found no evidence of CP4 EPSPS, a protein produced by the glyphosate-resistant soybean, suggesting Bolivana negra was either created in a lab by a different technique or bred in the field.

Cultivation

Coca is traditionally cultivated in the lower altitudes of the eastern slopes of the Andes (the Yungas), or the highlands depending on the species grown. Coca production begins in the valleys and upper jungle regions of the Andean region, where the countries of Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia are host to more than 98 percent of the global land area planted with coca. In the early 19th century, coca was cultivated in what is today the Dominican Republic (see Mayorasgo de Koka). In 2014, coca plantations were discovered in Mexico, and in 2020 in Honduras, which could have major implications for the illegal cultivation of the plant.

The seeds are sown from December to January in small plots (almacigas) sheltered from the sun, and the young plants when at 40 to 60 cm in height are placed in final planting holes (aspi), or if the ground is level, in furrows (uachos) in carefully weeded soil. The plants thrive best in hot, damp and humid locations, such as the clearings of forests; but the leaves most preferred are obtained in drier areas, on the hillsides. The leaves are gathered from plants varying in age from one and a half to upwards of forty years, but only the new fresh growth is harvested. They are considered ready for plucking when they break on being bent. The first and most abundant harvest is in March after the rainy season, the second is at the end of June, and the third in October or November. The green leaves (matu) are spread in thin layers on coarse woollen cloths and dried in the sun; they are then packed in sacks, which must be kept dry in order to preserve the quality of the leaves.

Pharmacological aspects
The pharmacologically active ingredient of coca is the cocaine alkaloid, which has a concentration of about 0.3 to 1.5%, averaging 0.8%, in fresh leaves. Besides cocaine, the coca leaf contains a number of other alkaloids, including methylecgonine cinnamate, benzoylecgonine, truxilline, hydroxytropacocaine, tropacocaine, ecgonine, cuscohygrine, dihydrocuscohygrine, and hygrine. When chewed, coca acts as a mild stimulant and suppresses hunger, thirst, pain, and fatigue. Absorption of coca from the leaf is less rapid than nasal application of purified forms of the alkaloid (almost all of the coca alkaloid is absorbed within 20 minutes of nasal application, while it takes 2–12 hours after ingestion of the raw leaf for alkaline concentrations to peak. ). When the raw leaf is consumed in tea, between 59 and 90% of the coca alkaloid is absorbed.

Coca users ingest between 60 and 80 milligrams of cocaine each time they chew the leaves according to United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). The coca leaf, when consumed in its natural form, does not induce a physiological or psychological dependence, nor does abstinence after long-term use produce symptoms typical to substance addiction. Due to its alkaloid content and non-addictive properties, coca has been suggested as a method to help recovering cocaine addicts to wean off the drug.

History
Traces of coca leaves found in northern Peru dates the communal chewing of coca with lime (the alkaline mineral, not the citrus fruit) 8,000 years back. Other evidence of coca traces have been found in mummies dating 3,000 years back in northern Chile. Beginning with the Valdivian culture, c. 3000 BC, there is an unbroken record of coca leaf consumption by succeeding cultural groups on the coast of Ecuador until European arrival as shown in their ceramic sculpture and abundant caleros or lime pots. Lime containers found in the north coast of Peru date around 2000 BC as evidenced by the findings at Huaca Prieta and the Jetetepeque river valley. Extensive archaeological evidence for the chewing of coca leaves dates back at least to the 6th century AD Moche period, and the subsequent Inca period, based on mummies found with a supply of coca leaves, pottery depicting the characteristic cheek bulge of a coca chewer, spatulas for extracting alkali and figured bags for coca leaves and lime made from precious metals, and gold representations of coca in special gardens of the Inca in Cuzco.

Coca chewing may originally have been limited to the eastern Andes before its introduction to the Inca. As the plant was viewed as having a divine origin, its cultivation became subject to a state monopoly and its use restricted to nobles and a few favored classes (court orators, couriers, favored public workers, and the army) by the rule of the Topa Inca (1471–1493). As the Incan empire declined, the leaf became more widely available. After some deliberation, Philip II of Spain issued a decree recognizing the drug as essential to the well-being of the Andean Indians but urging missionaries to end its religious use. The Spanish are believed to have effectively encouraged use of coca by an increasing majority of the population to increase their labor output and tolerance for starvation, but it is not clear that this was planned deliberately.

Andean people first started chewing coca leaf (Ertyhroxylum) and its popularity has been spread throughout the Northern and Central Andes, making its way down to Southern Central America, including areas like Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina. The coca leaf itself includes the active cocaine alkaloid which may be released through chewing or consumed in a powder-like form. This powder is usually extracted and made from burnt plant ashes, limestone or granite, and seashells. Andean people living in Central America have used a method to withdraw the lime from the coca plant using containers with sticks and have been able to indicate whether the coca leaves were either chewed historically even though many coca leaves haven't been discovered by archaeologists. There have been numerous effects that have been noted from the coca leaf as they are milder and more concentrated compared to pure cocaine. When Andean people began to first use the coca leaf, they noticed that it could produce a "high" and can be very addictive compared to tobacco if consumed in large quantities. Many Andean and Inca civilizations used to chew the coca leaf instead of consuming it as it provided a better "high" experience. Because of its strong addiction and high, the Incas only allowed this substance within honorary celebrations and rituals. Workers dealing with rigorous tasks such as long-distance travels, and more were allowed to take the substance as it eased their hardships along the way. There is little history before Andean people and the Incas to indicate if coca was restricted before these times and what instances it was initially used in. Sometimes coca leaves from the plant were used as offerings in rituals. Due to the nature of politics and religion in the Inca Empire, wealthy inhabitants handed out coca leaves during ritual ceremonies.

Coca was first introduced to Europe in the 16th century, but did not become popular until the mid-19th century, with the publication of an influential paper by Dr. Paolo Mantegazza praising its stimulating effects on cognition. This led to the invention of coca wine and the first production of pure cocaine. Coca wine (of which Vin Mariani was the best-known brand) and other coca-containing preparations were widely sold as patent medicines and tonics, with claims of a wide variety of health benefits. The original version of Coca-Cola was among these. These products became illegal in most countries outside of South America in the early 20th century, after the addictive nature of cocaine was widely recognized. In 1859, Albert Niemann of the University of Göttingen became the first person to isolate the chief alkaloid of coca, which he named "cocaine".

In the early 20th century, the Dutch colony of Java became a leading exporter of coca leaf. By 1912 shipments to Amsterdam, where the leaves were processed into cocaine, reached 1000 tons, overtaking the Peruvian export market. Apart from the years of the First World War, Java remained a greater exporter of coca than Peru until the end of the 1920s. Other colonial powers also tried to grow coca (including the British in India), but with the exception of the Japanese in Formosa, these were relatively unsuccessful.

In recent times (2006), the governments of several South American countries, such as Peru, Bolivia and Venezuela, have defended and championed the traditional use of coca, as well as the modern uses of the leaf and its extracts in household products such as teas and toothpaste. The coca plant was also the inspiration for Bolivia's Coca Museum.

Ethnohistorical sources
While many historians are in agreement that coca was a contributing factor to the daily life of the Inca, there are many different theories as to how this civilization came to adopt it as one of its staple crops and as a valued commodity. The Incas were able to accomplish significant things while stimulated by the effects of coca. The Incas did not have a graphical written language, but used the quipu, a fiber recording device. Spanish documents make it clear that coca was one of the most important elements of Inca culture. Coca was used in Inca feasts and religious rituals, among many other things. It was a driving factor in the labor efforts that Inca kings asked of their citizens, and also used to barter for other goods. Coca was vital to the Inca civilization and its culture. The Incas valued coca so much that they colonized tropical rain forests to the north and east of their capital in Cuzco so that they could increase and control their supply. The Incas colonized more humid regions because coca cannot grow above 2600 meters in elevation (coca is not frost-resistant).

Coca use in labor and military service
One of the most common uses of coca during the reign of the Inca was in the context of mit'a labor, a labor tax required of all able-bodied men in the Inca empire, and also in military service. Pedro Cieza de León wrote that the indigenous people of the Andes always seemed to have coca in their mouths. Mit'a laborers, soldiers, and others chewed coca to alleviate hunger and thirst while they were working and fighting. The results of this are evident in monumental construction and the successful expansion of the Inca empire through conquest. By chewing coca, laborers and soldiers were able to work harder and for longer periods. Some historians believe that coca and chicha (fermented corn beer) made it possible for the Incas to move large stones in order to create architectural masterpieces, especially ones of monolithic construction such as Sacsayhuamán.

