See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229779892

Prehistoric Chronology of the Common Bean in the New World: The Linguistic
Evidence

Article  in  American Anthropologist · April 2008

DOI: 10.1525/aa.2006.108.3.507

CITATIONS READS
29 429

1 author:

Cecil H. Brown
Northern Illinois University
100 PUBLICATIONS   2,024 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Paleobiolinguistics of New World crops View project

The ASJP Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cecil H. Brown on 14 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CECIL H. BROWN

Prehistoric Chronology of the Common Bean

in the New World: The Linguistic Evidence

ABSTRACT Glottochronology and the comparative method of historical linguistics provide a linguistic approach for dating the com-
mon bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) that both complements and supplements archaeological dating techniques such as accelerator mass
spectrometry (AMS). For example, the comparative approach reveals that prehistoric languages of eastern North America having glot-
tochronological dates earlier than 700 B.P., such as Proto-Iroquoian (2700 B.P.), lacked words for bean. Protolanguages of the region with
glottochronological dates younger than 700 B.P. had bean terms. These linguistic results accord with the AMS finding that beans do not
become archaeologically visible in the region until around C.E. 1300. The earliest AMS date for beans of Mesoamerica is around 2300 B.P.
This date is considerably younger than glottochronological dates for prehistoric languages of the area, such as Proto-Mayan (3400 B.P.),
for which bean terms are posited. Linguistic findings for protolanguages of Mesoamerica suggest that the regional bean chronology is
considerably older than that indicated through archaeological dating. [Keywords: archaeobotany, glottochronology, historical linguistics,
Phaseolus vulgaris L., prehistoric agriculture]

A T European contact, Amerindian agriculturalists in

both eastern North America and Middle America
(Mexico and Central America) relied primarily on a group
of three crops: maize, squash, and beans. The widespread
geographical occurrence of this agrarian triad in historical
times would seem to suggest its considerable antiquity in
the New World. Although archaeological investigation in-
dicates that each of the crops was domesticated in the Amer-
icas thousands of years ago, it also indicates that times of
domestication and times of diffusion were substantially dif-
ferent for each (Smith 2001). This study presents linguistic
evidence bearing on the prehistoric chronology of one of
these crops, the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.).1
The common bean (hereafter, bean) was domesticated
in two New World regions, Mesoamerica and the Andes
(Gepts 1998). The earliest date for cultivated beans in the
Americas is around 4400 B.P. (Kaplan and Lynch 1999:269).
This date was determined through use of accelerator mass
spectrometry (AMS) applied to an archaeological bean spec-
imen recovered from Guitarrero Cave in Andean Peru.
AMS has produced a definitive bean chronology for at
least one area of the New World. It is now decisively de-
termined that in the northern Eastern Woodlands of North
America beans became a significant part of the Amerindian
diet beginning around 700 B.P. (Hart and Scarry 1999; Hart
et al. 2002). For various reasons, definitive bean chronolo-
gies are yet to be determined for other New World regions.
The present study offers a linguistic approach to dating
beans that both complements and supplements archaeolog-
ical dating techniques such as AMS. This involves use of the
comparative method of historical linguistics to determine
whether or not a word for bean pertained to languages an-
cestral to contemporary Amerindian languages. The date at
which an ancestral or parent language was last spoken can
be determined through use of a linguistic dating technique
known as glottochronology. If a bean term is determined to
have been part of a lexicon of an ancestral language, the
glottochronological date calculated for that language can be
considered indicative of when cultivated beans were present
in the region inhabited by the language’s speakers. Thus, for
example, dating an ancestral language of the U.S. Southwest
by glottochronology to 1600 B.P. and determining that this
language had a term for bean would be compelling evidence
that cultivated beans were present in the U.S. Southwest at
least as early as 1,600 years ago.
METHODOLOGY
For this study, 228 words for bean in 211 Amerindian lan-
guages and dialects were collected from dictionaries and
other sources.2 These languages and dialects are affiliated
with 21 different genetic groups. Genetic groups recognized
here include only those identified by Lyle Campbell (1997)
as being bona fide genetic units such as Mayan, Mixe-Zoque,

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST, Vol. 108, Issue 3, pp. 507–516, ISSN 0002-7294, electronic ISSN 1548-1433.  C 2006 by the American Anthropological

Association. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California
Press’s Rights and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.
508 American Anthropologist • Vol. 108, No. 3 • September 2006

and Totonacan, three language families of Mesoamerica. TABLE 1. Terms for bean in Mayan languages sorted by
Campbell considers as invalid or not proved many contro- classification
versial classifications such as Joseph Greenberg’s (1987:379–
380) Mexican Penutian, which genetically unites Mayan, MAYAN
Mixe-Zoque, and Totonacan languages with Huave, a lan- Huastecan
guage isolate of the area. Although I attempted to collect Huastec: tzanakw’(1)
Chicomuceltec: chenuk(1)
words for bean found in all languages of each of the 21 ge-
Yucatecan
netic groups, this was not always possible because of data Yucatec: b’u’ul(2)
limitations. Consequently, bean-term inventories for a few Mopan: b’u’ul(2)
genetic groups are not as close to being complete as those Itza: b’u’ul(2)
Lacandon: b’u’ur(2)
for others.
Greater Tzeltalan
Once terms were collected for each group, they were Cholan
evaluated with regard to whether or not they indicate the Chol: b’u’ul(2)
occurrence of a word for bean in the genetic group’s parent Chontal: b u u(2)
Chorti: p’uur(2)
language. This involved both (1) looking for phonological Cholti: bul(2)
similarities among a group’s bean terms and (2) attending Tzeltalan
to how phonologically similar terms are distributed across Tzeltal: chenek’(1)
Tzotzil: chenek’(1)
major subgroups of a genetic unit.
Eastern Mayan
The task of determining term similarity is complicated Mamean
by the many different orthographies employed in lexi- Teko: keenaq’(1)
cal sources. My extensive experience dealing with differ- Awakateko: chikun(3)
Ixhil: txikon(3)
ent orthographies for recording Amerindian languages (e.g., Mam: cheenaq’(1)
Brown 1999) helped in finding similarities obscured by dif- K’ichee’an
ferent ways of symbolically representing the same sound. Kaqchikel: kinaq’(1)
Tz’utujiil: kinaq’(1)
Another complication relates to the fact that I control de- K’iche’: kinaq’(1)
tailed knowledge of the regular sound correspondences of a Sakapulteko: kinaq’(1)
limited number of Amerindian language families. Because Uspanteko: kinaq’(1)
Poqomam: kinaq’(1)
of regular sound shifts, some bean terms found in two or Poqomchi’: kenaq’(1)
more languages of a genetic group can appear phonologi- Q’ekchi’: kenq’(1)
cally dissimilar when they are in fact reflexes of the same an- Greater Q’anjob’alan
cestral bean term. Although I may have failed to recognize Chujean
Chuj: tut(4)
a few instances of term cognation, a reasonably thorough
Tojolabal: chenek’(1)
familiarity with processes of phonological change helped to Q’anjob’alan
minimize such problems. Q’anjob’al-Jakalteko
Akateko: ub’al (5)
The manner in which similar bean terms are dis-
Jakalteko: hub’al (5)
tributed across subgroups of a language family is indica- Q’anjob’al: wub’al(5)
tive of whether or not these terms are reflexes of a word Mocho
Mocho: tu’t(4)
for bean that may have pertained to the family’s ances-
tral language. As a convention, if similar bean terms are
found in languages of the majority of subgroups of a ge-
netic group, I conclude that a bean term probably pertained of two or more major subgroups of the family. Terms suf-
to the genetic group’s parent language.3 Conversely, if sim- fixed with (2) are found in languages of two subgroups,
ilar bean terms are not found in languages of the major- Yucatecan and Greater Tzeltalan. Terms suffixed with (1)
ity of major subgroups, I conclude that there is no evi- and also given in bold type are found in languages of four of
dence for positing a bean term for the genetic group’s parent the five major subgroups—specifically, Huastecan, Greater
language.4 Tzeltalan, Eastern Mayan, and Greater Q’anjob’alan. Be-
The Mayan language family, whose member languages cause the latter constitutes a distribution in which simi-
are spoken in Mexico and northern Central America, lar bean terms occur in languages of the majority of ma-
presents an example of a distribution indicative of a parent- jor subgroups of a language family (four out of five), I posit
language bean term. In Table 1, all Mayan languages for that a bean term probably pertained to the lexicon of Proto-
which a bean term has been found (a total of 30) are listed Mayan, the language from which the 30 Mayan languages
and organized in the list by family subgroup affiliation.5 developed.6
I have identified five sets of phonologically similar bean Using the approach described above, I have evaluated
terms pertaining to these 30 languages. Words belonging each of the 21 genetic groups—and, in many instances, sub-
to the same similarity set have the same numerical suf- groups within groups as well—to ascertain whether or not
fix, for example Chuj tut(4) and Mocho tu’t(4). Only sets a word for bean pertains to a group’s or subgroup’s parent
(1) and (2) contain bean terms that are found in languages language. My evaluations are limited to two results: Y (yes,

