The Sweet Potato: Its Origin and Dispersal’

PATRICIA J. O’BRIEN
Kansas State University

T h e sweet potato originated in northwestern South America, arising possibly as a

hybrid cross or through karyotypic alterations f r o m an u n k n o w n plant o f the
genus Ipomoea. This domestication is associated with the development o f Tropical
Forest agricultural villages b y ca. 2500 B.C.T h e Spanish introduced it to Europe
and spread it to China and Japan and Malaysia and the Moluccas region. T h e
Portuguese carried it t o India, Indonesia, and Africa. T h e plant has a pre-Magellan
introduction into Polynesia by possibly A.D. I in the Samoa area and is dispersed
from there t o the rest o f the Pacific. T h e plant was transferred either by birds
carrying t h e seed or, more likely, through an accidental casting o f a vessel carrying
it upon an island o f the Samoa region. T h e word kumara, alleged b y m a n y to show
direct contact between Polynesians and Quechuan-speaking Indians, apparently
reconstructs t o Proto-Polynesian and was introduced into the Quechua dictionaries
to reflect the educated Spaniard’s knowledge o f s w e e t p o t a t o terms.

THE SWEET POTATO (Ipomoea Batatas, historical and archaeological record of it as

Lam.) is a root crop which today supports
millions of people throughout the tropical
regions of the world. It is also a plant whose
origin and dispersal, if understood, is impor-
tant if we are to come to an understanding
of (1) how man was manipulating and
changing specific types of plants to bring
them under cultivation, (2) the effects of the
nature of the plants (seed or vegetal) on the
agricultural systems developed, and (3) the
significance of diffusion as a process of
change through the contacts between dif-
ferent human populations as the plant
moved around the world.
The whole question of the plant’s dis-
persal from its New World home to the Old
World will be reviewed. Its spread into
Polynesia before European contact will be
examined, although the question being asked
is not whether it reached Polynesia early
but, rather, how early? Then, too, how far
did it penetrate Melanesia in pre-Magellan
times, and what people were responsible for
its introduction into New Guinea? Finally,
there will be a review of its spread into
North America, China, Japan, India, and
Africa.
In making this study, evidence about the
general characteristics of the plant, the
well as the current distribution of sweet
potatoes, and data from historic linguistics
will all be considered in attacking these
problems.
ORIGIN
In general, studies into the origin of
domesticated plants have been concerned
with establishing the genetic relationships
between these plants and some wild
ancestor. At this point let it be noted that all
evidence established by previous investiga-
tors-archaeological, linguistic, and his-
torical-establishes that the sweet potato
originated in the New World, either in the
Central or South American lowlands.
In establishing its New World origins, two
approaches were used: linguistic and archae-
ological. The linguistic evidence comes from
the work of Longacre and Millon (1961:7,
12) on proto-Mixtec where they observed
that the Mixtec for sweet potato (ya?ml-
Jicaltepec dialect) reconstructs at the proto-
Mixtec level, which is estimated to date at
about 1000 B.C. McQuown (1964) has the
sweet potato (’iis) present in all the major
branches of the Mayan linguistic stock
(Bronson 1966:262-263). A glottochrono-

342
O’Brien ] THE SWEET POTATO
logical dating scheme is presented in which it
is suggested that this term along with other
plant terms reconstructs to proto-Maya at
ca. 2600 B.C. (Bronson 1966:262-263). The
archaeological evidence is the actual remains
of sweet potatoes found at the site of
Ventanilla in the Chillon Valley of Peru
along with potatoes and achira (Patterson
and Lanning 1964:114). They date this site
at ca. 2000 to 1200 B.C. More recently, there
is additional evidence of the antiquity of
sweet potatoes from Peru’s Central Coast in
the third phase of the Ancon sequence
dating 1400-1300 B.C. (Patterson and
Moseley 1968:120). The tubers are also
reported in the third Colinas phase dating
1300-1175 B.C. (Patterson and Moseley
1968:121). There is the possibility of the
plant existing even earlier in the Peruvian
area as unidentified tubers have been found
in the Playa Hermosa phase (2500-2275
B.C.), the Conchas phase (2275-1900 B.C.),
and the Gaviota phase (1900-1750 B.C.)
(Patterson and Moseley 1968: 117-118). This
combined evidence gives an approximate
date of at least 2000 B.C. for the presence of
the plant in the New World.
There has been no clear, undisputed
evidence presented to date to show that the
sweet potato was used in Europe, Asia,
Africa, or Australia before discovery in the
New World by Columbus. Nor does it appear
to have been known in the ancient civiliza-
tions of China, Egypt, Babylon, Persia,
Rome, Greece, or India (Cooley 1951:378).
Later a body of evidence will be presented
which indicates that the sweet potato had a
pre-Magellan introduction into Polynesia.
The most recent botanical study into the
origin of the sweet potato is that of
Nishiyama (1961, 1963) of Japan, who
claims to have a wild species of Ipomoea
from Mexico (collection No. K-123) which
resembles the sweet potato in some char-
acteristics though not in domesticate traits
(see Yen 1963, 1968, 1971 for further
discussion). K-123 was cross-compatible
with I. balatas, and they would easily
hybridize in reciprocal crosses (Nishiyama
1961: 138). Cytological studies showed that
343
K-123 had the same chromosome number
(n=45) as the sweet potato. K-123 was
identified as I. trifida (H.B.K.) G . Don
(Nishiyama 1961: 138). The major problem
with this plant as an ancestral form is that it
may in reality be a feral sweet potato. This
could be resolved by an extensive cytological
examination of all of the races of I. trifida.
One should also examine Nishiyama’s
view onl. trifida in relation to the observation
by Sharma and Sharma’s (1957:629) on
speciation among vegetatively reproducing
plants. They suggest that it is generally
assumed that once a new species arose
through sexual reproduction it reached a
static stage and that vegetative multiplica-
tion has nothing to do with the origin of
new forms. In the researches for the origin
of the sweet potato, most investigators have
dealt with the plant on the assumption that
the species arose through sexual reproduc-
tion, but Sharma and Sharma (1957:629)
have noted that among vegetative reproduc-
ing plants karyotypic alterations in somatic
cells become important in speciation. Since
the sweet potato is known t o send out roots
from the nodes which will bear small
potatoes (Price 1896:1), is it not possible
that karyotypic alterations occurred in the
daughter corms giving rise to new forms as
occurs in some of the species of Dioscorea?
The resolution of the origin of the sweet
potato as it pertains to genetic mechanism is
unknown and will remain so until a great
deal more work is done. Fundamental to this
problem will be a complete exposition of the
cytological status of the genus Ipomoea. It
will only be after this basic work is done
that one can formulate hybridizational
studies with special reference (1) to those
plants whose chromosomal behavior would
suggest a possible ancestry, and (2) to those
plants whose geographic distribution ap-
proximates that area where the sweet potato
is thought to have originated (Le., Central or
South American lowlands). Until such
studies are completed the selection of any
species of Ipomoea as the ancestral form
will be no more than an educated guess.
344 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [ 74,1972

