Cucurbits and Cultures in the Americas'

THOiV[AS W . W H I T A K E R A N D I [ U G H C. C U T L E R -~

Introduction As archeologists continually extend and

intensify their excavations throughout the Americas, it becomes increasingly clear that the fruits of cucurbits, par t icular ly of the genus Cucurbita, were a major constituent of the diet of pre-Columbian peoples. In season, fruits of the eucurbitas were an im- por tant green vegetable, and when nmture they were boiled or roasted as a source of sugary and starchy food. An important fr inge benefit was the storage qualities of the fruit. Many cultivars could be stored for six weeks or even up to several months without decay. Frequently, for longer stor- age, the frui ts were cut into strips and dried in the sun or over coals. The seeds, which were roasted, were even more highly prized than the flesh. The cucurbitas were perhaps first domesticated for their tasty, highly nutritious seeds, rather than :for the flesh. I t may be significant that primitive fruits are, virtually, seed bags with an ex- terior layer of thin, stringy flesh.

In the pro-pottery era, cucurbits, partic- ularly Lagenaria, were indispensable as the raw materials for household utensils (dishes, spoons), water bottles, fish-net floats, rattles, whistles, and storage containers of various sorts.

Collectively, a considerable quantity of

1 Presented at a meeting of The Society for Economic Botany as part of a symposium en- titled Integrated l~eseareh in Econo~vie Botany VI: Ethnobotany of Some ~r World Cul- tures, Part I I : Crops of major importance. December 30, 1964. AAAS Meetings. Mon- treal, Canada.

2 Research Geneticist, CR, ARS, United States Department of Agriculture, La Jolla, California, and Curator of Useful Plants, Mis- souri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, Missouri.

Received for publication Juno 1, 1965.

cucurbit archeological material has been ex- cavated, much of it within the past 15 years. Most of this material has been studied and identified. However, our present methods of identification usually lack sophistication. :For this reason, precise techniques of anat- omy, histology and perhaps chemotaxonomy should be developed for studying this ma- terial.

Squashes and gourds are among the few plants that have a eomprehensive docu- mented history related to human cultures. As such, they are a valuable tool for tracing the beginnings of agriculture in the Amer- icas. I t is the purpose of this report to as- sess the significance of these plants in rela- tion to the cultures with which they were associated, and to consider their value as a contribution to the origin arid domesti- cation of the group.

Peduncles, seeds and rinds are the plant organs of the cucurbits usually recovered fronl archeological sites. Even when charred and eroded, peduncles are the single most useful tool for identification of the culti- vated cucurbitas at the species level. Seeds in good condition are equally valuable for species identification, but they are apt to be broken mechanically or danmged by heat, decay or erosion. Nevertheless, with a large and diversified collection of known material for comparison, seeds are a reliable nmans of species identification. Lagenaria r ind, can usually be separated from those of Cu. curbita by sight, and they are easily dis- tinguished microscopically. At present, how- ever, we have no means of differentiating the rinds of species of Cucurbita, either nficroscopieally or by gross morphology.

A number of Old World eucurbits were transported to the Americas in early post- Columbian times either for food or as or- namentals, and are common to certain areas

344

r'U~'VRI~ITS AND ( ' I l I ,TURES ]N T I l E AMEI/I i :AS 345

at the present time. Among them are: Cu- camis melo L. (Muskmelon); C. anguria L. (West German Gherkin); C. dip.~aeeus Eh- reub. (Teasel Gourd);Momordiea sp. (Bal- sam Apple, Balsam Pear) ; Citrulhts wdga- ris L. (Watermelon); Luffa eylindriea (L.) Roem. (Sponge Gourd). The West Indian Gherkin was evidently brought to the Amer- icas from Africa by the slave trade. I t and the Teasel Gourd, C. dipsaceus, have become naturalized sad widespread in certain areas of Latin America.

L a g e n a r i a

Plant remains of the ubiquitous Lagen- aria sieeraria (Mol.) Standl., the white- flowered gourd, have been found in almost every "dig" in North and South America where a systematic effort has been made to salvage plant materials. I f Lagenaria is not present, we begin to suspect that some- thing is wrong; either the season was too short to mature the fruit or else the climate and location were not conducive to the pres- ervation of plant materials. At say rate, the bottle gourd seems to have beeu gath- ered and used by man before he practiced agriculture. Sherds and occasionally intact utensils of Lagenaria generally occur in ear- lier strata than do the remains of squash, pumpkins, beans or corn. We have definite proof that Lage.naria was in use at Huaca Prieta, Peru, as early *as 3000 B.C. (Whit- aker and Bird, 1949) ; at the Oeampo Caves in Mexico about 7000 B.C.; ,~nd at Tehua- c~n, south of Mexico City, in 5500 B.C.