evidence indicates a probable protoword for bean) and N
(no, there is no evidence of a protoword for bean).7
GLOTTOCHRONOLOGY
Glottochronology was devised by Morris Swadesh in the
mid–20th century as a method for determining the num-
ber of centuries since genetically related languages diverged
from a common ancestor.8 This involves comparing the
core vocabulary of two languages to determine the degree to
which words are similar in the languages.9 Less lexical sim-
ilarity indicates greater chronological depth for a split and
more lexical similarity indicates less chronological depth.
Swadesh, having established empirically a rate at which lex-
ical replacement of core vocabulary occurs, developed a for-
mula for determining the number of centuries since a lan-
guage divergence took place. The number of centuries that
have passed since the two split from a common ancestor
can be computed by applying this formula to the number
of similar words in the core vocabulary list found for the
two languages.
Although glottochronological dates are frequently
cited in literature dealing with language prehistory, many
linguists are critical of the method and its results. Camp-
bell (1998:177–186), for example, one of glottochronology’s
more fervent antagonists, cites a litany of methodological
and analytical inadequacies. He finds shortcomings and
flaws in all basic propositions underlying the approach.10
Nevertheless, incongruously, Campbell frequently cites
glottochronological dates in his book, American Indian Lan-
guages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America (1997; for
examples, see pages 112, 123, 132–133, 138–139, 142, 159,
165, 167, 172, and 174–175).
Of late, there has been a renewed interest in glot-
tochronology. This is caused in part by the appearance
of studies showing that glottochronological dates dovetail
closely with archaeological dates (e.g., see Bellwood 2005;
Brown 2006, n.d.; Ehret 2000; and Wichmann et al. 2005).
In one of these studies, I (Brown 2006) demonstrate that
glottochronological dates correlate strongly with archaeo-
logical dates relating to the prehistoric New World occur-
rence of maize (Zea mays L.) as a dietary staple.
In Brown (2006), I analyze 626 words for maize in 591
Amerindian languages and dialects affiliated with 51 dif-
ferent genetic groups to determine whether or not a word
for maize pertained to parent languages of each of the 51
genetic groups or to parent languages of certain subgroups
of genetic groups. Parent languages for which maize terms
are posited strongly tend to have glottochronological dates
indicating that they were spoken around or after 3000 B.P,
the period of time shown by stable carbon isotope stud-
ies of human bone collagen to have been the era in which
consumption of maize developed significantly for many
Amerindian groups, especially those of Mesoamerica (Smal-
ley and Blake 2003). No evidence of a maize term for an
ancestral language suggests a minor role—or even a lack-
there of a role—for maize in the lives of its speakers. Such
Brown • Prehistoric Chronology of the Bean 509
parent languages strongly tend to have glottochronologi-
cal dates indicating that they were spoken in years before
3000 B.P., a time when maize consumption in most areas of
the New World is shown by stable carbon isotopes studies
not to have been significant.11 These findings indicate that,
although glottochronology may not always yield dates hav-
ing the accuracy of those obtained through archaeological
dating methods such as AMS, it can nonetheless provide
a chronological perspective of an approximate nature that
can be useful in the study of prehistory.
One finding of Brown (2006) is that glottochronol-
ogy tends to inflate genetic group dates when they
pertain to groups whose parent languages were spoken more
than 2,500 years ago. Statistical correlations between glot-
tochronological dates and archaeological dates relating to
the early New World occurrence of maize as a dietary staple
are increased significantly in strength and in statistical sig-
nificance by subtracting 800 years from each glottochrono-
logical date at or greater than 3300 B.P. and by reducing all
glottochronological dates from 2600 B.P. through 3200 B.P.
to 2500 B.P.12 The present study employs this adjustment
in calculating glottochronological dates.
Most glottochronological dates for genetic groups cited
in this study are dates used in Brown 2006. These origi-
nally came from several sources, most from Swadesh 1959
and Kaufman 1990a, 1994a, 1994b. I calculated a num-
ber of these dates, often with the help of Pamela Brown.
Other dates are from Broadwell n.d., Campbell 1997, Fowler
1983, Hill 2001, Holman 2004, and Wichmann n.d. When
appropriate, glottochronological dates from Brown 2006
used here have been adjusted as described in the immedi-
ately preceding paragraph. Any glottochronological dates
not taken from Brown 2006 were dates I calculated and ad-
justed when appropriate.
AMS DATING OF BEANS IN THE AMERICAS
Before the availability of AMS to archaeologists, excavated
beans were indirectly dated. This typically involved radio-
carbon dating of carbon-based materials (such as wood char-
coal) with which beans are archaeologically associated. AMS
allows the direct dating of the bean itself. As more and more
AMS dates have been produced, it has become clear that in-
direct dates for beans have often been inaccurate, typically
because of the intrusion of materials from one archaeologi-
cal stratum into another (Hart and Scarry 1999). All archae-
ological dates cited here are AMS dates.
Table 2 presents the earliest AMS dates for cultivated
beans for five regions of the New World. The region for
which AMS dating of beans has been most extensive is east-
ern North America, especially the area east of the Mississippi
River, with most dates coming from northern Eastern
Woodlands sites. AMS dating shows that beans begin to
become archaeologically visible in the northern Eastern
Woodlands around 700 B.P. (Hart et al. 2002). In eastern
North America west of the Mississippi River, sites in Missouri
and Nebraska yield beans that are AMS dated at the earliest
510 American Anthropologist • Vol. 108, No. 3 • September 2006
TABLE 2. Earliest accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon
dates for cultivated beans in five regions of the Americas
Earliest AMS Date for
Region of the New World Cultivated Beans
Eastern North America east of 700 years B.P.1
Mississippi River
Eastern North America west of 850 years B.P.2
Mississippi River
American Southwest 2200 years B.P.3
Mexico 2300 years B.P.4
South America 4400 years B.P.5
Note. 1 Hart and Scarry 1999; Hart et al. 2002. 2 Adair 2003; Asch
and Hart 2004. 3 Smith 2001; Wills 1988. 4 Kaplan and Lynch
1999; Smith 2001. 5 Kaplan and Lynch 1999.
to around 850 B.P. (Adair 2003; Asch and Hart 2004). In the
U.S. Southwest, Bat Cave and Tularosa Cave yield cultivated
beans dating much earlier, to around 2200 B.P. (Kaplan and
Lynch 1999; Smith 2001; Wills 1988).
Prehistoric cultivated beans do not tend to survive in
very hot and humid localities. Not surprisingly, all AMS
dated beans from Mexico so far have been recovered from
caves that are cool and dry. In fact, Mexico’s cultivated
bean chronology is based solely on beans from only five
dry caves, one in Oaxaca, two in Tehuacán, and two in
Tamaulipas (Kaplan and Lynch 1999; Smith 2001). The old-
est dated cultivated bean for Mexico is from Coxcatlán Cave
in Tehuacán with an AMS date of around 2300 B.P. (Kaplan
and Lynch 1999; Smith 2001).
All published AMS dates for prehistoric cultivated beans
of South America come from the Andean region. A bean
from Guitarrero Cave in the north central Peruvian Andes,
dated at around 4400 B.P., is not only the oldest prehistoric
bean of South America but also, as noted above, the old-
est known cultivated bean in the New World (Kaplan and
Lynch 1999).
BEAN CHRONOLOGY AND GLOTTOCHRONOLOGICAL
DATES
Table 3 lists Amerindian genetic groups and subgroups
with their respective glottochronological dates, bean-term
evaluations, and other information. It sorts groups into
seven geographic categories: (1) eastern North America east
of the Mississippi River, (2) eastern North America west of
the Mississippi River, (3) U.S. Southwest, (4) western North
America, (5) Mexico and northern Central America, (6)
southern Central America (south of Guatemala and Belize),
and (7) South America. Languages of two genetic groups,
Algonquian and Uto-Aztecan, straddle two geographic
areas. In Table 3 Algonquian is placed with genetic groups
of eastern North America east of the Mississippi River
because most Algonquian languages of my sample are
spoken in that region. Uto-Aztecan is placed with genetic
groups of Mexico and northern Central America for a
similar reason. Within geographic areas, genetic groups
are rank listed according to magnitudes of associated glot-
tochronological dates, from lowest to highest. In addition,
for each genetic group, I evaluate whether or not lexical
evidence indicates the pertinence of a prototerm for bean
to an associated ancestral language (Y indicates a probable
term for bean, and N indicates that there is no evidence of
a term for bean). In addition, for genetic groups for which
a probable prototerm for bean is posited, a sample reflex of
the prototerm from a contemporary language is presented.
Bean terms are posited for parent languages of only
two groups of eastern North America east of the Missis-
sippi, these being Western Muskogean and Huronian (of
Iroquoian; see Table 3). The glottochronological date for
Western Muskogean is 540 B.P., a date that conforms with
the AMS attested fact that beans were not present in the area
before around 700 B.P. (see Table 2).13 The glottochronolog-
ical date for Huronian, 740 B.P., is slightly earlier than 700
B.P. but should be well within the margin of error for glot-
tochronological dates.
Bean terms are not posited for any parent languages of
the other nine groups of eastern North America east of the
Mississippi. Eight of these groups show glottochronological
dates that are earlier by hundreds of years than 700 B.P.,
conforming with the fact that cultivated beans were not
present in the area before the latter date. Alabama-Koasati
(of Muskogean) of the southeastern region of eastern North
America has a glottochronological date of 390 B.P. (see
Table 3). Lack of similar bean terms in Alabama and Koasati
may indicate that beans found their way into some parts
the U.S. Southeast considerably later than 700 B.P.
For the most part, there is no evidence whatsoever for
positing bean terms for parent languages of the nine groups
mentioned in the preceding paragraph. However, this is
not the case for Five Nations-Susquehannock (of Iroquoian;
hereafter, Five Nations). All five languages of my sample af-
filiated with the Five Nations group have very similar, if not
exactly the same, words for bean, indicating that a prob-
able bean term should be posited for the group’s parent
language.14 Marianne Mithun, a well-known specialist on
Iroquoian languages, informs me that phonologies of the
terms in question are such that they could all be reflexes
of a Proto–Five Nations word for bean (personal commu-
nication, July 29, 2005). However, she also points out that
the observed bean term phonologies would not be unex-
pected if borrowing were to account for term distribution.
Indeed, it is her opinion that diffusion is the appropriate
explanation.
The five Five Nation languages of my sample (Cayuga,
Seneca, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk) are spoken in
New York state in areas that are geographically contiguous.
Geographical contiguity facilitates diffusion of words, espe-
cially words naming things typically involved in trade such
as agricultural produce. Another reason for believing that
Five Nation bean-term similarity is explained by borrowing
involves the glottochronological date for the group’s par-
ent language. By glottochronological reckoning, Proto–Five
Nations was spoken at the latest around 1000 B.P. This date
 Brown • Prehistoric Chronology of the Bean 511