SIGNIFICANCE FOR of South America. Lathrap (1962)feels one

NEW WORLD AGRICULTURAL ORIGINS of the strongest evidences for this hypothesis
is linguistic; words for sweet potato are
In human history, two types of planting found in many of the languages of the area,
systems were developed based on two forms indicating the presence of the plant before
of plant reproduction: vegetal and seed. It the present linguistic divisions and diversi-
appears that these two systems had their fication. Word lists gathered by Norden-
origin in two different ecological situations: skiold (1930)and Brand (1971:390)support
the seed in a semi-arid environment, and the this.
vegetal in a tropical forest environment. In Lathrap believes (1962:512-514) this
the New World these two methods seem to earliest agricultural pattern in South
have manifested themselves in distinct areas, America probably dated around 3000-4000
the seed in Mesoamerica and the vegetal in B.C., and that the yam and arrowroot were a
South America. Since the sweet potato is part of this complex. He feels this very early
generally propagated vegetally, it would agricultural expansion occurred among a
appear to have a relationship with the root people lacking both pottery and manioc, but
crop economies of South America. who probably planted root crops on the
In 1952 the cultural geographer Carl flood plains of rivers, River transportation
Sauer presented an hypothesis concerning and fishing at this time were not extensively
the origin of agriculture (Sauer 1952). He developed, and the hunting of land mammals
suggested that it probably arose among was very important. The modern ethno-
riverine populations of the tropical lowlands graphic counterpart of this complex would
who, because of the high protein resources be the GQ peoples of the eastern Brazil
of the rivers, were able to attain a sedentary highlands (Lathrap 1962:555-556).Next t o
existence without agriculture (Sauer the linguistic evidence of South America, an
1952:22-27).Sauer also assumed that the early origin of the sweet potato is indicated
mode of reproduction for these first plants by the archaeological remains of the plant at
would be vegetative and that seed agriculture the Ventanilla site, mentioned earlier, dating
would develop later (1952:25).He suggested 2000-1200B.C. while the linguistic evidence
therefore that agriculture originated in from the proto-Mayan and proto-Mixtecan
Southeast Asia where the above mentioned reconstructions points to the presence of
ecological conditions exist. The latest dating the sweet potato as early as 2600 B.C. and
of domestic plants at 7000-10,000B.C. in not much later than 1000 B.C. in the Mayan
Thailand (Solheim 1969) seem to support area of Central America. Presumably the
this. Sauer also suggested (1952:62) that spread of the plant between the Yucatan-
New World agriculture would originate in Guatemala area and the south coast of Peru
northwestern South America based on root took some time.
crops for the same reasons. However, the This hypothesized first agricultural com-
data, thus far, indicate the earliest agricul- plex was followed by the appearance of one
ture is based on seed (maize) in the based on sweet manioc and manufacturing
Tehuacan Valley, Mexico (MacNeish 1964). p o t t e r y . Thus, L a t h r a p suggests
Still another body of data point to a (1962:512-514)that this sweet potato-yam-
separate though slightly later hearth in arrowmot-mammal hunting complex was
South America with root crops. superseded by the appearance of a pottery
It has been hypothesized by Lathrap making-riverine transport and fishing-sweet
(1962,see 1970 for recent views) that the manioc producing complex. Early sites of
sweet potato has been under cultivation for this type would be similar to those found on
a long time and, indeed, that perhaps it was the coast of Colombia like Momil dating ca.
part of the earliest expansion of tropical 2700-2900 B.C. (Lathrap 1962:556-557).
forest agriculture throughout the lowlands Because of the greater efficiency of manioc
O’Brien ] THE SWEET POTATO
as a food producer, the earlier complex
broke down except for the remnant area in
the eastern Brazilian highlands since the area
was not suited to support a more riverine
oriented economy. The net result was the
decline of the importance of the sweet
potato with it becoming essentially supple-
mentary to the diets of most later people
(Lathrap 1962:512-514).
A second hypothesis for the origin of the
sweet potato has been recently reported by
Bronson (1966:264). He notes that Lundell
(1961:2-3) has found a prolific wild type of
sweet potato in several areas of the Peten.
Bronson feels (1966:264) that, should the
plant prove to be a true wild plant and not
an “escapee,” it “would appear to be a step
intermediate between the small-rooted, self-
seeding Ipomoea trifida and the large-rooted,
humanly propagated Ipomoea batatas.” This
would seem to point to the Mesoamerican
lowlands as the possible center of origin of
the plant. Bronson (1966:264) feels it is
possible the area may be the “center of
variation” or “hearth” of the plant, if not of
its origin, because of the varieties reported
there. He notes (Bronson 1966:264) that
Hernando reported five in the eighteenth
century in New Spain, Landa three in the
sixteenth century in the Yucatan, while
Redfield and Villar, and Kelley and Palerm
indicate the same range of types of camote
in the Yucatan and Tajin areas. He further
feels the diversity indicates interest in the
plant and since time is needed as well as
interest to develop this diversity, the Maya
must have been using it, and have been inter-
ested in it long before the sixteenth century.
Needless to say, which of these two
hypotheses are correct cannot be established
at this time; more work, archaeological,
linguistic and botanical is needed before
primacy can be given to one of them.
DISPERSAL
When Columbus discovered the New
World, the sweet potato made its first
appearance in European history and began
its movement throughout the Old World.
345
Europe
The sweet potato was introduced into
Europe via Spain at the end of the fifteenth
century, as according to Gomara, Columbus
presented some to Queen Isabella when he
returned from the New World, along with
other food plants (de Candolle 1908:55).
Oviedo claims that (in 1526) he introduced
the plant himself at Avila, Spain (de
Candolle 1908:55). From this beginning the
plant was spread to the rest of Europe. In
Europe it was first called batuta andpadada
(Cooley 1951:379). Later when the Irish
potato (Sofanum tuberosum) was imported
into Europe some confusion developed, and
the plant was then called the Spanish potato
or sweet potato (Cooley 1951:379).
North America
Since the sweet potato originated in the
New World and at the time of the discovery
was grown in the Caribbean, Central
America, and South America, one can
inquire as to its use in the continental
United States. Today the plant is grown
commercially in the southeastern United
States though not in the Southwest because
of the climate. The earliest explorer into the
U.S. was the Spaniard DeSoto. Two works
are available on this trip through the South-
east and nowhere is there any mention of
sweet potatoes (Hakluyt 1851).
Another early work which describes the
food plants of the Indians in the U.S. is
Hariot’s report of Raleigh’s colony in
Virginia, published in 1588. One root
described called “okeepenavk” is probably
what is the wild sweet potato (Ipomoea
parzdurata) (Swanton 1946:270). According
to Safford (1925b:223) the sweet potato
when first brought to North America was
called the “Irish potato” because some
Scotch-Irish introduced it in 1719 at Lon-
donderry, Rockingham County, New
Hampshire.
Hedrick (1919:315) notes that sweet
potatoes are mentioned as growing in
346 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
“Virginia in 1648, perhaps in 1610 and are
mentioned again by Jefferson, 1781.” They
are reported being introduced in New
England in 1764, and in 1773 Bartram notes
their production by Indians in the South and
Romans notes their use by Florida Indians in
1775 (Hedrick 1919:315-316). Sauer
(1959:224) notes that the lack of spread of
the sweet potato into North America is
striking especially in the light of its pre-
Columbian spread into Polynesia.
China
There are two claims for the introduction
of this plant into China. In the history of
Ch’ang-lo county, an overseas merchant
named Ch’en Chen-lung was said to have
brought it from Luzon in the Philippines and
that years later his son gave it to the
governor of Fukien in 1594 (Ho 1955:193).
It was important in staving off a famine in
that year, hence its name chin-shu or golden
tuber. The people in the southern port of
Chang-chou claim it was introduced first in
their area, but that it was kept secret, and no
specific date of the alleged introduction is
known (Ho 1955:193). Ho (1955:193) feels
that there is much weight to the story,
because these people had extensive overseas
contacts and also because their name for the
root is not “golden tuber,” which was the
name given by those grateful for being saved
from the famine. He also notes that the
sweet potato was definitely introduced into
China decades before 1594 because it was
found in the western prefecture Ta-li near
Burma by 1563 (1955:193-194). Therefore,
he says it is possible the introduction oc-
curred overland from India and Burma. All
he is able to conclude is that the introduc-
tion could have been either overland or by
sea well before the generally accepted date
of 1594 (1955:194).
Japan and the Philippines
The sweet potato was introduced into
Japan as early as 1615 by an Englishman,
who was connected with an English factory
[74,1972
at Hirado, but it is thought that the Japanese
did not accept it at this time and that
knowledge of it was probably suppressed
and lost with the burning of this factory in
1627 (Simon 1914:723-724). The plant was
then reintroduced approximately eighty
years later, at which time it was brought
from China (Zbid.:711). Thus it came to
Japan in about 1674 and here as in China it
was used to stave off famine (Simon
1914:716).
Evidence of Spanish introduction is
indicated by the fact that the Chinese had
extensive trade within the Philippine Islands
and Japan, and if the plant had been present
in the Philippines before the Spanish arrived
in 1521, it would have been imported to
Japan along with other trade goods from
these areas. The Spanish discovered the
Philippines in 1521 and had established a
flourishing trade with China at about 1571
(Simon 1914:713). Thus, it would appear
that the sweet potato was unknown in the
Far East before the arrival of the Spanish
and that they brought the plant with its
Mexican name camote t o the Philippines
(Simon 1914:714).
Africa
Conklin (1963) in a beautifully formu-
lated and researched paper has attacked the
problem of the sweet potato in Africa. He
observes that two hypotheses have been put
forward about this plant. The first, that it
was transmitted from Africa to Oceania and
the second, that it was transmitted from
Oceania to Africa. Using linguistic data he
attempts to evaluate these suggestions.
Conklin notes that what is amazing about
Africa and the distribution of the sweet
potato names is that the “form batata, tata,
mbatata, or the like” is reported from all
parts of the continent and is found in such
unrelated languages as Berber and Zulu
(1963:133). The other most widespread
term in bombe, bambai, bambaira, or bangbe
which indicates the source of the plant was
the Indian trade center Bombay. Those
names for the sweet potato which do not fall
O’Brien] THE SWEET POTATO
into these categories have only small geo-
graphic distribution and/or are found only in
closely related languages. As lexical entries
they refer t o indigenous yams o r other root
crops. On the basis of this evidence Conklin
concludes that t h e sweet potato was intro-
duced into Africa by t h e Portuguese in t h e
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries “from the
Atlantic coastal regions of mid-latitude
America” (Conklin 1963: 133). While
Conklin’s evidence for a Portuguese intro-
duction is strong, there is other evidence t o
suggest that “the Atlantic coastal regions of
mid-latitude America” was not the direct
source of the plant.
Between 1500 and 1 7 3 0 only twenty
ships of the Lisbon-India route stopped a t
Brazil. The route t o India from Portugal
required the ships to avoid the Guinea (West
African) coast because of general bad sailing
weather there and also t o avoid the Guinea
Current which would carry them southeast-
ward, while a t the same time they had t o
make Mozambique ports before the south-
west monsoon of the Indian Ocean was
exhausted (a time between May and
September). A stop at Brazil would mean
missing the monsoon winds and a wait in
Mozambique ports of a half a year (Mar-
chant 1 9 4 1:462-465).
Significantly, the return trip, while still
missing Brazil, took the ships close t o land
when rounding t h e Cape of Good Hope t o
use t h e Agulhas Current, passing Ascension
and St. Helena and then after crossing the
equator heading north to the Azores and
hence directly t o Lisbon (Marchant
1941:462-463). Marchant notes (1941:456)
that avoidance of Brazilian and African
harbors was encouraged by the King because
of the time it consumed.
The Portuguese ports of Mozambique are
an obvious source for the sweet potato with
the term batata into East Africa. The intro-
duction of the plant into West Africa,
specifically Angola, probably occurred with
Paul0 Diasde Novais’ charter of colonization
in 1571 which included provisions for
peasant families from Portugal with “all the
seeds and plants which they can take from
347
this kingdom and from t h e island of Sao
Tome” (Boxer 1 9 6 9 :30).
At the same time, the presence of the
word batata cannot always be taken as
indicative of t h e Portuguese proper because
their language became the lingua franca
along the coasts of Africa and Asia (Boxer
1969:55), and as such could have been
spread by others. But the term is still
indicative of a post-European presence in
any of those areas.
The significance of a word like bambai
with the plant is more complicated. The port
city o f Bombay is obvious, but that port was
not significant in the India trade network
until the British acquired it as dowry in
1662 when Charles I1 married Catherine of
Braganza. This area was acquired by the
Portuguese in 1534 from the Sultan of
Gujerat and, although it has a fine natural
harbor, other factors prevented its use. For
the word Bombay t o be associated with t h e
sweet potato in Africa requires either the
British o r possibly Indian clerks and
merchants associated with British coloniza-
tion in Africa t o introduce the term. This
suggests a period as early as t h e seventeenth
century o r as late as the nineteenth (Lelah
Dushkin, personal communication).
If the above data are correct the sweet
potato was introduced into Africa via the
Portuguese in both Mozambique and
possibly Angola probably directly from
Lisbon in the sixteenth century with a later
spread of the plant in the seventeenth and
nineteenth century via British influences.
Polynesia
There have been many who believed that
the sweet potato was introduced into
Polynesia by t h e Spanish. The basis for this
idea is its known introduction (by the
Spanish) into the Philippines shortly after
they discovered those islands in 1521. The
first colonization of t h e Philippines took
place in 1564. An Englishman named Caven-
dish noted the plant growing o n Guam and
the Philippines, and called camote when he
visited in 1588 (Safford 1925a:181). I t is
348 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
known that the plant diffused from the
Philippines into China, Formosa, Japan,
Indonesia, and Southeast Asia following this
introduction (Dixon 1932:41). Reinforcing
the Spanish introduction theory is the fact
that the name for the plant in the Philip-
pines is camote, which is generically related
to the Nahuatl words for it, camotl and
camotili (Merrill 1954: 317-318). Another
important point connected to this belief is
that the Spanish explorers Mendana and
Quiros made no mention of finding the plant
on the islands they visited, the Marquesas
group in Polynesia, and the Santa Cruz,
Solomon, and New Hebrides groups of
Melanesia (Dixon 1932:40).
Notwithstanding the above, a great deal
of evidence was presented by Dixon (1932)
and others, establishing that the sweet
potato was introduced into Polynesia before
Magellan’s 1521 voyage around the world.
Briefly, the most important evidence was the
distribution of the plant in Polynesia at the
time of the discovery of some of the islands.
The first explorers to land on New Zealand,
Hawaii, and Easter Island reported that it
was the basic food plant grown and was
extremely important economically. These
three island groups are located geo-
graphically at the most distantly separated
points of the triangle which defines the
limits of Polynesia (Dixon 1932:45).
The sweet potato was observed by
Roggeween in 1722 when he discovered
Easter Island. He informs us that they were
grown on large plantations, and were the
mainstay of the diet (Dixon 1932:44).
Cook, Banks, and Parkinson wrote of the
importance of the plant on the North Island
of New Zealand in 1769 (Dixon 1932:44)
while Best (1925) indicates its importance in
Maori agriculture in general. Tasman’s con-
tact with the Maori of New Zealand in 1642
was too brief for him to give any evaluation
of Maori agricultural practices or to ascertain
their food plants (Dixon 1932:45).
Hawaii was discovered by Cook in 1778,
at which time he reported the sweet potato
as an important native crop. The Hawaiians
had developed elaborate methods of cultiva-
[74,1972
tion for the plant, and it was intimately tied
to their ritual and cosmogonic myths. The
sweet potato is mentioned in a number of
chants and sacred charms, all of which are in
an archaic form of speech (Dixon 1932:45).
When Dixon first published his article on
the sweet potato, he noted that two Spanish
ships, those of Saavedra and Gaetano, had
been wrecked off the islands in the sixteenth
century and could be used as possible
evidence for a Spanish introduction of the
plant into Hawaii (1932:50). Dixon, at the
time he wrote his paper, was not aware that
these early Spanish visits seem not to have
occurred. Stokes (1932:594-595) has shown
that the “authorities” have been perpetu-
ating a myth, which started with Fornander,
that the Spanish reached the islands first. He
argues (1932:595) that this was not the case,
and notes that even the Spanish admitted
Cook’s discovery when they sent a Lt.
Quimper in 1790 to investigate the islands.
Thus it would seem that Cook was the first
European t o reach Hawaii. Since he reported
the sweet potato there, some explanation
other than Spanish introduction must be put
forward to explain its presence.
Another point which would seem pertin-
ent is that there are an amazing number of
varieties of the sweet potato in the South
Seas. F o r New Zealand Colenso
(1881: 31-35) listed forty-eight types, while
Best (1925:55-56) reported over eighty.
Handy (1940:133-135) mentions twenty-
four varieties from Hawaii; Yen (1961:368)
notes sixteen from the Cook Islands and
twenty-two from New Guinea (1961:371).
The natives of Wantoat Valley in New
Guinea recognize forty to fifty varieties
(Damm 1961:213). What is most interesting
about the varieties in New Zealand is that
they are much farther removed from tropical
growth conditions than anywhere in the
New World, the home of the plant (Sauer
1950:510). They extend into the South
Island, well beyond Cantebury Plain
(latitude 45”S), which was the highest
latitude reached by aboriginal agriculture in
the Southern Hemisphere.
 O’Brien ] THE SWEET POTATO 349

