The Etymology, Scientific Name, and Global History of Ginseng (Panax ginseng): From East Asian Mystery to Global Commodity
李殷昌 / E.C. Lee / SIMTEA.com
I. The Politics of Naming: How 'Insam' Became 'Panax Ginseng'
The name of a plant is not a mere symbol; it is a cultural fossil reflecting the worldview of the culture that named it, the routes of its trade, and the scientific paradigms of its time. Ginseng possesses a threefold identity: a philosophical name from East Asia, a commercial name from its trade ports, and a scientific name from European taxonomy.
1.1. East Asian Naming: 'The Root in the Shape of a Man' (人蔘, rénshēn)
In East Asia, the name Insam (人蔘) is a product of its morphological characteristics combined with medico-philosophical meaning. The core of the name, 'In' (人), originates from the root's shape resembling a human figure, especially the forked legs.
This goes beyond simple visual metaphor. In traditional East Asian thought, particularly Taoism and traditional medicine, the 'principle of similarity' was crucial. That is, form implies function, and a plant resembling a human was believed to hold the power to boost the entire body's qi (vital energy) and enhance vitality. As one record notes, ginseng was recognized as a medicinal ingredient for both body and mind, "symbolizing humanity within the transmigration of matter and spiritual energy."
The origin of the second character, 'Sam' (蔘), suggests a more complex historical context. This Chinese character is a phono-semantic compound combining the radical 'Cho' (艸), meaning plant, with 'Cham' (參), which provides the sound and form. What is noteworthy is the analysis suggesting the possibility that the character '蔘' was "a character created by our people (a Gukja or national character) to denote 'insam,' a specialty of our country."
This linguistic argument gains more traction when met with records from the Dongui Bogam (Treasures of Eastern Medicine). Heo Jun, in the Dongui Bogam, clearly noted 'Shim' as the pure Korean pronunciation next to the Sino-Korean word 'Insam' (人蔘). The existence of the native word 'Shim' and the possibility of '蔘' being a Gukja (national character) strongly suggest that the concept of ginseng and the perception of it may have originated independently in the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria, not central China. This is key linguistic evidence supporting the 'Korean Peninsula/Manchuria origin theory' discussed later.
1.2. Western Naming (1): 'Ginseng' - A Name Showing the Route of Trade
The etymology of the European word 'Ginseng' is not the standard Mandarin pronunciation 'rénshēn.' The word derives from the dialects of China's southern coastal regions, where European merchants were active in the 17th century. Specifically, it is a transliteration of the Minnan (Hokkien) pronunciation 'jîn-sim' or the Cantonese 'jên shên' into English.
This linguistic path clearly shows the reality of 17th-18th century East-West trade. Ginseng was not first introduced to Europe via the imperial court or scholars in Beijing. It was through contact with southern merchants active in trade ports like Canton or Fujian, or in Japan, via ships of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) or the British East India Company (EIC). Therefore, the name imprinted in European records was not the scholar's 'rénshēn' but the port merchant's 'jîn-sim.' This proves that the early global trade route remains fossilized within the word 'Ginseng.'
1.3. Western Naming (2): 'Panax' - Taxonomic Translation and Misunderstanding
The genus name for ginseng, Panax, was given by the 18th-century Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus. The name is a composite of the Greek 'Pan,' meaning 'all,' and 'Axos,' meaning 'medicine' or 'cure.' Thus, Panax means 'all-heal,' sharing the same etymological root as the English word 'Panacea.'
The process by which Linnaeus assigned this name reveals the attitude of Western science during the 18th-century Enlightenment. Linnaeus did not study the clinical efficacy of ginseng directly. Instead, he designated this genus name based on reports that ginseng was widely used as a 'panacea' in East Asian (particularly Chinese) medicine. In essence, he translated the Eastern concept of 'healing all ailments' into the Western classical term 'Panacea' and applied it to his scientific classification system.
This naming reveals a facet of 'intellectual imperialism.' This act of incorporating another civilization's complex medical concept into his own classification system paradoxically provided the pretext for ginseng's later dismissal by the Western medical community. In the late 18th century, as Western medicine moved toward a 'single compound-single disease' model following the Chemical Revolution, the very concept of a 'Panacea' was dismissed as an unscientific 'myth' or 'fraud.' Ultimately, the name 'all-heal' that Linnaeus bestowed, far from guaranteeing ginseng's scientific credibility, became a handicap that ironically accelerated its removal from Western pharmacopoeias.