Coca use in religious rituals
Due to the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire, the Spaniards had direct access to the Inca. They had insight to their everyday lives, and it is through their lens that we learn about religion in the Inca Empire. While the indigenous author Pedro Cieza de León wrote about the effects coca had on the Inca, multiple Spanish men wrote about the importance of coca in their spirituality. For example Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa, Father Bernabé Cobo, and Juan de Ulloa Mogollón noted how the Incas would leave coca leaves at important locations throughout the empire. They considered coca to be the highest form of plant offering that the Incas made.

The Incas would put coca leaves in the mouths of mummies, which were a sacred part of Inca culture. Mummies of Inca emperors were regarded for their wisdom and often consulted for important matters long after the body had deteriorated. Not only did many Inca mummies have coca leaves in their mouths, but they also carried coca leaves in bags. These are believed to be Inca sacrifices, and like the Aztecs, the Inca participated in sacrifices as well. It is clear that the Incas had a strong belief in the divinity of the coca leaf as there is now evidence that both the living and the dead were subjected to coca use. They even sent their sacrifices off to their death with a sacrificial bag of coca leaves. The coca leaf affected all stages of life for the Inca. Coca was also used in divination as ritual priests would burn a mixture of coca and llama fat and predict the future based on the appearance of the flame.

Coca use after the Spanish invasion and colonization
After the Spanish invasion and colonization of the Inca Empire, the use of coca was restricted and appropriated by the Spaniards. By many historical accounts, the Spaniards tried to eradicate the coca leaf from Inca life. The Spaniards enslaved Inca people and tried to prevent them from having "the luxury" of the coca leaf. Although the Spaniards noticed the state-controlled storage facilities that the Inca had built to distribute to its workers, they were still ignorant to plant spirit, divinity of coca, and the Incan admittance of the former. "This is my blood, this is my body" remembrance now was overshadowed by gates of behavior meeting efforts of worker control and service within work to spread concepts within outreach to support divinity and rights of the divine to exist in the divine's works. Not only that, enslaved Inca people were not capable of enduring the arduous labour the Spaniards made them do without using coca. Even though Spaniards were trying to push Catholicism onto the Inca, which did not allow them to eat before the Eucharist (the Spaniards thought coca to be food), they allowed them to continue to use coca to endure the labor associated with slavery. After seeing the effects and powers of the coca plant, many Spaniards saw another opportunity and started growing and selling coca themselves.

Medicine
Traditional medical uses of coca are foremost as a stimulant to overcome fatigue, hunger, and thirst. It is considered particularly effective against altitude sickness. It also is used as an anesthetic and analgesic to alleviate the pain of headache, rheumatism, wounds and sores, etc. Before stronger anaesthetics were available, it also was used for broken bones, childbirth, and during trepanning operations on the skull. The high calcium content in coca explains why people used it for bone fractures. Because coca constricts blood vessels, it also serves to oppose bleeding, and coca seeds were used for nosebleeds. Indigenous use of coca has also been reported as a treatment for malaria, ulcers, asthma, to improve digestion, to guard against bowel laxity, as an aphrodisiac, and credited with improving longevity. Modern studies have supported a number of these medical applications.

Nutrition
Raw coca leaves, chewed or consumed as tea or mate de coca, are rich in nutritional properties. Specifically, the coca plant contains essential minerals (calcium, potassium, phosphorus), vitamins (B1, B2, C, and E) and nutrients such as protein and fiber.

Religion
Coca has also been a vital part of the religious cosmology of the Andean peoples of Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia and northwest Argentina from the pre-Inca period through to the present. Coca leaves play a crucial part in offerings to the apus (mountains), Inti (the sun), or Pachamama (the earth). Coca leaves are also often read in a form of divination analogous to reading tea leaves in other cultures. As one example of the many traditional beliefs about coca, it is believed by the miners of Cerro de Pasco to soften the veins of ore, if masticated (chewed) and thrown upon them (see Cocamama in Inca mythology). In addition, coca use in shamanic rituals is well documented wherever local native populations have cultivated the plant. For example, the Tayronas of Colombia's Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta would chew the plant before engaging in extended meditation and prayer.

Chewing
In Bolivia bags of coca leaves are sold in local markets and by street vendors. The activity of chewing coca is called mambear, chacchar or acullicar, borrowed from Quechua, coquear (Northwest Argentina), or in Bolivia, picchar, derived from the Aymara language. The Spanish masticar is also frequently used, along with the slang term "bolear," derived from the word "bola" or ball of coca pouched in the cheek while chewing. Typical coca consumption varies between 20 and 60 grams per day, and contemporary methods are believed to be unchanged from ancient times. Coca is kept in a woven pouch (chuspa or huallqui). A few leaves are chosen to form a quid (acullico) held between the mouth and gums. Doing so may cause a tingling and numbing sensation in the mouth, in similar fashion to the formerly ubiquitous dental anaesthetic novocaine (as both cocaine and novocaine belong to the amino ester class of local anesthetics).

Chewing coca leaves is most common in indigenous communities across the central Andean region, particularly in places like the highlands of Argentina, Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru, where the cultivation and consumption of coca is a part of the national culture, similar to chicha. It also serves as a powerful symbol of indigenous cultural and religious identity, amongst a diversity of indigenous nations throughout South America. Chewing plants for medicinal mostly stimulating effects has a long history throughout the world: Khat in East Africa & the Arabian Peninsula, Tobacco in North America and Australia, and Areca nut in South/Southeast Asia & the Pacific Basin. Tobacco leaves were also traditionally chewed in the same way in North America (modern chewing tobacco is typically heavily processed). Khat chewing also has a history as a social custom dating back thousands of years analogous to the use of coca leaves.

One option for chewing coca is with a tiny quantity of ilucta (a preparation of the ashes of the quinoa plant) added to the coca leaves; it softens their astringent flavor and activates the alkaloids. Other names for this basifying substance are llipta in Peru and the Spanish word lejía, bleach in English. The consumer carefully uses a wooden stick (formerly often a spatula of precious metal) to transfer an alkaline component into the quid without touching his flesh with the corrosive substance. The alkali component, usually kept in a gourd (ishcupuro or poporo), can be made by burning limestone to form unslaked quicklime, burning quinoa stalks, or the bark from certain trees, and may be called llipta, tocra or mambe depending on its composition. Many of these materials are salty in flavor, but there are variations. The most common base in the La Paz area of Bolivia is a product known as lejía dulce (sweet lye), which is made from quinoa ashes mixed with aniseed and cane sugar, forming a soft black putty with a sweet and pleasing flavor. In some places, baking soda is used under the name bico.

In the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, on the Caribbean Coast of Colombia, coca is consumed by the Kogi, Arhuaco, and Wiwa by using a special device called poporo. The poporo is the mark of manhood; it is regarded by men as a good companion that means "food", "woman", "memory", and "meditation". When a boy is ready to be married, his mother initiates him in the use of the coca. This act of initiation is carefully supervised by the Mamo, a traditional priest-teacher-leader.

Fresh samples of the dried leaves, uncurled, are a deep green colour on the upper surface, and a grey-green on the lower surface, and have a strong tea-like aroma. When chewed, they produce a pleasurable numbness in the mouth, and have a pleasant, pungent taste. They are traditionally chewed with lime or some other reagent such as bicarbonate of soda to increase the release of the active ingredients from the leaf. Older species have a camphoraceous smell and a brownish color, and lack the pungent taste. See also Erythroxylum coca, and Erythroxylum novogranatense spp.

Ypadú is an unrefined, unconcentrated powder made from coca leaves and the ash of various other plants.

Tea

Although coca leaf chewing is common only among the indigenous populations, the consumption of coca tea (Mate de coca) is common among all sectors of society in the Andean countries, especially due to their high elevations from sea level, and is widely held to be beneficial to health, mood, and energy. Coca leaf is sold packaged into teabags in most grocery stores in the region, and establishments that cater to tourists generally feature coca tea.

Commercial and industrial uses
In the Andes commercially manufactured coca teas, granola bars, cookies, hard candies, etc. are available in most stores and supermarkets, including upscale suburban supermarkets.

Coca is used industrially in the cosmetics and food industries. A decocainized extract of coca leaf is one of the flavoring ingredients in Coca-Cola. Before the criminalization of cocaine, however, the extract was not decocainized, and hence Coca-Cola's original formula did indeed include cocaine.

