The Paleobiolinguistics of the Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)   Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 104‐115. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.203. 104 here, rendering the present study the most up-to-date and definitive PBL treatment currently possible. The present study of bean also advances the earlier investigation by expanding the number of proto- languages treated, especially augmenting the pool of proto-languages from South America. The genus Phaseolus contains about 70 species in the Neotropics, with greatest species diversity to the north (Freytag and Debouck 2002). Five species contain domesticated populations: P. acutifolius A. Gray (tepary bean); P. coccineus L. (scarlet runner bean); P. lunatus L. (lima bean); P. polyanthus Greenman (year bean); P. vulgaris L. (common bean). Wild populations of P. vulgaris L. and P. lunatus L. are amply distributed along the edges of the highlands of western North America through to western South America, mostly in the tropics but also somewhat further north and south (Debouck and Smartt 1995). Both were domesticated at least twice, once in the Andes and once in Mexico (Debouck and Smartt 1995, Chacón et al. 2005, 2007, 2012, Mamidi et al. 2011, Schmutz et al. 2014). Domestication of Peruvian P. vulgaris occurred in the Andean foothills of southern Peru on the eastern slopes (Chacón et al. 2005). Domestication of Mexican P. vulgaris occurred in the Río Lerma–Río Grande de Santiago basin in west-central Mexico (Kwak et al. 2009), north of the Balsas River valley Paleobiolinguistics (PBL) employs the comparative method of historical linguistics to reconstruct the biodiversity known to human groups of the unrecord- ed past (Brown et al. 2013a).1 Comparison of words for biological taxa from languages of the same language family facilitates reconstruction of the biological vocabulary of the family’s ancient proto- language. This study uses PBL to establish when and where the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) developed significance for different prehistoric groups of Native America. This entails mapping in both time and geographic space proto-languages for which words for the common bean reconstruct. This information is provided to supplement crop-origin studies of the taxon from genetics and archaeology. As the most important legume domesticated in the New World, and a member of the widespread Native American agricultural triad of maize (Zea mays L.), squash (Cucurbita spp.), and beans, considerable multidisciplinary attention has been directed to the common bean’s origin, domestication, and dispersal. Included within this effort is the first PBL analysis of the species (Brown 2006), which focused primarily on North and Central America, with inclusion of only four language groups south of Panama. Since 2006, automated methods for dating and locating proto- languages have been developed and are employed The Paleobiolinguis cs of the Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Cecil H. Brown 1* , Charles R. Clement 2 , Pa ence Epps 3 , Eike Luedeling 4 , and Søren Wichmann 5    Author address: 1 1700  Scenic  Highway,  #601,  Pensacola,  FL,  32503‐6634,  USA  (ins tu onal  affilia on:  Northern  Illinois  University).  2 Ins tuto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia, Manaus, AM, Brazil.  3 University of Texas at Aus n, Aus n, TX,  USA.  4 World  Agroforestry  Centre  (ICRAF),  Nairobi,  Kenya.  5 Max  Planck  Ins tute  for  Evolu onary  Anthropology,  Leipzig,  Germany, and Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Russia.  * Corresponding author: brown.cecil@yahoo.com   Received: May 29, 2014  Volume: 5:104‐115  Published: October 2, 2014  ©2014 Society of Ethnobiology  Abstract:  Paleobiolinguis cs is used to determine when and where the common bean (Phaseolus  vulgaris  L.) developed significance for prehistoric groups of Na ve America. Dates and loca ons of proto‐languages for which common bean terms reconstruct generally accord with crop‐origin and dispersal informa on from plant gene cs and archaeobotany. Paleobiolin‐ guis c and other lines of evidence indicate that human interest in the common bean became significant primarily with the widespread development of a village‐farming way of life in the New World rather than earlier when squash and maize and a few other crops became important. Keywords:  Archaeobotany,  crop  origins,  historical  linguis cs,  Na ve  Americans,  paleobiolinguis cs,  plant  domes ca on,  plant gene cs     Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 104‐115. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.203. 105 where maize was domesticated (Buckler and Stevens 2006). Table 1 cites the earliest macro-botanical remains of common bean uncovered by archaeology in various parts of the Americas ranging from the eastern U.S. to Peru.2 The macro-botanical evidence from Peru is considerably earlier than that from Mexico, with a date of 4337 BP at Guitarrero Cave (Kaplan and Lynch 1999), several hundred kilometers northwest of its center of origin and on the western side of the Andes. In fact, domestication may have occurred even earlier in the region. Micro-botanical Years BP Loca on Repor ng Source 4337  Peru: Guitarrero Cave  Kaplan and Lynch 1999  3100  Mexico: Chiapas, Mazatán region  Clark 1994, Blake et al. 1995, Brown 2006  2285  Mexico: Tehuacán, Coxcatlán Cave  Kaplan and Lynch 1999  2200  U.S.: Southwest, Bat Cave, Tularosa Cave  Wills 1988, Kaplan and Lynch 1999  2098  Mexico: Valley of Oaxaca  Kaplan and Lynch 1999  1285  Mexico: Tamaulipas  Kaplan and Lynch 1999  1168  Mexico: Durango, Rio Zape  Kaplan and Lynch 1999  850  U.S.: Eastern North America west of the Mississippi  Adair 2003, Asch and Hart 2004  700  U.S. Eastern North America east of the Mississippi  Hart and Scarry 1999, Hart et al. 2002  Table 1. Earliest macro‐botanical evidence for common bean in various loca ons.  Figure 1. Bean‐term reconstruc on informa on from Table 2 plo ed on map of North America.    Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 104‐115. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.203. 106 Years Before Present Proto‐Language Proto‐Word for Bean (NR = Not Reconstructable) Homeland Center Geographic Coordi‐ nates Family Affilia on Proto‐Word Source 6178  Siouan‐Catawba  NR  43.83  ‐101.83  Siouan‐Catawba    5944  Iroquoian  NR  42.75  ‐76.17  Iroquoian    5554  Algic  NR  42.67  ‐73.5  Algic    4828  Caddoan  NR  33.33  ‐97.33  Caddoan    4018  Uto‐Aztecan  NR  27.5  ‐110.25  Uto‐Aztecan    3827  Salishan  NR  49.25  ‐122.5  Salishan    3663  U an  NR  38.33  ‐123  U an    3472  Southern Uto‐Aztecan  NR  27.5  ‐110.25  Uto‐Aztecan    3434  Kiowa‐Tanoan  NR  37  ‐99  Kiowa‐Tanoan    3343  Algonquian  NR  42.67  ‐73.5  Algic    3176  N Iroquoian  NR  42.75  ‐76.17  Iroquoian    3169  Siouan  NR  43.83  ‐101.83  Siouan‐Catawba    3035  N Caddoan  NR  33.33  ‐97.33  Caddoan    2980  Interior Salish  NR  48  ‐117  Salishan    2725  Sahap an  NR  46  ‐116  Sahap an    2678  Central Algonquin  NR  43  ‐83  Algic    2576  Northern Uto‐Aztecan  NR  39  ‐109  Uto‐Aztecan    2500  Yukian  NR  38.5  ‐122.5  Yukian    2459  Central Salish  NR  49.25  ‐122.5  Salishan    2400  Sonoran  NR  27.5  ‐110.25  Uto‐Aztecan    2141  Miwokan  NR  38.33  ‐123  U an    2062  Athabaskan  NR  53.75  ‐123.5  Athabaskan    1926  Southeastern Siouan  NR  36.03  ‐89.39  Siouan‐Catawba    1865  Yuman  NR  32.67  ‐116.17  Yuman    1864  N Interior Salish  NR  50.75  ‐122  Salishan    1850  Missouri River Siouan  NR  47  ‐108  Siouan‐Catawba    1839  Ofo‐Biloxi  NR  30.5  ‐88.67  Siouan‐Catawba    1827  Taracahitan  *muni  27.75  ‐108.67  Uto‐Aztecan  Authors  1809  Pawnee  *a t  41  ‐98.67  Caddoan  Authors  1798  Mississippi Valley Siouan  NR  43.83  ‐101.83  Siouan‐Catawba    1737  Numic  NR  39  ‐109  Uto‐Aztecan    1724  S Interior Salish  NR  48  ‐117  Salishan    1720  Muskogean  NR  34  ‐85  Muskogean    1673  Five Na ons  NR  42.75  ‐76.17  Iroquoian    1587  Cupan  NR  33.17  ‐116.5  Uto‐Aztecan    1573  Southern Numic  NR  39  ‐109  Uto‐Aztecan    1526  Fox‐Kickapoo‐Sauk  *maskočis  43  ‐83  Algic  Authors  1378  Mohawk‐Onieda  NR  43.5  ‐74.25  Iroquoian    1297  Costanoan  NR  36.83  ‐121.5  U an    1295  Ojibwa  *miskodisimin  47  ‐89  Algic  Authors  1245  Delta‐Californian Yuman  NR  32.67  ‐116.7  Yuman    1241  E Miwokan  NR  38  ‐121  U an    1234  Western Miwokan  NR  38.33  ‐123  U an    1213  Tarahumaran  *muni  27.75  ‐108.67  Uto‐Aztecan  1  1188  Eastern Muskogean  NR  34  ‐85  Muskogean    Table 2. Bean‐term reconstruc on for proto‐languages of North America and Northern Mexico.   (continued on next page)   Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 104‐115. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.203. 