Economic Botany

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 261–272 | Cite as

Phaseolus (Fabaceae) in Archaeology: AMS

  • Lawrence Kaplan
  • Thomas F. Lynch
Article

Abstract

Beans of several species were domesticated in tropical America thousands of years ago, to be combined with maize and other crops in highly successful New World agricultural systems. Radiocarbon dates on charcoal associated with Phaseolus in archaeological sites, in Mexico and Peru indicated the presence of domesticated beans as early as 10 000 years ago. However, direct dates on the beans and pods themselves by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) do not provide evidence for the cultivation in Mexico of common beans, P. vulgaris, and teparies, P. acutifolius, before about 2500 B.P. in the Tehuacán Valley, and of common beans about 1300 years ago in Tamaulipas and 2100 years ago in the Valley of Oaxaca. AMS dates support the presence in the Peruvian Andes of domesticated common beans by about 4400 B.P. and lima beans by about 3500 B. P. and lima beans by about 5600 B.P. in the coastal valleys of Peru. The late appearance of common and lima beans in the Central Highlands of Mesoamerica supports the importance of missing evidence that may be obtained from prehistoric agricultural sites in western Mexico and in Central America which are located within the range of the wild populations of these species. Additionally, biochemical studies of subsamples of the dated specimens should be carried out in order to extend the molecular evidence for the independent domestication of North and South American common beans.

Key Words

Bean Phaseolus radiocarbon dates AMS pre-Columbian agriculture paleoethnobotany 

Phaseolus en la Arqueologia: Nuevas Fechas Radiocarbonicas (AMS) y lo que Significan Para la Agricultura Precolombiana

