1. INTRODUCTION That plant names are among the most dificult words to translate from one language into another is perhaps best illustrated by the existence of a standardized taxonomic nomenclature of scientiic plant names. The system of binominal nomenclature in taxonomy was irst applied by Linnaeus in 1735 with the publication of Systema Naturae. 1 It enabled 18th century biologists to go beyond the confusion of unsystematic common names expressed differently in various, at that time European, languages and dialects, and to arrive at a situation in which an aca- demically communicated name is linked to an archetypi- cal specimen. With this system, it should be crystal clear to every reader which species was being referred to by an author. Though botany was practiced in Antiquity, the best example being Theophrastus’ Enquiry into plants, there was no overarching standardized system of plant names. While Ancient plant names must have held a more or less speciic meaning to ancient language users, and refer- ence a de facto species, it is not always unproblematic for us to grasp that meaning. This article sets out to reas- sess the meaning of one of these more problematic plant names: phasolus. Phasolus, with myriad of alternative spellings including phaseolus, faselus, phaselus or fasio- lis originated in Greek (φσ) and was later also used in Latin. In scholarly literature, phasolus is often associ- ated with a crop named dolichos (δ) which means long. 4 While there is a consensus that the name refers to a pulse or legume of sorts, which places it the Fabaceae family, there are several different interpretations as to which species is meant, but the number of options is lim- ited: for most names we know which plant belongs to it. Therefore, the list of potential identiications grows short. Common translations of phasolus into English include, among others, ‘kidney’ or ‘French’ bean (Phaseolus vul- garis), ‘cowpea’ or ‘black-eyed bean’ (Vigna unguicu- lata) and the more general term, ‘calavance’. We should note that the interpretation of an Ancient plant name and the translation into a modern English common name is not necessarily the same as identifying the botanical spe- cies referred to in a classical text. Of course, reaching the latter level should be the aim of the translator in order to facilitate the study of classical texts best; this can be done in a commentary while a itting, unambiguous, common name could be used in the translation. The dificulties in understanding which species is meant in a classical text are many. First, the lack of draw- ings and limited morphological descriptions may pose an impediment for the reliable identiication of a spe- cies, subspecies or a variety. Plants on frescos and mosa- ics, such as the examples that were found at Pompeii and other places throughout the Empire, tend not to be BEANS, BOATS AND ARCHAEOBOTANY. A NEW TRANSLATION OF PHASOLUS OR WHY THE ROMANS ATE NEITHER KIDNEY BEANS NOR COWPEAS F.B.J. HEINRICH 1 & D.A. WILKINS 2 1 Laboratory for Palaeobotany and Palynology, Groningen Institute of Archaeology, Groningen, the Netherlands 2 The Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn, London, the United Kingdom ABSTRACT: Among classicists, archaeobotanists and agricultural historians, the meaning of the word phasolus (ϕασ in Greek) is ambiguous. While Latin scholars have agreed that the word refers to a type of pulse or bean, there are various interpretations and subsequent identiications as to which botanical species is meant. The current paper aims to address this ambiguity by assessing the validity of the proposed interpretations. This will be done on three levels. First, the a priori feasibility of the interpretations will be ascertained. Second, all classical mentions of phasolus, both in Greek and Latin, will be reviewed and analysed. The aim of this step is to ind what biological traits and characteristics were associated with phasolus, which may aid in conirming or rebuking an identiication. Thirdly, we will assess the archaeobotanical evidence pertaining to the proposed interpretations for the Roman period. This paper includes the assessment of several classical sources previously absent from the debate as well as a new botanical identiication of a key archaeobotanical sample previously used to prove the presence of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) in the Mediterranean during Antiquity. KEYWORDS: Roman agriculture, Greek agriculture, phasolus, dolichos, bean, cowpea, kidney bean, Archaeobotany, Classics, Agricultural history, Taxonomy. Palaeohistoria 55/56 (2013/2014), p. 149