Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anthropological perspective of ethnobotany in the Greater Southwest

  • Published:
Economic Botany Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

During the formative period of ethnobotanical studies in the Southwest, Edward Palmer established a standard for reporting useful plants that continues today and Frank. H. Cushing wrote a classic ethnobotany from an anthropological perspective,Z uni Breadstuff. Since these beginnings single tribal studies and, more recently, archaeobotanical investigations have received emphasis. Linguistic studies of plant names and their classification have lagged and synthetic summaries and interpretative explanations of plant use are still demanded. Anthropology’s unique contribution to Southwestern ethnobotany is relating socially shared plant taxonomies and cultural rules for behaving with plants to explain why certain plants are used and others are ignored.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Alexander, H. G., and P. Reiter. 1935. Report on the Excavation of Jemez Cave, New Mexico. School Amer. Res. Monogr. 4, Santa Fe, NM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E., and H. C. Cutler. 1942. Races ofZea mays I: their recognition and classification. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 29: 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and F. D. Blanchard. 1942. Prehistoric maize from Canon del Muerto. Amer. J. Bot. 29: 832–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, F. L. 1940. Navajo foods and cooking methods. Amer. Anthropol., n.s. 42: 270–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, D. P. 1900. The Ethno-Botany of the Coahuilla Indians of Southern California. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, W. H., and E. F. Castetter. 1937. The utilization of mesquite and screwbean by the aborigines in the American Southwest. Ethnobiol. Studies Amer. Southwest V. Univ. New Mexico Bull. 314, Biol. Ser. 5: 3–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1941. The utilization of yucca, sotol and beargrass by the aborigines in the American Southwest. Ethnobiol. Studies Amer. Southwest VII. Univ. New Mexico, Bull. 372, Biol. Ser. 5: 1–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, B., D. E. Breedlove, and P. H. Raven. 1974. Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, M. S. 1982. Time, Space, and Transition in Anasazi Prehistory. Univ. Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohrer, V. L. 1957. Chinchweed(Pectis papposa), a Zuni herb. El Palacio 64: 365.

    Google Scholar 

  • -. 1968. Paleoecology of an Archaeoological Site Near Snowflake, Arizona. Ph.D. Diss., Dept. Biol. Sci., Univ. Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

  • — 1970. Ethnobotanical aspects of Snaketown, a Hohokam village in Southern Arizona. Amer. Antiquity 35: 413–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourke, J. G. 1892. The medicine men of the Apache. U.S. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Annual Rep. 9: 451–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, K. 1941. Pre-Columbian agriculture in the Southwest, as conditioned by periods of alluviation. Annals Assoc. Amer. Geogr. 31: 219–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bye, R. A. 1972. Ethnobotany of the Southern Paiute Indians in the 1870’s; with a note on the early ethnobotanical collections of Dr. Edward Palmer.In D. D. Fowler, ed, Great Basin Cultural Ecology, a Symposium. Desert Res. Inst. Publ. Soc. Sci. 8: 87–104.

  • -. 1976. Ethnoecology of the Tarahumara of Chihuahua, Mexico. Ph.D. Diss., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA.

  • — 1979. Incipient domestication of mustards in northwest Mexico. Kiva 44: 237–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, G. F. 1945. Plant geography and culture history in the American Southwest. Viking Fund Pub. Anthropol. 5. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, and E. Anderson. 1945. A preliminary survey of maize in the Southwestern United States. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 32: 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castetter, E. F. 1935. Uncultivated native plants used as sources of food. Ethnobiological Studies in the American Southwest I., Univ. New Mexico Bull. 166, Biol. Ser. 4: 1–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1944. The domain of ethnobiology. Amer. Naturalist 78: 158–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —, and W. H. Bell. 1942. Pima and Papago Indian Agriculture. Univ. New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, and W. H. Bell. 1951. Yuman Indian Agriculture, Primitive Subsistence on the Lower Colorado and Gila Rivers. Univ. New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, and M. E. Opler. 1936. The ethnobiology of Chiricahua and Mescalero Apache. Ethnobiological Studies in the American Southwest III, Univ. New Mexico Bull. No. 297, Biol. Ser. 4: 3–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, and R. M. Underhill. 1953. The ethnobiology of the Papago Indians. Ethnobiological Studies in the American Southwest II. Univ. New Mexico Bull. No. 275, Biol. Ser. 4: 1–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, W. H. Bell, and A. R. Grove. 1938. The early utilization and the distribution ofAgave in the American Southwest. Ethnobiol. Studies Amer. Southwest VI. Univ. New Mexico, Bull. 335, Biol. Ser. 5: 3–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • -. n.d. Pueblo agriculture. Notes on file in the Ethnobotanical Laboratory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