Thus, the plant was dispersed 12” farther was colonized by Amerindians. While Suggs
south of its limit in the Northern Hemi- has used this idea uncritically, he made
sphere (Sauer 1950:510). It would be (from my point of view) one important and
amazing to have such selection, t o high interesting observation about the linguistic
latitude and cool summers, made in the data Heyerdahl (1952) presented. It has
short period of time allowed by European been noted, not just by Heyerdahl, but also
dispersal. Also, these New Zealand plants, by Dixon and others, that the terms for
being starchy and coarse, are very similar t o sweet potato in Peru and Polynesia are so
an older, now almost extinct variety in the similar that they are believed t o have a
Andean area (Sauer 1950:510). This removal common origin. In Peru and Ecuador
from tropical conditions can also be noted sweet potatoes are cumar, kumar, kumara,
of those varieties in the highlands of New ckumara, umar, kumal, and in Columbia
Guinea, but unlike the Maori, the High- umala and kuala (Heyerdahl 1952:429). In
landers have not developed storage tech- Polynesia we find kumar(a), umara, uma’s,
niques (Keleny 1965:102). kumala, umala, and uwala (Conklin
Thus, Hawaii, New Zealand, and Easter 1963:130). Suggs suggested that since the
Island, at the time of discovery in the term for sweet potato occurs in all the
eighteenth century, had well developed Polynesian languages and since there is
agricultural systems in which the sweet another term for sweet potato in Peru (i.e.,
potato played a dominant role. Not only was apichu in Quechua) that the work kumar
the plant found a t these widely separated was Polynesian and had been introduced
points of the Polynesian triangle, but the into Peru by Europeans (1960:23).
plant was an unimportant one in the central This suggestion is important because it
areas and in some islands was not reported at leads one t o ask whether it is possible for the
all. It is not the intention of this paper to work kumara t o be reconstructed in Proto-
rehash old arguments. The writer feels the Polynesian, for, as Suggs points out, it
evidence presented by Dixon and others, occurs in all the Polynesian languages.
supporting a pre-Magellan introduction, Longacre and Millon (1961) have established
adequately accounts for the data, and it is evidence for the plant in Mexico on the
accepted that the sweet potato was intro- Proto-Mixtecan horizon, a horizon they
duced into Polynesia in pre-historic times. A estimate t o date approximately 1000 B.C.,
more meaningful question concerns how through historic linguistic reconstructions.
early this introduction occurred, which McQuown (1964) has done the same thing in
people or peoples were its agent, and how the Mayan languages. Therefore, if the word
far to the west (into Melanesia and New for sweet potato reconstructed t o Proto-
Guinea) it spread without European in- Polynesian we would gain some data on its
fluences? These questions will be grappled time depth within the Polynesian area, the
with in what seems to be a digression. same as was achieved in Mexico by this
Two hypotheses have been offered t o method. George W. Grace feels that the most
explain the presence of the sweet potato in economical explanation for the distribution
pre-Magellan Polynesia: (1) The plant was of forms of the word for sweet potato is that
introduced from Africa, its center of origin, the work reconstructs t o Proto-Polynesian
into Polynesia (Suggs 1960:23); (2) the with the reconstructed form being kumala.
plant was introduced into Polynesia from He feels that this fact does not guarantee
the New World before the circumnavigation that the plant was present in Proto-
of the earth by Magellan. Polynesian times, but he notes: “The prob-
Suggs (1960) has utilized Merrill’s lem of explanation becomes increasingly
suggestion (1954) that the plant may have difficult the later we assume the introduc-
originated in Africa as part of his evidence tion to have occurred” (personal communi-
against Heyerdahl’s theory that Polynesia cation, letter dated Sept. 29, 1966). Samuel
350 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
H. Elbert (personal communication) concurs
in these suggestions.
This linguistic evidence would seem to
establish some base line for the antiquity of
the plant, namely, that the plant probably
was present just before the linguistic diversi-
fication in Polynesia occurred. If this data is
combined with archaeological information
about the peopling of the Pacific, we may be
able to establish the approximate entry of
the plant to the region.
With the flood of new data on the
archaeology of Polynesia, the basic dispersal
of these people is coming rather sharply into
focus. Bunton and Valier (1963) suggest that
there were six routes of dispersal while
Sinoto (1968) has recently proposed seven.
Bunton and Valier (1963: 3) propose route 1
as to the Marquesas Islands from Samoa.
From the Marquesas Islands, which serve as a
major dispersal area, the people go to the
Society Islands (route 2), to Easter Island
(route 3), and t o the Hawaiian Islands (route
4). Route 5 is to New Zealand via the
Society Islands, and route 6 is from the
Society’s to Hawaii. Route 1is dated ca. 100
B.C., route 4 ca. A.D. 500, and route 5 ca.
A.D. 900.
Sinoto (1968, Fig. 3) in noting the
importance of the Marquesas Islands in the
dispersal of the Polynesians, basically agrees
with Bunton and Valier, but would add a
seventh route. His routes 1 through 3 are the
same as those of Bunton and Valier, but his
route 4 is a movement from the Society’s to
New Zealand, route 5 is from the Marquesas
Islands to Hawaii, route 6 is from the
Marquesas Islands to New Zealand, and
route 7 is from the Society Islands to
Hawaii. Not only would Sinoto support
Bunton and Valier’s two routes to Hawaii,
but he also feels there were two to New
Zealand.
Some radiocarbon dates useful in dating
these routes are: Saipan 1527 B.C., Yap
A.D. 178, Fiji 46 B.C., New Zealand A.D.
1015, Hawaii A.D. 124, Samoa A.D. 9,
Marquesas Islands A.D. 48, and Easter
Islands A.D. 380 (Draper 1960:16-17). The
Easter Island A.D. 380 date is no longer
[74,1972
accepted now, and A.D. 850 is the earliest
acceptable date (Carlyle Smith, personal
communication). A radiocarbon date from
New Caledonia indicates it could have been
occupied by 800 B.C. (Berger, Fergusson and
Libby 1965:347-348), while there is a new
date of A.D. 800+90 from New Zealand
(Anonymous 1966b:43M). The early
124+150 B.C. date reported by Suggs from
the Marquesas Islands has been updated by
Sinoto (1968:115-116) to A.D. 850+100.
Smith (1968:1378) thinks a true date for
the earliest occupation of the islands will be
found between these two extremes. Recent
dates from the Society Islands are A.D.
860k85 (GY-0207) and A.D. 1190+90
(GY-0276) (Emory 1968:157). Palmer
(1968:26) reports a date of 510k90 B.C.
(Gak-946) from Fiji. Polach, et al.
(1968:195), have an early date of 1215+120
B.C. (ANU-96) from New Caledonia, and
they report (1968:193) there is a date from
New Britain in the Bismark Archipelago of
470+110 B.C. (ANU-37b). The earliest date
from the New Hebrides is A.D. 855+80
(UCLA-1295b) (Berger and Libby
1968:406), and Guam has one of A.D.
985+80 (UCLA-1232C) (Berger and Libby
1968:407).
In summary, the earliest dates from
Micronesia are in the 1500 B.C. to A.D. 100
range, while those in Melanesia vary from
1000 to 500 B.C. These dates suggest a
general north-south, west-east, and southeast
movement of people. These data suggest
populations are arriving on Samoa for their
dispersal to the east by about the birth of
Christ.
For a general dating of the peopling of
Polynesia two models seem reasonable, one
is based on an acceptance of the “safest”
dates (i.e,, the most conservative) and would
have Samoa occupied by A.D. 1 , the Mar-
quesas Islands by A.D. 850, Easter Island by
A.D. 850, the Society Islands by A.D. 860,
Hawaii by A.D. 800, and New Zealand
occupied by A.D. 800. These dates suggest
a very rapid dispersal of people into the
furthest reaches of Polynesia in the eighth
and ninth centuries A.D.
O’Brien ] THE SWEET POTATO
The second model, based on a com-
promise of the earliest dates with the
“safest” dates would give A.D. 1for Samoa,
A.D. 850 for Easter Island, A.D. 500 for
Hawaii, A.D. 860 for the Society Islands,
and A.D. 800 for New Zealand. A date of
A.D. 400 is suggested for the Marquesas
Islands as a compromise between Sugg’s
early date (100 BE.) and Sinoto’s late (A.D.
800) date. This is necessary if the Hawaiian
Islands were populated about A.D. 500,
since the artifact assemblages of Hawaii are
derived from the Marquesas. These date
ranges would suggest a slower peopling of
the islands covering the fifth and ninth
centuries A.D.
These suggestions will be returned t o
following a discussion of the various
opinions for the presence of the sweet
potato in the prehistory of the three most
distant island groups of Polynesia, and where
the plant has been consistently reported as
the major domesticate: the Hawaiian Islands,
Easter Island, and New Zealand.
Hawaiian Islands
The latest evidence for the sweet potato
in the Hawaiian Islands is a carbonized one
from an interior ash deposit in a fireplace
within a “Middle” phase domestic structure
at Lapakahi on the island of Hawaii. The
fireplace is dated B.P. 295290 with a cor-
rected date of B.P. 315+90 or B.P. 435290,
giving a range of A.D. 1425-1765 (Rosen-
dahl and Yen 1971:381-383).
Early dates for the introduction of the
sweet potato have been proposed: A.D.
1200 by Smith (1965:92) who thinks the
islands were occupied a t that time, and A.D.
9572120 and A.D. 1004+180 by Emory
who feels Hawaiians brought their domesti-
cated plants and animals at this time (in
Suggs 1959:60-61). Emory (1959:240-241)
suggests the Hawaiian Island chain was
occupied by A.D. 1000 and Hawaii proper
by A.D. 500. He notes (Emory 1961:18-23)
the early Hawaiians are related to Tahiti and
the Marquesas Islands by affinities in stone
and bone implements. Dixon (1932:50)
351
observed the sweet potato had t o be intro-
duced before the twelfth or thirteenth
centuries because the islands were peripheral
to Polynesia after those dates.
In sum, we have the plant o n Hawaii by
ca. A.D. 1635k90. This is a base date, how
much earlier it was introduced within an
A.D. 500-1635 range we cannot say now.
Easter Island
As noted earlier the sweet potato was a
very important economic plant t o the
inhabitants of Easter Island when it was
discovered by Roggeween. The earliest
physical evidence of the plant is their
charred remains from a fireplace dating A.D.
15262100 (Skjolsvold 1961:297, 303).
Easter Island prehistory has been divided
into three periods (Smith 1961:210-213):
Early (pre-A.D. 400 to ca. A.D. 1100),
Middle (ca. A.D. 1100-1680), and Late
(A.D. 1680-1868). Since the A.D. 400 date
is generally rejected (Carlyle Smith, personal
communication) the sweet potato was on
Easter Island by A.D. 1526+100 which was
approximately two hundred years before
Roggeween discovered the island.
N e w Zealand
At present archaeologists divide the
archaeology of New Zealand into two broad
cultural phases: Moa-hunter (Archaic) and
Classic Maori (Golson 1959). The arrival of
the “fleet” supposedly with the sweet
potato and other domesticated plants and
animals of the Maori traditions is dated by
ca. A.D. 1350. Until recently, it was believed
that New Zealand was occupied late, but a
site at Bay of Islands dating t o A.D. 800rt90
(A.D. 710 to 890) suggests an earlier settle-
ment. The occupants of this early site
cultivated taro (Anonymous 1966b: 43M).
This new evidence is especially significant