1.4. The Botanical Chronology of a Scientific Name: Panax ginseng C.A. Meyer
The 18th-century European botanical community displayed a paradoxical sequence in classifying ginseng. It was not the 'original' Asian ginseng, used for millennia, that was first classified, but the 'newly discovered' North American ginseng.
1753 (Linnaeus): Linnaeus officially registered American ginseng, discovered in Montreal, Canada, with the specific name Panax quinquefolius (the five-leaved all-heal).
1833 (Nees): The German botanist Christian Gottfried Daniel Nees von Esenbeck named the Asian species Panax schinseng. This was an attempt to transliterate the Chinese pronunciation of ginseng, but it remained taxonomically unstable.
1843 (Meyer): This confusion was ended by the prominent Russian botanist Carl Anton von Meyer. Based on specimens collected in Russia, he finalized the name of Asian ginseng as Panax ginseng. The nominator's name 'C.A. Meyer' was attached, completing the current scientific name: Panax ginseng C.A. Meyer.
This process of establishing the scientific name reflects the geographical and political dynamics of the time. Why was it not Linnaeus of Sweden or Nees of Germany, but Meyer of Russia, who completed the classification of Asian ginseng? The answer lies in the plant's recorded habitat. The native habitat of P. ginseng includes not only Korea, China, and Japan, but also 'Russia.' As the Russian Empire expanded into Siberia and the Far East in the 19th century, it became geographically adjacent to Manchuria and Primorsky Krai, the core homelands of ginseng. Therefore, Meyer had far easier access to accurate specimens of Asian ginseng than other European botanists, which was the decisive background that allowed him to resolve the confusion of Linnaeus and Nees and draw a final taxonomic conclusion.
The table below compares the major species of the Panax genus in terms of taxonomy, morphology, and chemical components.
Table 1: Comparative Taxonomy of Major Panax Genus Species
II. Between Myth and Medicine: Ginseng in Ancient East Asia
In ancient East Asia, ginseng was not just a medicinal herb; it reigned as a superior medicine (Sangsangpum) that governed life and as a mythical elixir (Yeongyak). Its status was systematically recorded in medical texts, and debates over its origin continue to this day.
2.1. The Status of Ginseng in Medical Literature
China:
Records of ginseng's medicinal effects begin with the legendary ancient Chinese medical text Shennong Ben Cao Jing (Divine Farmer's Materia Medica). In this book, ginseng was classified as a superior medicine that protects the five viscera (organs), calms the spirit, and, when taken for a long time, lightens the body and lengthens life. This perception was further systemized in the Bencao Gangmu (Compendium of Materia Medica), which Li Shizhen of the Ming Dynasty compiled over 30 years from over 800 materia medica texts. The Bencao Gangmu records that ginseng "supplements the primordial qi (yuanqi), lubricates the source of water (source of life), and generates kidney essence (shenjing)," defining ginseng as a medicine that governs the fundamentals of life activities.
Korea:
The medical understanding of ginseng reached its peak in the Joseon Dynasty's Dongui Bogam by Heo Jun. Heo Jun recorded that ginseng "fills what is lacking in qi (Bogi), calms the spirit (An-jeongshin), brightens the eyes, and opens the heart to improve memory (Gaesim-ikji)." This perceived ginseng not merely as a fatigue reliever or restorative but as a holistic medicine that governs both the tangible elements (Qi) and intangible elements (Spirit, Heart) of the human body.
The prescription principles of the Dongui Bogam show a deep understanding of ginseng use. According to one source, the Dongui Bogam did not limit ginseng to specific body types but showed flexibility in prescribing it in combination with other herbs based on the patient's 'symptoms.' This differs from the Sasang (Four-type) medicine, later founded by Yi Je-ma, which designated ginseng as a core medicine for the So-eum (Lesser Yin) type. This shows that clinical interpretations of ginseng evolved within Korean medicine according to the era and school of thought.