Resumen

Hace miles de anos atrds, varias especies de frijoles se domesticaron en el trópico americano. Se combinaron con el maíz y otras plantas en un sistema de agricultura muy exitoso y particular al Nuevo Mundo. Las fechas radiocarbónicas, extraídos de muestras de carbín de madera, asociado con Phaseolus en locales arqueológicos en México y el Perú, señalaron el cultivo de frijoles domesticados hace 10 000 años. Sin embargo, mediciones directas tomadas en los frijoles y vainas, usando el acelerador atómico (AMS), no dan evidencia del cultivo del fríjol común (P. vulgaris) y teparies (P. acutifolius) en México antes de 2500 años a.p. en el Valle de Tehuacán, y del fríjol común antes de alrededor de 1300 años a.p. en Tamaulipas y antes de 2100 años a.p. en el Valle de Oaxaca. Otras mediciones directas (tomadas con el AMS) apoyan la presencia de los frijoles domesticados en los Andes de Perú alrededor de 4400 a.p. en la sierra del Perú, y las habas de lima cerca de 3500 a.p., y las habas de lima alrededor de 5600 b.p. en los valles costales del Perú. La llegada tardia del frijol común y habas de lima en la Sierra Central de Mesoamérica apoya la importancia de cualquier evidencia que se pudiera obtener de locales agricultural s prehistóricos en la parte oeste de México y en América Central, los quales estan localizados dentro de la distribución de las poblaciones genéticas silvestres de estas especies. En adición, estudios bioquimicos de muestras subsidiarias de los espécimenes fechados se deberia hacer para extender la evidencia molecular para la domesticación independiente de estas cultivos en America del Norte o del Sur.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Bonavia, D. 1982. Los Gavilanes. Editorial Ausonia Talleres Gráficos, S.A., Lima.Google Scholar
  2. Brooks, R. H., L. Kaplan, H. C. Cutler, and T. H. Whitaker, 1962. Plant material from a cave on the Rio Zape, Durango, Mexico. American Antiquity 27:356–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Byers, D. S., ed. 1967. The prehistory of the Tehuacán Valley. Environment and subsistence. Vol. 1. Univ. of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  4. Candolle, A. de. 1964. Origin of cultivated plants. 2nd edition orginally published 1886. Reprint, 2nd printing by Hafner Publishing Co., New York.Google Scholar
  5. Debouck, D. G., O. Toro, O. M. Paredes, W. C. Johnson, and P. Gepts. 1993. Genetic diversity and ecological distribution ofPhaseolus vulgaris (Fabaceae) in northwestern South America. Economic Botany 47:408–423.Google Scholar
  6. —,J. H. Liñan Jara, A. Campana Sierra, and J. H.de la CruzRojas. 1987. Observations on the domestication ofPhaseolus lunatus L. FAO/ IB.P.GR Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 70: 26–32.Google Scholar
  7. Engel, Frederic. 1970. Exploration of Chilca Canyon, Peru. Current Anthropology 11:56–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fritz, G. 1994. Are the first American farmers getting younger? Current Anthropology 35:305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garvin, D. F., and N. F. Weeden. 1994. Isozyme evidence supporting a single geographic origin for domesticated tepary bean. Crop Science 34:1390–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gentry, H. S. 1969. Origin of the common bean,Phaseolus vulgaris. Economic Botany 23:55–69.Google Scholar
  11. Gepts, P., T. C. Osborn, K. Rashka, and F. A. Bliss. 1986. Phaseolin seed proteins variability in wild forms and landraces of the common bean,Phaseolus vulgaris: evidence for multiple centers of domestication. Economic Botany 40:451–468.Google Scholar
  12. Hedrick, U. P. 1931. The Vegetables of New York, Vol. I part II, Beans of New York. New York State Agricultural Station, J.B. Lyon, Albany.Google Scholar
  13. Heiser, C. B. Jr. 1965. Cultivated plants and cultural diffusion in nuclear America. American Anthropologist 67:930–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaplan, L. 1965. Archaeology and domestication inPhaseolus (beans). Economic Botany 19:358–368Google Scholar
  15. — 1967. ArchaeologicalPhaseolus from Tehuacán. Pages 201–211in D. S. Byers, ed., The prehistory of the Tehuacán Valley. Environment and subsistence. Vol. 1. Univ. of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  16. -. 1986. PreceramicPhaseolus from Guilá Naquitz. Pages 281-284in Kent Flannery, ed., Guilá Naquitz, Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. -. 1971. Identificatión de Porotos arqueológicos de Pichasca. Pages 308-309in M. Rivera ed., Nuevos Enfoques de la teoria arqueológica aplicado al Norte Chico. Actos del VI Congreso de Arqueologia Chilena.Google Scholar
  18. — 1980. Chpt. 7, pages 145–148in T. F. Lynch, ed., Guitarrero Cave, Early man in the Andes. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  19. — 1981. What is the origin of the common bean? Economic Botany 35:240–253.Google Scholar
  20. —,T. F. Lynch, and C. E. Smith, Jr. 1973. Early cultivated beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) from an Intermontane Peruvian Valley. Science 179:76–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. —,and L. N. Kaplan. 1988.Phaseolus in Archaeology. Pages 125–143in Paul Gepts, ed., Genetic resources ofPhaseolus beans. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  22. —,and R. S. MacNeish. 1960. Prehistoric bean remains from caves in the Ocampo region of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Botanical Museum Leaflets, Harvard University 19:35–56.Google Scholar
  23. Lackey, J. A. 1977. A revised classification of the tribe Phaseoleae (Leguminosae: Papilionoideae), and its relation to canavanine distribution. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 74:163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. — 1981. Tribe 10. Phaseoleae DC. (1825). Pages 3102–327in R. M. Polhill and P. H. Raven, eds., Advances in legume systematics, Pt 1. Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, UK.Google Scholar
  25. Long, A., B. F. Benz, D. J. Donahue, A. J. T. Jull, and L. J. Toolin. 1989. First Direct AMS dates on Early Maize from Tehuacán, Mexico. Radiocarbon 31:1035–1040.Google Scholar
  26. Lynch, T. F. 1980. Guitarrero Cave, Early man in the Andes. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  27. —,R. Gillespie, J. A. J. Gowlett, and R. E. M. Hedges. 1985. Chronology of Guitarrero Cave, Peru. Science 229:864–867.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacNeish, R. S. 1967. An interdisciplinary approach to an archaeological problem, Chapter 1, pages 14–47in D. S. Byers, ed., The prehistory of the Tehuacán Valley. Environment and subsistence. Vol. 1. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  29. Pratt, R. C., and G. P. Nabhan. 1988. Evolution and diversity ofPhaseolus acutifolius genetic resources. Pages 409–440in Paul Gepts, ed., Genetic resources ofPhaseolus beans. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, B. D. 1995. The emergence of agriculture. Scientific American Library, W. H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  31. — 1997a. The initial domestication ofCucurbita pepo in the Americas 10,000 years ago, Science 276:932–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. — 1997b Reconsidering the Ocampo Caves and the era of incipient cultivation in Mesoamerica. Latin American Antiquity 8:342–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, C. E., Jr. 1986. Preceramic Plant Remains from Guilá Naquitz, Chapter 21, pages 265–274in Kent Flannery, ed., Guilá Naquitz, Academic Press, Inc., Orlando.Google Scholar
  34. Terada, K., and Y. Onuki. 1985. The formative period in the Cajamarca Basin, Peru: excavations at Huacaloma and Layzon, 1982. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  35. Wills, W. H. 1988. Early prehistoric agriculture in the American Southwest. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.Google Scholar
  36. Wintle, A. G. 1996. Archaeologically-relevant dating techniques of the next century. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden Press 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence Kaplan
    • 1
  • Thomas F. Lynch
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of MassachusettsBostonUSA
  2. 2.Brazos Valley Museum of Natural HistoryBryanUSA

Personalised recommendations