TABLE 3. Amerindian-language genetic groups and subgroups given with respective glottochronological dates, bean-term evaluations,
and other information

Bean-Term
Glotto- Evaluation for
Chronological Ancestral Sample Reflex of
Date Language Proto-Term for Bean

Genetic Groups and Subgroups of Eastern North

America East of the Mississippi River
Alabama-Koasati (of Muskogean) 390 B.P.1 N
Western Muskogean 540 B.P. Y Choctaw: bala
Huronian (of Iroquoian) 740 B.P.2 Y Huron: düyá-resa
Five Nations–Susquehannock (of Iroquoian) 1000 B.P.3 N
Ofo-Biloxi (of Siouan) 1300 B.P.4 N
Southwestern Muskogean 1640 B.P. N
Northern Iroquoian 2200 B.P.5 N
Eastern Algonquian 2400 B.P.6 N
Muskogean 2500 B.P. N
Algonquian 2700 B.P. N
Iroquoian 2700 B.P. N
Genetic Groups and Subgroups of Eastern North
America West of the Mississippi River
Ojibwa-Potawatomi-Ottawa (of Algonquian) 270 B.P.7 Y Ojibwa: mashkodesimin
Pawnee (of Caddoan) 420 B.P.8 Y Pawnee: atit
Fox (of Algonquian) 460 B.P.9 Y Fox: maskutcisa
Missouri River Siouan 540 B.P.10 Y Crow: awa’se
Mississippi Valley Siouan 1600 B.P.11 N
Northern Caddoan 1900 B.P. N
Siouan (Core) 2500 B.P N
Caddoan 2500 B.P. N
Genetic Groups and Subgroups of the American
Southwest
Apachean (of Athapaskan) 460 B.P.12 N
Yuman 1600 B.P.13 Y Mohave: marik
Numic (of Northern Uto-Aztecan) 1600 B.P. N
Tanoan (of Kiowa-Tanoan) 2300 B.P. N
Kiowa-Tanoan 2500 B.P. N
Northern Uto-Aztecan 3100 B.P. N
Genetic Groups and Subgroups of Western America
Athapaskan 2500 B.P. N
Miwokian 2500 B.P. N
Genetic Groups and Subgroups of Mexico and
Northern Central America
Aztec (of Southern Uto-Aztecan) 1100 B.P. Y Classical Nahuatl: etl
Chinantecan (of Oto-Pame-Chinantecan) 1500 B.P Y Chinantec (Usila): m4 jnai3
Zapotecan (of Popolocan-Zapotecan) 2400 B.P. Y Zapotec (Juarez): dàa
Popolocan (of Popolocan-Zapotecan) 2400 B.P. Y Popoloca (Atzingo): ijmā
Sonoran (of Southern Uto-Aztecan) 2500 B.P.14 Y Tarahumara: munı́
Totonacan 2500 B.P. Y Totonac (Papantla): stapu
Mixe-Zoque 2700 B.P. Y Texistepec Popoluca: säk
Popolocan-Zapotecan (of Eastern Oto-Manguean) 2700 B.P. N
Otopamean (of Oto-Pame-Chinantecan) 2800 B.P. N
Mixtecan (of Eastern Oto-Manguean) 2900 B.P. Y Trique: rune43
Southern Uto-Aztecan 3100 B.P. N
Oto-Pame-Chinantecan (of Western Oto-Manguean 3200 B.P. N
Tlapanec-Manguean (of Western Oto-Manguean) 3300 B.P. N
Mayan 3400 B.P. Y K’iche’: kinaq’
Western Oto-Manguean 3900 B.P. N
Eastern Oto-Manguean 3900 B.P. N
Uto-Aztecan 4000 B.P. N
Oto-Manguean 5200 B.P. N15
Genetic Groups and Subgroups of Southern Central
America
Cabecar-Bribri (of Talamancan) 1000 B.P. N
Matagalpan (of Misulmapan) 1300 B.P.16 Y Matagalpa: pak
Lencan 2500 B.P. N
Misulmapan 3500 B.P. N
Talamancan 3500 B.P. N
(Continues)
512 American Anthropologist • Vol. 108, No. 3 • September 2006

TABLE 3. Amerindian-language genetic groups and subgroups given with respective glottochronological dates, bean-term evaluations, and
other information (Continued )

Bean-Term
Glotto- Evaluation for
Chronological Ancestral Sample Reflex of
Date Language Proto-Term for Bean

Genetic Groups and Subgroups of South America

Jivaroan 140 B.P.17 Y Huambisa: miik
Tupi-Guaranı́ 1000 B.P.18 Y Guaranı́: kumanda
Salivan 2000 B.P. N
Purian 2500 B.P. N
Note. Names of genetic groups are given in bold type and names of subgroups are given in normal type. Y = evidence of a probable prototerm
for bean in the group’s parent language. N = no evidence of a prototerm for bean in the group’s parent language.
1 Date calculated by the author. The calculation is based on the lexical comparison of Alabama and Koasati.
2 Date calculated by the author. The calculation is based on the lexical comparison of Huron and Wyandot using a highly truncated version
of Swadesh’s list of core vocabulary items. This date should not be uncritically accepted.
3 Date calculated by the author with the help of Pamela Brown. The calculation is based on the lexical comparison of Oneida and Seneca.
4 Date calculated by the author with the help of Pamela Brown. The calculation is based on the lexical comparison of Ofo and Biloxi.
5 Date calculated by the author with the help of Pamela Brown. The calculation is based on the lexical comparison of Tuscarora and Oneida.
6 Date calculated by the author with the help of Pamela Brown. The calculation is based on the lexical comparison of Delaware and Western
Abenaki.
7 Date calculated by the author. The calculation is based on the lexical comparison of Potawatomi and Ojibwa.
8 Date calculated by the author. The calculation is based on the lexical comparison of Pawnee and Arikara.
9 Date calculated by the author with the help of Pamela Brown. The calculation is based on the lexical comparison of Fox and Kickapoo.
10 Date calculated by the author with the help of Pamela Brown. The calculation is based on the lexical comparison of Crow and Hidatsa.
11 Date calculated by the author with the help of Pamela Brown. The calculation is based on the lexical comparison of Osage and Lakota.
12 Date calculated by the author with the help of Pamela Brown. The calculation is based on the lexical comparison of Navajo and Western
Apache.
13 Date calculated by the author with the help of Pamela Brown. The calculation is based on the lexical comparison of Yavapai and Kiliwa.
14 Date calculated by the author. The calculation is based on the lexical comparison of O’odham and Huichol.
15 I was unable to find any language of Eastern Oto-Manguean with a bean term that is phonologically similar to a bean term in any
language of Western Oto-Manguean. Consequently, in terms of the convention followed here, there is no evidence for proposing that
the ancestral language of Oto-Manguean had a word for the common bean. Nevertheless, Kaufman (1990a:102) reconstructs a bean term
for Proto-Oto-Manguean, that is, *ntea. According to him, reflexes of *ntea occurring in Amuzgo-Mixtecan languages and in languages
of Chinantecan denote “kidney” rather than “bean.” Since Amuzgo-Mixtecan languages are affiliated with Eastern Oto-Manguean and
Chinantecan languages with Western Oto-Manguean, it seems likely that the referent of *ntea was “kidney” rather than “bean.” Lexical
evidence assembled by Rensch (1976:195–196) for his Oto-Manguean cognate Set 32 also suggests the latter interpretation.
16 Date calculated by the author. The calculation is based on the lexical comparison of Matagalpa and Cacaopera.
17 Date calculated by the author. The calculation is based on the lexical comparison of Aguaruna and Huambisa.
18 Date calculated by the author. The calculation is based on the lexical comparison of Guaranı́ and Oyampi.