Furthermore, while ginseng was used in Danbang (single-ingredient prescriptions) in the Dongui Bogam, it was overwhelmingly used as the 'sovereign herb (Gun-yak, the core ingredient of a prescription)' in thousands of formulas. In numerous prescriptions like 'Insam-san' (Ginseng Powder), 'Insam-gobon-hwan' (Ginseng-Consolidating-Pill), and 'Saengmaek-san' (Pulse-Engendering Powder) (a mix of ginseng, ophiopogon, and schisandra), ginseng played a pivotal role in harmonizing the effects of other herbs and maximizing the prescription's overall efficacy.
2.2. Re-examining the Origin: Shangdang or the Korean Peninsula
The discourse on ginseng's origin has long relied on a China-centric common theory.
Traditional China-Centric Theory:
According to the common theory, the origin of ginseng is the Shangdang region of China's Shanxi Province, and it first appeared in literature in the 1st century BCE during the Han Dynasty. This claim was academically consolidated by the voluminous Insam-sa (History of Ginseng) written by Imamura Tomo, an official of the Japanese Government-General of Korea during the colonial period.
Korean Peninsula/Manchuria Origin Theory (Counterargument):
However, research by Korean academics (such as Yang Jung-pil and Yeo In-seok) since the 2000s criticizes Imamura's claim as having critical limitations and logical contradictions. Imamura's research intentionally limited the origin of ginseng to 'China,' thereby excluding the independent origin of ginseng produced in the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria from the discussion.
The core evidence for the counterargument is as follows:
Historical Contradiction: If ginseng had been growing wild for thousands of years in Shangdang, one of the centers of ancient Chinese civilization, why did it 'suddenly' appear in literature in the 1st century BCE?
Geographical Inflow Theory: This 'sudden appearance' is more rationally explained as ginseng being first discovered and used by the indigenous peoples of the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria, and then flowing into China as part of Korean culture around the 1st century BCE, when the Han Commanderies were established.
Linguistic Evidence: As analyzed earlier (in 1.1), the phenomenon of using more than six different "borrowing-sound characters" (hanja) to transcribe the native Korean sound 'Shim' strongly supports that the concept of ginseng existed first within the unique culture of the Korean Peninsula/Manchuria, not in the Chinese language.
The 'origin debate' over ginseng is not a simple ethnobotanical argument. It is a head-on collision between colonialist historiography and post-colonialist historiography. The research by Imamura Tomo, a Japanese official during the colonial period, which attributed the origin of 'Joseon Ginseng' to China instead of Joseon, can be interpreted as part of a colonial historical perspective that sought to devalue the cultural pride and uniqueness of the Korean people, represented by 'Goryeo Insam,' and to justify colonial rule. Therefore, the research by modern Korean academia represents a post-colonial scholarly practice aimed at overcoming the colonial view and academically re-establishing the cultural identity as the 'home of ginseng.'
III. The Engine of the State: Ginseng in the Goryeo and Joseon Dynasties
In the medieval and early modern history of East Asia, ginseng transcended its role as a simple medicine to become a core 'strategic commodity' that propped up royal economies and defined diplomatic relations.
3.1. The Establishment of the 'Goryeo Insam' Brand and Trade
Ginseng produced on the Korean Peninsula was renowned for its exceptional medicinal properties since ancient times. From the Gojoseon and Three Kingdoms periods, ginseng functioned as the 'number one item of trade.' The Samguk Sagi (History of the Three Kingdoms) contains records of Silla sending ginseng as a primary gift (tribute) when dispatching envoys to Tang China in the 7th century, proving that even then, ginseng was the premier specialty product representing the Korean Peninsula.
This reputation was solidified under the name 'Goryeo' into the unrivaled brand of 'Goryeo Insam' (Korean Ginseng). Goryeo Insam was a key trade item with the Song and Yuan dynasties and became synonymous with the highest-efficacy ginseng across East Asia, beyond China and Japan. This reputation continues to this day, serving as the unique identity that distinguishes Korean-produced ginseng (Panax ginseng C.A. Meyer) from ginseng from other regions (such as American or Sanchi ginseng).