Coca tea is produced industrially from coca leaves in South America by a number of companies, including Enaco S.A. (National Company of the Coca), a government enterprise in Peru. Coca leaves are also found in a brand of herbal liqueur called "Agwa de Bolivia" (grown in Bolivia and de-cocainized in Amsterdam), and a natural flavouring ingredient in Red Bull Cola, that was launched in March 2008.

New markets
Coca has figured more prominently in the politics of Bolivia and Peru in the early 21st century. President Morales asserted that "la coca no es cocaína"—the coca leaf is not cocaine. During his speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 19, 2006, he held a coca leaf in his hand to demonstrate its innocuity.

Alan García, former president of Peru, has recommended its use in salads and other edible preparations. A Peruvian-based company has announced plans to market a modern version of Vin Mariani, which will be available in both natural and de-cocainized varieties.

In Venezuela, former president Hugo Chávez said in a speech in January 2008 that he chews coca every day, and that his "hook up" is Bolivian president Evo Morales. Chávez reportedly said "I chew coca every day in the morning... and look how I am" before showing his biceps to his audience, the Venezuelan National Assembly.

On the other hand, the Colombian government has recently moved in the opposite direction. For years, Bogotá has allowed indigenous coca farmers to sell coca products, promoting the enterprise as one of the few successful commercial opportunities available to recognized tribes like the Nasa, who have grown it for years and regard it as sacred. In December 2005, the Paeces – a Tierradentro (Cauca) indigenous community – started to produce a carbonated soft drink called "Coca Sek". The production method belongs to the resguardos of Calderas (Inzá) and takes about 150 kg of coca per 3,000 produced bottles. The drink was never sold widely in Colombia and efforts to do so ended in May 2007 when it was abruptly banned by the Colombian government.

Coca Colla is an energy drink which is produced in Bolivia with the use of coca extract as its base. It was launched on the Bolivian markets in La Paz, Santa Cruz, and Cochabamba in mid-April 2010.

Literary references
Probably the earliest reference to coca in English literature is in "Pomona", the fifth book of Abraham Cowley's posthumously published Latin work, Plantarum libri sex (1668; translated as Six Books of Plants in 1689). In the series of Aubrey–Maturin novels by Patrick O'Brian, set during the Napoleonic wars, Dr. Stephen Maturin, a naval physician, naturalist, and British intelligence agent discovers the use of coca leaves on a mission to Peru, and makes regular use of them in several of the later novels in the series.

International prohibition of coca leaf
Coca leaf is the raw material for the manufacture of the drug cocaine, a powerful stimulant and anaesthetic extracted chemically from large quantities of coca leaves. Today, since it has mostly been replaced as a medical anaesthetic by synthetic analogues such as procaine, cocaine is best known as an illegal recreational drug. The cultivation, sale, and possession of unprocessed coca leaf (but not of any processed form of cocaine) is generally legal in the countries – such as Bolivia, Peru, Chile, and Argentine Northwest – where traditional use is established, although cultivation is often restricted in an attempt to control the production of cocaine. In the case of Argentina, it is legal only in some northwest provinces where the practice is so common that the state has accepted it.

The prohibition of the use of the coca leaf except for medical or scientific purposes was established by the United Nations in the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The coca leaf is listed on Schedule I of the 1961 Single Convention together with cocaine and heroin. The Convention determined that "The Parties shall so far as possible enforce the uprooting of all coca bushes which grow wild. They shall destroy the coca bushes if illegally cultivated" (Article 26), and that, "Coca leaf chewing must be abolished within twenty-five years from the coming into force of this Convention" (Article 49, 2.e).

The historic rationale for international prohibition of coca leaf in the 1961 Single Convention comes from "The Commission of Enquiry on the Coca Leaf study" published in 1950. It was requested of the United Nations by the permanent representative of Peru, and was prepared by a commission that visited Bolivia and Peru briefly in 1949 to "investigate the effects of chewing the coca leaf and the possibilities of limiting its production and controlling its distribution." It concluded that the effects of chewing coca leaves were negative, even though chewing coca was defined as a habit, not an addiction.

The report was sharply criticised for its arbitrariness, lack of precision, and racist connotations. The team members' professional qualifications and parallel interests were also criticised, as were the methodology used and the incomplete selection and use of existing scientific literature on the coca leaf. Questions have been raised as to whether a similar study today would pass the scrutiny and critical review to which scientific studies are routinely subjected.

Despite the legal restriction among countries party to the international treaty, coca chewing and drinking of coca tea is carried out daily by millions of people in the Andes as well as considered sacred within indigenous cultures. Coca consumers claim that most of the information provided about the traditional use of the coca leaf and its modern adaptations is erroneous. This has made it impossible to shed light on the plant's positive aspects and its potential benefits for the physical, mental, and social health of the people who consume and cultivate it.

In an attempt to obtain international acceptance for the legal recognition of traditional use of coca in their respective countries, Peru and Bolivia successfully led an amendment, paragraph 2 of Article 14 into the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, stipulating that measures to eradicate illicit cultivation and to eliminate illicit demand "should take due account of traditional licit use, where there is historic evidence of such use." Bolivia also made a formal reservation to the 1988 Convention, which required countries to adopt measures to establish the use, consumption, possession, purchase or cultivation of the coca leaf for personal consumption as a criminal offence. Bolivia stated that "the coca leaf is not, in and of itself, a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance" and stressed that its "legal system recognizes the ancestral nature of the licit use of the coca leaf, which, for much of Bolivia's population, dates back over centuries."

However, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) – the independent and quasi-judicial control organ for the implementation of the United Nations drug conventions – denied the validity of article 14 in the 1988 Convention over the requirements of the 1961 Convention, or any reservation made by parties, since it does not "absolve a party of its rights and obligations under the other international drug control treaties."

The INCB stated in its 1994 Annual Report that "mate de coca, which is considered harmless and legal in several countries in South America, is an illegal activity under the provisions of both the 1961 Convention and the 1988 Convention, though that was not the intention of the plenipotentiary conferences that adopted those conventions." It implicitly also dismissed the original report of the Commission of Enquiry on the Coca Leaf by recognizing that "there is a need to undertake a scientific review to assess the coca-chewing habit and the drinking of coca tea."

Nevertheless, the INCB on other occasions did not show signs of an increased sensitivity towards the Bolivian claim on the rights of their indigenous population, and the general public, to consume the coca leaf in a traditional manner by chewing the leaf, and drinking coca tea, as "not in line with the provisions of the 1961 Convention." The Board considered Bolivia, Peru and a few other countries that allow such practises to be in breach with their treaty obligations, and insisted that "each party to the Convention should establish as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally, the possession and purchase of coca leaf for personal consumption."

In reaction to the 2007 Annual Report of the INCB, the Bolivian government announced that it would formally issue a request to the United Nations to unschedule the coca leaf of List 1 of the 1961 UN Single Convention. Bolivia led a diplomatic effort to do so beginning in March 2009, but eighteen countries out of a total of 184, those 18 being, listed chronologically: the United States, Sweden, United Kingdom, Latvia, Japan, Canada, France, Germany, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, Mexico, Russian Federation, Malaysia, Singapore, and Ukraine, objected to the change before the January 2011 deadline. A single objection would have been sufficient to block the modification. The legally unnecessary step of supporting the change was taken formally by Spain, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Costa Rica. In June 2011, Bolivia moved to denounce the 1961 Convention over the prohibition of the coca leaf.

At Bolivia’s initiative, organized by Colombia and Bolivia with the support of Canada, Czechia, Malta, Mexico, Switzerland and OHCHR, the World Health Organization (WHO), is conducting a ‘critical review’ of the coca leaf. In 2025, based on its findings, the WHO may recommend changes in coca’s classification under the UN drug control treaties.

Since the 1980s, the countries in which coca is grown have come under political and economic pressure from the United States to restrict the cultivation of the crop in order to reduce the supply of cocaine on the international market.

Article 26 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs requires nations that allow the cultivation of coca to designate an agency to regulate said cultivation and take physical possession of the crops as soon as possible after harvest, and to destroy all coca which grows wild or is illegally cultivated. The effort to enforce these provisions, referred to as coca eradication, has involved many strategies, ranging from aerial spraying of herbicides on coca crops to assistance and incentives to encourage farmers to grow alternative crops.