in terms of the stages of agricultural develop-
ment postulated by Yen (1961:345-346):
(1) Inductory; (2) Experimental; and (3)
Systematic. Yen proposes these stages
because of the annual cycle of sweet potato
352 AMERICAN A NTHROPOL OGlS T
cultivation necessary in the temperate
climate of presentday New Zealand. This
cycle is not found in other areas of
Polynesia, and time must be allowed to
account for the development of various
agricultural and storage practices necessary if
the plant is to grow in this climate (Yen
1961: 338-340). Yen (1961: 339-340) feels
that the change of the sweet potato from a
perennial to an annual was not introduced
from the surrounding tropical regions and
that the innovation was so great as not to
have been achieved by a sudden and inspired
agricultural deduction immediately upon its
introduction (Yen 1961:339-340). There-
fore, because of the problems of adaption to
this new environment, Yen (1961:341-342)
has accepted the evidence offered for a
climatic change in which the temperature of
the region has dropped 5’ F. since A.D.
1200. The most important evidence offered
for this change was the past existence of a
forest around Canterbury and in parts of
Otago where none exists today (Raeside
1948:153).
Cumberland (1962:127, 132) however
attacks the “climatic change” hypothesis
and contends the forests were destroyed
through man’s use of fire for patch-burning
on moa hunts. Since the land was period-
ically burned over, he feels the grasslands
which have replaced the forests can best be
explained as a result of cultural interference
(Cumberland 1962:133). Repeated burning
would prevent the forests from reestablish-
ing themselves and would make the land
more susceptible to erosion which would
further deteriorate it.
It should be noted at this point that the
evidence of taro cultivation dating ca. A.D.
800 when combined with this evidence of
the use of fire by man could be interpreted
as evidence of the practice of swidden
agriculture. A process of forest replacement
by grasslands is accounted for by Robbins
(1963:45-60) on this same basis in New
Guinea. In this light the New Zealand
situation could be viewed as evidence of
early agriculture occurring alongside a moa-
hunting economy which resulted in
[ 74,1972
“induced” grassland clearing both the trees
and the moa. Since the evidence for taro was
found underlying evidence of kumara cul-
tivation in the surrounding area of the site
(the taro being sealed by clay below it)
(Anonymous 1966a:6), it is possible that
taro cultivation preceded that of the sweet
potato. It is equally possible that the sweet
potato was grown at the same time as taro,
but that it was not preserved at this partic-
ular site.
From the previous discussion, the
following suggestions as to the appearance of
the sweet potato in New Zealand are pro-
posed. First, the plant may have been
present as early as taro (i.e. ca. A.D. 800), or
it may have been introduced later, after taro
cultivation was already established, possibly
around A.D. 1350 with the “fleet” of Maori
tradition. There is a third possibility, namely
that the sweet potato was introduced after
taro, but in the Moa-Hunting or Archaic
phase. Support for this suggestion comes
from Golson (1959:45) who thinks pits
excavated at the Sarahs Gully site dating
A.D. 1369k50, A.D. 1359k50, and A.D.
1309+-50 years may be kumara storage pits.
More recently, Law (1969:245) feels that
sites like Kaupokonui, Sarahs Gully,
Skippers Ridge, and Moturua Island give
evidence of the widespread use of kumara
agriculture by A.D. 1300. Finally, charred
sweet potato remains from Wioneke Pa,
South Kaipara Head, a “classic” Maori site,
100-300 years old, have been reported
(Rosendahl and Yen 1971:380).
In any case, it would seem that the sweet
potato had to have been introduced while
the plant was still grown as a perennial,
before New Zealand’s climatic differences
necessitated it becoming an annual, and
before the associated storage technology was
developed. This probably occurred some-
where between A.D. 800 and A.D. 1300.
Having reviewed the upper and lower
limits for when the sweet potato could have
reached Polynesia as well as the evidence
dating the peopling of the islands in general,
the following hypothesis about the appear-
ance of the plant is suggested. First, it is felt
O’Brien] T H E S W E E T POTATO
that the Polynesian dispersal, using Sinoto’s
model, has a base date with the people
arriving on Samoa of about A.D. 1. From
there, they moved to the Marquesas Islands
(route 1 ) before approximately A.D. 400
whence they immigrated to the Hawaiian
Islands about A.D. 500 (route 5), to Easter
Island ca. A.D. 800 (route 3), to New
Zealand approximately A.D. 800 (route 4),
and to the Society Islands ca. A.D. 860
(route 2). This movement into the Society’s
may prove to be earlier, as suggested by
Sinoto’s model, when more radiocarbon
dates are available.
Keeping this model of colonization in
mind, a new hypothesis about the spread of
the sweet potato is possible when combined
with linguistic data. George W. Grace (per-
s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , letter dated
September 29, 1966) makes the following
observations about the word kumulo in the
Polynesian languages:
In terms of the Polynesian linguistic
evidence alone, I would say that the
distribution of the forms is most
economically explained by the assump-
tion that the word was present in Proto-
Polynesian. The problem of explanation
becomes increasingly difficult the later
we assume the introduction to have
occurred. Thus, I would say that
Polynesian linguistic evidence argues for
assuming the introduction to have
occurred at the earliest point in time that
is compatible with other evidence.
Samuel H. Elbert (personal communication,
letter dated October 5, 1966) concurs in this
view, and also notes: “This summer I found
the word kumala in use in the Melanesian
pidgin of the Solomons, but I have no idea
how the word got there, unless via some of
the Polynesian Outlier peoples other than
the Rennellese.”
These data at a minimal level point to the
appearance of the word in Polynesia before
the branching off of the Outlier languages.
That would be after Proto-Tongic and
Proto-Nuclear Polynesian separation, using
Green’s (1966: 34) family tree of Polynesian
or maximally, as a part of Proto-Polynesian
proper presumably entering the language just
353
before these people moved east out of
Melanesia into the Fiji area. Minimally, this
would seem to date the introduction at
about A.D. 1 with the Samoan immigration,
and maximally to date it about 500 B.C. if it
moves out from the Fiji region.
If either of these proposed dates for the
appearance of the sweet potato in both the
languages and the area seems too early and
too radical, then it would seem that the very
latest date that the term and plant could
enter Polynesia would be just before the
time of the dispersal of the populations out
of the Marquesas Islands into the Hawaiian
Islands, Easter Islands, and New Zealand or
at about A.D. 400.
Given all these different alternatives it is
proposed here that the word for sweet
potato, kumala in its reconstructed form,
and the plant itself appeared sometime
about the birth of Christ in the Samoa
region of Polynesia. From Samoa it was
dispersed throughout Polynesia as one of the
basic food plants. If this hypothesis is
correct, and since the plant is definitely a
New World species, then the question is
raised as to what mechanism facilitated its
transfer into Polynesia at this early date.
It has been mentioned previously that
there is a similarity between the Polynesian
words for sweet potato (kumala, kumara,
etc.) and some in the Quechua language and
other languages of the Andes region. Various
scholars have made the following sugges-
tions: (1) the term for sweet potato
(kumala) was transferred into the Polynesian
languages by Peruvian Indians moving west
into Polynesia; (2) the word was exchanged
by Polynesians reaching Peru and acquiring
both name and plant then returning home;
or (3) the word was introduced late into the
Andean Indian languages by the Spanish.
The first two theories propose that the word
kumala is Amerindian (actually Quechuan)
while the last says it is Polynesian alone.
Donald D. Brand (1971) in a recent
examination of the question has suggested
that the word was Polynesian and intro-
duced into the Andes by the Spanish. He
notes (Brand 1971:361) that various experts
3 54 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
(archaeologists, historians, and philologists)
feel that coastal Ecuador, Peru, and Chile
were occupied until less than a hundred
years before the arrival of the Spanish by
non-Quechuan and non-Aymaran people.
The languages of these regions would have
been Sek, Yungan, and Chibchan whose
terms for sweet potato were chapru, open,
and unt. The Quechua word is apichu and is
reported along with the words batatas, ajes,
and camobs in the literature and diction-
aries of Peru. The word cumara though is
only found in dictionaries, and cumar is
mentioned a c c o r d i n g t o Brand
(1971:361-362), only as occurring in the
Chichasuyo dialect of Quechua. He further
observes (1971:362) that the best known
Quechua dictionary, Gonzalez Holguin’s of
1608, laconically states: “Apichu, o cumar.
Camote o batata; and Batata camote.
Apichu; and Camote. Apichu.”
Interestingly, though Brand does not
mention it, these terms cover others known
to the Spanish; camote is Nahuatl and batata
is Arawakan; neither is Quechuan. There-
fore, is it not possible that this dictionary
and other later dictionaries are reflecting all
words known by an educated Spaniard
(especially widely traveled colonial officials
or clerics) in Peru and not just local native
terms? Is this not especially so in the light of
Brand’s observation (1971: 362) that
camote, batata and apichu are the main
headings? Since the Spanish were trading in
the Pacific all through the Colonial period
they could have picked up the Polynesian
word and carried it back.
If this is possible, and if Brand is correct
that the word was imported by the Spanish
from Polynesia, since none of the coastal
populations of Ecuador, Peru, or Chile were
Quechua speakers, then one cannot explain
its presence in Polynesia as the result of
people going or coming from the coasts of
the New World. If the word kumala is
Proto-Polynesian or slightly later and was
transferred by the Spanish to Peru, then the
term was created by the Polynesians for a
plant in their cosmos. That being the case,
and since the plant cannot float the
[ 74,1972
thousands of miles between these two
regions then only two explanations appear
possible at this time.
The first is the result of human action:
(1) A vessel drifting from the New World
with a living or dead or missing crew
carrying sweet potatoes could have been cast
up on one of the islands of the Samoa group
or another of the western islands of Poly-
nesia. (2) The vehicle, crew, and cargo might
have been examined if the island(s) were
inhabited, the men killed or absorbed, and
the plant used and given a new name. (3) Or
if the islands were empty, and say there were
living men on the vessel then they might
have planted the plants, but without women
this population would have ended with their
deaths. The plants could become feral and
could have been growing when the Poly-
nesians arrived. (4) Or if any empty vessel
arrived on an inhabited island then it could
have been examined along with its cargo,
and possibly because the sweet potato looks
a great deal like a yam, the discoverers
would probably treat it like one until its
particular features were known. (5) Or if the
