Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T19:23:11.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultivated Plants as Evidence for Cultural Contacts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Barbara Pickersgill
Barbara Pickersgill*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Botany, University of Reading, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cultivated plants are sometimes considered good indicators of cultural contact because the same plant cannot be invented independently in distinct regions. Some crops no doubt did spread from a single center, but other, more complex, histories have also to be considered. In some groups different species were domesticated in different areas, so before the archaeological record can be interpreted, it is important that the specimens be securely identified to species. Other crops have differentiated further under cultivation so that distinct races are characteristic of different parts of the total area. Another possibility is independent domestication of the same crop in different areas. If this is demonstrated, then presence of this crop in sites in these areas does not constitute evidence of contact. Only after these possibilities have been eliminated may presence of the same crop in different cultures suggest contact between them.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 1972 , pp. 97 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ar-Rushdi, Abbas 1956 Inheritance in Nicotiana tabacum, XXVI. Sterility genes from Tomentosae species. Journal of Genetics 54:9-22.Google Scholar
Galinat, Walton C, and Gunnerson, James H. 1963 Spread of 8-rowed maize from the prehistoric Southwest. Botanical Museum Leaflets of Harvard University 20:117-160.Google Scholar
Gentry, Howard Scott 1969 Origin of the common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris. Economic Botany 23:55-69.Google Scholar
Gorman, Chester F. 1969 Hoabinhian: a pebble tool complex with early plant associations in south east Asia. Science 163:671-673.Google Scholar
Grobman, Alexander, Wilfredo, Salhuana, and Ricardo, Sevilla in collaboration with Mangelsdorf, Paul C. 1961 Races of maize in Peru: their origins, evolution and classification. National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council Publication 915.Google Scholar
Heiser, Charles B. Jr. 1955 The origin and development of the cultivated sunflower. American Biology Teacher 17:161-167.Google Scholar
Heiser, Charles B. Jr. 1965 Cultivated plants and cultural diffusion in Nuclear America. American Anthropologist 67:930-940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiser, Charles B. Jr., Hardy Eshbaugh, W., and Barbara, Pickersgill 1971 The domestication of Capsicum: reply to Davenport. The Professional Geographer 23:169-170.Google Scholar
Helbaek, Hans 1959 Notes on the evolution and history of Linum. KUML: Arbog for Jysk Arkaeologisk Selskab 1959:103-129.Google Scholar
Heyerdahl, Thor 1952 American Indians in the Pacific: the theory behind the Kon Tiki expedition. Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Lawrence 1965 Archaeology and domestication in American Phaseolus (beans). Economic Botany 19:358-368.Google Scholar
Lanning, Edward P. 1967 Peru before the Incas. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
Mangelsdorf, Paul C, and Lister, Robert H. 1956 Archaeological evidence on the evolution of maize in northwestern Mexico. Botanical Museum Leaflets of Harvard University 17:151-178.Google Scholar
Mangelsdorf, Paul C, and Julian, Cámara-Hernandez 1967 Prehistoric maize from a site near Huarmey, Peru. Prehistoric maize from Huaca Prieta, Peru. Prehistoric maize from the lea Valley, Peru. Maize Genetics Co-operation Newsletter 41:47-49.Google Scholar
Mangelsdorf, Paul C, MacNeish, Richard S., and Galinat, Walton C. 1964 Domestication of corn. Science 143:538-545.Google Scholar
Moseley, Michael E. 1968 Changing subsistence patterns: late Preceramic archaeology of the Central Peruvian Coast. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Pickersgill, Barbara, and Bunting, A. H. 1969 Cultivated plants and the Kon Tiki theory. Nature 222:225-227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L. M., Grant, U. C., Ricardo, Ramirez E., Hatheway, W. H., and Smith, D. L. in collaboration with Mangelsdorf, Paul C. 1957 Races of maize in Colombia. National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council Publication 510.Google Scholar
Smith, Paul G., and Heiser, Charles B. Jr., 1957 Taxonomy of Capsicum sinense Jacq. And the geographic distribution of the cultivated Capsicum species. Torrey Botanical Club, Bulletin 84:413-420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, S. G. 1967 Evolution under domestication of the New World cottons (Gossypium spp.). Ciencia e Cultura 19:118-134.Google Scholar
Takahashi, R. 1955 The origin and evolution of cultivated barley. Advances in Genetics 7:227-266.Google Scholar
Wellhausen, E. J., Roberts, L. M., and Hernandez X, E.. in collaboration with Mangelsdorf, Paul C. 1952 Races of maize in Mexico: their origins, characteristics and distribution. Bussey Institution of Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Whitaker, Thomas W., and Cutler, Hugh C. 1965 Cucurbits and cultures in the Americas. Economic Botany 19:344-349.Google Scholar
Willey, Gordon R. 1960 New World prehistory. Science 131:73-86.Google Scholar