IN THE FIELD
The history and survival of traditional heirloom vegetable varieties
in the southern Appalachian Mountains of western North Carolina
James R. Veteto
Laboratories of Agricultural and Natural Resource Anthropology and Ethnoecology and Biodiversity, Department of Anthropology,
The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA
Accepted in revised form January 2, 2007
Abstract. Southern Appalachia is unique among agroecological regions of the American South because of the diverse
environmental conditions caused by its mountain ecology, the geographic and commercial isolation of the region, and
the relative cultural autonomy of the people that live there. Those three criteria, combined with a rich agricultural
history and the continuance of the homegardening tradition, make southern Appalachia an area of relatively high crop
biodiversity in America. This study investigated the history and survival of traditional heirloom vegetable crops in
western North Carolina and documented 134 heirloom varieties that were still being grown. I conducted interviews
with 26 individuals from 12 counties in western North Carolina. I used a snowball sampling method to identify
individuals or communities that maintained heirloom vegetable varieties, and used the ‘‘memory banking’’ of farmers’
knowledge as a strategy to complement the gathering of seed specimens. Most of the varieties were grown and saved
by homegardeners; beans were the most numerous. Results indicate that usually only one or two individuals in a
community maintained significant numbers of heirloom varieties and that many communities have lost their heirloom
vegetable heritage altogether. The decline of the farming population combined with a lack of cultural continuance in
family seed-saving traditions threatens the ability of communities to maintain crop biodiversity. Some of the cultivars
may represent the last (small) populations of endangered varieties.
Key words: Crop biodiversity, Southern Appalachia, Western North Carolina, Heirloom vegetable varieties,
Homegardens
James R. Veteto is currently a PhD student in Ecological and Environmental Anthropology at the University of
Georgia. He has a BA in anthropology and English from the University of Georgia (1998) and an MA in Appalachian
studies with a concentration in sustainable development from Appalachian State University (2005). He is interested in
agricultural anthropology, ethnoecology, ethnobotany, agrobiodiversity, agroecology, and origins of agriculture. His
work focuses on the documentation and preservation of southern Appalachian heirloom vegetable varieties. He has
also worked as an organic farmer and garden educator.
Introduction
America has lost an estimated 97% of the vegetable
varieties that were commercially available in this country
in 1903 (Fowler and Mooney, 1990). Moreover, the rate
of extinction of traditional heirloom vegetable varieties is
increasing (McDonald, 2001). Several criteria suggest
that southern Appalachia is unique for its high level of
crop diversity relative to other southern regions. Among
these criteria, southern Appalachia’s mountainous conditions
create microclimates and isolated environmental
niches that are conducive to rapid differentiation of crop
plants (Gray, 1999). Another criterion is that areas of
high crop biodiversity are more geographically and
commercially isolated and less densely populated subregions
with difficult growing conditions. Finally, cultural
autonomy may impact the crop biodiversity of a
region (Smale et al., 2004). Southern Appalachia meets
each of these criteria, at least relative to other agroecological
regions in the South and the rest of the US,
suggesting that it could be a region rich in crop biodiversity.
Whealy (1998: 7) noted, ‘‘Heirloom seeds are
especially prevalent in isolated mountain areas, such as
the Ozarks, Smokies, and Appalachians, and also among
Agriculture and Human Values (2008) 25:121–134 Ó Springer 2007
DOI 10.1007/s10460-007-9097-6
traditional peoples such as the Mennonites, Amish and
Native Americans.’’ The study presented herein documented
134 heirloom vegetable varieties currently grown
in western North Carolina through five months of fieldwork,
and confirms that the region is an area of marginality
within the US that currently maintains a high
level of crop biodiversity.