is some 300 years earlier than the archaeological appear-
ance of cultivated beans in the northern Eastern Woodlands
where Five Nation languages are spoken today. Of course, it
is possible, but not especially likely, that the glottochrono-
logical date for Proto–Five Nations is simply inaccurate, in-
flating the language’s actual age by 300 or more years.
However, there is additional evidence favoring the dif-
fusion hypothesis. Another Iroquoian language, Tuscarora,
shows the same bean word as those found in the Five Na-
tion languages (Marianne Mithun, personal communica-
tion, July 29, 2005).15 The occurrence of the same bean
term in both the Five Nation languages and in Tuscarora
could be interpreted as evidence for positing a probable
bean word for the parent language of Northern Iroquoian
of which Five Nations and Tuscarora are major subgroups.
Proto–Northern Iroquoian has a glottochronological date
of 2200 B.P. (see Table 3). Given the decisive AMS date of
700 B.P. for the earliest cultivated beans in eastern North
America east of the Mississippi, it would be absurd to as-
sert that cultivated beans were known to speakers of Proto–
Northern Iroquoian of over 2,000 years ago. Even assuming,
for example, that the glottochronological date for Proto–
Northern Iroquoian overestimates chronological depth by
1,000 years—which could hardly be so—would be tanta-
mount to drawing the highly dubious conclusion that peo-
ple of eastern North America east of the Mississippi were
familiar with beans some 500 years before they become ar-
chaeologically visible in the region. Thus, possession of the
same bean term by Tuscarora and by the Five Nation lan-
guages must be caused by borrowing.
When European settlers first came to eastern North
America, Tuscarora was spoken by groups in what is now
Virginia and North Carolina. Today, after several waves of
northerly migration over many years, Tuscarora is spoken in
New York state in geographic proximity to the Five Nation
languages. The League of the Iroquois in New York admitted
the Tuscarora as its sixth member nation in C.E. 1722. Thus,
bean-term diffusion, which explains the similarity between
Tuscarora’s word for bean and those of the Five Nation lan-
guages, must have occurred in historic times. The same
historic-era borrowing dynamic probably also accounts for
the sharing of a bean term by the Five Nation languages.
The earliest AMS date for cultivated beans from sites
in eastern North America west of the Mississippi is around