107 evidence from starch grains found in northwestern Peru and attributed to domesticated Phaseolus were dated to between 9000 and 7500 BP (Piperno and Dillehay 2008), which is consistent with new genetic modeling of the domestication event in Peru indicat- ing a beginning at 8500 BP, with the bottleneck extending to 7000 BP (Mamidi et al. 2011). Piperno and Dillehay could not conclusively distinguish between P. vulgaris and P. lunatus, but since the earliest date for P. lunatus macro-botanical remains is 3495 BP (Kaplan and Lynch 1999), the NW Peru micro-fossil find may well be the common bean. The earliest unambiguous macro-botanical evidence for the common bean from Mexico, dated to 2285 BP, was recovered from Coxcatlán Cave in the Tehuacán Valley (Kaplan and Lynch 1999), 600-800 km east southeast of bean’s Mexican center of domestication cited above. Macro-botanical remains of approximately the same age (2098 BP) have been uncovered in the Valley of Oaxaca (Kaplan and Lynch 1999), another 100-200 km or so to the east. Howev- er, a Phaseolus specimen dated to around 3100 BP has been retrieved in the Mazatán region of Chiapas in southern Mexico and may be the oldest macro- remains of P. vulgaris in Mexico, although identifica- tion to species is not entirely certain (cf. Brown 2006:514). These dates are much later than the genetic model for the Mexican domestication event of common bean, which started at 8200 BP, with the bottleneck extending to 6300 BP (Mamidi et al. 2011). Micro-botanical remains from Mexico have yet to yield dates as old as those reported from Peru (Piperno and Dillehay 2008).3 Macro-remains document the presence of bean in northeast Mexico (in Tamaulipas) at 1285 BP and its arrival to the American Southwest no later than 2200 BP (Smith 2001). Earliest macro-botanical dates for the eastern US are 850 BP and 700 BP for respective sites west and east of the Mississippi river (Table 1). Common bean-term reconstructions are present- ed for proto-languages of three major regions of the New World: (1) North America and Northern Mexico (Table 2); (2) Southern Mexico and Northern Central America (henceforth Mesoamerica) (Table 3); (3) Southern Central America and South America (Table 4). Tables 2-4 list major proto-languages of the Americas widely regarded by historical linguists as demonstrated. Some major proto-languages are not included, because lexical information from daughter languages is not sufficiently available for drawing either positive or negative conclusions about recon- struction. In addition to identifying proto-languages with common bean terms and the terms themselves, the tables report proto-languages for which these terms are “not reconstructable” (NR). NR is a designation used when terms for the common bean are present in all or most languages of a family, but, nonetheless, are not cognate and, hence, do not attest to a term in their shared ancestral language. NR, then, never indicates non-reconstructibility because of missing data.4 Because of the failure of many consulted sources, such as dictionaries, to distinguish species of Capsicum Years Before Present Proto‐Language Proto‐Word for Bean (NR = Not Reconstructable) Homeland Center Geographic Coordi‐ nates Family Affilia on Proto‐Word Source 1173  Seneca‐Onondaga  NR  42.75  ‐76.75  Iroquoian    1148  Central Numic  NR  37  ‐117  Uto‐Aztecan    1005  Dhegihan  *hǫbr ḱe  36.17  ‐94.42  Siouan‐Catawba  2  899  Tepiman  *bavi  29  ‐111  Uto‐Aztecan  1, 3  820  Upland Yuman  NR  34  ‐113.33  Yuman    737  Dakota  *omn č́a  43.83  ‐101.83  Siouan‐Catawba  2  718  Apachean  NR  36.58  ‐104  Athabaskan    534  River Yuman  NR  32.83  ‐114.33  Yuman    345  W Muskogean  *bala’  34  ‐88  Muskogean  Authors  (continued from previous page) Proto‐Word Source:  1. Stubbs 2011  2. Carter et al. 2006  3. Bascom 1965    Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 104‐115. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.203. 