The importance of plant diversity in agroecosystems is
widely acknowledged for several reasons. Diversity in
agroecosystems contributes to better food security, can
increase local and national self-reliance, and allows for
social and economic stability by contributing to a wider
natural resource base and diversified entrepreneurial
opportunities. Species and varietal diversity can also
contribute to resistance of crops to pest and disease
problems, and buffer climactic and other potentially adverse
environmental events. Genetic diversity also provides
the variation that allows crop species to readily
adapt to environments through human and natural
selection, which can contribute to greater stability and
productivity of agroecosystems (Collins and Hawtin,
1999). The conservation of genetic diversity in crop
species is also of immense importance to modern plant
breeders. Heirloom and landrace varieties along with
their wild relatives account for about 6% of the germplasm
lines used to breed modern vegetable varieties – a
contribution to global agriculture which is measured in
the billions of dollars. In addition, small-scale agriculture
which relies upon heirloom or landrace varieties accounts
for 15–20% of the world’s food supply, providing sustenance
and cultural value for about 1.4 billion indigenous
and peasant farmers (Tuxill, 1999).
History has shown the importance of maintaining crop
biodiversity. The most frequently cited example is the
Irish potato famine. The potato crop of 1846 in Ireland
rotted in the fields because of a fungal disease called
‘‘late blight’’ (Phytophthora infestans), which also occurs
in southern Appalachia. One reason that the pathogen
was so devastating was because the Irish farmers of
that time grew only two closely related varieties of
potatoes, neither of which possessed genetic resistance to
late blight. As a result of this lack of agroecological and
crop genetic diversity, over 1 million Irish people died
(Rhoades and Nazarea, 1999). Late blight is thought to
have originated in Central America and is not an
uncontrollable problem in that region. However, farmers
in Central and South America have traditionally cultivated
over 3000 varieties of potatoes which affords some
protection against devastating infestations. With that
much biodiversity in the fields it is highly probable that
some of those varieties have developed genetic resistance
to late blight. Therefore, late blight has never caused a
potato famine in that part of the world.
An example closer to the southern Appalachian region
is the corn blight infestation (Bipolaris maydis) that
occurred in the southern United States in 1970. Over half
of the corn crop in the US South was lost to corn blight.
Plant breeders were sent scrambling to Mexico, where
greater crop genetic diversity exists in corn varieties, to
find a resistant gene that subsequently was bred into post-
1970 US corn varieties (Rhoades, 1991). Southern Appalachia
is not only a region that is potentially high in
crop biodiversity relative to other areas in the American
South, but it is also a region that is severely threatened
with a dramatic loss of crop biodiversity unless steps are
taken toward conservation.
Virchow (1999: 2) noted, ‘‘Aside from the sustainable
management of soil, water, and air, it now seems to be
accepted that the sustainable management of genetic resources
is one of the four indispensable preconditions for
a sustainable agriculture.’’ Currently, there is no strategy
for conserving western North Carolina’s crop genetic
diversity and no comprehensive data on what traditional
vegetable varieties still exist in the region.
This study investigated the persistence of traditional
heirloom vegetable crop species in western North Carolina
and documented heirloom varieties that were still
being grown. The western North Carolina mountains are
part of the Blue Ridge Mountain Belt that extends from
the New River Divide in southern Virginia to the
mountains of northern Georgia (Gragson and Bolstad,
2006). The portion of the Blue Ridge in western North
Carolina is the most rugged in the belt, with an average
altitude that ranges between three and six thousand feet,
culminating in the highest peak in the eastern United
States – Mt. Mitchell at around 6700 feet in Yancey
County (Beaver, 1984). I collected data from 26 individuals
in 12 counties in the western North Carolina
mountain region from January to July, 2005. My objective
was to identify as many growers of heirloom vegetable
varieties as possible across the region, ‘‘memory
bank’’1
the ethnoecological knowledge of each variety
they were growing, and collect seed samples to preserve
in the seedbank of The Southern Seed Legacy Project at
the University of Georgia.