This effort has been politically controversial, with proponents claiming that the production of cocaine is several times the amount needed to satisfy legal demand and inferring that the vast majority of the coca crop is destined for the illegal market. As per the proclaimed view, this not only contributes to the major social problem of drug abuse but also financially supports insurgent groups that collaborate with drug traffickers in some cocaine-producing territories. Critics of the effort claim that it creates hardship primarily for the coca growers, many of whom are poor and have no viable alternative way to make a living, causes environmental problems, that it is not effective in reducing the supply of cocaine, in part because cultivation can move to other areas, and that any social harm created by drug abuse is only made worse by the War on Drugs. The environmental problems include "ecocide", where vast tracts of land and forest are sprayed with glyphosate or Roundup, with the intention of eradicating the coca plant. However, the incidental environmental damage is severe, because many plant species are wiped out in the process.

Coca has been reintroduced to the United States as a flavoring agent in the herbal liqueur Agwa de Bolivia.

Boliviana negra, a genetically engineered type of coca, resists glyphosate herbicides and increases yields.

Legal status
The primary organization authorized to purchase coca leaves is ENACO S.A., headquartered in Peru. Outside of South America, most countries' laws make no distinction between the coca leaf and any other substance containing cocaine, so the possession of coca leaf is prohibited. In South America coca leaf is illegal in both Paraguay and Brazil.

Netherlands
In the Netherlands, coca leaf is legally in the same category as cocaine, as both are List I drugs of the Opium Law. The Opium Law specifically mentions the leaves of the plants of the genus Erythroxylon. However, the possession of living plants of the genus Erythroxylon is not actively prosecuted, even though they are legally forbidden.

United States
Like cocaine, coca is controlled under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) as a Schedule II drug meaning it is a restricted drug and is illegal to process without a prescription or a DEA registration.

In the United States, a Stepan Company plant in Maywood, New Jersey is a registered importer of coca leaf. The company manufactures pure cocaine for medical use and also produces a cocaine-free extract of the coca leaf, which is used as a flavoring ingredient in Coca-Cola. Other companies that have registrations with the DEA to import coca leaf according to 2011 Federal Register Notices for Importers, include Johnson Matthey, Inc, Pharmaceutical Materials; Mallinckrodt Inc; Penick Corporation; and the Research Triangle Institute. Analysts have noted the substantial importation of coca leaf into the United States, but the actual quantity is unknown because much of it is illegally imported, and there are many reports of coca leaves and coca teas being sold in the United States and being seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration throughout the States and Territories of the United States.

Canada
Coca leaf is listed as a Schedule I drug (most dangerous) according to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act of Canada (S.C. 1996, c. 19) alongside Opium (Heroin) and synthetic opioid analgesics. Specifically, it lists Coca (Erythroxylon), its preparations, derivatives, alkaloids, and salts, including:(1) Coca leaves (2) Cocaine and (3) Ecgonine. Possession of a Schedule I substance is illegal and trafficking can result in punishment of up to life imprisonment.

Australia
Coca leaf is considered a Schedule 9 prohibited substance in Australia under the Poisons Standard (October 2015). A Schedule 9 substance is a substance which may be abused or misused, the manufacture, possession, sale or use of which should be prohibited by law except when required for medical or scientific research, or for analytical, teaching or training purposes with approval of Commonwealth and/or State or Territory Health Authorities.

India
Coca leaf is a controlled narcotic drug in India by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which is the principal legislation governing the subject. While its scientific and medical purposes are permissible in accordance with law, any other indulgence including cultivation, possession, sale, consumption, transportation, import, export, are prohibited. Upon conviction, sentence depends upon the quantity which is categorized as small quantity (100 gm), commercial quantity (2000 gm) and quantity greater than small but less than commercial.

title: Coca


text:
Tangloids

Tangloids is a mathematical game for two players created by Piet Hein to model the calculus of spinors.

A description of the game appeared in the book "Martin Gardner's New Mathematical Diversions from Scientific American" by Martin Gardner from 1996 in a section on the mathematics of braiding.

Two flat blocks of wood each pierced with three small holes are joined with three parallel strings. Each player holds one of the blocks of wood. The first player holds one block of wood still, while the other player rotates the other block of wood for two full revolutions. The plane of rotation is perpendicular to the strings when not tangled. The strings now overlap each other. Then the first player tries to untangle the strings without rotating either piece of wood. Only translations (moving the pieces without rotating) are allowed. Afterwards, the players reverse roles; whoever can untangle the strings fastest is the winner. Try it with only one revolution. The strings are of course overlapping again but they can not be untangled without rotating one of the two wooden blocks.

The Balinese cup trick, appearing in the Balinese candle dance, is a different illustration of the same mathematical idea. The anti-twister mechanism is a device intended to avoid such orientation entanglements. A mathematical interpretation of these ideas can be found in the article on quaternions and spatial rotation.

Mathematical articulation
This game serves to clarify the notion that rotations in space have properties that cannot be intuitively explained by considering only the rotation of a single rigid object in space. The rotation of vectors does not encompass all of the properties of the abstract model of rotations given by the rotation group. The property being illustrated in this game is formally referred to in mathematics as the "double covering of SO(3) by SU(2)". This abstract concept can be roughly sketched as follows.

Rotations in three dimensions can be expressed as 3x3 matrices, a block of numbers, one each for x,y,z. If one considers arbitrarily tiny rotations, one is led to the conclusion that rotations form a space, in that if each rotation is thought of as a point, then there are always other nearby points, other nearby rotations that differ by only a small amount. In small neighborhoods, this collection of nearby points resembles Euclidean space. In fact, it resembles three-dimensional Euclidean space, as there are three different possible directions for infinitesimal rotations: x, y and z. This properly describes the structure of the rotation group in small neighborhoods. For sequences of large rotations, however, this model breaks down; for example, turning right and then lying down is not the same as lying down first and then turning right. Although the rotation group has the structure of 3D space on the small scale, that is not its structure on the large scale. Systems that behave like Euclidean space on the small scale, but possibly have a more complicated global structure are called manifolds. Famous examples of manifolds include the spheres: globally, they are round, but locally, they feel and look flat, ergo "flat Earth".

Careful examination of the rotation group reveals that it has the structure of a 3-sphere $$S^3$$ with opposite points identified. That means that for every rotation, there are in fact two different, distinct, polar opposite points on the 3-sphere that describe that rotation. This is what the tangloids illustrate. The illustration is actually quite clever. Imagine performing the 360 degree rotation one degree at a time, as a set of tiny steps. These steps take you on a path, on a journey on this abstract manifold, this abstract space of rotations. At the completion of this 360 degree journey, one has not arrived back home, but rather instead at the polar opposite point. And one is stuck there -- one can't actually get back to where one started until one makes another, a second journey of 360 degrees.

The structure of this abstract space, of a 3-sphere with polar opposites identified, is quite weird. Technically, it is a projective space. One can try to imagine taking a balloon, letting all the air out, then gluing together polar opposite points. If attempted in real life, one soon discovers it can't be done globally. Locally, for any small patch, one can accomplish the flip-and-glue steps; one just can't do this globally. (Keep in mind that the balloon is $$S^2$$, the 2-sphere; it's not the 3-sphere of rotations.) To further simplify, one can start with $$S^1$$, the circle, and attempt to glue together polar opposites; one still gets a failed mess. The best one can do is to draw straight lines through the origin, and then declare, by fiat, that the polar opposites are the same point. This is the basic construction of any projective space.

The so-called "double covering" refers to the idea that this gluing-together of polar opposites can be undone. This can be explained relatively simply, although it does require the introduction of some mathematical notation. The first step is to blurt out "Lie algebra". This is a vector space endowed with the property that two vectors can be multiplied. This arises because a tiny rotation about the x-axis followed by a tiny rotation about the y-axis is not the same as reversing the order of these two; they are different, and the difference is a tiny rotation in along the z-axis. Formally, this inequivalence can be written as $$xy-yx=z$$, keeping in mind that x, y and z are not numbers but infinitesimal rotations. They don't commute.

One may then ask, "what else behaves like this?" Well, obviously the 3D rotation matrices do; after all, the whole point is that they do correctly, perfectly mathematically describe rotations in 3D space. As it happens, though, there are also 2x2, 4x4, 5x5, ... matrices that also have this property. One may reasonably ask "OK, so what is the shape of their manifolds?". For the 2x2 case, the Lie algebra is called su(2) and the manifold is called SU(2), and quite curiously, the manifold of SU(2) is the 3-sphere (but without the projective identification of polar opposites).