108 designated by words in Native American languages, Brown et al. (2013b) were unable to reconstruct referents of proto-terms for chili pepper to species. In the case of Phaseolus, species ambiguity in sources is somewhat problematic as well but not as extensively so. For example, when a native term for a Phaseolus species is translated in sources by English bean or Spanish frijol, that species is typically P. vulgaris. When more than one Phaseolus species is reported, terms used in translation for species other than P. vulgaris are usually linguistically marked, e.g., English lima bean or Spanish frijol blanco (both P. lunatus). In English, of course, bean (unmarked) can denote P. lunatus as well as P. vulgaris, but it would be extraordinary to find in any variety of the language that bean refers to P. lunatus without also being used to denote P. vulgaris. Whatever the details relating to individual languages, we are reasonably confident that all reconstructed words presented here denoted P. vulgaris. Dates for proto-languages presented in the tables are intended to be the latest dates at which these languages were spoken (just before breaking up into daughter languages). These are calculated through use of Automated Similarity Judgment Program (ASJP) chronology, a computational dating approach based on the lexical similarity of languages (Holman et al. 2011).5 Possible geographic coordinates for proto- language homeland centers given in the tables are produced through automation using an algorithm for identifying the maximum lexical diversity within a language family (Wichmann et al. 2010). The geo- graphic center of lexical diversity of a family is assumed to correlate with where the family’s proto- language was spoken. Tables also give a linguistic family affiliation for each proto-language. The information reported in Tables 2, 3 and 4 is plotted respectively on maps of Figures 1, 2 and 3 to give a visual perspective on both the chronological and geographic distributions of reconstructed bean terms. Archaeological and PBL evidence for the common bean are broadly, but far from perfectly, in accord. Both macro-botanical dates and PBL dates for Figure 2. Bean‐term reconstruc on informa on from Table 3 plo ed on map of Mesoamerica.    Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 104‐115. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.203. 109 Table 3. Bean‐term reconstruc on for proto‐languages of Mesoamerica (Southern Mexico and Northern  Central America).  Years Before Present Proto‐Language Proto‐Word for Bean (NR = Not Reconstructable) Homeland Center Geo‐ graphic Coordinates Family Affilia on Proto‐Word Source 6591  Otomanguean  NR  18  ‐96.92  Otomanguean    5976  Eastern Otomanguean  NR  18  ‐96.92  Otomanguean    5498  Popolocan‐Zapotecan  NR  17.17  ‐96.17  Otomanguean    5357  Amuzgo‐Mixtecan  NR  16.92  ‐97.58  Otomanguean    4542  Mixtecan  NR  16.92  ‐97.58  Otomanguean    4274  Totozoquean  NR  19.92  ‐97.42  Totozoquean    3654  Otopamean  *khiHC‐Ɂ  20.08  ‐100.08  Otomanguean  1  3149  Zapotecan  *(kwe‐)sa:Ɂ  17.17  ‐96.17  Otomanguean  2  3140  Mixtec‐Cuicatec  * n du‐ n de  16.92  ‐97.58  Otomanguean  3  3036  Popolocan  *hmaɁ  18  ‐96.92  Otomanguean  4  2220  Mayan  *keenaq’  15.42  ‐91.83  Mayan  5  2214  Otomian  *‐jü  20.08  ‐100.08  Otomanguean  Authors  2209  Chocho‐Popolocan  *hmaɁ  17.67  ‐97.42  Otomanguean  Authors  1935  Chinantecan  *hniu: L   17.92  ‐96.5  Otomanguean  6  1783  Popoloca  *hmaš  18  ‐96.92  Otomanguean  Authors  1676  Zapotec  *(kwe‐)sa:Ɂ  17.17  ‐96.17  Otomanguean  2  1649  Quichean‐Mamean  *keenaq’  15.42  ‐91.83  Mayan  5  1596  Mixe‐Zoquean  *sɨk  17.22  ‐96.03  Totozoquean  7  1492  Greater Mamean  *keenaq’  15.42  ‐91.83  Mayan  5  1437  Mixtec  * n du Ɂ, ndi   16.92  ‐97.58  Otomanguean  8  1435  Totonacan  *stápu  19.92  ‐97.42  Totozoquean  9  1432  Cholan‐Tzeltalan  *chenek’  16.83  ‐92.83  Mayan  5  1225  Kanjobalan‐Chujean  *tu’t  15.83  ‐91.83  Mayan  10  1198  Corachol  *muume  22.17  ‐104.83  Uto‐Aztecan  Authors  1186  Aztec  *ee‐  20.63  ‐98.58  Uto‐Aztecan  11  1148  Cholan  *chenek’, *b'u’ul  14.81  ‐89.38  Mayan  5,10  1058  Chujean  *tut  15.92  ‐91.58  Mayan  10  997  Cha no  *n‐taa  16.25  ‐97.38  Otomanguean  2  981  Greater Quichean  *kenaq’  14.78  ‐91.5  Mayan  5  948  Sub aba‐Tlapanecan  *yaha  17.08  ‐99  Otomanguean  Authors  900  Mixe  *sɨhk  17.02  ‐96.07  Totozoquean  7  802  Kanjobalan  *hub’al  15.83  ‐91.83  Mayan  10  790  Yucatecan  *b’u’ul  20  ‐89  Mayan  10  787  Zoque  *sɨk  16.9  ‐94.68  Totozoquean  7  741  Otomi  *jü  20.08  ‐100.08  Otomanguean  Authors  511  Tzeltalan  *chenek’  16.83  ‐92.83  Mayan  5  Proto‐Word Source:  1. Bartholomew 1965  2. Campbell 2013  3. Rensch 1976  4. Gudschinsky 1958  5. Wichmann and Brown 2011  6. Rensch 1989  7. Wichmann 1995  8. Josserand 1983  9. Brown et al. 2011  10. Brown 2006  11. Merrill 2012    Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 104‐115. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.203. 