I documented a wide range of information about
western North Carolina heirloom vegetable varieties and
attempted to answer the following research questions: Is
western North Carolina a marginal region that is also rich
in crop biodiversity? What species and varieties are most
commonly saved among growers? Among what farmer
age groups are heirloom vegetable varieties being
maintained? What kind of grower is most likely to
maintain heirloom varieties in their fields or gardens?
How are heirloom vegetable varieties in western North
Carolina classified? What varieties are regionally
distributed and which varieties are unique to particular
individuals or communities? Are heirloom varieties
being widely maintained in communities or are they just
being maintained by a few individuals?
122 James R. Veteto
History of vegetable cultivation in Southern
Appalachia from the pioneer period to the present
Early southern Appalachian pioneers drew their agricultural
knowledge from a wide range of cultural traditions.
Frontier agriculture was influenced by Cherokee,
Scots-Irish, German, and to a lesser extent English and
Scandinavian land use patterns (Davis, 2000). The
dominant form of frontier southern Appalachian agriculture
was what is known as ‘‘forest fallowing’’ or
alternatively as ‘‘slash and burn’’ (Otto, 1987). Forest
fallowing was characterized by a practice of clearing the
native forest growth for crop fields. Forests would first be
‘‘grubbed’’ by rooting up the forest underbrush with hoes
and then piling and burning it. Farmers would then girdle
the large trees by cutting a ring in the bark with axes in
order to ‘‘deaden’’ the forest. Deprived of the rising sap
to feed their leaves by girdling, the trees would subsequently
drop their leaves and sunlight would penetrate to
the forest floor and nourish crops. After a few years of
cultivation, settlers would then remove the stumps and
‘‘deadenings’’ by calling on their neighbors to help in
what they called a ‘‘log-rolling.’’ The most frequent crop
planted in fields cleared in the forest fallow system was
corn; however, wheat, barley, rye, and oats were also
sometimes planted. The forest fallowing system in
southern Appalachia remained an important agricultural
method until the beginning of the 20th century, when a
combination of population growth, changing land
ownership patterns, and the partible inheritance system
of dividing land equally between descendants made
southern Appalachian average farm sizes too small to
sustain it (Otto, 1987).
The German settlers had a different kind of agricultural
system. They would clear cut fields instead of creating
deadenings, burn all of the trees on site to create
potash, and then remove all debris and rock from the
fields, creating a parcel of land that was ‘‘free and clear’’
and ready for planting. The Germans also brought with
them the practice of spreading animal manure over crop
fields in order to maintain fertility. The unique German
contributions to southern Appalachian frontier agriculture
were less widespread than those of the Scots-Irish
and English because they constituted a much smaller
percentage of the population than those two groups
(Davis, 2000). Cherokee contributions to frontier horticulture
were numerous and varied. The Cherokee traditionally
practiced both tree girdling and forest burning.
Frontier settlers cultivated corn, beans, squash and
gourds, all of which had been grown by the Cherokees in
the region for hundreds to thousands of years. From the
Cherokee, the settlers learned about cropping systems
such as the ‘‘Three Sisters’’ (growing corn, beans and
squash together in the same field) and food processing
techniques such as drying squash and pumpkins by
hanging them on strings or wooden devices and stringing
beans to dry as ‘‘shuck beans’’ or ‘‘leather-britches’’ (two
regional names for this drying process). It is also possible
that the settlers learned methods of making maple syrup
from the Cherokee (Davis, 2000). The Cherokee contribution
to Euro-American southern Appalachian agriculture
began in the frontier period and continued into the
20th century.
The Antebellum Period was the next major historical
influence on southern Appalachian agriculture. By 1830,
frontier settlement had ceased in much of southern
Appalachia and the Antebellum Period had commenced.