850 B.P. Bean terms are posited for four language groups of
the region, all of which, as might be expected, show glot-
tochronological dates no earlier than 850 B.P. (see Table 3).
Missouri River Siouan’s glottochronological date of 540 B.P.
is the oldest date of the four. No bean terms are posited
for the remaining four groups of the region (see Table 3).
Glottochronological dates for the latter four, as expected,
are earlier than 850 B.P. Mississippi Valley Siouan’s date of
1600 B.P. is the latest of the four dates.
A bean term is posited for only one of the five language
groups of the U.S. Southwest (see Table 3). This group, Yu-
man, has a glottochronological date of 1600 B.P. This date
is in accordance with the earliest AMS bean date for the re-
gion (ca. 2200 B.P.). Three language groups of the Southwest
having dates older than 2200 B.P. (see Table 3), as might be
expected, show no evidence suggesting that bean terms per-
tained to their respective parent languages.
For parent languages of the two genetic groups of west-
ern North America, Athapaskan and Miwokan, no bean
terms are posited (see Table 3). Indeed, beans almost cer-
tainly were unknown to speakers of Proto-Athapaskan and
Proto-Miwokan or even to speakers of any of their respective
offspring languages until late historic times. Bean words of
each of the five Miwokan languages sampled for this study
are loans based on the Spanish word for bean, frijol.
The oldest AMS bean date for Mexico is around 2300
B.P. Of the nine groups of Mexico and northern Central
America for which bean terms are posited for parent lan-
guages, only two show glottochronological dates later than
2300 B.P. (see Table 3). The remaining seven have dates rang-
ing from 2400 B.P. to 3400 B.P. The latter dates suggest that
beans were known to some groups of Mexico and northern
Central America before 2300 B.P.
The oldest glottochronological date for a group of Mex-
ico and northern Central America for which a bean term is
posited, 3400 B.P., belongs to the Mayan family. The ex-
istence of a bean term in Proto-Mayan is all but certain.
Kaufman (2003) in his recent etymological dictionary of
Mayan reconstructs a Proto-Mayan term for bean (*kenaq’).
Not only are reflexes of the latter protoword found in lan-
guages of the majority of major subgroups of the family (see
terms suffixed with “1” in Table 1), but also these words
show expected sound correspondences. In addition, unlike
the case of similar bean terms in languages of the Five Na-
tions group discussed above, the phonologies of reflexes of
the Proto-Mayan term do not accord with what would be
expected if diffusion accounts for term distribution.
The Mayan glottochronological date suggests that
beans were known to some prehistoric Amerindians of Mex-
ico and northern Central America some 1,100 years ear-
lier than indicated thus far by AMS dating. Possibly, the
glottochronological date for Mayan may be somewhat in-
flated. However, it should be borne in mind that the Mayan
date used in this study has already been significantly ad-
justed for inflation. The original glottochronological date
for Mayan, 4200 B.P., first calculated and published by Kauf-
man (1976:103), like all glottochronological dates of this
study older than 3299 B.P., has been reduced by 800 years.
Brown • Prehistoric Chronology of the Bean 513
Nevertheless, the adjusted Mayan date (3400 B.P.) may still
be inflated. If so, it is difficult to imagine that it is excessive
by much. Conceivably, inflation could be as great as 200
or 300 years, but it is highly unlikely that it is 400 years
or more. However, even under the unreasonable assump-
tion of 500 years inflation, producing a date of 2900 B.P. for
Proto-Mayan would mean that beans were known to some
peoples of Mexico and northern Central America some 600
years earlier than indicated thus far by AMS dating.
A bean term is posited for the parent language of
only one of the five genetic groups of southern Central
America (south of Guatemala and Belize; see Table 3). This
group, Matagalpan, has a glottochronological date of 1300
B.P. Lencan, for which no evidence for a parent-language
bean term exists, shows the next oldest glottochronolog-
ical date—2500 B.P. This very limited evidence indicates
that beans first occurred in the region some time between
2500 B.P. and 1300 B.P. To my knowledge, no archaeological
beans from the area have been dated through use of AMS.
Despite the fact that a very large number of languages
pertaining to many different genetic groups are spoken
in this vast region of the New World, only four language
groups of South America are included in this study (see
Table 3). Dictionaries for most South American languages
do not exist or are not readily accessible. In my maize-term
study (Brown 2006), which is similar in many respects to the
present work, I was able to assemble words for maize from a
large number of South American languages by using vocab-
ulary lists prepared by Čestmir Loukotka (1968) and by R.
Q. Huber and R. B. Reed (1992). Unfortunately, these lists
do not also include Amerindian-language words for bean.
As noted above, all published AMS dates for prehistoric
cultivated beans of South America come from the Andean
region, the oldest being around 4400 B.P. None of the four
South American genetic groups of Table 3 have member
languages spoken in the Andean region. Rather, languages
of all four groups are spoken in lowland areas east of the
Andes. The glottochronological dates for parent languages
of the four groups constitute, to my knowledge, the only
dates of any kind relating to prehistoric bean chronology
in non-Andean regions of South America.
Bean terms are posited for parent languages of two
South American groups, Jivaroan and Tupi-Guaranı́. Glot-
tochronological dates for these groups are 140 B.P. and 1000
B.P., respectively. There is no evidence for positing bean
terms for ancestral languages of the remaining two groups,
Salivan and Purian, which have 2000 B.P. and 2500 B.P. as
respective glottochronological dates. This very limited evi-
dence suggests that cultivated beans first occurred in South
America outside of the Andean region some time between
2000 B.P. and 1000 B.P.
CONCLUSION
In Brown (2006), I line up glottochronological dates for