vehicle was cast upon an island by natural
forces and because in its long drift rain water
had accumulated, and the tubers began to
grow in that water, the plant took hold in
the vessel and next took hold on the soil
itself and became feral. Later people finding
both the island and the plants could possibly
have redomesticated them and named them.
This transfer would have been the result of
human agents or semi-human agents in the
case of the empty boat, but would be the
result of accidents and in no way deliberate,
with the net result being simply the transfer
of the plant.
The second alternative would be transfer-
ence by some natural agent. Since sweet
potato tubers cannot float, seeds are the
alternative; and this would make birds the
choice as agents. Indeed, Yen (1960:373)
suggested that the possibility of birds as such
an agent, and more recently Bulmer
(1966:178-180) has examined the role of
birds in introducing new varieties of sweet
potato into native gardens by dropping seed
O’Brien ] THE SWEET POTATO
in New Guinea. I n the same paper he notes
that the Golden Plover, a bird that ranges
over Polynesia, is a casual visitor t o the west
coast of America as far south as Chile. These
birds are strong fliers and are more plausible
carriers of t h e small hard sweet potato seed
either in their digestive tracts o r adhering t o
mud on their feet (Ibid.:178). For these
reasons Bulmer says, “If any bird could
justify Yen’s suggestion of possible transfer
of seed from South America t o the Pacific
Islands, this would seem t o be it” (Bulmer
1966:179). Although Bulmer’s work is
highly suggestive and significant, more data
must be collected before such a proposal can
be adequately evaluated, but a t the same
time the present evidence cannot be ignored.
At present neither alternative can be
“proven,” and such explanations will prob-
ably satisfy no one who strongly favors
trans-Pacific contacts o r who strongly
opposes them, b u t such an accidental intro-
duction would explain how the plant
reached t h e area, apparently early, and yet
also account for the general absence of other
cultural traits (chickens, pigs, yam, taro,
maize, pottery, etc.) one would have ex-
pected to see transferred if any sustained
exchange between living persons had been
involved even if any initial contact was
accidental.
India and Southeast Asia
The sweet potato appears t o have been
introduced into India by t h e Portuguese
since they brought it to Macao via Brazil
(Zavala 1964:217). Portuguese influence in
the spread of the plant t o Ambon, Timor
and in parts of the northern Moluccas is
indicated linguistically since t h e plant name
is varieties of t h e word batafa (Conklin
1963:132). In Malaysia t h e sweet potato is
called Spanish tuber, thus giving hastila,
katela o r achila with the native word for
tuber (Conklin 1963:132). In the Philippines
it is called camote (Merrill 1954), while in
Guam it is called both camote (Hornell
1946; Conklin 1963) and batat (Merrill
1954). Merrill (1954) also reports that it is
355
called batat in t h e Moluccas and o n Cebu.
The plant names themselves are beautiful
indicators o f their source, the Portuguese
spread t h e Arawak term (batafa) and the
Spanish spread the Nahuatl o n e (camole).
Micronesia and Melanesia
I n t h e light of a suggested introduction of
the sweet potato into Polynesia by about the
birth of Christ, the plant’s appearance o r
lack o f it in the islands of Micronesia and
Melanesia becomes extremely significant.
British Naval Intelligence (Anonymous
1945) reported t h e plant o n Guam (Zbid.,
Vol. 4:471) in t h e 1940s, but does not
indicate its presence in the Marianas, the
Caroline Islands, Bonin and Marcus Islands,
and t h e Marshall Islands (all in Micronesia).
Elbert (n.d.:29) in a recent study reports
words for sweet potato in Trukese
(kamwuu), Puluwat (komwuutiy) and
Chamorro (hamote) and he notes their
similarity t o t h e Spanish camote. This sug-
gests that t h e Carolinians either received the
plant directly from t h e Spanish o r that the
people they got it from acquired it from
them. In either case, t h e source is ultimately
Spanish.
Actually, the absence of t h e plant in
Micronesia even today is apparently ex-
plained by t h e ecology of t h e region. Most
of the islands are coral or low islands upon
which the sweet potato will not grow
(Merrill 1954:249, 253). Even though some
of t h e islands of the Marianas and the
Carolines are volcanic (Anonymous 1945,
Vol. 4:305, 307), apparently t h e plant has
not spread from Guam t o them. An ecologi-
cal barrier may have been responsible in
preventing its spread from Polynesia earlier
since the westernmost islands of Polynesia
itself (the Gilberts, Ellice, Phoenix, and
Tokeau Islands) are also coral in structure as
are t h e Line Islands, t h e North Cook Islands,
and those of the Tuamotu Archipelago
further east (Anonymous 1945, Vol. 2:96,
454; Vol. 3:303). The botanist Merrill
(1954:249, 253) says the environmental
conditions of these islands account for t h e
356 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
discontinuity of the sweet potato’s dis-
tribution in Polynesia. Therefore, it would
seem also to account for the plant being
missing in most of Micronesia today and not
entering the area in the past.
Best to establish the spread of the sweet
potato into Melanesia, it is first necessary to
note the spread of a Polynesian population
into that same area. Polynesian outliers into
Melanesia are found at Tikopia, in the
Loyalty Island Group, in the New Hebrides,
and even into the Caroline Islands (Best
1954:5). They also appear to have estab-
lished themselves in and around the
Solomons on Ongtong Java Island, on
Sikaiana or Stewart’s Island, and on the
Rennel and Bellona Islands (Anonymous
1916:120).
The spread of the sweet potato into
Melanesia seems to be the result of both
Polynesian and European introduction.
Mendana when he discovered the Solomon
Islands makes no mention of it although he
does mention benaus (taro), potatoes called
panales (the yams of Gela calledpana by the
natives), and names which is Spanish for
yams (Mendana 1901:212). Since Poly-
nesians were present in the Solomons, it is
possible they brought it with them; Samuel
H. Elbert (personal communication) reports
kumala in Melanesian pidgin in the
Solomons, but has no idea how it got there,
unless it came via some Polynesian Outlier
group other than the Rennellese. Hollyman
(1959: 368) also reports linguistic evidence
of Polynesian contact in New Caledonia by
the presence of the term kumala indicating
influence from Wallis Island of the Loyalty
Island Group and not Samoan or Tongan
influence. He states this influence is pre-
European. La Billardiere in 1793 reported
the sweet potato in this area, too (Hollyman
1959:368). The sweet potato was grown,
though in lesser quantities than today, in
pre-contact Fiji (Frazer 1964:148). There is
evidence, too, of its presence in the New
Hebrides at the time of discovery (Dixon
1932:42-43). There is no evidence at this
time to indicate how early the plant may
have penetrated the area, but since Poly-
[ 74,1972
nesians had it early and were operating in
this region, they rather than the Europeans
were probably the agents of introduction.
Considerable basic linguistic and archae-
ological research needs to be done before the
whole question of the introduction of the
sweet potato into Melanesia can be outlined.
At this time we can only say that some
historical data suggest a pre-Magellan appear-
ance. Also if the plant is as early in Polynesia
as suggested in the previous section of this
paper, such an introduction would not only
be likely, but highly probable, especially in
the light of some recent theories on the
sweet potato’s spread into New Guinea.
New Guinea
One of the few areas not yet mentioned
where the sweet potato is of great economic
importance is New Guinea. To the west and
north of it the evidence indicates European
introduction, to the south lies Australia
which is unimportant for this problem, and
to the east is Melanesia and Polynesia. Since
there is evidence of Polynesian introduction
of the sweet potato into Melanesia on New
Caledonia, in the New Hebrides, in Fiji, one
can speculate as to whether the plant was
introduced into New Guinea from Indonesia
to the north, from Melanesia via Europeans,
via Melanesians, or via Polynesians (in the
case of the latter two there is also the
question whether it occurred before or after
White contact).
In general the introduction of the sweet
potato into New Guinea is something of an
enigma. It is known for example, that the
plant was introduced into the Morehead
district by missionaries (Damm 1961:210),
while Serpenti (1965:38) says it has a recent
introduction in the Frederick-Hendrick
Island region. There is no evidence of the
sweet potato in the islands to the west of
New Guinea by 1825. Kolff (1840) visited
the island of Lakor, the Arru Islands, the
Tenimber Islands, and the southwest coast
of Dutch New Guinea in 1825-26, and while
he reports many plants and animals, he
makes no reference to the sweet potato.
O’Brien ]
In order to establish the possible origin of
the sweet potato into New Guinea, we must
first note some facts about its utilization in
that region. It has been observed that the
plant is more widely grown in the western
part of the island than in the east (Damm
1961:209). The plant follows sago, taro, and
yams in its importance in the diet of the
natives in lowlands, but the plant is of great
importance to the natives of the highlands of
Dutch New Guinea (Damm 1961:209). Also,
there are certain ecological conditions where
the plant will not grow, namely swampy
regions which automatically eliminates zones
shown in Figure 1.
On the Australian half of the island the
sweet potato is far more important (Damm
1961:210), but while it is widely known and
used it should be noted that in the hinter-
land of the Huon Gulf among the in-
habitants of Wantoat Valley the natives have
the greatest differentiation of the plant
recognizing forty to fifty varieties, and that
to the populations in this part of the
highlands the only important cultivated food
is the sweet potato (Damm 1961:212-213).
Sweel Pol010 Mow Crop
Swiel Potdo Kmwn
Sago lmpatml Swee1 Poloto Known
Swampy. Sree1 Pololo no1 suited ecolog~colly
Sweet Poloto Known, Colmiol Introduction
~ ~~
Figure 1. This map shows the distribution of sweet potato cultivation in New Guinea.’
THE SWEETPOTATO 357
Because of the elaborately developed
myths which the peoples of the Central area
of New Guinea have about the origin of the
sweet potato, and its importance in the
ritual systems, it is concluded that the plant
is a very old cultural element (Damm
1961:219). In recent years interest in the
sweet potato has focused on (1) when, by
what route, and by what people the plant
was introduced into New Guinea, and (2)
what were the effects of this introduction
and how did it affect the culture history of
the island.
Concerning the first problems, Friederici
has advocated a post-Magellan introduction,
Heine-Geldern, and Carter a pre-Magellan
one, with Carter suggesting a 2500 B.C. date
(Schmitz 1960:134). Warburg thought this
plant entered from the Malaya Archipelago a
long time ago, while Girard thought it came
about A.D. 1600-1700 from out of East
Indonesia (Damm 1961:219-220). Le Roux
according to Schmitz (1960:134) thinks it
came to New Guinea from America via the
Melanesian and Polynesian worlds and that it
is an old cultural element. The plant
~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
~
358 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [74,1972