There are a number of references to La- genaria slceraria in the literature, indicat- ing that it was rather widespread in ancient Egypt. Probably because of the relatively early invention of pottery in the Old World, it never became widespread in Asia Minor or Asia.

Botanists tend to think of Lagenaria si- ceraria as indigenous to Africa--probably a correct assumption. Meeuse (1960) states that there are records of collections of L. siceraria from areas of South Africa where escapes are most unlikely to occur, indi- rectly suggesting that this species is a wild plant in South Africa. Furthermore, its cIos- est relative L. _sphaeriea (Sond.) Naud. (--Sphaerosicyos sphaericus), which occurs as a wild plant in this area, is so closely related to L. sieeraria that hybrids of the

two species have been reported (Cogniaux and Harms, p. 101, 1924; Meeuse, 1962; St. Germain, 1866). One of the hybrids be- tween the bottle gourd and L. sphaerica pro- duced fruits but without fertile seeds when crossed with L. bre~iflorus ( ~ A . angolen- .~.i.~.). Lagenaria sphaeriea has been collected along the coasts of East Africa and South Africa alld in Nigeria and Angola. Other species of Lageuaria, SOlnetimes consid- ered as forming a separate genus, Aden- opus, are found across Central Africa, from Sierra Leone, Liberia and Nigeria, through the Congo to Kenya, Ethiopia, Madagascar and South Africa. This region also appears to contain the greatest diversity of forms of the bottle gourd.

I f Lagenaria is indigenous to Africa, how did it reach the Americas several thousand years before 14927 This highly controver- sial question has generated much heat, but the ensuing polemics have not proved to be particularly enlightening. Many herbarium specimens of L. sphaerica and species of Adenopus were collected on beaches or be- side rivers or lakes in Africa. I t is possible that wild forms of the bottle gourd grew in similar habitats from which they could have been carried into the sea and brought by wind currents to South America. Con- trolled experiments indicate that gourds of Lageuaria could remain floating and retain viable seed for a sufficient length of time to make the passage from Africa to South America. Whether the bottle gourd reached the Americas in this way or not will prob- ably never be determined to the satisfaction of everyone. The important and undisputed fact is that Lagenaria was widely distrib- uted over the Americas in pre-Colmnbian times. Moreover, there is considerable di- versity in the morphology of the fnfits from different archeological sites, suggest- lug that there may have been a steady in- flux of new germ plasm from outside the immediate area. The variability of the seeds from different archeological sites, however, is not nearly so great as one finds in cur- rent collections from Africa.

Cucurbita There are five species of cultivated Cucur-

bita, and archeologlcal remains of each have been identified. They are: C. pepo--sum-

}~4fi ECONOM 1C BOTANY

mer squash and pulnpkins; C. mixta--win- ter squash, pumpkins, cymlings; C. mosch- , t o - -win te r squash, pumpkin; C. "maxima - -win te r squash, pumpkins; C. ficifolia-- malabar or fig-leaf gourd.

In an earlier publication (Cutler and Whitaker, 1961), we have pointed out that Cacurbita nmterial from most archeologi- col excavations is not nearly so abundant as maize. However, for study of cultural move- mcnts, Cucurbita remains have certain ad- vantages over maize. Species and occa- sionally sub-specific groups of Cucurbita may often be reliably identified from seeds or peduncles. The five cultivated species of squashes and pumpkins, unlike practically all races of maize, do not readily hybrid- ize among themselves. Specimens of Cu- c,trbita from many dated sites are avail- able for comparison, and the pre-Columbian distribution of the cultivated species is known with reasonable accuracy.

Center of distribution. The center of dis- tribution of the genus C~,curbita is cer- tainly in Mexico, probably in that vast area directly south of Mexico City and contin- uing to the Guatemalan border. The early dates of the Cucurbita material from the t)eampo Caves and Tehuaefin in Mexico, both excavated by I)r. Richard S. MacNeish, are decisive evidence for the American origin and domestication of C~,c~trbita. These early dates likewise contribute to the thesis that seed agriculture in the Americas orig- inated in Mexico or Central America.