  • Cook, S. L. 1930. The Ethnobotany of the Jemez Indians. Univ. New Mexico, M.A. Thesis, Albuquerque, NM.

  • Cushing, F. H. 1920. Zuni Breadstuff. Mus. Amer. Indian, Heye Foundation, New York. Indian Notes and Monogr. 8: 1–673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, H. C. 1952. A preliminary survey of plant remains of Tularosa Cave.In P. S. Martin, J. B. Rinaldo, E. Bluhm, H. C. Cutler, and R. Grange, Mogollon Cultural Continuity and Change. Fieldiana: Anthropology 40: 461–479.

  • —, and T. H. Whitaker. 1961. History and distribution of the cultivated cucurbits in the Americas. Amer. Antiquity 26: 469–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fewkes, J. W. 1896. A contribution to ethnobotany. Amer. Anthropol. 9: 14–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonner, R. L. 1957. Mammal feces from Danger Cave.In J. D. Jennings, Danger Cave. Mem. Soc. Amer. Archaeol. 14: 303.

  • Ford, R. I. 1968. An Ecological Analysis Involving the Population of San Juan Pueblo, New Mexico. Ph.D. Diss., Dept. Anthropol., Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

  • — 1981. Gardening and farming before A.D. 1000: Patterns of prehistoric cultivation north of Mexico. J. Ethnobiol. 1: 6–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harshberger, J. W. 1896. Purposes of ethnobotany. Bot. Gaz. 21: 146–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havard, V. 1881. Sotol. Amer. Naturalist 15: 873–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1884. The mezquit. Amer. Naturalist 18: 451–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heiser, C. B. 1948. Taxonomic and cytological notes on the annual species ofHelianthus. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club. 95: 512–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hough, W. 1897. The Hopi in relation to their plant environment. Amer. Anthropol., o.s. 10: 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1898. Environmental interrelations in Arizona. Amer. Anthropol., o.s. 11: 133–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, V. H. 1931. The Ethnobotany of the Isleta Indians. M.A. Thesis, Univ. New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.

  • — 1938. An ancient food plant of the Southwest and plateau regions. El Palacio 44: 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1941. The nature and status of ethnobotany. Chron. Bot. 6: 219–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1948. A new and unusual Navajo dye(Endothia singularis). Plateau 21: 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • -. 1954. Report Number: 339.In M. F. Lambert, Paa-ko, Archaeological chronicle of an Indian village in north central New Mexico. School Amer. Res. Monogr. 19: 162–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • -, and R. L. Fonner. 1954. Plant materials from sites in the Durango and LaPlata areas, Colorado.In E. H. Morris and R. F. Burgh, Basket Maker II Sites Near Durango, Colorado. Publ. Carnegie Inst. Wash. 604: 93–115.

  • —, and E. A. Morris. 1960. A seventh-century record of tobacco utilization in Arizona. El Palacio 67: 115–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, L. 1956. The cultivated beans of the prehistoric Southwest. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 43: 189–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent, K. P. 1957. The cultivation and weaving of cotton in the prehistoric Southwestern United States. Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc, n.s. 47: 457–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidder, A. V., and S. J. Guernsey. 1919. Archaeological Explorations in Northeastern Arizona. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 65, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroskrity, P. V. 1978. Inferences from Spanish loanwords in Arizona Tewa. Anthropol. Linguistics 20: 340–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumholtz, C. 1902. Unknown Mexico. Vol. 1. Scribner’s, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangelsdorf, P. C., and R. G. Reeves. 1939. The Origin of Indian Com and Its Relatives. Texas Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 574., College Station, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, and C. E. Smith, Jr. 1949. New archaeological evidence of evolution in maize. Bot. Mus. Leafl., Harvard Univ. 13: 213–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P. S., and F. W. Sharrock. 1964. Pollen analysis of prehistoric human feces, a new approach to ethnobotany. Amer. Antiquity 30: 168–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • -. 1967. Pollen analysis of prehistoric middens near Ft. Sumner, New Mexico.In A. J. Jelinek, A Prehistoric Sequence in the Middle Pecos Valley, New Mexico. Anthropol. Papers, Mus. Anthropol. Univ. Michigan 31: 130–134.

