title: Archaeological soybean (Glycine max) in East Asia: does size matter?
abstract: The recently acquired archaeological record for soybean from Japan, China and Korea is shedding light on the context in which this important economic plant became associated with people and was domesticated. This paper examines archaeological (charred) soybean seed size variation to determine what insight can be gained from a comprehensive comparison of 949 specimens from 22 sites. Seed length alone appears to represent seed size change through time, although the length × width × thickness product has the potential to provide better size change resolution. A widespread early association of small seeded soybean is as old as 9000-8600 cal BP in northern China and 7000 cal BP in Japan. Direct AMS radiocarbon dates on charred soybean seeds indicate selection resulted in large seed sizes in Japan by 5000 cal BP (Middle Jomon) and in Korea by 3000 cal BP (Early Mumun). Soybean seeds recovered in China from the Shang through Han periods are similar in length to the large Korean and Japanese specimens, but the overall size of the large Middle and Late Jomon, Early Mumun through Three Kingdom seeds is significantly larger than any of the Chinese specimens. The archaeological record appears to disconfirm the hypothesis of a single domestication of soybean and supports the view informed by recent phyologenetic research that soybean was domesticated in several locations in East Asia.
authors.affiliation: Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, United States of America. galee@uoregon.edu
authors.forename: Gyoung-Ah
authors.initials: GA
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: Gary W
authors.initials: GW
authors.lastname: Crawford
authors.forename: Li
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Liu
authors.forename: Yuka
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Sasaki
authors.forename: Xuexiang
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Chen
mesh_terms: D001106:Archaeology; D001208:Asia; D005580:Fossils; D013025:Glycine max
references.citation: Plant Physiol. 2003 Mar;131(3):872-7
references.pmid: 12644639
references.citation: Theor Appl Genet. 2004 Mar;108(5):931-6
references.pmid: 14595543
references.citation: Nature. 2010 Jan 14;463(7278):178-83
references.pmid: 20075913
references.citation: Science. 1973 Nov 30;182(4115):887-94
references.pmid: 17737521
references.citation: Theor Appl Genet. 2003 Feb;106(3):445-53
references.pmid: 12589544
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jan 16;104(3):1087-92
references.pmid: 17213316
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 May 11;107(19):8563-8
references.pmid: 20421496
references.citation: Nature. 1999 Sep 23;401(6751):366-8
references.pmid: 16862110
references.citation: Theor Appl Genet. 2002 Oct;105(5):645-653
references.pmid: 12582476
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Nov 7;103(45):16666-71
references.pmid: 17068128
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2010 Dec;42(12):1053-9
references.pmid: 21076406
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 15;104 Suppl 1:8641-8
references.pmid: 17494757
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Dec 21;107(51):22032-7
references.pmid: 21131573
references.citation: Ann Bot. 2007 Nov;100(5):1027-38
references.pmid: 17684023
references.citation: Ann Bot. 2007 Nov;100(5):903-24
references.pmid: 17495986
references.citation: New Phytol. 2010 Oct;188(1):242-53
references.pmid: 20618914