3.2. The Core of Tribute Diplomacy: Joseon and Ming's Ginseng Presentation
Upon entering the Joseon Dynasty, ginseng's strategic value became even more critical. Particularly in the sadae (serving the great) relationship with Ming China, ginseng was not just a trade good but the 'number one tributary gift,' forming the basis of diplomatic relations.
The ginseng Joseon presented to the Ming emperor was more than a ritualistic and symbolic act between nations. It was a key means of solidifying diplomatic ties while simultaneously imprinting Joseon's medical and cultural status upon Ming by offering 'Joseon's finest medicinal herb.'
In this process, the change in ginseng processing methods shows a significant diplomatic and technological turning point.
Early Period (Baeksam, White Ginseng): Since the beginning of the dynasty, Joseon sent 'Baeksam' (White Ginseng), which was dried after peeling its skin, as a tributary gift.
1602 (Chosam, Grass Ginseng): The Ming side requested 'Chosam' (Grass Ginseng), the unprocessed, natural form with the skin intact. This was a result of demand from Chinese civil society, which preferred the unprocessed form, being reflected in the imperial court's request.
1611 (Pasam, Bundled Ginseng): However, raw ginseng (Baeksam, Chosam) had a fatal weakness in long-distance transport and long-term storage. In response, the Joseon court (under King Gwanghaegun) strongly petitioned the Ming Dynasty and received permission to change the tributary gift to 'Pasam' (Bundled Ginseng), a form that was 'boiled and dried.'
The change to 'Pasam' was not a simple working-level agreement. It was a momentous event where the development of processing technology—the prototype for today's 'Hongsam' (Red Ginseng) manufacturing method—combined with the practical goal of increasing ginseng's preservation and enhancing its efficacy, ultimately changing the most rigid diplomatic ritual of 'tribute.'
3.3. Depletion and Innovation: The Birth of Cultivation Technology
The state's immense demand for tribute and the reckless harvesting by merchants seeking illicit trade led to a severe ecological crisis. Around the 17th century, Joseon's wild ginseng (sansam) was rapidly depleted and faced extinction.
This 'crisis' gave birth to 'innovation.' As wild ginseng became unattainable, attempts by 'sam-eopin' (ginseng specialists) in the private sector to collect ginseng seeds and artificially cultivate them in mountains or fields emerged. This was the beginning of the ginseng cultivation technology known as 'gasam' (home-grown ginseng) or 'sampo' (ginseng fields).
This technological innovation was led not by the state, but by the experience and efforts of the private sector. The cultivation method, which began in the early 18th century, became widespread by the mid-to-late 18th century. However, for this innovation to lead to 'industrialization,' a crucial element was needed: 'capital.'
Ginseng is a high-risk, long-term investment product requiring at least 5-6 years from sowing to harvest. The only group capable of handling the capital investment during this period was the 'Gaeseong Merchants' (Songsang). The industrialization of ginseng in the late Joseon period was the product of a clear causal relationship: [Excessive state demand (tribute) → Ecological crisis (wild ginseng depletion) → Private-sector technological innovation (invention of cultivation) → Combination with commercial capital (Gaeseong Merchants)]. This is evaluated as one of the most symbolic examples of the 'sprouts of capitalism' in the late Joseon period.
IV. The Birth of a Global Commodity: Ginseng in 17th-18th Century World History
At the height of the 17th-century 'Age of Discovery,' ginseng left its East Asian cradle and emerged as a key commodity in the vast global trade network connecting Europe and the Americas. This process simultaneously illustrates the transmission of knowledge, commercial fervor, and a clash of civilizations.
4.1. The First Wave to the West: The Introduction of Asian Ginseng
The first official record of Goryeo Insam (Korean Ginseng) appearing in Western literature dates back to 1617. Richard Cocks, the head of the British East India Company (EIC) factory in Hirado, Japan, reported in a dispatch to the London headquarters that he was sending "good roots from Korea."
This record shows that ginseng, along with coffee, sugarcane, and cotton, occupied a central place in the early global trade network of the 17th century. Cocks praised these roots, saying they were "considered the most precious medicine and enough to raise the dead," which shows how Westerners at the time perceived ginseng as a mystical elixir from the Orient. This report also testifies to the complex trade network of the time—[Korea (production) → Japan (intermediary trade) → London (consumption/distribution)]—and the existence of the long-distance voyage around the Cape of Good Hope.