110 the eastern US region are the latest in each category for the entire Americas (see respectively Tables 1 and 2). In Mexico, the earliest possible archaeological date for common bean is 3100 BP (Table 1), and the earliest PBL date is 3654 BP (Table 3), dates that are reasonably chronologically close. PBL chronological determinations for the common bean in southern Mexico are substantially later than those indicated for the four other crops investigated thus far through PBL analysis, i.e., squash, chili pepper, manioc, and maize (respectively Brown et al. 2013a, b, c, and 2014). Words for the latter four reconstruct for Proto-Otomanguean, but a term for the common bean does not. Proto- Otomanguean is the oldest demonstrated ancestral language of the New World (6591 BP). The oldest Mesoamerican proto-language having a term for P. vulgaris, Proto-Otopamean (a daughter language of Proto-Otomanguean), dates to 3654 BP (see Table 3 and Figure 2). This and archaeological evidence cited by Smith (2001) suggest that the common bean is the latest addition to the widespread Native American triad of major crops, squash, maize, and common bean. Bean has the distinction of being the only member of the triad not to have developed signifi- cance for prehistoric groups, as measured by paleobi- olinguistics, before the widespread development of a village-farming way of life in the New World. This may relate to the transition from hunting and gather- ing (in which protein was commonly obtained from a broad spectrum of plant and animal resources) to an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. As lysine-deficient Figure 3. Bean‐term reconstruc on informa on from Table 4 plo ed on map of Southern Central America and South America.    Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 104‐115. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.203. 111 Table 4. Bean‐term reconstruc on for proto‐languages of Southern Central America and South America.  Years Before Present Proto‐Language Proto‐Word for Bean (NR = Not Reconstructable) Homeland Center Geo‐ graphic Coordinates Family Affilia on Proto‐Word Source 7266  Macro‐Ge  NR  ‐11.3  ‐53  Macro‐Ge    4701  Mataco‐Guaykuru  NR  ‐22.5  ‐62.58  Mataco‐Guaykuru    4461  Southern Arawakan  NR  ‐10.33  ‐74.33  Arawakan    4400  Chibchan  NR  9.75  ‐83.42  Chibchan    4134  Arawakan  NR  1  ‐69.17  Arawakan    4085  N Arawakan  NR  1  ‐69.17  Arawakan    3943  Panoan‐Tacanan  NR  ‐7.5  ‐75  Panoan‐Tacanan    3585  Tupi  NR  ‐8  ‐62  Tupi    3518  Caribbean N Arawakan  NR  12  ‐72  Arawakan    3310  Salivan  NR  5  ‐67  Salivan    3241  Barbacoan  NR  0.67  ‐79  Barbacoan    3178  Zaparoan  NR  ‐3.25  ‐74  Zaparoan    3124  Nadahup  NR  0  ‐69  Nadahup    3023  Ge  NR  ‐15  ‐52.5  Macro‐Ge    2909  Guaykuruan  NR  ‐26.5  ‐59  Mataco‐Guaykuru    2903  Witoto‐Ocaina  NR  ‐2.75  ‐71.75  Witoto‐Ocaina    2807  Nambiquaran  NR  ‐13  ‐59  Nambiquaran    2774  Misumalpan  NR  13  ‐84.5  Misumalpan    2731  Talamancan  NR  9.75  ‐83.42  Chibchan    2699  Tucanoan  NR  0.33  ‐70.25  Tucanoan    2593  Inland N Arawakan  NR  1  ‐69.17  Arawakan    2503  Venezuelan Cariban  NR  6.5  ‐66  Cariban    2433  Southern Guaykuruan  NR  ‐26.5  ‐59  Mataco‐Guaykuru    2412  Cariban  NR  10.17  ‐72.75  Cariban    2404  Matacoan  *anhetaʃ  ‐22.5  ‐62.58  Mataco‐Guaykuru  Authors  2271  Boran  NR  ‐2.17  ‐72.33  Boran    2258  Chocoan  NR  6.83  ‐77.17  Chocoan    2219  Purus  NR  ‐12.5  ‐69.33  Arawakan    2156  Western Tucanoan  NR  ‐2.83  ‐72.5  Tucanoan    1931  Chapacuran  NR  ‐13.42  ‐63.17  Chapacuran    1875  Southern Ge  *rãgrɔ  ‐26  ‐52  Macro‐Ge  1  1764  Arauan  NR  ‐6  ‐70.5  Arauan    1717  Quechuan  *purutu  0.33  ‐78  Quechuan  2  1672  Panoan  NR  ‐7.5  ‐75  Panoan‐Tacanan    1647  Bolivia‐Parana  NR  ‐15.17  ‐65.42  Arawakan    1634  Mainline Panoan  NR  ‐7.5  ‐75  Panoan‐Tacanan    1607  Yabu   NR  ‐12.25  ‐62.25  Macro‐Ge    1590  Tacanan  NR  ‐13.33  ‐66.5  Panoan‐Tacanan    1569  Harakmbet  NR  ‐12.5  ‐70.5  Harakmbet    1550  Tupi‐Guarani  *kumana  ‐8  ‐62  Tupi  3  1519  Kampan  *maroro  ‐10.33  ‐74.33  Arawakan    1418  Cayapa‐Colorado  *molo  0.67  ‐79  Barbacoan  4  1402  Guianan Cariban  NR  3.25  ‐55.75  Cariban    1395  Cabecar‐Bribri  *atu‐  9.42  ‐83  Chibchan  Authors  (continued on next page)   Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 104‐115. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.203. 