This now allows one to play a bit of a trick. Take a vector $$\vec v=(v_1, v_2, v_3)$$ in ordinary 3D space (our physical space) and apply a rotation matrix $$R$$ to it. One obtains a rotated vector $$R\vec v$$. This is the result of applying an ordinary, "common sense" rotation to $$\vec v$$. But one also has the Pauli matrices $$\sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma_3$$; these are 2x2 complex matrices that have the Lie algebra property that $$\sigma_1\sigma_2 - \sigma_2\sigma_1 = \sigma_3$$ and so these model the $$xy-yx=z$$ behavior of infinitesimal rotations. Consider then the product $$\vec\sigma \cdot \vec v = v_1\sigma_1 + v_2\sigma_2 + v_3 \sigma_3$$. The "double covering" is the property that there exists not one, but two 2x2 matrices $$S$$ such that

 * $$S^{-1} (\vec\sigma \cdot \vec v) S = R\vec v$$

Here, $$S^{-1}$$ denotes the inverse of $$S$$; that is, $$S^{-1}S=SS^{-1}=1.$$ The matrix $$S$$ is an element of SU(2), and so for every matrix $$R$$ in SO(3), there are two corresponding $$S$$: both $$+S$$ and $$-S$$ will do the trick. These two are the polar-opposites, and the projection is just boils down to the trivial observation that $$(-1)\times(-1)=+1.$$ The tangeloid game is meant to illustrate that a 360 degree rotation takes one on a path from $$+S$$ to $$-S$$. This is quite precise: one can consider a sequence of small rotations $$R$$ and the corresponding movement of $$S$$; the result does change sign. In terms of rotation angles $$\theta,$$ the $$R$$ matrix will have a $$\cos\theta$$ in it, but the matching $$S$$ will have a $$\cos\theta/2$$ in it. Further elucidation requires actually writing out these formulas.

The sketch can be completed with some general remarks. First, Lie algebras are generic, and for each one, there are one or more corresponding Lie groups. In physics, 3D rotations of normal 3D objects are obviously described by the rotation group, which is a Lie group of 3x3 matrices $$R$$. However, the spinors, the spin-1/2 particles, rotate according to the matrices $$S$$ in SU(2). The 4x4 matrices describe the rotation of spin-3/2 particles, and the 5x5 matrices describe the rotations of spin-2 particles, and so on. The representation of Lie groups and Lie algebras are described by representation theory. The spin-1/2 representation belongs to the fundamental representation, and the spin-1 is the adjoint representation. The notion of double-covering used here is a generic phenomenon, described by covering maps. Covering maps are in turn a special case of fiber bundles. The classification of covering maps is done via homotopy theory; in this case, the formal expression of double-covering is to say that the fundamental group is $$\pi_1(SO(3))=\mathbb{Z}_2$$ where the covering group $$\mathbb{Z}_2=\{+1, -1\}$$ is just encoding the two equivalent rotations $$+S$$ and $$-S$$ above. In this sense, the rotation group provides the doorway, the key to the kingdom of vast tracts of higher mathematics.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Tangloids


text:
John of Gaunt

John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster (6 March 1340 – 3 February 1399) was an English royal prince, military leader, and statesman. He was the fourth son of King Edward III of England, and the father of King Henry IV. Because of Gaunt's royal origin, advantageous marriages, and some generous land grants, he was one of the richest men of his era, and was an influential figure during the reigns of both his father and his nephew, Richard II. As Duke of Lancaster, he is the founder of the royal House of Lancaster, whose members would ascend the throne after his death. His birthplace, Ghent in Flanders, then known in English as Gaunt, was the origin of his name.

John's early career was spent in France and Spain fighting in the Hundred Years' War. He made an abortive attempt to enforce a claim to the Crown of Castile that came through his second wife, Constance of Castile, and for a time styled himself as King of Castile. When Edward the Black Prince, Gaunt's elder brother and heir-apparent to the ageing Edward III, became incapacitated owing to poor health, Gaunt assumed control of many government functions, and rose to become one of the most powerful political figures in England. He was faced with military difficulties abroad and political divisions at home, and disagreements as to how to deal with these crises led to tensions between Gaunt, the English Parliament, and the ruling class, making him an extremely unpopular figure for a time.

John exercised great influence over the English throne during the minority of King Richard II (Edward the Black Prince's son) and the ensuing periods of political strife. He mediated between the king and a group of rebellious nobles, which included Gaunt's own son and heir-apparent, Henry Bolingbroke. Following Gaunt's death in 1399, his estates and titles were declared forfeit to the Crown, and his son Bolingbroke, now disinherited, was branded a traitor and exiled. Henry returned from exile shortly after to reclaim his inheritance, and deposed Richard. He reigned as King Henry IV of England (1399–1413), the first of the descendants of John of Gaunt to hold the English throne.

All English monarchs from Henry IV onward are descended from John of Gaunt. His direct male line, the House of Lancaster, would rule England from 1399 until the time of the Wars of the Roses. Gaunt is also generally believed to have fathered five children outside marriage: one early in life by a lady-in-waiting to his mother; the others, surnamed Beaufort, by Katherine Swynford, his long-term mistress and third wife. They were later legitimised by royal and papal decrees, but this did not affect Henry IV's bar to their having a place in the line of succession. Through his daughter Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland, he was an ancestor of the Yorkist kings Edward IV, Edward V and Richard III. Through his great-granddaughter Lady Margaret Beaufort he was also an ancestor of Henry VII, who married Edward IV's daughter Elizabeth of York, and all subsequent monarchs are descendants of their marriage. Two of John's daughters married into continental royal houses (those of Portugal and Castile). Through them, many royal families of Europe can trace lineage to him.

Early life
John was the son of Edward III of England and Philippa of Hainault, and was born in Ghent in Flanders, most likely at Saint Bavo's Abbey, in March 1340. The name by which he has become best known, of Gaunt, was derived from an anglicised form of his birthplace, Ghent. Its use was popularised by Shakespeare in his play Richard II. However, during John's lifetime, he was not referred to as this after the age of three. When he became unpopular later in life, a scurrilous rumour circulated, along with lampoons, claiming that he was actually the son of a Ghent butcher. This rumour, which infuriated him, may have been inspired by the fact that Edward III had not been present at his birth.

John's first wife, Blanche of Lancaster, was also his third cousin; both were great-great-grandchildren of King Henry III. They married in 1359 at Reading Abbey as a part of the efforts of Edward III to arrange matches for his sons with wealthy heiresses. Upon the death of his father-in-law, the Duke of Lancaster, in 1361, John received half his lands, the title "Earl of Lancaster", and distinction as the greatest landowner in Northern England as heir of the Palatinate of Lancaster. He also became the 14th Baron of Halton and 11th Lord of Bowland. John inherited the rest of the Lancaster property when Blanche's sister Maud, Countess of Leicester (married to William V, Count of Hainaut), died without issue on 10 April 1362.

John received the title "Duke of Lancaster" from his father on 13 November 1362. By then well established, he owned at least thirty castles and estates across England and France and maintained a household comparable in scale and organisation to that of a monarch. He owned land in almost every county in England, a patrimony that produced a net income of between £8,000 and £10,000 a year, equivalent in 2023 to c.£170 – 213 million in income value, or £3.5 – 4.4 billion in relation to gdp.

Military commander
Because of his rank, John of Gaunt was one of England's principal military commanders in the 1370s and 1380s, though his enterprises were never rewarded with the kind of dazzling success that had made his elder brother Edward the Black Prince such a charismatic war leader.

War in France
On the resumption of war with France in 1369, John was sent to Calais with Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and a small English army with which he raided into northern France. On 23 August, he was confronted by a much larger French army under Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy. Exercising his first command, John dared not attack such a superior force and the two armies faced each other across a marsh for several weeks until the English were reinforced by the Thomas de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, at which the French withdrew without offering battle. John and Warwick then decided to strike Harfleur, the base of the French fleet on the Seine. Further reinforced by German mercenaries, they marched on Harfleur, but were delayed by French guerilla operations while the town prepared for a siege. John invested the town for four days in October, but he was losing so many men to dysentery and bubonic plague that he decided to abandon the siege and return to Calais. During this retreat, the army had to fight its way across the Somme at the ford of Blanchetaque against a French army led by Hugh de Châtillon, who was captured and sold to Edward III. By the middle of November, the survivors of the sickly army returned to Calais, where the Earl of Warwick died of the plague. Though it seemed an inglorious conclusion to the campaign, John had forced the French king, Charles V, to abandon his plans to invade England that autumn.