Most of the original settlers in the region owned farms of
between 100 and 300 acres which were forested (up to
two thirds of the land cover); and characterized by major
crop cultivation of corn, oats, rye, wheat, and to a lesser
extent, buckwheat. Farmers also grew a diversity of
staples including sweet and Irish potatoes, peas, beans,
flax, tobacco and sorghum (Davis, 2000). Indian corn
was the principle mountain crop of the era and fed both
humans and animals (Stertzer, 2001; Williams, 2002). In
western North Carolina, where crop selection was more
diversified than in other areas in the region, 3.6 million
bushels of corn were grown in 1860. In the southern
Appalachian region as a whole, by 1860 corn production
took up about one tenth of the average farmer’s improved
land (Davis, 2000). However, many western North
Carolina counties saw corn production decrease after the
Civil War. Corn was central to the southern Appalachian
subsistence culture. It was processed and made into
hominy, hoecakes, grits, corn pone, mush, and whiskey
(Stertzer, 2001). The cornhusks and leaves were made
into hats, dolls, chair bottoms, and mops. Corncobs were
used for bowls, tobacco pipes, fire starters, and toilet
paper. Community gatherings known as ‘‘cornshuckings’’
(or frolics) occurred at harvest time. Though a
subject of much debate (see for example, Dunaway,
1996), it appears that southern Appalachia had a higher
percentage of subsistence farmers than other regions of
the country. Although some well-situated southern
Appalachian farms were predominately market oriented,
it seems likely that most were subsistence oriented during
the Antebellum, selling to the market only when home
needs had been met (Davis, 2000). Historian Martin
Crawford (2001: 24) writes, ‘‘Whatever the character and
authority of mountain elites or the extent of mountain
farmers’ integration with the wider regional and national
economy, southern Appalachia remained an overwhelmingly
small-farm, subsistence-oriented region
whose economic development was inhibited by a variety
of geographic and cultural factors.’’ This perspective is in
agreement with Ronald Eller’s (1982: 16) observation
that, ‘‘By 1880, Appalachia contained a greater concentration
of noncommercial family farms than any other
area of the nation.’’ As mentioned earlier, the farms of
History and survival of traditional heirloom vegetable varieties 123
antebellum southern Appalachia were relatively small
and highly diversified. The relative lack of interest in
large-scale commercial farming allowed for considerable
agricultural experimentation by local growers, resulting
in a diversity of crop varieties (Davis, 2000: 144):
Bean, pea, and corn varieties were hand selected or
cross-fertilized in order to produce strains better suited
for mountain microclimates. Some particular strains
were bred for exceptional flavor, others for a unique
color or a particular shape or size. Many antebellum
fruits and vegetables would not even be recognizable to
modern growers, including Gourdseed corn, a variety
whose ears could be easily shelled by flocks of foraging
turkeys. Green nutmeg muskmelons known as Rocky
Fords were raised in favor of commercial cantaloupe
varieties. In eastern Kentucky, a pole bean variety known
as Ruth Bible became popular for its resistance to
drought, whereas Turkey Craw was grown in northeastern
Tennessee, North Carolina, and southwestern
Virginia. Of course, all families saved their own vegetable
seed every year, giving rise to a cultural tradition
that in some mountain areas continues to this day.
John Opie (1980) has made the case that the smallscale,
subsistence oriented, family farmer of antebellum
southern Appalachia was the model and ideal by which
many Americans identified themselves at that time.
Whether or not Opie’s observation is accurate or
romanticizing of the region’s farmers, after 1850 the
farmers of antebellum southern Appalachian began to see
their fortunes change as a result of the ravages of the
Civil War, increasing population pressure, and the
continuing depletion of the soils of the region (Davis,
2000).
The final stage of southern Appalachian farming is the
modern era. Starting in the late 19th century, farming in
southern Appalachia began a gradual and dramatic
decline. In 1880, the average size of the southern
Appalachian farm was 187 acres, and by 1930 it had
decreased to only 76 acres (Bureau of Agricultural
Economics et al., 1935; Eller, 1982). Eller (1982) noted a
diversity of factors contributing to this decline. These
included the increase of ownership of land by outside
mineral and timber companies that reduced the commons
that had been traditionally used for grazing and gathering
activities; further reduction in the commons by the
establishment of large national forests and parks in the
region; logging activities that increased flooding and
decreased soil fertility; increasing population levels
and more intensive monocropping farming strategies;
and inheritance practices that subdivided family farms
among descendants, and decreased overall farm size.