By the end of the 17th century, this commercial interest exploded into intellectual interest. The French Jesuit missionary Louis Daniel Le Comte, in his memoirs published in 1696, introduced ginseng in detail as China's panacea. This report caused a great sensation in European intellectual society. Ginseng was introduced in the inaugural 1665 issue of the Royal Society's The Philosophical Transactions, and the greatest minds of the era, such as philosophers John Locke and Leibniz, discussed ginseng's efficacy in their correspondence.
4.2. The Second Wave: The 'Discovery' of American Ginseng and the Triangular Trade
The explosive interest in Europe led to a sharp rise in the price of Asian ginseng, which in turn led to efforts to find a substitute. In this process, 'knowledge' of Asia became the decisive catalyst that triggered 'discovery' on the American continent.
Transmission of Knowledge: Pierre Jartoux, a Jesuit missionary dispatched to Asia, wrote a very detailed botanical report on Manchurian ginseng and sent it to Europe.
A Fateful Discovery (1716): Joseph François Lafitau, another Jesuit missionary stationed in Montreal, Canada, happened to read Jartoux's report. He realized that the plant described in the report was nearly identical to a plant he had seen among the indigenous Iroquois people of Canada. In 1716, he 'discovered' North American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) and reported it to the European academic community.
The 'discovery' of American ginseng was not an accident. It was an inevitable event sparked by 'knowledge' of Asian ginseng combined with economic 'demand.' And this 'discovery' immediately changed the landscape of the 18th-century global economy.
At the time, Great Britain and the newly independent United States were importing vast amounts of tea from China but suffered from a severe trade deficit and outflow of silver because they had no commodity to sell back to China. American ginseng emerged as the only alternative to resolve this massive trade imbalance. American ginseng was sold at high prices in the Chinese market as a substitute for Asian ginseng. Even President George Washington noted the ginseng trade in his diary in 1784; the export of American ginseng was a core, currency-earning industry that supported the early American economy post-independence.
This signified the birth of a new 'Ginseng Triangular Trade' linking [America (production) → China (consumption) → Europe (tea import)], establishing ginseng as a true global commodity connecting three continents.
4.3. Confusion, Distortion, and Devaluation
However, this global commercialization of ginseng paradoxically led to ginseng's 'scientific failure' in the Western medical establishment.
Botanical and Chemical Differences:
Although Asian ginseng (P. ginseng) and American ginseng (P. quinquefolius) belong to the same Panax genus, they are botanically distinct species. The most crucial difference lies in the total amount and composition ratio of their key pharmacological components, ginsenosides (saponins). According to one source, Korean ginseng contains about 38 types of ginsenosides, whereas American ginseng has 19 types and Sanchi ginseng has 29 types.
Commercial Conflation and Confusion:
For the sake of immense commercial profit, 18th-century merchants and even some medical practitioners intentionally treated these two botanically and pharmacologically distinct species as the 'same plant' or as having 'identical efficacy.' William Lewis, a Materia Medica author of the time, even recorded that "no difference was observed, either externally or in the internal qualities" between American ginseng and Nanking (Chinese) ginseng.
Clash with the Scientific Revolution and Expulsion:
This commercial confusion, combined with the shifting scientific paradigm in late 18th-century Europe, led to fatal consequences.
Paradigm Clash: Following the 17th-century Scientific Revolution, 18th-century Western science, represented by Lavoisier's chemical revolution and Linnaeus's taxonomy, rejected the vague concept of a 'Panax' (all-heal). They pursued an analytical, reductionist approach that sought to reduce medicinal effects to 'single compounds.'
Clinical Failure: While ginseng was used in Eastern medicine as a complex 'adaptogen' to boost 'primordial qi,' Western doctors tried to use it as a 'cure' for specific diseases like asthma, stomach ailments, and even venereal disease. When it failed to show consistent efficacy across various diseases, ginseng's medicinal effect was deemed 'uncertain.'
Collapse of Credibility: The pharmacological complexity of ginseng (dozens of types of ginsenosides) was far beyond the analytical limits of 18th-century science. The Western medical community failed to understand ginseng's complex mechanisms. Compounding this, cheap American ginseng was confused with 'genuine' Asian ginseng and circulated like a 'placebo,' causing ginseng's overall credibility to plummet to an irrecoverable level.