prehistoric Amerindian languages against archaeological
dates for the occurrence of maize as a dietary staple in the
Americas to evaluate glottochronology’s usefulness as a tool
514 American Anthropologist • Vol. 108, No. 3 • September 2006
for studying prehistory. A strong correlation is found be-
tween glottochronological and archaeological dates, indi-
cating the usefulness of glottochronology as a dating tech-
nique and its considerable potential to contribute to sorting
out prehistory.
The purpose of the present similar study is somewhat
different. Here, glottochronology and the comparative ap-
proach are used as a supplement to archaeological dating
techniques to help establish the prehistoric chronology of
beans in the New World. However, a byproduct of this
study is further confirmation of the validity and usefulness
of the method. For example, AMS has been most exten-
sively used to date beans from archaeological sites of east-
ern North America. Consequently, the most definitive bean
chronology for a region in the Americas is that of eastern
North America. Glottochronological dates for the latter re-
gion (see Table 3) dovetail very closely with AMS bean dates
(see Table 2). This is further corroboration of the legitimacy
of glottochronological dates.
There are probably a number of different reasons why
AMS dating of archaeological beans in other parts of the
Americas has not been as extensive as that undertaken for
eastern North America. The use of glottochronology in dat-
ing beans can be especially valuable for these regions. For
example, for some hot and humid areas of the New World,
macrobotanical specimens of prehistoric beans may never
be forthcoming because of rapid putrefaction. For such re-
gions, glottochronology may be either the most viable or
the only approach available for dating beans.
The region of Mexico and northern Central America
is a case in point. In Mexico, prehistoric beans, none of
which have been AMS dated earlier than around 2300 B.P,
have only been recovered from a few dry caves. The exca-
vation of prehistoric beans from other types of archeologi-
cal sites does not appear promising. Undoubtedly, there are
hundreds, if not thousands, of Archaic and Early Forma-
tive sites in Mexico and northern Central America in which
cultivated beans have been deposited and subsequently
have entirely disappeared through natural processes of de-
cay. This may help to explain why there is such a discrep-
ancy between the glottochronological date for Proto-Mayan
(3400 B.P.), which had a term for bean, and the oldest AMS
bean date for Mexico (ca. 2300 B.P.). Prehistoric cultivated
beans known to speakers of Proto-Mayan of 3,400 years ago
have disappeared, perhaps forever, from the archaeological
record because of decomposition. Apparently, none found
their way into dry caves where they might have been pre-
served for future AMS dating. Hopefully, a few might have
done so and may now await archaeological discovery. How-
ever, even if beans known to speakers of Proto-Mayan never
become archaeologically apparent, we nonetheless know of
their existence because of glottochronology and the com-
parative method of historical linguistics.16
Finally, linguistic results for Mexico and northern Cen-
tral America may resolve a paradoxical finding of archaeo-
logical dating—specifically, that the oldest AMS dated cul-
tivated bean of the U.S. Southwest (ca. 2200 B.P) is only
slightly younger than the earliest AMS dated bean of Mexico
(ca. 2300 B.P.; see Table 2). As mentioned above, multiple
domestications of the bean occurred in the Andes and in
Mesoamerica (Gepts 1998). Mesoamerica is a culture area
of southern Mexico and northern Central America. Because
beans were domesticated in Mesoamerica and probably dif-
fused from there to the Southwest, the earliest beans from
Mexico and northern Central America should be at least
several hundred years older than the oldest beans from
the Southwest. However, according to archaeological dates,
they are not. The linguistic evidence indicates that beans
of Mexico and northern Central America may actually be
as much as 1,000 years older than beans of the American
Southwest.
POSTSCRIPT
The immediately preceding section of this report (including
N. 16) is substantively unchanged from that of the draft sent
to the American Anthropologist for consideration for publica-
tion. After submitting the report, I was contacted by Michael
Blake, an archaeologist, who requested to see a prepublica-
tion copy. His response was enormously gratifying. He re-
ported that in 1985 and 1990 he and John Clark recovered
by flotation Early Formative Phaseolus specimens from open
sites in the Mazatán region, Chiapas, Mexico. These speci-
mens consisted mostly of P. vulgaris, but there also may have
been remains of the generally smaller species, P. acutifolius
(Feddema 1993). In 1993, Blake and Clark had one of the
larger fragments from an early context dated through use
of AMS. The fragment is reported as sample Beta-62914 in
Blake et al. (1995:164, Table 1), but the authors did not men-
tion that it was Phaseolus. In his dissertation, Clark (1994)
describes the specimen as a carbonized bean (Appendix
3:547). In both reports the AMS date is presented as 3135 ±
55 b.p. The calibrated calendar age is 1514–1287 cal. B.C.E.
Thus, unknown to me while preparing this report, archae-
ology had produced evidence conforming with my conclu-
sion, based solely on linguistic results, that the common
bean was known to groups in Mesoamerica more than 3,000
years ago.17
C ECIL H. B ROWN Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus,
Department of Anthropology, Northern Illinois University,
Dekalb, IL 60115
NOTES
Acknowledgments. A number of individuals in various important
ways contributed to this study. I would like to thank Eugene N.
Anderson, Michael Blake, Pamela Brown, Wallace Chafe, Bernard
Comrie, Robert Duncan, Gayle J. Fritz, Heather Hardy, John P. Hart,
Eric W. Holman, Nicholas A. Hopkins, Lawrence Kaplan, Marianne
Mithun, Thomas J. Riley, David S. Rood, C. Margaret Scarry, Bruce
D. Smith, Søren Wichmann, and Richard A. Yarnell.
1. Similar linguistic evidence bearing on the prehistoric chronolo-
gies of maize and squash in the New World is reported in Brown
2006 and n.d., respectively.