Despite these changes, Appalachia still had the nation’s
largest collection of farms that met the government’s
definition of ‘‘self-sufficing’’ in 1930 (Bureau of
Agricultural Economics et al., 1935). As the 20th century
moved forward, agriculture in southern Appalachia
continued to decline. Between 1969 and 1974 over a
million acres of farmland went out of agricultural production
in Appalachia and 17,000 farmers (26% of the
farming population) left farming occupations (Appalachian
Land Ownership Task Force, 1981). This decline
mirrored the decrease in the farming population in
America as a whole, as farming became increasingly
dominated by large corporate farms that applied green
revolution technologies and government aid to increasingly
larger farms, employed few people, and drove
family farmers out of business (Berry, 1977; Fisher and
Harnish, 1981).
The decrease of the farming population had a dramatic
impact on the agricultural practices of southern
Appalachia. The incredibly diverse farms of the Antebellum
Period gave way to monoculture-oriented modern
farms. The growing of wheat and rye for flour began to
decline. Mountain families became increasingly dependent
on outside food sources such as light breads, whole
milk, and processed sugars (Davis, 2000). Corn production
continued but was less important as the grazing
of livestock declined and corn was grown less for supplementary
animal feed. Bean markets in northwest
North Carolina in the 1940s and 50s encouraged bean
cash crops and the planting of high-yielding modern
varieties in the place of traditional Appalachian beans
(G. Brown, personal communication; Fletcher, 1963).
Tobacco cultivation intensified in the mid-1920s, was
standardized across the region with the advent of the
federal tobacco program in 1933, and its production as a
cash crop steadily replaced diversified subsistenceoriented
cropping patterns. By 1978, 90% of farms in
Madison County, North Carolina, grew tobacco. Wheat,
barley, buckwheat and rye (with the exception of a small
amount of wheat) had stopped being grown in Madison
county prior to 1970 (Algeo, 1998). Christmas tree farms
and landscape shrubbery are the other two forms of
horticultural enterprise that have come to dominate
western North Carolina. Christmas tree growing began to
be promoted in western North Carolina by extension
agents in the 1960’s. By 1980, Christmas tree growers in
North Carolina harvested 1.5 million trees, which
represented 5% of the national supply (Stevens, 1987).
In the last 50 years southern Appalachia has become a
post-agrarian rural society. For example, between 1967
and 1977, 25% of land in Madison County was sold to
people from out of the state, mirroring a pattern across
western North Carolina. Most of the in-migration has
been fueled by retiree and seasonal second-home owners.
Agriculture has continued to decrease as land values and
taxes have increased, forcing natives to seek public work
or other jobs in the cities (Algeo, 1998). Most farmers in
the southern Appalachia of today are part-time farmers
124 James R. Veteto
who grow Christmas trees, landscape shrubbery, or
tobacco. With the recent tobacco buyout, tobacco farming
may decline in the near future. Southern Appalachian
farms have become increasingly less diverse in crop
species.
Through all of the changes that have characterized
southern Appalachian agriculture, the homegarden is an
institution that has not been completely lost. Each spring
thousands of residents of southern Appalachia plant
vegetable gardens that help them provide for the food
needs of their families. Although homegardening is also
an institution that is in decline in southern Appalachia
(G. Brown, personal communication; T. McCoury, personal
communication; L. Schuford, personal communication),
the homegarden remains the principal place
where a diversity of traditional southern Appalachian
heirloom vegetable varieties can be found. The homegardens
of southern Appalachia are modern links to the
entire agricultural history of the region.