Ultimately, by the end of the 18th century, ginseng—which had once fascinated European intellectuals—was officially expelled from major Western pharmacopoeias, classified as a 'mysterious Eastern herb with unproven efficacy.'
V. The Multilayered Implications of Ginseng's World History
This report has analyzed the multi-layered history of ginseng (人蔘, Panax ginseng C.A. Meyer), showing how it transcended being a simple medicinal plant to drive East Asian medicine, economy, diplomacy, and technological innovation for thousands of years. Furthermore, it has examined how, from the 17th century onward, it functioned as a true 'global commodity' connecting Europe and the Americas.
First, in etymology and naming, ginseng reveals three cultural strata. The East Asian 'Insam' (人蔘) reflects a medico-philosophical worldview where form implies function. 'Ginseng' reflects the 17th-century commercial exchange via southern coastal routes. And 'Panax' reflects the 18th-century European Enlightenment's scientific paradigm, which sought to translate (or mis-translate) the knowledge of other civilizations into its own classification system.
Second, in East Asian history, ginseng was intimately linked with the rise and fall of nations. The native Korean word 'Shim' and the 'Korean Peninsula/Manchuria origin theory' suggest ginseng's cultural distinctiveness. Furthermore, the establishment of the 'Goryeo Insam' brand, its diplomatic role as the number one tributary item to Ming China during the Joseon Dynasty, and the process where the ecological crisis of 'wild ginseng depletion' (caused by the tribute burden) met the private-sector innovation of 'cultivated ginseng' (gasam) and the commercial capital of 'Gaeseong Merchants' to create the ginseng industry, is a dynamic history of crisis and innovation intersecting.
Third, in global exchange history, ginseng is a key indicator of the formation of the modern world system. The 1617 report from the British East India Company proves ginseng's incorporation into the early global network. Moreover, 'knowledge' of Asian ginseng triggered the 'discovery' of P. quinquefolius in the Americas, which in turn became an economic weapon for the fledgling United States to resolve its 'tea trade deficit' with China.
Finally, the expulsion of ginseng from the Western medical establishment in the late 18th century shows the irony of how ginseng's 'global commercialization' paradoxically thwarted its 'medical globalization.' The commercial confusion between Asian and American ginseng, and the plant's pharmacological complexity (dozens of ginsenoside types), were phenomena that the reductionist scientific paradigm of the 18th-century West could not interpret.
In conclusion, ginseng's history began as a mystical Eastern elixir, evolved into a strategic material for state diplomacy, and became a driving force for private-sector industrialization. It further became a global commodity linking three continents, only to suffer the misfortune of being excluded from mainstream Western medicine due to a clash of civilizational and scientific paradigms. The current phenomenon of modern medicine and biotechnology revisiting ginseng's complex mechanisms (as an adaptogen) signifies that the true meeting of Eastern and Western medicine, which was frustrated in the 18th century, is now being attempted on a new level.
Works Cited
https://www.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2000/04/05/2000040570408.html
http://www.iksaeng.com/role_prescription/prescription_dong.jsp?part=lett&no=H&order=8
http://www.iksaeng.com/prescription/predong_One.jsp?prescription=h29u39hy
https://www.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2008/11/11/2008111101472.html
https://scispace.com/pdf/louis-xiv-s-ginseng-shaping-of-knowledge-on-an-herbal-19vhd2ig2g.pdf
http://www.iksaeng.com/prescription/predong_One.jsp?prescription=k1lf2rzn
http://www.lampcook.com/food_story/ginseng1_story_view.php?idx_no=1-3
https://www.lanternreview.com/blog/2012/06/07/panax-ginseng-the-shallow-underworld-of-this-history/
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/536f/0c46c1651c03f30167022d944c658d169856.pdf
https://www.huh.harvard.edu/book/icones-plantarum-medicinalium-1790
http://www.huarenworldnet.org/members-contribution/ginseng--us-commerce
https://festival.si.edu/blog/mysterious-medicinal-economic-powers-american-ginseng
https://www.overlandparkacupuncturist.com/ginseng-natural-treatment/
Comments