Economic Botany

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 358–368 | Cite as

Archeology and domestication in American Phaseolus (Beans)

  • Lawrence Kaplan
Article

Summary

The systematic and economic botany of American beans is discussed. Four species have been important food plants the main dietary role of which has been as a complementary ammo acid source in combination with corn. Beans were prominent among agricultural products cited in tribute lists in pre-Hispanic times.

Some important morphological features distinguishing the domesticates from the wild species are: increase in seed size; decrease in impermeability of seeds to water intake; reduction in fleshiness of the root system and loss of perennialism; reduction in shattering of the pods and violent seed dissemination. For the most part, the archeological materials now available do not document these changes. Excavations in the Pacific highlands and coastal areas of Mexico may be expected to yield transitional bean materials.

Archeological bean distributions do show that, unlike maize, varietal characteristics of beans have remained remarkably stable from their earliest records to their most recent. P. vulgaris, the common bean, was domesticated in Mexico by 7000 years ago; I’. coccineus, the runner bean, by 2200 years ago. P. acutifolius var. latifolius, the tepary, by 5000 years ago; P. lunatus, the sievas, or small Limas by 1400–1800 years ago, the big Limas by 5300 years ago in Peru. The present distribution of the tepary is a much contracted relic one. The tepary has been largely replaced by common beans. This process of replacement continues at the present time. Mexican sievas and Peruvian big Limas are separated throughout their archeological records, a fact that adds weight to the view that these are independently domesticated conspecific geographic races.

In the Tehuacan Valley, some kinds of beans and corn may have been domesticated in association with one another. Elsewhere, early records of corn and beans do not coincide. Although beans are pre-ceramic in the Southwest, Tamaulipas, Tehuacan and Coastal Peru, they did not become abundant in the Southwest and Middle America until agriculture was well established for some time.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albanese, Anthony A. 1959. Protein and amino acid nutrition. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Altschul, Aaron M. 1962. Seed proteins and world food problems. Econ Bot.16: 2–13.Google Scholar
  3. Block, Richard J., and Kathryn W. Weiss. 1956. Amino acid handbook. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, R. H., L. Kaplan, H. C. Cutler, and T. W. Whitaker. 1962. Plant material from a cave on the Rio Zape, Durango, Mexico. Am. Antiquity27: 356–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bukasov, S. M. 1930. Cultivated plants of Mexico, Guatemala, and Colombia. Bull. Appl. Bot. Gen. and Plant. Breeding Suppl.47: 151–176. Leningrad. [Mss. translation by H. J. Kidd.]Google Scholar
  6. Carlson, Roy L. 1963. Basketmaker III sites near Durango, Colorado. The Earl Morris Papers. No. 1. University of Colorado Studies, Series in Anthropology, No. 8, Part LV. Faunal and Floral Remains.Google Scholar
  7. Chatfield, Charlotte, and Georgian Adams. 1940. Proximate composition of American food materials. U. S. Dept. of Agric. Circ. 549.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, James Cooper, Ed. and Trans. 1938. Codex Mendoza, the Mexican Manuscript known as the Collection of Mendoza and preserved in the Bodleian Library Oxford. Three volumes, Waterlow and Sons, Ltd., London.Google Scholar
  9. Cutler, Hugh C., and Thomas J. Whitaker. 1961. History and distribution of the cultivated cucurbits in the Americas. Am. Antiquity26: 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellis, G. P. 1959. The Maillard Reaction. Adv. Carbohydrate Chem.14: 63–134.Google Scholar
  11. Freeman, G. F. 1912. Southwestern beans and teparies. Univ. of Ariz. Agric. Expt. Station, Bull. 68.Google Scholar
  12. Jones, D. B., C. E. F. Gorsdorff, and Sammie Phillips. 1938. Jour, of Biol. Chem.122: 745–755.Google Scholar
  13. Kaplan, L. 1956. The cultivated beans of the prehistoric southwest. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard.43: 189–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaplan, L., and R. S. MacNeish. 1960. Prehistoric bean remains from caves in the Ocampo region of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Bot. Mus. Leafl., Harvard Univ.19(2): 33–56.Google Scholar
  15. Kyle, Jack H., and T. E. Randall. 1963. A new concept of the hard seed character inPhaseolus vulgaris L. and its use in breeding and inheritance studies. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.83: 461–475.Google Scholar
  16. Lowe, Richard T. 1868. A manual flora of Madeira. London.Google Scholar
  17. Mackie, W. W. 1943. Origin, dispersal and variability of the lima bean,Phaseolus lunatus.Hilgardia 15: 1–24.Google Scholar
  18. MacNeish, Richard S. 1962. Second annual report of the Tehuacan Archeological-Botanical project, Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archeology, Andover, Mass.Google Scholar
  19. Mangelsdorf, Paul C., R. S. MacNeish, and Walton C. Galinat. 1964. Domestication of corn. Science.143(3606): 538–545.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin, Paul S., J. B. Rinaldo, E. Bluhm, H. C. Cutler, and R. Grange, Jr. 1952. Mogollon cultural continuity and change. Fieldiana: Anthropology. 40.Google Scholar
  21. Peterson, F. A. 1962. Ancient Mexico, Capricorn Books Edition, Great Britain.Google Scholar
  22. Piper, C. V. 1926. Studies of American Phaseolinae. Smithsonian Inst. U. S. Natl. Mus. Contrib. U. S. Natl. Her.22: 663–701.Google Scholar
  23. Towle, Margaret A. 1961. The ethnobotany of Pre-Colombian Peru. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, No. 30. Wenner Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Inc. New York.Google Scholar
  24. Willis, J. C. 1951. Dictionary of the flowering plants and ferns. Cambridge University Press. 6th ed. rev. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  25. Wolf, E. R. 1959. Sons of the shaking earth. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.Google Scholar
  26. Yarnell, R. A. 1964. Aboriginal relationships between cultures and plant life in the Upper Great Lakes Region. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, Univ. of Michigan No. 23. Ann Arbor.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1965

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence Kaplan
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MassachusettsBoston

Personalised recommendations