In the summer of 1370, John was sent with a small army to Aquitaine to reinforce his ailing elder brother, the Black Prince, and his younger brother Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, Earl of Cambridge. With them, he participated in the Siege of Limoges (September 1370). He took charge of the siege operations and at one point engaged in hand-to-hand fighting in the undermining tunnels. After this event, the Black Prince gave John the lieutenancy of Aquitaine and sailed for England, leaving John in charge. Though he attempted to defend the duchy against French encroachment for nearly a year, lack of resources and money meant he could do little but husband what small territory the English still controlled, and he resigned the command in September 1371 and returned to England. Just before leaving Aquitaine, he married the Infanta Constance of Castile in September 1371 at Roquefort, near Bordeaux, Guyenne. The following year he took part with his father, Edward III, in an abortive attempt to invade France with a large army, which was frustrated by three months of unfavourable winds.

Probably John's most notable feat of arms occurred in August–December 1373, when he attempted to relieve Aquitaine by the landward route, leading an army of some 9,000 mounted men from Calais on a great chevauchée from north-eastern to south-western France on a 900-kilometre raid. This four-month ride through enemy territory, evading French armies on the way, was a bold stroke that impressed contemporaries but achieved virtually nothing. Beset on all sides by French ambushes and plagued by disease and starvation, John of Gaunt and his raiders battled their way through Champagne, east of Paris, into Burgundy, across the Massif Central, and finally down into Dordogne. Unable to attack any strongly fortified forts and cities, the raiders plundered the countryside, which weakened the French infrastructure, but the military value of the damage was only temporary. Marching in winter across the Limousin plateau, with stragglers being picked off by the French, huge numbers of the army, and even larger numbers of horses, died of cold, disease or starvation. The army reached English-occupied Bordeaux on 24 December 1373, severely weakened in numbers with the loss of at least one-third of their force in action and another third to disease. Upon arrival in Bordeaux, many more succumbed to the bubonic plague that was raging in the city. Sick, demoralised and mutinous, the army was in no shape to defend Aquitaine, and soldiers began to desert. John had no funds with which to pay them, and despite his entreaties, none were sent from England, so in April 1374, he abandoned the enterprise and sailed for home.

John's final campaign in France took place in 1378. He planned a 'great expedition' of mounted men in a large armada of ships to land at Brest and take control of Brittany. Not enough ships could be found to transport the horses, and the expedition was tasked with the more limited objective of capturing St. Malo. The English destroyed the shipping in St. Malo harbour and began to assault the town by land on 14 August, but John was soon hampered by the size of his army, which was unable to forage because French armies under Olivier de Clisson and Bertrand du Guesclin occupied the surrounding countryside, harrying the edges of his force. In September, the siege was simply abandoned and the army returned ingloriously to England. John of Gaunt received most of the blame for the debâcle.

Partly as a result of these failures, and those of other English commanders at this period, John was one of the first important figures in England to conclude that the war with France was unwinnable because of France's greater resources of wealth and manpower. He began to advocate peace negotiations; indeed, as early as 1373, during his great raid through France, he made contact with Guillaume Roger, brother and political adviser of Pope Gregory XI, to let the pope know he would be interested in a diplomatic conference under papal auspices. This approach led indirectly to the Anglo-French Congress of Bruges in 1374–77, which resulted in the short-lived Truce of Bruges between the two sides. John was himself a delegate to the various conferences that eventually resulted in the Truce of Leulinghem in 1389. The fact that he became identified with the attempts to make peace added to his unpopularity at a period when the majority of Englishmen believed victory would be in their grasp if only the French could be defeated decisively as they had been in the 1350s. Another motive was John's conviction that it was only by making peace with France would it be possible to release sufficient manpower to enforce his claim to the throne of Castile.

Succession to the throne
After the death in 1376 of his older brother Edward of Woodstock (also known as the "Black Prince"), John of Gaunt contrived to protect the religious reformer John Wycliffe, possibly to counteract the growing secular power of the church. However, John's ascendancy to political power coincided with widespread resentment of his influence. At a time when English forces encountered setbacks in the Hundred Years' War against France, and Edward III's rule was becoming unpopular owing to high taxation and his affair with Alice Perrers, political opinion closely associated the Duke of Lancaster with the failing government of the 1370s. Furthermore, while King Edward and the Prince of Wales were popular heroes because of their successes on the battlefield, John of Gaunt had not won equivalent military renown that could have bolstered his reputation. Although he fought in the Battle of Nájera (1367), for example, his later military projects proved unsuccessful.

When Edward III died in 1377 and John's ten-year-old nephew succeeded as Richard II of England, John's influence strengthened. However, mistrust remained, and some suspected him of wanting to seize the throne himself. John took pains to ensure that he never became associated with the opposition to Richard's kingship. As de facto ruler during Richard's minority, he made unwise decisions on taxation that led to the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, when the rebels destroyed his home in London, the Savoy Palace. Unlike some of Richard's unpopular advisors, John was away from London at the time of the uprising and thus avoided the direct wrath of the rebels.

In 1386 John left England to seek the throne of Castile, claimed in jure uxoris by right of his second wife, Constance of Castile, whom he had married in 1371. However, crisis ensued almost immediately in his absence, and in 1387 King Richard's misrule brought England to the brink of civil war. John had to give up on his ambitions in Spain and hurry back to England in 1389. Only John's intervention in the political crisis succeeded in persuading the Lords Appellant and King Richard to compromise to usher in a period of relative stability. During the 1390s, John's reputation of devotion to the well-being of the kingdom was largely restored.

Marriages and family
John was married three times. His first wife, Blanche of Lancaster, was also his third cousin; both were great-great-grandchildren of King Henry III. They married in 1359 at Reading Abbey. They had seven children; only three survived to adulthood.

After Blanche's death in 1368, shortly after the birth of her last child, John married, in 1371, Infanta Constance of Castile, daughter of King Peter of Castile, giving him a claim to the Crown of Castile. They had one daughter. Constance died in 1394.

During his second marriage, some time around 1373 (the approximate birth year of their eldest son, John Beaufort) John of Gaunt entered into an extra-marital love affair with Katherine Swynford, the daughter of an ordinary knight, which would produce four children for the couple. All of them were born out of wedlock, but were legitimised upon their parents' eventual marriage. The adulterous relationship endured until 1381, when it was ended out of political necessity.

On 13 January 1396, two years after the death of Constance of Castile, Katherine and John of Gaunt married in Lincoln Cathedral. Their children were given the surname "Beaufort" after a former French possession of the duke. The Beaufort children, three sons and a daughter, were legitimised by royal and papal decrees after John and Katherine married. A later proviso that they were specifically barred from inheriting the throne—the phrase excepta regali dignitate ("except royal status")—was inserted with dubious authority by their half-brother Henry IV. However as historian and author Nathen Amin points out there was no parliamentary ratification of this scribbled in amendment. Further testing and analysis on these three words is required to determine when exactly they were added. There is every possibility they were added as a later proviso during the height of the Wars of the Roses as a means to discredit any heirs of Margaret Beaufort.

Head of government
On his return from France in 1374, John took a more decisive and persistent role in the direction of English foreign policy. From then until 1377, he was effectively the head of the English government owing to the illness of his father and elder brother, who were unable to exercise authority. His vast estates made him the richest man in England, and his great wealth, ostentatious display of it, autocratic manner and attitudes, enormous London mansion (the Savoy Palace on the Strand) and association with the failed peace process at Bruges combined to make him the most visible target of social resentments. His time at the head of government was marked by the so-called Good Parliament of 1376 and the Bad Parliament of 1377. The first, called to grant massive war taxation to the Crown, turned into a parliamentary revolution, with the Commons (supported to some extent by the Lords) venting their grievances at decades of crippling taxation, misgovernment, and suspected endemic corruption among the ruling classes. John was left isolated (even the Black Prince supported the need for reform) and the Commons refused to grant money for the war unless most of the great officers of state were dismissed and the king's mistress Alice Perrers, another focus of popular resentment, was barred from any further association with him. But even after the government acceded to virtually all their demands, the Commons then refused to authorise any funds for the war, losing the sympathy of the Lords as a result.