Ancestors of the cultivated cucurbita. I f we assume that the general m'ea which forms the center of distribution of the genus has been located with reasonable ac- curacy, the next step is to cast about for the putative ancestor or ancestors of the cultivated species. Hybridization data show that there are several mesophytie, more or less annual wild species indigenous to this area (Mesoamerica) that are compatible with one or more of the cultivated species. These mesophytic wild species all produce comparatively snmll, greenish, hard-shelled, and usually striped gourds, having whitish stringy, bit ter flesh and numerous, relatively small seeds.

Cucurbita lundelIiana Bailey, a gourd spe- cies of the type described, is indigenous to southeastern Mexico, northern Guatem'da

and British Honduras. This species will hy- bridize with all five cultivated species of C~- e,rbita, producing fruits and seeds. In three of the combinations, the F 1 and F._, progenies and following generations exhibit a reasonable amount of fertility. Another wild species of the same general type, C. ntartine?.i Bailey, indigenous to the state of Vera Cruz, but quite distinct morpho- logically from C. luudelliaua, reacts in about the same manner as C. ho*delliana in nmt- ings with the cultivated species. Our tests with C. ~nartinezii~ however, are not yet complete. These results suggest that, in the area suspected as being the center of dis- tribution of the genus, there are at least two wild species that wouht qualify as primitive ancestors of the cultivated species or which can at least exchange genes with them.

I f we consider the above compatibility data along with the archeological records of MaeNeish for Oeampo and Tehuaefin, there is a strong possibility that C~curbita may have entered into agriculture in this gen- eral area. Specimens of the cucurbitas are found in strata dated 5200 B.C. at Tehua- e~in and 5000 B.C. at Ocampo; obviously, domestication had occurred prior to these dates.

Distribution of the cultivated species. At the time of the Discovery, the cultivated cucurbitas occurred in the Americas from southern Canada to northern Argentina. Frequently, but not universally, one species was cultivated to the exclusion of the re- mainder. In other words, the cucurbitas had fair ly distinct ranges in both pre-Co- lumbian and post-Columbian times. Also in archeological sites, the species of Cucurbita usually appear in different strata, suggest- ing that they evolved from different centers of domestication and implying they were do- mesticated at different periods in the com'se of pre-Columbian history.

Beginning in North America, C~curbita pepo was grown in the area inunediately south of Mexico City, then northward to southern Canada along the East Coast of the United States; westward through the Mississippi Yalley into northwestern Mex- ico and southwestern United States. Al- though Cucurbita mi.rta had somewhat the same distribution as C. l)epo, there was a

CUCORBITS AND CULTURES IN THE AMERICAS 347

strong concentration of forms south of Mex- ico City. C. mixta did not spread north- ward so far, nor so early as pepo. I t was late in reaching northwestern Mexico and southwestern United States, but a few forms were differentiated.

C~curbita moschata is better adapted to a warm, damp tropical enviromnent than either C. pepo or C. mixta. It w:~s widely distributed and in great diversity over southern Mexico, Central Ameriea, and Co- l<>mbia and Peru. C. moscl+ata is found north of Mexico City hut not strongly so. At the time of the l)iseovery, it was in northwestern Mexico and southwestern United States; but it was a comparative newcomer to these areas and was restricted in distribution.

There is no record of Ca<'~trbita ma.rima north of the equator prior to 1492. In Sauer's words (1950), "the aboriginal dis- tribution of this species was exclusively South American." Originally, C. m , x i m , was confined to the temperate portions of Peru, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina. Sauer (1950) states that the seeds are found el~ masse in burials along the desert coast of Peru. There are three archeologieal records of this species in South America dating from A.D. 600 to A.D. 1400 Carter (1945) has identified as C. ma,rim~t seeds of q <'ul- tiwlr similar to those of the mociern ev. 'Banana' from a site at San Nicholas, Peru, dated at about A.D. 1200.

Cucurbita ficifolia is the perennial, high altitude temperate climate member of this alliance. I ts distribution stretches from south of Mexico City through Central America, into Colombia and Peru, always at high altitudes. Among the Indians of the Andes, C. ficifolia is known by several ex- otic common names. For this reason, Sauer feels that it may be a post-Columbian in- troduction into South America and this is no doubt true for some areas. However, excavations of seeds and stems of fieifolia at Huaca Prieta on the north coast of Peru, dated about 3000 B.C., indicate that this species was established in coastal Peru in pre-Columbian times.