ecologist, L. J. Brass according to Watson Finally, culture C is definitely Melanesian

(1965b:439) thinks the plant came 300 with some decided Polynesian elements
years ago from the west via bird of paradise especially around Astrolabe Bay and the Rai
hunters and traders in the Solomons area. Coast (Schmitz 1960:419). This culture like
Concerning the second problem, Le Roux culture B is horticultural, but it is definitely
(1948) also suggested that the plant was sea-oriented, which the other was not as
important in the population increase in the deep-sea fishing plays an important role in
Highland valleys (Schmitz 1960: 134). And the economy (Zbid.:420).
only recently has such a hypothesis received It has been hypothesized by Damm
considerable attention from English-speaking (1961:220) that the Mountain Papuans were
scholars. Watson (1965a, 1965b) has pro- originally sago cultivators who were pushed
posed an “Ipomoean Revolution” following into the highlands by sweet potato cul-
its introduction about 300 years ago, result- tivators and who later began to grow batatas
ing in an increase in population in the too. Le Roux on the other hand said the Mt.
highlands and postulating this “revolution” Papuans possessed an original and individual
as the third phase in a sequence of hunter- culture and were the original and old in-
gatherer stage, a pre-sweet potato cultivator habitants of the highlands. Damm (1961:
stage, and a sweet potato-pig raising stage. 220) feels Le ROUX’Sopinion is most.
Finally, Brookfield and White (1968:43) feel likely true since, as he notes, a sago
that the plant’s appearance in New Guinea economy rests on different knowledge and
did not result in such an explosion and that methods than sweet potato cultivation.
while the plant was important in moving Therefore, Damm feels (1961:220) that the
people into the highest mountain areas, it peoples of New Guinea were acquainted
did not trigger a population explosion. with taro, yam, and sweet potato before the
Schmitz (1960:407-425) utilizing the his- appearance of the New Guinea Island people
torical approach of Graebner in his investiga- (presumably he means Melanesians) that the
tions on the Huon and Halb Island regions highly developed technology for growing
hypothesized the development of three dif- sweet potato indicated more than 400 years
ferent cultures designated A, B, C. The first were needed for their evolution.
and the earliest complex, A, is a pre-
Austronesian culture in which hunting Damm concludes (1961:220-221), there-
played a prominent role and originally it fore, that (1) the sweet potato could not
probably had a hunting and gathering have conquered the large area of New
economy (Ibid.:410). Later when these same Guinea that it has in a few hundred years;
people moved from the plains into the (2) the names of the sweet potato in the
tropical forest regions they became horticul- native dialects give no clues that it was
turalists (Ibid.:411). Today this cultural introduced by the Portuguese; (3) because of
group is probably represented by the Kate the simplicity of cultivation of Vogelkopf
language group (Ibid.:409). area it was probably not the area of
Culture B is difficult to pin down lin- entrance.
guistically, but may be related to the dialects As can be seen from the preceding sum-
of the Markham Valley which have affinities mary, there are a variety of contradictory
to the pre-Austronesian Kate languages in theories concerning the two basic sets of
grammatical structure, but which seem to questions about the sweet potato and New
have vocabulary affinities to Austronesian Guinea. The sweet potato was introduced
ones (Schmitz 1960:413). This culture is from Indonesia, from the Malayan Archipel-
horticultural and is characterized by the taro ago, from the Solomons, from Polynesia, via
complex (Ibid.:416); taro is most important, Europeans, via Melanesians, via Polynesians.
although coconut palm, sago palm, banana, The plant is an old cultural element, is a new
sweet potato, sugar cane, etc., are known. cultural element; the sweet potato expanded
O’Brien ] THE SWEET POTATO 359