Methods
Field data for this research were collected in order to
record and analyze the history and current state of heirloom
varieties of vegetable crops across the Appalachian
region of western North Carolina utilizing two main
methods used in the memory banking (Nazarea, 1998)
approach to agrobiodiversity studies: life history elicitation,
and collection and preservation of cultural histories
and seed samples. I conducted 10 full-length, semistructured
interviews with 17 individuals (including
some interviews conducted with more than one family
member). Full-length interviews were requested when I
determined (through phone contact) that the individual to
be interviewed was maintaining a significant number of
heirloom vegetable varieties, was maintaining particularly
unique varieties, or had exceptional knowledge
about the history of seed saving in the region. Shorter
semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with
nine other individuals who maintained only a few varieties
or had less information to contribute. The interviews
probed the cultural history of each vegetable
variety within the farmer’s family or community, the
biophysical conditions in which the varieties were typically
grown, the methods each farmer used in growing
each variety, pest and disease susceptibility and tolerance,
and storage and eating qualities. Geographical
areas for interviews were selected based on criteria
determining them to be rich in crop biodiversity. Criteria
included factors such as a large population of farmers or
gardeners, a significant number of older farmers, and
rural character.
I used a snowball sampling method based on contacts
that I made in the area to identify individuals to interview.
Since I had already been gardening in western
North Carolina using heirloom vegetable varieties for
over 6 years, I first contacted key informants who I
already knew to be maintaining heirloom varieties. I also
contacted selected county agricultural extension agents to
see if they knew of any heirloom growers. Finally, I
consulted members of the Appalachian State University
community to see if they knew of any useful contacts.
Detailed histories of every heirloom vegetable variety
described in the interviews were recorded so that the
history and existence of the varieties are now documented
and future research in this area of study will be
enriched (not all of the variety descriptions are included
in this article due to space limitations). The variety
descriptions contain both cultural and biological information
about the vegetables and their history.
Life history interviews were tape recorded, transcribed,
and entered into the qualitative data analysis
software program Atlas.ti 5.0, where they were coded
and analyzed according to themes and attributes that
arose from the data. The interviews will be donated to the
memory banking project of the Southern Seed Legacy at
The University of Georgia. All seed samples collected in
this study have been duplicated where needed and
donated to the Southern Seed Legacy.2
It will thus be
insured that the traditional vegetable varieties and their
histories collected in this research will be preserved for
the use of future generations and can be utilized if a
western North Carolina seed preservation project is
initiated in the future.
Results and discussion
Western North Carolina heirloom vegetable varieties
that are still being grown and who is growing them
In this study I collected 134 descriptions for western
North Carolina heirloom vegetable varieties from 26
informants. Of those 134, bean varieties were the most
numerous, followed by tomatoes, squash, corn, and
potatoes (see Table 1). Beans are noted for their high
levels of diversity and are the easiest among seeds to
save because they self-pollinate and are easy to dry.
Tomatoes are also self-pollinated but have a more
complex seed-saving requirement that involves allowing
the seed to ferment before drying, and they are also
harder to grow due to their tendency to be infested with
late blight (Phytophthora infestans). Corn and squash
are much harder to maintain as pure varieties because
they readily cross-pollinate, and potatoes can be tricky
to maintain because they require specific storage conditions
and a lot of space. From my results it is clear
that farmers in western North Carolina have tended to
save the seeds of heirloom varieties that are the easiest
History and survival of traditional heirloom vegetable varieties 125
to save and which are very important in the culinary
traditions of the region.
The ages of the farmers and gardeners from whom I
collected variety histories from ranged from 20 to
90 years old. The 40- to 49-year-old age group provided
the largest age demographic that was interviewed (eight
individuals, 30.8%) and also maintained the highest
percentage of varieties (33.3%). The 60- to 69-year-old
age group maintained the second highest percentage of
varieties (29.5%) and also maintained the highest number
of varieties per grower (9.5) (see Table 2). Most of
the individuals I obtained seed histories from were homegardeners,
and the next largest group of seed savers
was farmers (see Table 3).