112 maize became a staple, the lysine-abundant bean would have become progressively more important. The picture for South America is somewhat more discordant with an earliest macro-botanical date of 4437 BP (Table 1) and an earliest PBL date of 2404 BP (Table 4). The micro-botanical and genetic-model dates are considerably older, at circa 8500-7000 BP. At present, we offer no explanation for this discord- ance other than the observation that P. vulgaris apparently did not develop widespread, significant salience for groups in South America until thousands of years after it was domesticated in the area. Acknowledgements Our gratitude goes to Willem Adelaar, Thiago Chacon, Bernard Comrie, Sergio Meira, and Pilar Valenzuela for sharing data and insights. Declarations Permissions: Not applicable. Sources of funding: Epps’ work on this project was supported by the National Science Foundation (HSD0902114). Clement thanks the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológi- co (CNPq) for a research fellowship (proc. no. 306382/2011-3). Wichmann's research was funded by an ERC Advanced Grant (MesAndLin(g)k, Proj. No. 295918) and by a subsidy of the Russian Government to support the Program of Competitive Development of Kazan Federal University. Conflicts of interest: None declared. References Cited Adair, M. J. 2003. Great Plains Paleoethnobotany. In People and Plants in Eastern North America, edited by P. E. Minnis, pp. 258-346. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Asch, D. L., and J. P. Hart. 2004. Crop Domestication in Prehistoric Eastern North America. Encyclopedia of Plant and Crop Science, pp. 314-319. New York: Marcel Dekker. Bartholomew, D. A. 1965. The Reconstruction of Otopamean (Mexico). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Bascom, B. W. 1965. Proto-Tepiman. Ph.D. disserta- tion, University of Washington. Blake, M., J. E. Clark, et al. 1995. Radiocarbon Chronology for the Late Archaic and Formative Periods on the Pacific Coast of Southeastern Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica 6:161-183. 1335  Kakua‐Nukak  NR  0.88  ‐69.56  Kakua‐Nukak    1319  Yanomam  NR  3.5  ‐62.83  Yanomam    1241  Eastern Tucanoan  NR  0.33  ‐70.25  Tucanoan    1185  Kawapanan  *makira  ‐5.5  ‐77  Kawapanan  5  1169  Pemongan  NR  4  ‐60  Cariban    992  Taranoan  NR  1  ‐73  Cariban    974  Quechua II  *purutu  0.33  ‐78  Quechuan  2  875  Embera  NR  5.25  ‐76.66  Chocoan    678  Jivaroan  *miik  ‐2.5  ‐78  Jivaroan  Authors  609  Araucanian  *deŋɨlʸ  ‐38  ‐72  Araucanian  Authors  414  Witoto Proper  NR  ‐1  ‐73.5  Witoto‐Ocaina    389  Mayoruna Panoan  NR  ‐4.42  ‐70.25  Panoan‐Tacanan    Years Before Present Proto‐Language Proto‐Word for Bean (NR = Not Reconstructable) Homeland Center Geo‐ graphic Coordinates Family Affilia on Proto‐Word Source (continued from previous page) Proto‐Word Source:  1. Marcel Pinho de Valhery Jolkesky 2010  2. Willem Adelaar, personal communica on  3. Mello 2000  4. Moore 1962  5. Pilar Valenzuela, personal communica on    Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 104‐115. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.203. 113 Brown, C. H. 2006. Prehistoric Chronology of the Common Bean in the New World: The Linguistic Evidence. American Anthropologist 108:507-516. Brown, C. H., D. Beck, G. Kondrak, J. K. Watters, and S. Wichmann. 2011. Totozoquean. International Journal of American Linguistics 77:323-372. Brown, C. H., E. Luedeling, S. Wichmann, and P. Epps. 2013a. The Paleobiolinguistics of Domesti- cated Squash (Cucurbita spp.). In Explorations in Ethnobiology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea, edited by M. Quinlan and M. D. Lepofsky, pp. 132-161. Society of Ethnobiology, Denton, TX. Brown, C. H., C. R. Clement, P. Epps, E. Luedeling, and S. Wichmann. 2013b. The Paleobiolinguistics of Domesticated Chili Pepper (Capsicum spp.). Ethnobiology Letters 4:1-11. Brown, C. H., C. R. Clement, P. Epps, E. Luedeling, and S. Wichmann. 2013c. The Paleobiolinguistics of Domesticated Manioc (Manihot esculenta Crantz). Ethnobiology Letters 4:61‐70. Brown, C. H., C. R. Clement, P. Epps, E. Luedeling, and S. Wichmann. 2014. The Paleobiolinguistics of Maize (Zea mays L.). Ethnobiology Letters 5:52-64. Buckler, E. S., and N. M. Stevens. 