populations, displaced populations, did not
affect population, etc.
I n spite of all these problems, t h e
question of the sweet potato’s route of
introduction and the agent of introduction
can probably be established from today’s
data. Figure 1 is a map showing t h e present
distribution of the sweet potato in New
Guinea. Figure 2 indicates the range and
s p r e a d o f A u s t r o n e s i a n and non-
Austronesian (Papuan) languages o n t h e
island as well as into t h e Bismark Archipela-
go. The movement of Melanesian-speaking
people into t h e Markham Valley coupled
with the localization of other Melanesian
groups along t h e coast strongly indicates the
Markham Valley as the avenue of entrance
into the highland via Melanesian peoples.
This suggestion is reinforced by the large
number of varieties of the plant near this
area (in t h e Wantoat Valley) which seems t o
indicate a long period of differentiation and
also by the plant’s insignificance in the
Vogelkopf region to t h e northwest and t h e
Frederick-Hendrick Island area t o the south-
west. In both areas the plant will not grow
well and would therefore seem to rule these
regions out as transmission zones. Figure 3
indicates t h e proposed route of the sweet
potato into New Guinea via Melanesians and
then its spread through the island.
All these data pointing toward migrant
Melanesians as the source of the sweet
p o t a t o makes Brass’s idea (Watson
1965b:439) that bird of paradise hunters
and traders carried t h e plant attractive and
would seem to negate theories of European
introduction into the Highlands and also
Bulmer’s (1966: 178-179) interesting idea
that birds might have been involved in the
transfer from Melanesia.
The problem of dating this transfer is
really impossible a t this time. If Melanesians
introduced the plant into New Guinea, then
we must know when it reached Melanesia
before we can say when it reached New
Guinea. So too, is t h e problem of evaluating
the evolutionary importance of the plant;
much more archaeological, historical, and
linguistic data are needed before these ques-

Figure 2. This map shows the distribution of Austronesian (Melanesian) and Non-
Austronesian (Papuan) languages in New Guinea and in New Britain of the Bismarck
Ar~hipelago.~
360 A ME RICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [74,1972

Figure 3. This map shows the proposed avenue of entrance of the sweet potato into New
Guinea from the Bismarck Archipelago area, and the proposed routes of its spread to the
northeast and southwest of the Markham Valley region.