The death of the Black Prince on 8 June 1376 and the onset of Edward III's last illness at the closing of Parliament on 10 July left John with all the reins of power. He immediately had the ailing king grant pardons to all the officials impeached by the Parliament; Alice Perrers too was reinstated at the heart of the king's household. John impeached William of Wykeham and other leaders of the reform movement, and secured their conviction on old or trumped-up charges. The parliament of 1377 was John's counter-coup: crucially, the Lords no longer supported the Commons and John was able to have most of the acts of 1376 annulled. He also succeeded in forcing the Commons to agree to the imposition of the first poll tax in English history—a viciously regressive measure that bore hardest on the poorest members of society. There was organised opposition to his measures and rioting in London; John of Gaunt's arms were reversed or defaced wherever they were displayed, and protestors pasted up lampoons on his supposedly dubious birth. At one point he was forced to take refuge across the Thames, while his Savoy Palace only just escaped looting. It was rumoured (and believed by many people in England and France) that he intended to seize the throne for himself and supplant the rightful heir, his nephew Richard, the son of the Black Prince, but there seems to have been no truth in this and on the death of Edward III and the accession of the child Richard II, John sought no position of regency for himself and withdrew to his estates.

John's personal unpopularity persisted, however, and the failure of his expedition to Saint-Malo in 1378 did nothing for his reputation. By this time, too, some of his possessions were taken from him by the Crown. For example, his ship, the Dieulagarde, was seized and bundled with other royal ships to be sold to pay off the debts of Sir Robert de Crull, who during the latter part of King Edward III's reign had been the Clerk of the King's Ships, and had advanced monies to pay for the king's ships. During the Peasants' Revolt of 1381, John of Gaunt was far from the centre of events, on the March of Scotland, but he was among those named by the rebels as a traitor to be beheaded as soon as he could be found. The Savoy Palace was systematically destroyed by the mob and burned to the ground. Nominally friendly lords and even his own fortresses closed their gates to him, and John was forced to flee into Scotland with a handful of retainers and throw himself on the charity of King Robert II of Scotland until the crisis was over.

King of Castile
Upon his marriage to Constance of Castile in 1371, John assumed (officially from 29 January 1372) the title of King of Castile and León in right of his wife, and insisted his fellow English nobles henceforth address him as "my lord of Spain". He impaled his arms with those of the Spanish kingdom. From 1372, John gathered around himself a small court of refugee Castilian knights and ladies and set up a Castilian chancery that prepared documents in his name according to the style of Peter of Castile, dated by the Castilian era and signed by himself with the Spanish formula "Yo El Rey" ("I, the King"). He hatched several schemes to make good his claim with an army, but for many years these were still-born owing to lack of finance or the conflicting claims of war in France or with Scotland.

It was only in 1386, after Portugal under its new King John I had entered into a full alliance with England, that he was actually able to land with an army in Spain and mount a campaign for the throne of Castile (that ultimately failed). John sailed from England on 9 July 1386 with a huge Anglo-Portuguese fleet carrying an army of about 5,000 men plus an extensive "royal" household and his wife and daughters. Pausing on the journey to use his army to drive off the French forces who were then besieging Brest, he landed at Corunna in northern Spain on 29 July.

The Castilian king, John of Trastámara, had expected John would land in Portugal and had concentrated his forces on the Portuguese border. He was wrong-footed by John's decision to invade Galicia, the most distant and disaffected of Castile's kingdoms. From August to October, John of Gaunt set up a rudimentary court and chancery at Ourense and received the submission of the Galician nobility and most of the towns of Galicia, though they made their homage to him conditional on his being recognised as king by the rest of Castile. While John of Gaunt had gambled on an early decisive battle, the Castilians were in no hurry to join battle, and he began to experience difficulties keeping his army together and paying it. In November, he met King John I of Portugal at Ponte do Mouro on the south side of the Minho river and concluded an agreement with him to make a joint Anglo-Portuguese invasion of central Castile early in 1387. The treaty was sealed by the marriage of John's eldest daughter Philippa to the Portuguese king. A large part of John's army had succumbed to sickness, however, and when the invasion was mounted, they were far outnumbered by their Portuguese allies. The campaign of April–June 1387 was an ignominious failure. The Castilians refused to offer battle and the Galician-Anglo-Portuguese troops, apart from time-wasting sieges of fortified towns, were reduced to foraging for food in the arid Spanish landscape. They were harried mainly by French mercenaries of the Castilian king. Many hundreds of English, including close friends and retainers of John of Gaunt, died of disease or exhaustion. Many deserted or abandoned the army to ride north under French safe conducts. Shortly after the army returned to Portugal, John of Gaunt concluded a secret treaty with John of Trastámara under which he and his wife renounced all claim to the Castilian throne in return for a large annual payment and the marriage of their daughter Catherine to John of Trastámara's son, Henry.

Duke of Aquitaine
John left Portugal for Aquitaine, and he remained in that province until he returned to England in November 1389. This effectively kept him off the scene while England endured the major political crisis of the conflict between Richard II and the Lords Appellant, who were led by John of Gaunt's younger brother Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester. Only four months after his return to England, in March 1390, Richard II formally invested Gaunt with the Duchy of Aquitaine, thus providing him with the overseas territory he had long desired. However, he did not immediately return to the province, but remained in England and mainly ruled through seneschals as an absentee duke. His administration of the province was a disappointment, and his appointment as duke was much resented by the Gascons, since Aquitaine had previously always been held directly by the king of England or his heir; it was not felt to be a fief that a king could bestow on a subordinate.

From 1394 through 1395, he was forced to spend nearly a year in Gascony to shore up his position in the face of threats of secession by the Gascon nobles. He was one of England's principal negotiators in the diplomatic exchanges with France that led to the Truce of Leulinghem in 1396, and he initially agreed to join the French-led Crusade that ended in the disastrous Battle of Nicopolis, but withdrew because of ill-health and the political problems in Gascony and England.

For the remainder of his life, John of Gaunt occupied the role of valued counsellor of the king and loyal supporter of the Crown. He did not even protest, it seems, when his younger brother Thomas was murdered at Richard's behest. It may be that he felt he had to maintain this posture of loyalty to protect his son Henry Bolingbroke (the future Henry IV), who had also been one of the Lords Appellant, from Richard's wrath; but, in 1398, Richard had Bolingbroke exiled, and on John of Gaunt's death the next year he disinherited Bolingbroke completely, seizing John's vast estates for the Crown.

Relationship with Geoffrey Chaucer
John of Gaunt was a patron and close friend of the poet Geoffrey Chaucer, best known for his work The Canterbury Tales. Near the end of their lives, Lancaster and Chaucer became brothers-in-law. Chaucer married Philippa (Pan) de Roet in 1366, and Lancaster took his mistress of nearly 30 years, Katherine Swynford (de Roet), who was Philippa Chaucer's sister, as his third wife in 1396. Although Philippa died c. 1387, the men were bound as brothers and Lancaster's children by Katherine—John, Henry, Thomas and Joan Beaufort—were Chaucer's nephews and niece.

Chaucer's The Book of the Duchess, also known as the Deeth of Blaunche the Duchesse, was written in commemoration of Blanche of Lancaster, John of Gaunt's first wife. The poem refers to John and Blanche in allegory as the narrator relates the tale of "A long castel with walles white/Be Seynt Johan, on a ryche hil" (1318–1319) who is mourning grievously after the death of his love, "And goode faire White she het/That was my lady name ryght" (948–949). The phrase "long castel" is a reference to Lancaster (also called "Loncastel" and "Longcastell"), "walles white" is thought to likely be an oblique reference to Blanche, "Seynt Johan" was John of Gaunt's name-saint, and "ryche hil" is a reference to Richmond; these thinly veiled references reveal the identity of the grieving black knight of the poem as John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and Earl of Richmond. "White" is the English translation of the French word "blanche", implying that the white lady was Blanche of Lancaster.

Believed to have been written in the 1390s, Chaucer's short poem Fortune, is also inferred to directly reference Lancaster. "Chaucer as narrator" openly defies Fortune, proclaiming he has learned who his enemies are through her tyranny and deceit, and declares "my suffisaunce" (15) and that "over himself hath the maystrye" (14). Fortune, in turn, does not understand Chaucer's harsh words to her for she believes she has been kind to him, claims that he does not know what she has in store for him in the future, but most importantly, "And eek thou hast thy beste frend alyve" (32, 40, 48). Chaucer retorts that "My frend maystow nat reven, blind goddesse" (50) and orders her to take away those who merely pretend to be his friends. Fortune turns her attention to three princes whom she implores to relieve Chaucer of his pain and "Preyeth his beste frend of his noblesse/That to som beter estat he may atteyne" (78–79). The three princes are believed to represent the dukes of Lancaster, York, and Gloucester, and a portion of line 76, "as three of you or tweyne," to refer to the ordinance of 1390 which specified that no royal gift could be authorised without the consent of at least two of the three dukes. Most conspicuous in this short poem is the number of references to Chaucer's "beste frend". Fortune states three times in her response to the plaintiff, "And also, you still have your best friend alive" (32, 40, 48); she also references his "beste frend" in the envoy when appealing to his "noblesse" to help Chaucer to a higher estate. A fifth reference is made by "Chaucer as narrator" who rails at Fortune that she shall not take his friend from him. While the envoy playfully hints to Lancaster that Chaucer would certainly appreciate a boost to his status or income, the poem Fortune distinctively shows his deep appreciation and affection for John of Gaunt.