Cucurbits a n d C u l t u r e s

In South America. The early inhabitants of South America cultivated ('~warbita

moschata and the fig-leaf gourd, C. ficifolia, as indicated by materials excavated by Jun- ius Bird at Huaca Prieta (Whitaker and Bird, 1949), a tremendous ulidden on the northern coast of Peru. The earliest strata from which these materials were taken, have an estimated age of 3000-5000 years. The residents of Huaca Prieta, evidently some of the earliest agriculturists in the New World, were cultivating squash before they had maize or pottery.

As we move forward from these early dates to the time of the pre-Inea and Inca civilizations (300 B.C. to A.D. 1400), Ct~- ct~rbita maxima gradually replaced C. mos- cl~aht and C. rift.f ella. This is not surpris- ing, because C. maxima is much superior to the other two species in food quality; fur- thenuore, it is well adapted to growing conditions found in the temperate portions of the Inca Empire. Squashes of C. max- ima were evidently important domesticates in the economy of these peoples. Their pottery shows many faithful reproductions of the fruits in the Moche and Chimfi cul- tures. The reproductions from the Moche cultm'e are identifiable as C. moschata and C. maxima; those of the later Chimfi cul- ture as C. maxima.

We have not examined archeologieal nm- terial from eastern South America, but it is likely that Cttcurbita moschattl was grown over most of the lowlands north of central Bolivia and Paraguay.

In Oentral America. Conditions for the preservation of plant materials were for the most par t not good in Central America. There are, despite mater excavations of Maya ruins, few records of archeological eucurbits from Central America. Vestal (1938) has identified a peduncle of C. mos- chata from a Maya site in Guatemala, dated at about A.D. 900. More recently, Lundell obtained a few see:Is of a eueurbit from Tikal, Peten, Guatemala. These seeds were taken from a burial, with a carbon date of approximately Aft). 400. They were definitely Cucurbita, but so badly eroded that the species could not be precisely determined. They were, however, suspected to be those of C. moschata. On the basis of ecological preferences, post-Columbian dis- tribution, and archeologieal record, we are suggesting that C. mo.~chata was widely

34S ECONOMIC BOTANY

cultivated in Central America in pre-Colum- bian times, probably to the exclusion of other species except, possibly, C. mixta.

In Mexico. The largest and most signifi- cant collection of archeological cueurbits are those excavated by MacNeish at Ocampo, and by MacNeish and his asso- ciates at Tehuactin. Ocampo is in the moun- tains, about 125 miles north and west of Tampico in the state of Tamaulipas. The Tehuacfin Valley is some 135 nfiles south of ~exico City in the state of Puebla. We have studied more than 1200 specimens of cucurbits from Tehuachn (Cutler and Whit- aker, in press) and approximately the same number from Ocampo (Whitaker, Cutler and MacNeish, 1957). The results tell us something about the distribution of these species, their relative abundance, and the cultures with which they were associated.

At Tehuacfin, seeds and peduncles of C. mixta were recovered in greater abundance than those of other species. Here, C. mixta was cultivated as early as 3500-2300 B.C. and perhaps earlier, inasmuch as several seeds in strata dated at about 5000 B.C. could be C. mixta. At the present time, great ~liversity in abundance and in the number of forms of C. mixta is found not fa r from Tehuacfin in the states of Oaxaea and Chipas. This area, embracing Oaxaca, Chipas and southern Puebla, is most likely the center of distribution of C. ,~ixta. There was, however, remarkably little variation in C. mixta seeds from Tehuaefin through a period extending from 3500 B.C. up to his- torte times.

Material of Cueurbita moschata at Te- huacfin, though less numerous than C. mixta, i',* recorded from nearly every cultural phase. An intact specimen of a C. ~os- chata peduncle found in the Abejas Phase bears a radio-carbon date of 3400-2300 B.C., making it the oldest specimen of C. mos- c]~ata on record.

Although Cucurbita pepo occurs in a few of the Tehuac~n Valley sites, the specimens are not usually so numerous, nor do they come from as early strata as those of C. mixta or C. moschata. This observation adds substantial weight to the idea that C. pel)o originated farther to the north and

that it was a late entrant into tile Tehuacfin area.