I collected varietal histories from individuals living in
12 counties in western North Carolina. The three counties
from which I collected the most histories were
Yancey (47 varieties or 35.6% of all varietal histories),
Watauga (32 or 24.4%), and Ashe (18 or 13.7%). The
number of heirloom vegetable varieties collected in
Yancey, Watauga, and Ashe counties cannot be taken as
an indicator of how much heirloom seed diversity has
survived in each of the counties or the region as a whole.
Since I used a snowball sampling method, I relied on
contacts that I established to provide additional sources
for seed histories. It was not surprising that Yancey and
Watauga Counties provided the largest number of seed
histories since those are also the two counties in which I
have lived and had the most contacts. Ashe County, with
the third-highest number of seed histories, is close to and
sufficiently integrated socially with Watauga County to
have also provided me with a large number of contacts.
My analysis indicates that the results for Yancey and
Watauga Counties are fairly representative of the amount
of seed diversity that remains in each of those counties,
but as I attempted to collect seed histories from counties
Table 1. Heirloom vegetable varieties grown in Western North Carolina.
Vegetable Scientific name Local varietal names Number
collected
% of total varieties
documenteda
Beans Phaseolus vulgaris Bunch 83 61.9
Phaseolus coccineus Half-Runner
Pole
Butter (Runner Bean)
Tomatoes Lycopersicon esculentum Tommytoe (cherry) 24 17.9
Squash Cucurbita maxima Candyroaster 8 6.0
C. mixta Cushaw
C. pepo. Crookneck (summer)
Corn Zea Mays Bread (dent) 7 5.2
Hominy (dent)
Potato Solanum tuberosum Irish 4 3.0
Brassicas Brassica juncea Hanover 2 1.5
Brassica napis (Rutabega)
Sweet Potato Ipomoea batatas 2 1.5
Cucumber Cucumis sativus 1 0.8
Gourd Lagenaria siceraria 1 0.8
Parsnips Pastinaca sativa 1 0.8
Peppers Capsicum annum 1 0.8
Total 134 100.2
a
Numbers don’t sum to 100 due to rounding.
Table 2. Ages of research subjects and percentages of heirloom
varieties being maintained by each age group.
Age
group
# of
individuals
% of total
individualsa
# of varieties
maintained
% of total
varietiesa
20–29 1 3.8 1 0.8
30–39 5 19.2 11 8.5
40–49 8 30.8 43 33.3
50–59 1 3.8 13 10.1
60–69 4 15.4 38 29.5
70–79 4 15.4 14 10.9
80+ 3 11.5 9 7.0
Total 26 99.9 129 100.1
a
Numbers don’t sum to 100 due to rounding.
Table 3. Grower categories of research subjects.
Category Number % of total
individuals*
Home gardeners 15 57.7
Farmers 5 19.2
Business operators 4 15.4
Seed exchange operators 1 3.8
School gardeners 1 3.8
Total 26 99.9
*Numbers don’t sum to 100 due to rounding.
126 James R. Veteto
in which I had fewer contacts and had to travel further,
the number of seed histories decline. Further research is
needed to paint a true picture of the overall remaining
heirloom vegetable varieties that exist in western North
Carolina. This study serves as a foundation and reference
for a more comprehensive study.
Lost varieties
In addition to asking questions about the varieties that
growers still maintained, I also inquired about varieties
that had been lost over the years. The answers varied.