Death

John of Gaunt died of natural causes on 3 February 1399 at Leicester Castle, with his third wife Katherine by his side.

He was buried beside his first wife, Blanche of Lancaster, in the choir of St Paul's Cathedral, adjacent to the high altar. Their magnificent tomb had been designed and executed between 1374 and 1380 by Henry Yevele with the assistance of Thomas Wrek, at a total cost of £592. The two alabaster effigies were notable for having their right hands joined. An adjacent chantry chapel was added between 1399 and 1403. During the reformation when other stonework in the cathedral was taken down in 1552, the tomb was spared by an command of the council, but was stripped plain. During the period of the Interregnum (1649–1660) it was severely damaged, and perhaps destroyed; anything that survived was lost (with the rest of the cathedral) in the Great Fire of London of 1666. A wall memorial in the crypt of the present cathedral lists Gaunt's as among the important lost monuments.

Marriages

 * On 19 May 1359 at Reading Abbey, John married his third cousin, Blanche of Lancaster, younger of the two daughters of Henry of Grosmont, Duke of Lancaster. Both shared a common descent from King Henry III. The wealth she brought to the marriage was the foundation of John's fortune. Blanche died on 12 September 1368 at Tutbury Castle, while her husband was overseas. Their son Henry Bolingbroke became Henry IV of England, having deposed King Richard II, who had seized the duchy of Lancaster upon John's death while Henry was in exile. Their daughter Philippa of Lancaster became Queen of Portugal by marrying King John I of Portugal in 1387. All subsequent kings of Portugal beginning from the House of Aviz were thus descended from John of Gaunt. Philippa's daughter Isabella, married Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy. Their lone heiress, Mary, the only child of Philip's only legitimate son Charles the Bold, married her 2nd cousin, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, whose mother Eleanor, was the daughter of Philippa's son Edward. Their grandson Charles married Isabella, daughter of Manuel I of Portugal, a male line grandson of Edward.
 * In 1371, John married Infanta Constance of Castile, daughter of King Peter of Castile, thus giving him a claim to the Crown of Castile, which he would pursue. Constance died in 1394. Though John was never able to make good his claim, his daughter by Constance, Catherine of Lancaster, became Queen of Castile by marrying Henry III of Castile. Catherine of Aragon & Joanna of Castille are descended from Catherine through their mother Isabella I, daughter of Catherine's son John II. Isabella I was also a descendant of Catherine's half-sister Philippa, through her mother Isabella, who was the daughter of Philippa's other son John. Hence the House of Hapsburg is also related to John of Gaunt.
 * During his marriage to Constance, John of Gaunt fathered four children by a mistress, the widow Katherine Swynford (whose sister Philippa Roet was married to Geoffrey Chaucer). Prior to her widowhood, Katherine had had at least two children with her husband, Sir Hugh Swynford from Kettlethorpe in Lincolnshire. These were Blanche, for whom John of Gaunt stood as godfather, and Thomas, later Sir Thomas. John married Katherine in 1396, and their four children, the Beauforts, were legitimised by King Richard II and the Church, but barred from inheriting the throne. From the eldest son, John, descended a granddaughter, Lady Margaret Beaufort, whose son, later King Henry VII of England, would nevertheless claim the throne.

Children

 * By Blanche of Lancaster:
 * Philippa (1360–1415) married King John I of Portugal (1357–1433).
 * John (1362–1365) was the first-born son of John and Blanche of Lancaster and lived possibly at least until after the birth of his brother Edward of Lancaster in 1365 and died before his second brother another short-lived boy called John in 1366. He was buried in the Collegiate Church of the Annunciation of Our Lady of The Newarke, Leicester (the church founded by his grandfather Henry, Duke of Lancaster ).
 * Elizabeth (1364–1426), married (1) in 1380 John Hastings, 3rd Earl of Pembroke (1372–1389), annulled 1383; married (2) in 1386 John Holland, 1st Duke of Exeter (1350–1400); (3) Sir John Cornwall, 1st Baron Fanhope and Milbroke (died 1443)
 * Edward (1365) died within a year of his birth and was buried in the Collegiate Church of the Annunciation of Our Lady of The Newarke, Leicester.
 * John (1366–1367) most likely died after the birth of his younger brother Henry, the future Henry IV of England; he was buried in the Collegiate Church of the Annunciation of Our Lady of The Newarke, Leicester.
 * Henry IV of England (1367–1413) married (1) Mary de Bohun (1369–1394); (2) Joanna of Navarre (1368–1437)
 * Isabel (1368–1368).
 * By Constance of Castile:
 * Catherine (1373–1418), married King Henry III of Castile (1379–1406)
 * John (1374–1375)
 * By Katherine Swynford (née de Roet/Roelt), mistress and later wife (children legitimised 1397):
 * John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset (1373–1410), married Margaret Holland. His great-grandson was Henry VII of England.
 * Cardinal Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester (1375–1447)
 * Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter (1377–1427), married Margaret Neville, daughter of Sir Thomas de Neville of Hornby by an unknown wife
 * Joan Beaufort (1379–1440); married first Robert Ferrers, 5th Baron Boteler of Wem, and second Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland
 * By mistress Marie de St. Hilaire of Hainaut, a lady-in-waiting to John's mother, Queen Philippa:
 * Blanche (1359–1388/1389), who married Sir Thomas Morieux (1355–1387) in 1381 and had no children. Morieux held several important posts, including Constable of the Tower the year he was married, and Master of Horse to King Richard II two years later.

Titles and styles

 * Earl of Richmond: granted as an infant in September 1342, surrendered to the crown in June 1372.
 * Earl of Leicester, Earl of Lancaster, Earl of Derby: inherited jure uxoris in November 1362 following the death of his wife's father Henry of Grosmont.
 * Duke of Lancaster: granted as a new creation on 13 November 1362 following the death of the prior Duke, Henry of Grosmont.
 * King of Galicia, King of Castile, King of León: claimed in January 1372 by his second marriage to the heiress to these thrones, unrecognised except for a brief period when he was able to capture Galicia from 1386 to 1387; claim surrendered 1388.
 * Duke of Aquitaine (2 March 1390 – 3 February 1399): granted for life in March 1390 by his nephew, King Richard II of England

Arms

As a son of the sovereign, John bore the royal arms of the kingdom (Quarterly, France Ancient and England), differenced by a label of three points ermine.

As claimant to the throne of Castile and León from 1372, he impaled the arms of that kingdom (Gules, a castle or, quartering Argent, a lion rampant purpure) with his own. The arms of Castile and León appeared on the dexter side of the shield (the left-hand side as viewed), and the differenced English royal arms on the sinister; but in 1388, when he surrendered his claim, he reversed this marshalling, placing his own arms on the dexter, and those of Castile and León on the sinister. He thus continued to signal his alliance with the Castilian royal house, while abandoning any claim to the throne. There is, however, evidence that he may occasionally have used this second marshalling at earlier dates.

In addition to his royal arms, Gaunt bore an alternative coat of Sable, three ostrich feathers ermine. This was the counterpart to his brother, the Black Prince's, "shield for peace" (on which the ostrich feathers were white), and may have been used in jousting. The ostrich feather arms appeared in stained glass above Gaunt's chantry chapel in St Paul's Cathedral.

Legacy
John of Gaunt is a character in William Shakespeare's play Richard II. Shortly before he dies, he makes a speech that includes the lines (in Act 2, scene i, around line 40) "This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars ... This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England". He is also referred to by Falstaff in Henry IV Part I (in Act 2, scene ii).

Hungerford in Berkshire has ancient links to the Duchy, the manor becoming part of John of Gaunt's estate in 1362 before James I passed ownership to two local men in 1612 (which subsequently became Town & Manor of Hungerford Charity). The links are visible today in the Town & Manor-owned John O'Gaunt Inn on Bridge Street, and John O'Gaunt School on Priory Road.

title: John of Gaunt