2. Some languages have more than one term for bean. Many of the
dictionaries, vocabularies, and word lists from which Amerindian-
language bean terms have been extracted are listed in Appendix B of
Brown 1999 (see pp. 184–220). Some words for bean in languages of
eastern North America are from Munson 1973. Hill 2001 has been
a source for bean terms of some Uto-Aztecan languages. Lehmann
1920 was consulted for terms for bean in a number of languages of
southern Central America.
3. To state definitively that similar terms trace to a single pro-
toword, it must be established that these words demonstrate regular
sound correspondences.
4. Conclusions reached through use of these conventions have
in some instances been modified when appropriate published and
unpublished accounts indicate alternative analyses.
5. The subgrouping of Mayan presented in Table 1 follows that used
by Brown and Wichmann (2004:129–130). In this study, all analy-
ses, except that for Mayan and Southern Uto-Aztecan, are based on
subgrouping of genetic units as given in Campbell (1997). Southern
Uto-Aztecan is based on Kaufman’s (1994a) classification.
6. I have detailed knowledge of regular sound correspondences
that hold across languages of the Mayan family. The bean terms
given in bold type and suffixed with (1) in Table 1 show expected
phonological correspondences indicating that they are reflexes of
a Proto-Mayan term for bean. Wichmann and Brown (n.d.) recon-
struct this term as *keenaq’ and Kaufmann (2003) reconstructs it as
*kenaq’.
7. By concluding N, that there is no evidence of a prototerm for
bean, I am not implying that an ancestral language did not have
a bean term, only that the assembled evidence does not attest to
one. In Brown (2006 and n.d.), I argue at considerable length that in
those instances in which terms for maize and squash, respectively,
pertained to an ancestral language but in which those crops were
not especially salient for its speakers, such prototerms would tend
to be replaced over time and not survive in offspring languages.
I also argue that if such terms are retained by most offspring lan-
guages, this attests to the great cultural importance of these items
for speakers of an ancestral language. Thus, in this study, positing
a bean term for an ancestral language is to be understood as imply-
ing the considerable cultural importance of beans for its speakers,
probably indicating that beans constituted for them a major dietary
resource.
8. For Swadesh’s description of this method, see Swadesh 1960,
translated from Spanish to English by Joel Sherzer (Swadesh
1971:284–271).
9. Typically, this is a list of 100 items including, for example, such
common things as seed, blood, and water, and such ordinary activi-
ties as eat, sleep, and hear.
10. For these and a detailed description of the method, readers are
invited to consult Campbell 1998:177–186. Also, the pros and cons
of glottochronology are discussed at considerable length in various
chapters of a recent book edited by C. Renfrew et al. 2000.
11. The correlation described here is presented in Brown (2006) as
a two-by-two cross-tabulation yielding a strong gamma score of .56
with statistical significance at the p < .05 level.
12. In Brown (2006), by adjusting glottochronological dates in
this manner, the two-by-two cross tabulation of glottochronolog-
ical dates and archaeological dates yields an exceptionally strong
gamma score of .81 with statistical significance at the p < .001 level.
13. Discussion of this section assumes that parent languages were
spoken in geographic regions in which their offspring languages
were found at the time of European contact. Of course, Amerindi-
ans of prehistoric times migrated, perhaps more than just occasion-
ally. However, given the enormous size of regions dealt with in this
study—for example, eastern North America east of the Mississippi
River, and Mexico and northern Central America—it is unlikely that
languages typically became relocated in geographic space to such
an extent that they were no longer spoken in the same general area
as their respective parent languages. An exception to this general-
ization may be some Uto-Aztecan languages. Early offspring lan-
guages of Proto-Uto-Aztecan may have migrated from the Mexico–
northern Central America region to the U.S. Southwest (cf. Hill
Brown • Prehistoric Chronology of the Bean 515
2001) or vice versa. Languages of the Algonquian family may con-
stitute another exception.
14. The Five Nations terms for bean are: usá’heda (Cayuga), osáe ta
(Seneca), usahé’ta (Onondaga), osahé:ta (Onieda), and osahéta
(Mohawk).
15. The Tuscarora term for bean is θ aehe .
16. I may be overly pessimistic with regard to the possibility of
finding prehistoric bean remains in open sites of the region. In
response to my pessimism, Gayle J. Fritz in a personal communi-
cation writes,
I’ve shifted over the years away from thinking that beans
are very unlikely to enter the archaeological record at
open sites where they have to have been charred. At later
pre-contact sites in eastern North America, we frequently
find charred beans, sometimes a whole lot of them. Any
flotation assemblage with lots of stuff will probably in-
clude anywhere from a few to many beans. So when
archaeologists begin to float lots of soil from Archaic
sites in Mexico, I think there’s a good chance that the
2,500–4,000 year old beans that you convincingly predict
were grown there will turn up. [personal communication,
September 12, 2005]
17. Michael Blake, in personal communication to me, writes,
What is so great about this is that your glottochrono-
logical analysis is independent of the Mesoamerican ar-
chaeological evidence and you argue strongly that there
should be some Early Formative beans somewhere. Well
there are! It seems to me that this is a superb confirmation
of your analysis. [personal communication, December 9,
2005]
REFERENCES CITED
Adair, Mary J.
2003 Great Plains Paleoethnobotany. In People and Plants in
Eastern North America. Paul E. Minnis, ed. Pp. 258–346. Wash-
ington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Asch, David L., and John P. Hart
2004 Crop Domestication in Prehistoric Eastern North America.
Encyclopedia of Plant and Crop Science. Pp. 314–319. New
York: Marcel Dekker.
Bellwood, Peter
2005 First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Blake, Michael, John E. Clark, Barbara Voorhies, George Michaels,
Michael W. Love, Mary E. Pye, Arthur A. Demarest, and Barbara
Arroyo
1995 Radiocarbon Chronology for the Late Archaic and Forma-
tive Periods on the Pacific Coast of Southeastern Mesoamerica.
Ancient Mesoamerica 6:161–183.
Broadwell, George Aaron
N.d. Reconstructing Proto-Muskogean Language and Pre-
history: Preliminary Results. Electronic document, http://
72.14.203.104 /search?q = cache:WUcArTRiLlAJ:www.albany.