tions can be answered. Arguments for the
antiquity of the plant based on the time
needed to develop new adaptions and new
techniques are strong but not conclusive, for
innovations can occur in very rapid succes-
sion.
SUMMARY
Two waves of dispersal are associated
with the spread of the sweet potato. The
best known and documented transfer was
the post-Columbian spread via Europeans.
The Spanish introduced it into Europe, the
Philippines, Guam, and Malaysia. From the
Philippines it was then carried to China and
from China ultimately to Japan. The English
transmitted it to North America and Japan
(though it did not establish itself there and
was re-introduced from China within a
century), and via missionaries to parts of
Melanesia and Australian New Guinea.
The Portuguese introduced it into India
and Africa, Ambon, Timor, the northern
Moluccas and Cebu. The African intro-
duction was directly from Portugal into
Angola and Mozambique, as well as via
Bombay through English associations with
that trade center in India. Apparently the
plant was carried from Burma to China after
the Indian introduction.
The establishment of the plant in areas
like Micronesia, parts of central Polynesia,
and Dutch New Guinea including Lakor, the
Arm Islands and Tenimber Islands was pre-
vented by ecological conditions unsuited to
its growth.
The second wave, actually the earliest of
the two, and the one that has intrigued
many scholars over the years, is the appear-
ance of the sweet potato in the Polynesia
region. Combined linguistic, archaeological,
and historical data point to a pre-Magellan
spread initially somewhere in the Samoa
group and from there to all points of the
Polynesia triangle. The plant then moved to
parts of Melanesia via the Polynesians and
from Melanesia to the Markham Valley area
of New Guinea. This transference into New
Guinea was probably done by Melanesians
very likely both bird of paradise hunters as
well as migrants settling on the coast of
O’Brien] THE SWEET POTATO
southeastern New Guinea. From t h e coast it
spread into the highlands through t h e Mark-
ham Valley first by Melanesians and then by
Papuan peoples.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
This survey o n the problem of the origin
and dispersal of the sweet potato would
seem to indicate the following. First, the
sweet potato originated somewhere in
Central or northwestern South America
about 3000 B.C. in association in part with
the development of Tropical Forest root
crop agriculture. Since vegetative methods of
reproduction are most widespread and
economically most important, and because
Sauer’s theories about the role of such
agriculture are so persuasive, it is felt that
priority at this time goes t o South America.
But a t the same time, t h e possibility should
not be overlooked that t h e plant originated
in Central America. This is especially the
case considering Bronson’s strong arguments
for t h e important role of root crops in the
Mayan area in historic times and the implied
importance prehistorically.
The actual botanical ancestor(s) of the
plant is unknown at present and much basic
work is needed before it can be identified,
including a complete cytological study of
the genus Ipomoea followed by a whole
series of hybridizational studies o n those
members of t h e genus from t h e Central and
South American regions, Finally, the
question of karoyotypic alterations in
somatic cells should be examined.
Evidence of the pre-Magellan intro-
duction of t h e sweet potato into Polynesia is
indicated by t h e linguistic reconstruction of
the word for sweet potato (humala) in
Proto-Polynesian. This data when combined
with the archaeology suggests the plant
arrived either in the Fiji area by about 500
B.C. (the earliest and most radical alter-
native) o r in t h e Samoa group by ca. A.D. 1
(the most likely possibility), o r in the
Marquesas Islands by approximately A.D.
400 (just before the dispersal t o the far ends
of Polynesia and the latest possible time).
361
From Polynesia t h e plant was transferred
to Melanesia by Polynesians, but when is
unknown. From Melanesia it was carried to
New Guinea by Melanesians. Again the date
is unknown. Also unclear a t this time is the
significance of the sweet potato in an
evolutionary developmental sense in the high-
lands of New Guinea.
The agent of transfer between Polynesia
and the New World, given t h e suggested
early introduction, and t h e lack of any good
evidence of extended contact, would seem
t o be an accidental introduction by the
casting u p of a vessel upon some island of
the Samoa group (this is t h e most likely
alternative) o r t h e possibility of birds’ acting
as a natural agent of transfer. Both these
hypotheses need further examination.
The post-Columbian-Magellan introduc-
tion of t h e sweet potato into Africa, North
America, Europe, India, China, Japan, the
Philippines, t h e Moluccas, and other islands
in the Indonesian area was primarily the
result of Spanish, Portuguese and English
trade, exploration, colonization and mission-
ization.
NOTES
This paper began in a graduate seminar
a t the University of Illinois in 1962. I would
like t o thank the professors who directed it
and this work: Dr. Donald W. Lathrap of
Anthropology, Dr. Charles S. Alexander of
Geography, and Dr. Earl R. Leng of
Agronomy for their stimulating criticism and
encouragement a t that time and for their
continued support through to the com-
pletion of the present draft. I also wish t o
express m y appreciation to Alan K. Craig,
Lelah Dushkin, Samuel H. Elbert, George W.
Grace, Julian Granberry, F. Allan Hanson,
Alfred E. Johnson, Martin Ottenheimer,
Russell Reid, William H. Sears, Carlyle S.
Smith, Robert J. Squier, and Robert B.
Taylor, all of whom read various drafts of
this paper and offered criticisms and sugges-
tions that have been invaluable in helping t o
bring it t o i t s final form. A t the same time
any errors o r misinterpretations of data or
suggestions are mine alone.
2
Figure 1 results from a compilation of
data o n the use of the sweet potato gathered
from Brookfield (1960) and Damm (1961).
362 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
3Figure 2 is based on a mapping of the
different language communities as reported
in Capell (1962).
REFERENCES CITED
Anonymous
1916 The Polynesians in and Near the
Solomon Islands. Journal of the Poly-
nesian Society 25(3):120-121.
1945 The Pacific Islands. Geographical
Handbook Series, 4 Vols. London:
Admiralty, Naval Intelligence Division.
1966a Polynesian Settlement of New
Zealand. New Z e a l a n d News
21(3):1-8. New Zealand Embassy,
Washington, D.C.: New Zealand
Embassy.
1966b Early Polynesian Migration to
New Zealand Reported. The New
York Times, Vol. 116, May 12th, p.
43M.
Berger, R., G. J. Fergusson, and W. F. Libby
1965 UCLA Radiocarbon Dates IV.
Radiocarbon 7( 1):336-371.
Berger, R., and W. F. Libby
1968 UCLA Radiocarbon Dates VIII.
Radiocarbon 10(2):402-416.
Best, Elsdon
1925 Maori Agriculture. Bulletin No. 9.
Wellington, New Zealand: Dominion
Museum .
1954 Polynesian Voyagers-The Maori
as a Deep-sea Navigator, Explorer and
Colonizer. Monograph No. 5. Welling
ton, New Zealand: Dominion Museum.
Boxer, C. R.
1969 Four Centuries of Portuguese
Expansion, 1415-1825: A Succinct
Survey. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Brand, Donald D.
1971 The Sweet Potato: An Exercise in
Methodology. I n Man Across the Sea.
C. L. Riley, J. C. Kelley, C. W.
Pennington and R. L. Rands, Eds.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bronson, Bennet
1966 Roots and Subsistence of the
Ancient Maya. Southwestern Journal
of Anthropology 22( 3):251 -279.
Brookfield, H. C.
1 9 6 0 Population Distribution and
Labour Migration in New Guinea.
Australian Geographer 7( 6):233-235.
Brookfield, H. C., and J. Peter White
1968 Revolution or Evolution in the
Prehistory of the New Guinea High-
lands: A Seminar Report. Ethnology
7(1):43-52.
[74,1972
Bulmer, Ralph
1966 Birds as Possible Agents in the
Propagation of the Sweet Potato. The
Emu 65(pt. 3):165-182.
Bunton, G. W., and L. A. Valier
1963 Stars over Paradise. Pacific Dis-
covery 16(6): 2-9.
Capell, Arthur
1962 A Linguistic Survey of the South-
western Pacific. South Pacific Com-
mission Technical Paper No. 136.
Noumea, New Caledonia.
Colenso, W.
1880 On the Vegetable Food of the
Ancient New Zealanders. Transactions
of the New Zealand Institute. 1880.
13:3-38.
Conklin. Harold C.
1 9 6 3 The Oceanian-African Hypothese
and the Sweet Potato. In Plants and
the Migrations of Pacific Peoples.
Jacques Barrau, Ed. Honolulu : Bishop
Museum Press. pp. 129-136.
Cooley, J. S.
1951 The Sweet Potato-Its Origin and
Primitive Storage Practices. Economic
Botany 5:318-386.
Cumberland, Kenneth B.
1962 “Climatic Change” or Cultural
Interference?: New Zealand in Moa-
hunter Times. I n Land and Livelihood.
M. McCaskell, Ed. Christchurch: New
Zealand Geographical Society. pp.
88-142.
Damm, Hans
1961 Die Susskartoffel (Batate) im
L e b e n d e r V o l k e r Neuguineas.
Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie, Band 84,
Heft 2:208-223.
de Candolle, Alphonse
1959 The Origin of Cultivated Plants.
New York: Hafner.
Dixon, Roland B.
1932 The Problem of the Sweet Potato
in Polynesia. American Anthropologist
34(1):40-66.
Drake, Ellen T., Ed.
1968 Evolution and Environment. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Draper, Benjamin
1960 Canoes, Campfires and Carbon 14.
Pacific Discovery 13(3):14-20.
Elbert, Samuel H.
n.d. Loan Words in Puluwat. Un-
published manuscript, University of
Hawaii.
Emory, Kenneth P.
1959 Radiocarbon Dates in Hawaii.
Journal of the Polynesian Society
68(3b240-241.
1961 A Millennium of Hawaiian Dis-
O’Brien] THE SWEET POTATO
covery. Pacific Discovery 14(5):18-23.
1968 East Polynesian Relationships as
Revealed Through Adzes. I n Pre-
historic Culture in Oceania. I. Yawata
and Y. H. Sinoto, Eds. HOIIOIUIU
Bishop Museum Press. pp. 151-169.
Frazer, Roger M.
1964 Changing Fiji Agriculture. The
Australian Geographer 9(3):148-155.
Golson, Jack
1959 Culture Change in Prehistoric New
Zealand. I n Anthropology in the
South Seas, Essays Presented t o H.D.
Skinner. J. D. Freeman and W. R.
Geddes, Eds. New Plymouth, New
Zealand: Thomas Avery & Sons.
Green, Roger
1966 Linguistic Subgrouping within
Polynesia: The Implications for Pre-
historic Settlement. Journal of the
Polynesian Society 7 5 ( 1 ) : 6 - 3 8 .
Hakluyt, Richard, trans.
1851 Discovery and Conquest of Terra
Florida by Don Ferdinand0 De Soto.
Hakluyt Society, No. 9 . New York:
Burt Franklin.
Handy, E. S. C.
1940 The Hawaiian Planter, Vol. 1.
Bishop Museum Bulletin 161. Hono-
lulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Hedrick, U. P., Ed.
1919 Sturtevant’s Notes on Edible
Plants. Albany: J. B. Lyon.
Heyerdahl, Thor
1952 American Indians in the Pacific.
London: George Allen Unwin.
Heyerdahl, Thor, and E. N. Ferdon, Jr.
1961 Archaeology of Easter Island, Vol.
1. Monographs of the School of
American Research and the Museum
of New Mexico, No. 24, part 1 . Santa
Fe, New Mexico.
Ho, Ping-Ti
1955 The Introduction of American
Food Plants into China. American
Anthropologist 57( 2 ) :191-201.
Hollyman, K. J.
1959 Polynesian Influence in New
Caledonia: The Linguistic Aspects.
Journal of the Polynesian Society
68(4):357-389.
Hornell, James
1946 How Did the Sweet Potato Reach
Oceania? The Journal of the Linnean
Society 53(348):41-62.
Keleny, G. P.
1965 Sweet Potato Storage. Papua and
New Guinea Agricultural Journal
1 7 ( 3 ) :102-108.
Kolff, D. H.
1840 Voyages of the Dutch Brig-of-War
363
Dourga. G. W. Earl, trans. London:
James Madden.
Lathrap, Donald W.
1962 Yarinacocha: Stratigraphic Ex-
cavations in the Peruvian Montana.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, Harvard
University .
1970 The Upper Amazon. Ancient
Peoples and Places Series. New York:
Praeger.
Law, R. Garry
1969 Pits and Kumara Agriculture in the
South Island. Journal of the Poly-
nesian Society 78(2):223-251.
Le Roux, C. C. F. M.
1948 De Bergpapoea’s van Nieuw-
Guinea en hun Woongebied. 2
volumes. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Longacre, Robert E., and Rene Millon
1 9 6 1 P r o t o - M i x t e c a n and Proto-
Amuzgo-Mixtecan Vocabulary: A Pre-
liminary Cultural Analysis. Anthro-
pological Linguistics 3(4):1-44.
Lundell, C. L.
1961 Progress Report o n Investigations
in the Tikal National Park and Other
Lowlands of Peten, Guatemala,
1951-1961. Mimeo. Texas Research
Foundation, Renner, Texas.
MacNeish, Richard S.
1964 Ancient Mesoamerican Civiliza-
t ion. Science 143(3606):531-537.
Marchant, Alexander
1941 Colonial Brazil as a Way Station
for Portuguese India Fleets. The Geo-
graphical Review 31(3):454-465.
McQuown, Norman
1964 Los Origenes y la Diferenciacion di
10s Maysa Segun se Infiere del Estudio
Comparativo d e las Lenguas Mayanas.
In Desarrollo Cultural de 10s Mayas.
Evon Z. Vogt and Alberto Ruz L.,
Eds. Mexico, D. F.: Universidad
Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. pp.
49-80.
Mendana, A. de
1901 The Discovery of the Solomon
Islands. Lord Amherst of Hackney and
Basil Thomson, Eds. 2 volumes.
London: Hakluyt Society.
Merrill, Elmer Drew
1954 The Botany of Cook’s Voyages.
Chronica Botanica 14(5/6):161-384.
Nishiyama, Ichizo
1961 The Origin of the Sweet Potato
Plant. Abstracts of Symposium Papers,
Tenth Pacific Science Congress. pp.
137-138.
1963 The Origin of the Sweet Potato
Plant. I n Plants and the Migrations of
364 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
Pacific Peoples. Jacques Barrau, Ed.
Honolulu : Bishop Museum Press. pp.
119-128.
Nordenskiold, Erland
1930 Modifications in Indian Culture
Through Inventions and Loans. Com-
parative Ethnographical Studies No. 8.
G o t e b o r g : Elanders Boktryckeri
Aktiebolag.
Palmer, Bruce
1968 Recent Results from the Sigatoka
Archaeological Program. I n Prehistoric
Culture in Oceania. I. Yawata and Y.
H. Sinoto, Eds. Honolulu: Bishop
Museum Press. pp. 20-27.
Patterson, Thomas C., and Edward P.
Lanning
1964 Changing Settlement Patterns on
the Central Peruvian Coast. Rawpa
Pacha 2:113-123.
Patterson, Thomas C., and M. Edward
Moseley
1 9 6 8 Late Preceramic and Early
Ceramic Cultures of the Central Coast
of Peru. Rawpa Pacha 6:115-133.
Polach, H. A., J. J. Golson, J. F. Lovering,
and J. J. Stipp
1968 ANU Radiocarbon Date List 11.
Radiocarbon 1O( 2):179-199.
Price, R. H.
1896 Sweet Potato Culture for Profit.
Dallas: Texas Farm and Ranch Pub-
lishing Co.
Raeside, J. D.
1 9 4 8 S o m e Post-glacial Climatic
Changes in Cantebury and Their Ef-
fects on Soil Formation. Transactions
of the Royal Society of New Zealand
77( 1):153-171.
Riley, C. L., J. C. Kelley, C. W. Pennington
and R. L. Rands, Eds.
1971 Man Across the Sea: Problems of
Pre-Columbian Contacts. Austin: Uni-
versity of Texas Press.
Robbins, R. G.
1963 Correlations of Plant Patterns and
P o p u l a t i o n Migration into the
Australian New Guinea Highlands. In
Plants and the Migrations of Pacific
Peoples. Jacques Barrau, Ed. Hono-
lulu: Bishop Museum Press. pp. 45-59.
Rosendahl, P. and D. E. Yen
1971 Fossil Sweet Potato Remains from
Hawaii. Journal of the Polynesian
Society 80(3):379-385.
Safford, William E.
1925a The Potato of Romance and of
Reality. Part 2. Journal of Heredity
16(5):1 75-183.
[ 74,1972
1925b The Potato of Romance and of
Reality. Part 3. Journal of Heredity
16(6):217-229.
Sauer, Carl 0.
1950 Cultivated Plants in South and
Central America. In Handbook of
South American Indians, Vol. 6. Julian
H. Steward, Ed. Washington, D.C.:
Bureau of American Ethnology,
Bulletin No. 143. pp. 487-543.
1952 Agricultural Origins and Dis-
persals. New York: The American
Geographical Society.
1959 Age and Area of American Cul-
tivated Plants. Actas del XXXIII Con-
greso Internacional de Americanistas,
Tom0 I. Lehmann, San Jose: Leh-
mann. pp. 215-229.
Schmitz, Carl A.
1960 Historische Probleme in Nordost-
Newguinea. Studien zur Kulturkunde,
Sechzehnter Band. Wiesbaden: Franz
Steiner Verlag GMBH.
Serpenti, L. M.
1965 Cultivators in the Swamp: Social
Structure and Horticulture in a New
Guinea Society. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Sharma, A. K.,and Archana Sharma
1957 Vegetatively Reproducing Plants-
Their Means of Speciation. Science
and Culture 22(11):628-630.
Simon, Edmund
1914 The Introduction of the Sweet
Potato into the Far East. Transactions
on the Asiatic Society of Japan 42(pt.
2):711-724.
Sinoto, Yoskhiko H.
1968 Position of the Marquesas Islands
in East Polynesian Prehistory. I n Pre-
historic Culture in Oceania. I. Yawata
and Y. H. Sinoto, Eds. Honolulu:
Bishop Museum Press. pp. 111-118.
Skjolsvold, Arne
1961 Site E-2, A Circular Dwelling,
Anakena. In Archaeology of Easter
Island, Vol. 1. T. Heyerdahl and E. N.
Ferdon Jr., Eds. Monographs of the
School of American Research and the
Museum of New Mexico, No. 24, Part
1. Santa Fe, New Mexico. pp.
295-3 03.
Smith, Carlyle S.
1961 A Temporal Sequence Derived
from certain Ahu. In Archaeology of
Easter Island, Vol. 1. T. Heyerdahl and
E. N. Ferdon, Jr., Eds. Monographs of
the School of American Research and
the Museum of New Mexico, No. 24,
Part 1 . Santa Fe, New Mexico. pp.
181-219.
1968 Pacific Archaeology: Review of
O’Brien ] THE SWEET POTATO
Prehistoric Culture in Oceania. I.
Yawata and Y. H. Sinoto, Eds. Science
162:1378-1379.
Smith, C. Earle
1965 Agriculture, Tehuacan Valley.
Fieldiana: Botany, Vol. 31, No. 3,
Publication 985. Chicago: Chicago
Natural History Museum.
Solheim, Wilheim G.
1969 Mekong Valley Flooding. Center
for Short-lived Phenomena. Event
Number 58-59. Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution.
Stokes, John F. G.
1932 Spaniards and the Sweet Potato in
Hawaii and Hawaiian-American Con-
t acts. A m e r i c a n Anthropologist
34:594-600.
Suggs, Robert C.
1 9 5 9 Polynesia. Asian Perspectives
3( 1):56-66.
1960 The Island Civilizations of Poly-
nesia. New York: New American
Library.
Swanton, E.
1946 Indians of the Southeastern
United States. Bureau of American
Ethnology, Bulletin 137. Washington,
D.C.
Watson, James B.
1965a From Hunting to Horticulture in
the New Guinea Highlands. Ethnology
4(3):295-309.
365
1965b The Significance of a Recent
Ecological Change in the Central High-
lands of New Guinea. Journal of the
Polynesian Society 74(4):438-450.
Yen, Douglas E.
1960 The Sweet Potato in the Pacific:
The Propagation of the Plant in
Relation t o Its Distribution. Journal of
the Polynesian Society 69(4):368-375.
1961 The Adaption of Kumara by the
New Zealand Maori. Journal of the
Polynesian Society 70(3):338-348.
1963 Sweet-Potato Variation and Its
Relation t o Human Migration in the
Pacific. I n Plants and the Migrations of
Pacific Peoples. Jacques Barrau, Ed.
Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, pp.
93-117.
1968 Natural and Human Selection in
the Pacific Sweet Potato. I n Evolution
and Environment. Ellen T. Drake, Ed.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
197 1 Construction of the Hypothesis
for Distribution of the Sweet Potato.
In Man Across the Sea. C. L. Riley, J.
C. Kelley, C. W. Pennington and R. L.
Rands, Eds. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Zavala, Silvio
1964 New World Contacts with Asia.
Asian Studies 2(2):213-222.