When we go northward to the Ocampo Caves, we find that C. pepo was recovered in relative abundance in all cultural phases at this site. Cueurbita pepo reached a peak of variabil i ty about A.D. 150 to 850, then declined. Only a few kinds of C. pepo were found at oldest levels, and some of these were similar to the oldest C. pepo from the Tehuaegm Valley. Cucurbita mo- sehata came late to this site, about 1400 to 400 B.C., and it never became as abundant as C. pepo. There is a single occurrence of C. mixta at Ocampo, a well preserved peduncle dated A.D. 900.

In northwestern Mexico and southwestern United States, Cucurbita pepo has been recovered from literally hundreds of sites in Arizona, New Mexico and the border- ing states of Mexico. The earliest records are from the Tularosa Cave and the Cordova Cave in New Mexico. Identifiable material of C. pepo was excavated from strata dated 300 B.C. at these two sites, but most of the C. pepo material in the Southwest is dated from about A.D. 900 to A.D. 1400. Cucurbita pepo recovered from various sites in the Middle West dates from A.D. 1100 to A.D. 1800, for the most part .

Cucurbita moschata came into the South- west about A.D. 900, but it never became so widespread as C. pepo, nor is there nmch diversity in the material recovered.

Cucurbita mixta arrived in the Southwest at about the same time as C. moschata, but became nmre widespread, and some diver- sity of forms is apparent. Cucurbita mixta is probably better adapted than C. moschata to the growing conditions of the area; fur- thermore both the seeds and flesh are used.

Summary 1. The l)ottle gourd, Lagem~ria sieer~ria.

and the five cultivated species of Cucurbita are the eucurbits emnmonly found in ar- cheoh)gical sites.

2. The archeoh)gical history of the bottle gourd indicates that it was one of the first plants to be domesticated in the Americas. In many sites, it is found in pre-ceramie, pre-maize strata. In the Old World, L(I- genaria was never so widely distributed nor used as in the Americas, probably he('ause

CUCURB1TS AND CUI/I'UI{ES IN TIlE AM ERI('AS 34!}

of the ear ly inven t ion of po t t e ry in Asia.

3. The center of d i s t r ibu t ion of the genus Cucurbita is a p p a r e n t l y in the region di- rec t ly south of Mexico City. I n this gen- eral area, there are several wild species t ha t are compat ib le wi th the cul t iva ted species.

4. The cul t ivated species of Cncurbita, in general , are charac ter ized by an a l lopat r ic d is t r ibut ion. The archeological record sug- gests tha t each species was domest i tca ted at different t imes and almost cer ta in ly in dif- f e ren t areas.

5. The cu l tu ra l h i s to ry of the cucurbi ts indicates a vel 'y s t rong tendency towards conservat ive crop h u s b a n d r y among pre- Columbian and pos t -Co lumbian peoples in t ha t they tended to grow essent ial ly the same cul t ivars over long per iods of time.

Literature Cited 1. Carter, G. F. ]945. Some archeologic

cucurbit seed from Peru. Acta Ameri- cana 3: 163-172.

2. Cogniaux, A., and H. Harms. 1924 Das Pflanzenreich: IV (A. Engler) Cucurbit- ~ceae - - Cueurbiteae - - Cueumerinae 275

(11): 200-209. 3. Cutler, H. C. and Thomas W. Whitaker.

1961. History and distribution of the cultivated eucurbits in the Americas. Amer. Antiquity 26: 469-485.

4. - - - - and - - . 1965. Cucurbits from the TehuacSn Caves. In press.

5. Meeuse, A. D. J . 1962. The Cueurbitaeeae of South Africa. Bothal ia 7: 1-111.

6. Sauer, C. O. 1950. Cultivated plants of South and Central America. Bull. 143, Handbook of South American Indians 6: 487-543. Smithsonian Inst., Bur. Amer. Ethnology.

7. St. Pierre, Germain de. 1866. Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr. 13: 301-304.

8. Vestal, P. A. 1938. Cucurbita moschata found in pre-Columbian mounds in Gua- temala. Harvard Univ. Bot. Leaflets 6: 65-69.

9. Whitaker, Thomas W. and J. B. Bird. 1949. Identification and significance of the cucurbit materials from Huaca Prieta, Peru. Amer. Museum Nov. No. 1426, pp. 1-15.

10. , H. C. Cutler and R. S. MacNeish. 1957. Cucurbit materials from three caves near Ocampo, Tamaulipas. Amer. Antiquity 22: 352-358.