edu/anthro/fac/broadwell/flora.pdf+Broadwell+%22Proto-
Muskogean%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1, accessed
March 28, 2006.
Brown, Cecil H.
1999 Lexical Acculturation in Native American Languages. New
York: Oxford University Press.
2006 Glottochronology and the Chronology of Maize in the
Americas. In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches
to the Prehistory, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution
of Maize. J. E. Staller, R. H. Tykot, and B. F. Benz, eds. Pp. 647–
663. San Diego: Elsevier.
N.d. Prehistoric Chronology of Squash (Cucurbita spp.) in the
Americas: The Linguistic Evidence. Unpublished MS, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, Northern Illinois University.
516 American Anthropologist • Vol. 108, No. 3 • September 2006
Brown, Cecil H., and Søren Wichmann
2004 Proto-Mayan Syllable Nuclei. International Journal of
American Linguistics 70:128–186.
Campbell, Lyle
1997 American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of
Native America. New York: Oxford University Press.
1998 Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Clark, John E.
1994 The Development of Early Formative Rank Societies in the
Soconusco, Chiapas, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Ehret, Christopher
2000 Testing the Expectations of Glottochronology against the
Correlations of Language and Archaeology in Africa. In Time
Depth in Historical Linguistics, vol. 2. C. Renfrew, A. McMa-
hon, and L. Trask, eds. Pp. 373–399. Cambridge: McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research.
Feddema, Vicki L.
1993 Early Formative Subsistence and Agriculture in Southeast-
ern Mesoamerica. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology
and Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Fowler, Catherine S.
1983 Some Lexical Clues to Uto-Aztecan Prehistory. Interna-
tional Journal of American Linguistics 49:224–257.
Gepts, P.
1998 What Can Molecular Markers Tell Us about the Pro-
cess of Domestication in Common Bean? In The Origins of
Agriculture and Crop Domestication, eds. A. B. Damania, J.
Valkoun, G. Willcox, and C. O. Qualset, eds. Aleppo, Syria:
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry
Areas.
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1987 Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Hart, John P., David L. Asch, C. Margaret Scarry, and Gary W. Craw-
ford
2002 The Age of the Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in
the Northern Eastern Woodlands of North America. Antiquity
76:377–385.
Hart, John P., and C. Margaret Scarry
1999 The Age of Common Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) in the
Northeastern United States. American Antiquity 64(4):653–
658.
Hill, Jane H.
2001 Proto-Uto-Aztecan: A Community of Cultivators in Cen-
tral Mexico? American Anthropologist 103(4):913–934.
Holman, Eric W.
2004 Why Are Language Families Larger in Some Regions than
in Others? Diachronica 21(1):57–84.
Huber, R. Q., and R. B. Reed
1992 Comparative Vocabulary: Selected Words in Indigenous
Languages of Colombia. Santafé de Bogotá, Colombia: Insti-
tuto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
Kaplan, Lawrence, and Thomas F. Lynch
1999 Phaseolus (Fabaceae) in Archaeology: AMS Radiocarbon
Dates and Their Significance for Pre-Colombian Agriculture.
Economic Botany 53(3):261–272.
Kaufman, Terrence
1976 Archaeological and Linguistic Correlations in Mayaland
and Associated Areas of Meso-America. World Archaeology
8(1):101–118.
1990a Early Otomanguean Homelands and Cultures: Some Pre-
mature Hypotheses. University of Pittsburgh Working Papers
in Linguistics 1:91–136.
1990b Language History in South America: What We Know and
How to Know More. In Amazonian Linguistics: Studies in Low-
View publication stats
land South American Languages. D. L. Payne, ed. Pp. 13–73.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
1994a The Native Languages of Mesoamerica. In Atlas of the
World’s Languages. C. Moseley and R. E. Asher, eds. Pp. 34–
45. London: Routledge.
1994b The Native Languages of South America. In Atlas of the
World’s Languages. C. Moseley and R. E. Asher, eds. Pp. 46–76.
London: Routledge.
2003 A Preliminary Proto-Mayan Etymological Dictionary.
Electronic document, http://www.famsi.org/reports/01051/
pmed.pdf, accessed March 16, 2006.
Lehmann, Walter
1920 Zentral-Amerika (Central America). Berlin: Verlag Kietrich
Reimer (Ernst Vohsen).
Loukotka, Čestmir
1968 Classification of South American Indian Languages. Los
Angeles: Latin American Center, University of California.
Munson, P. J.
1973 The Origins and Antiquity of Maize-Beans-Squash Agricul-
ture in Eastern North America: Some Linguistic Implications. In
Variation in Anthropology: Essays in Honor of John C. McGre-
gor. D. W. Lathrap and J. Douglas, eds. Pp. 107–135. Urbana,
IL: Illinois Archaeological Survey.
Renfrew, C., A. McMahon, and L. Trask, eds.
2000 Time Depth in Historical Linguistics, vols. 1 and 2.
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Rensch, Calvin R.
1976 Comparative Otomanguean Phonology. Indiana Univer-
sity Publications, Language Science Monographs, 14. Bloom-
ington: Indiana University.
Smalley, John, and Michael Blake
2003 Sweet Beginnings: Stalk Sugar and the Domestication of
Maize. Current Anthropology 44(5):675–703.
Smith, Bruce D.
2001 Documenting Plant Domestication: The Consilience of Bi-
ological and Archaeological Approaches. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 98(4):1324–1326.
Swadesh, Morris
1959 Mapas de Clasificación Lingüı́stica de México y las
Américas (Linguistic classification maps of Mexico and
the Americas). Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de
Mexico.
1960 Estudios sobre Lengua y Cultura (Studies on language and
culture). Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e
Historia.
1971 The Origin and Diversification of Language. Joel Sherzer,
ed. and trans. Chicago: Aldine Atherton.
Wichmann, Søren
N.d. Neolithic Linguistics. In Language and Prehistory of
the Indo-European Peoples—A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective.
Gojko Barjamovic, Irene Elmerot, Adam Hyllested, Bene-
dicte Nielsen, and Bjørn Okholm Skaarup, eds. Budapest:
Archaeolingua.
Wichmann, Søren, and Cecil H. Brown
N.d. Syllable Nuclei of Proto-Mayan Disyllabic Stems. Unpub-
lished MS, Department of Anthropology, Northern Illinois
University.
Wichmann, Søren, D. Beliaev, and A. Davletshin
2005 Posibles Correlaciones Lingüı́sticas y Arqueológicas In-
volucrando a los Olmecas (Possible linguistic and archaeolog-
ical correlations involving the Olmec). Paper presented at the
proceedings of the Mesa Redonda Olmeca: Balance y Perspec-
tivas, Museo Nacional de Antropologı́a, México City, March
10–12.
Wills, W. H.
1988 Early Prehistoric Agriculture in the American Southwest.
Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.