2006. Maize Origins, Domestication, and Selection. In Darwin’s Harvest: New Approaches to the Origin, Evolution, and Conservation of Crops, edited by T. J. Motley, N. Zerega, and H. Cross, pp. 67-91. Columbia University Press, New York. Campbell, E. 2013. The Internal Diversification and Subgrouping of Chatino. International Journal of American Linguistics 79:395-420. Carter, R. T., A. W. Jones, J. E. Koontz, R. L. Rankin, and D. S. Rood. In Preparation. Compar- ative Siouan Dictionary. Computer database from the University of Colorado, Denver. Chacón S., M. I., B. Pickersgill, and D. G. Debouck. 2005. Domestication Patterns in Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and the Origin of the Mesoa- merican and Andean Cultivated Races. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 110:432-444. Chacón S., M. I., B. Pickersgill, D. G. Debouck, and J. Salvador Arias. 2007. Phylogeographic Analysis of the Chloroplast DNA Variation in Wild Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in the Americas. Plant Systematics and Evolution 266:175- 195. Chacón S., M. I., J. R. Motta-Aldana, M. L. Serrano S., and D. G. Debouck. 2012. Domestication of Lima Beans: A New Look at an Old Problem. In Biodiver- sity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution and Sustaina- bility, edited by P. Gepts, T. R. Famula, R. L. Bettinger, S. B. Brush, A. B. Damania, P. E. McGuire, and C. O. Qualset, pp. 330-343. Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Clark, J. E. 1994. The Development of Early Forma- tive Rank Societies in the Soconusco, Chiapas, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Debouck, D. G., and J. Smartt. 1995. Beans, Phaseolus spp. (Leguminosae-Papilionoideae). In Evolution of Crop Plants, 2nd Ed, edited by N. W. Simmonds and J. Smartt, pp. 287-293. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow, Essex, UK. Freytag, G. F., and D. G. Debouck. 2002. Taxonomy, Distribution, and Ecology of the Genus Phaseolus (Leguminosae—Papilionoideae) in North America, Mexico and Central America. Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth, TX. Hart, J. P., D. L. Asch, C. M. Scarry, and G. W. Crawford. 2002. The Age of the Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in the Northern Eastern Woodlands of North America. Antiquity 76:377-385. Hart, J. P., and C. M. Scarry. 1999. The Age of Common Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) in the Northeast- ern United States. American Antiquity 64:653-658. Holman, E. W., C. H. Brown, S. Wichmann et al. 2011. Automated Dating of the World's Language Families based on Lexical Similarity. Current Anthropology 52:841-875. Jolkesky, M. P. V. 2010. Reconstrução Fonológica e Lexical do Proto-Jê Meridional. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campi- nas, Campinas, SP. Josserand, J. K. 1983. Mixtec Dialect History. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA. Kaplan, L., and T. F. Lynch. 1999. Phaseolus (Fabaceae) in Archaeology: AMS Radiocarbon Dates and Their Significance for Pre-Columbian Agriculture. Economic Botany 53:261-272.   Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 104‐115. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.203. 114 Kwak, M., J. A. Kami, and P. Gepts. 2009. The Putative Mesoamerican Domestication Center of Phaseolus vulgaris Is Located in the Lerma–Santiago Basin of Mexico. Crop Science 49:554-563. Mamidi, S., M. Rossi, et al. 2011. Investigation of the domestication of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) using multilocus sequence data. Functional Plant Biology 38:953-967. Mello, A. A. S. 2000. Estudo histórico da familia linguistica Tupi-Guaraní. PhD dissertation, Univer- sidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Merrill, W. L. 2012. The Historical Linguistics of Uto- Aztecan Agriculture. Anthropological Linguistics 54:203 -260. Moore, B. R. 1962. Correspondences in South Barbacoan Chibcha. In Studies in Ecuadorian Indian Languages 1, ed. by B. F. Elson, pp. 270-289. Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma. Piperno, D. R., and T. D. Dillehay. 2008. Starch Grains on Human Teeth Reveal Early Broad Crop Diet in Northern Peru. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:19622-19627. Rensch, C. R. 1976. Comparative Otomanguean Phonology. Indiana University Publications, Bloomington, IN. Rensch, C. R. 1989. An Etymological Dictionary of the Chinantec Languages. Summer Institute of Linguistics, Arlington, TX. Schmutz, J., P. E. McClean, et al. 2014. A Reference for Common Bean and Genome-wide Analysis of Dual Domestications. Nature Genetics 46:707-713. Smith, B. D. 2001. Documenting Plant Domestica- tion: The Consilience of Biological and Archaeolog- ical Approaches. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98:1324-1326. Stubbs, B. D. 2011. Uto-Aztecan: A Comparative Vocabulary. Shumway Family History Services, Flower Mound, TX. van Etten, J., and R. J. Hijmans. 2010. A geospatial modelling approach integrating archaeobotany and genetics to trace the origin and dispersal of domes- ticated plants. PLoS ONE 5: e12060. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0012060 Wichmann, S. 1995. The Relationship Among the Mixe- Zoquean Languages of Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT. Wichmann, S., and C. H. Brown. 2011. Syllable Nuclei of Proto-Mayan Disyllabic Stems. In New Perspectives in Mayan Linguistics, Heriberto Avelino, ed., pp. 316- 342. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Wichmann, S., A. Müller, and V. Velupillai. 2010. Homelands of the World’s Language Families: A Quantitative Approach. Diachronica 27:247-276. Wills, W. H. 1988. Early Prehistoric Agriculture in the American Southwest. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Biosketch Cecil H. Brown  is  a  linguistic  anthropologist  with  interests  in  ethnobiology,  historical  linguistics,  and  Native American languages.  Charles R. Clement is a geneticist studying the origin and  domestication  of  native  Amazonian  crops,  and  the  ethnobotany  associated  with  anthropogenic  soils  and  other domesticated landscapes.  Patience Epps  is  a  linguist  whose  work  investigates  lowland  South  American  languages  from  historical,  typological, and descriptive perspectives.  Eike Luedeling  is  an  agricultural  scientist  mainly  concerned with projection of climate change impacts on  agricultural  and  natural  ecosystems  and  with  the  development of appropriate adaptation strategies.  Søren Wichmann specializes in quantitative methods in  historical linguistics and Mesoamerican languages. He is  General  Editor  of  the  journal  Language Dynamics and Change.  Notes 1This is the fourth PBL study published in Ethnobiology Letters, the first treating chili pepper (Brown et al. 2013b), the second manioc (Brown et al. 2013c), and the third maize (Brown et al. 2014). The method and theory of PBL (and the PBL of squash) is discussed in detail in Brown et al. (2013a) and briefly summarized in Brown et al. (2013b). Given this coverage, a discussion of PBL method and theory will not be repeated here. 2Archaeological dates cited in this paper come from various different sources, some firsthand, others second-party reports. Some are direct radiocarbon dates and some indirect, and it is often difficult if not   Research Communica on  Ethnobiology Le ers. 2014. 5: 104‐115. DOI: 10.14237/ebl.5.2014.203. 115 impossible to determine if calibration is involved. We report all dates as if they were non-calibrated, calendric dates. 3PBL and archaeological evidence are in sharp disagreement with dates indicated by the new genetic modeling for the domestication of the common bean in Mexico (Mamidi et al. 2011). Unlike archaeological evidence that can be precisely dated with modern techniques, both PBL and genetic modeling have large variances around the estimated dates, and these variances increase in magnitude as the mean recedes into the past. The new genetic model does not use macro-botanical remains of common bean for calibration (Mamidi et al. 2011), as suggested by van Etten and Hijmans (2010), so these dates may be modified significantly with calibration. 4NR should not necessarily be interpreted as indicat- ing that a term for common bean did not pertain to a proto-language and, by implication, that people who spoke the language were not familiar with the taxon. Another possibility is that a bean term did indeed pertain to a proto-language, but that its referent was not especially salient, accounting for the term’s failure to survive in offspring languages and, thus, to be reconstructable for the proto-language (cf., Brown et al. 2013a:140). 5Occasionally, an ASJP date for a proto-language may be older than a date for its own parent language. For example, Proto-Southern Arawakan (4461 BP) has an ASJP date older than that for Proto-Arawakan (4134 BP). This sometimes occurs in ASJP chronology when a language group’s breakup is closely followed in time by the breakup of its immediate subgroup. The attested variability of ASJP dates accounts for this apparent aberrancy (Holman et al. 2011:872).