  • Mathiot, M. 1962. Noun classes and folk taxonomy in Papago. Amer. Anthropol. 62: 340–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, W. 1886. Navajo names for plants. Amer. Naturalist 20: 767–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • -. 1891. Navajo dye stuff. Smithsonian Inst. Annual Rep. 1890–1891: 613–615.

  • Morris, E. H. 1939. Archaeological Sites in the LaPlata District, Southwestern Colorado and Northwestern New Mexico. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. 519, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nabhan, G. P. 1982. The Desert Smells like Rain. North Point Press, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, E. 1871. Food products of the North American Indians. USDA Annual Rep. 1870: 404–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perchonock, N., and O. Werner. 1969. Navaho systems of classification: some implications for ethnoscience. Ethnology 8: 229–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilcher, W. W. 1967. Some comments on the folk taxonomy of the Papago. Amer. Anthropol. 67: 204–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powers, S. 1874. Aboriginal botany. Proc. California Acad. Sci. 5: 392–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1877. Tribes of California. Contr. N. Amer. Ethnol. 3: 1–635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, W. W., J. P. Harrington, and B. Freire-Marreco. 1916. Ethnobotany of the Tewa Indians. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 55, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauer, J. D. 1950. The grain amaranths: a survey of their history and classification. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 37: 561–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1951. Amaranths as dye plants among the Pueblo peoples. Southwestern Anthropol. 6:412–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenwetter, J., and F. W. Eddy. 1964. Alluvial and palynological reconstruction of environments, Navajo Reservoir District. Mus. New Mexico, Papers Anthropol. No. 13. Santa Fe, NM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaul, D. L. 1983. Linguistic models of Pueblo prehistory. Paper, Xlth Int. Congr. Anthropol. Ethnol. Sci., Vancouver, BC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, M. C. 1915. Ethnobotany of the Zuni Indians. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Annual Rep. 30: 31–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swank, G. R. 1932. Ethnobotany of the Acoma and Laguna Indians. M.A. Thesis, Univ. New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.

  • Trager, G. 1939. “Cottonwood-tree,” a Southwestern linguistic trait. Int. J. Amer. Linguistics 9: 117–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vestal, P. A. 1940. Notes on a collection of plants from the Hopi Indian region of Arizona made by J. G. Owens in 1891. Bot Mus. Lean. Harvard Univ. 8: 153–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1952. Ethnobotany of the Ramah Navaho. Papers, Peabody Mus. Amer. Archaeol. Ethnol. Harvard Univ. 40: 1–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. B. 1943. How the Hopi classify their food. Plateau 15: 49–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiting, A. F. 1936. Hopi Indian agriculture I: Background. Mus. Northern Arizona, Museum Notes 8: 51–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1937. Hopi Indian agriculture II: Seed source and distribution. Mus. Northern Arizona, Museum Notes 10: 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1939. Ethnobotany of the Hopi. Mus. Northern Arizona Bull. 15, Flagstaff, AZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1966. The present status of ethnobotany in the Southwest. Econ. Bot. 20: 316–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarnell, R. A. 1959. Prehistoric pueblo use ofDatura. El Palacio 66: 176–178.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ethnobotanical Laboratory, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, 48109, Ann Arbor, MI

    Richard I. Ford

Authors
  1. Richard I. Ford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ford, R.I. Anthropological perspective of ethnobotany in the Greater Southwest. Econ Bot 39, 400–415 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02858747

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02858747

Keywords

Search

Navigation