Some growers said that they still maintained all of the
varieties that their parents and grandparents had grown,
while other growers had long lists of varieties that had
been grown at various times during their lifetimes by
their families but were now lost. In total, I identified 49
vegetable varieties that had been lost to these growers
(see Table 4). At first glance this would seem to indicate
that more varieties were being maintained than had
been lost (because the varieties maintained outnumbered
those that were lost in this study by 2.7 to 1), but a
closer analysis shows that this is more than likely not
the case. As I was contacting potential interviewees for
this study, I was referred to numerous informants who
assured me that they were no longer maintaining any of
the heirloom varieties that had been traditionally grown,
and I also learned of individuals who had lost all of
their heirloom varieties, and these greatly outnumbered
the 26 informants who were maintaining heirlooms and
so were included in the study. Additionally, the recall of
heirloom varieties that may have been grown by the
informant’s grandparents and parents many decades ago
were likely more readily forgotten than varieties that
were currently being grown and consumed. One interview
may be particularly telling in this latter regard.
Troy McCoury, an informant for this study, had a particularly
sharp memory. This was verified by his son
and by his on-the-spot performance of his high school
valedictorian speech from the late 1930s that had been
stored in a lockbox since he originally gave it (T.
McCoury, personal communication). Out of the 49
heirloom varieties recalled from memory that were recorded
in this study, Mr. McCoury provided 24 of them
(49%). Many of the other informants complained about
having trouble remembering the names of lost varieties
from the past, so it is obvious that not only are there
varieties that have been lost from cultivation, but there
are also many varieties that have been lost from
memory as well. If all of the informants had possessed
the long-term memory capacity of Troy McCoury, it is
likely that the list of lost varieties would have been
much longer.
Table 4. Lost varieties of heirloom vegetables.
Vegetable Scientific name Local types Number recalled % of total
lost varietiesa
Brassicas Brassica Oleracea Hanover 13 26.5
Brassica juncea (Rutabega)
Brassica napus Creasy Greens
Brassica rapa
Lepidium sativum
Beans Phaseolus vulgaris Bunch 12 24.5
Cornfield
Half-Runner
Pole
Corn Zea Mays Bread (dent) 7 14.3
Hominy (dent)
Potato Solanum tuberosum Irish 4 8.2
Squash Cucurbita mixta Cushaw 3 6.1
Cucurbita spp.
Tomatoes Lycopersicon esculentum Tommytoe 3 6.1
Peanuts Arachis hypogaea 2 4.1
Peppers Capsicum annum 2 4.1
Peas Pisum sativum 1 2.0
Sweet Potato Ipomoea batatas 1 2.0
Wheat Triticum spp. 1 2.0
Total 49 99.9
a
Numbers don’t sum to 100 due to rounding.
History and survival of traditional heirloom vegetable varieties 127
Southern Appalachian heirloom vegetable variety
classification
One of my research questions addressed the issue of how
southern Appalachian heirloom vegetables are classified.
Although reporting on the full range of results regarding
how southern Appalachian vegetables are classified is
beyond the scope of this paper (and deserves a whole
article itself), below I included a diagram and description
of how beans are classified in western North Carolina,
moving from more general to more specific categories
(see Figure 1). Beans are perhaps the most intricately
classified vegetable in western North Carolina. The
results can be considered fairly comprehensive but not
complete, because future research may yield additional
classificatory nomenclature. Gardeners and farmers in
western North Carolina tend to have their own classification
system for vegetable varieties that is fairly widespread
throughout the southern Appalachian region.
Some of the varietal classifications are also common to
other parts of the country, but taken as a whole, southern
Appalachian vegetable growers may be considered to
have developed a unique system.
Bunch beans
‘‘Bunch beans’’ are beans that do not send out running
vines and set their beans close to the ground. Most
commercial seed catalogs and growers refer to bunch
beans as ‘‘bush beans.’’
Half-runner beans
These are beans that usually produce prolific yields and
send out running vines that are not nearly as long or
unwieldy as pole or cornfield beans (Best, 1999a). They
combine the better taste of pole beans with the easier
growing characteristics of bunch beans. These are the
usually the preferred type for canning in the southern
Appalachian region.
Cornfield beans
These are vining beans that have traditionally been
grown in cornfields to allow the beans to use the cornstalks
as a trellis. Best (1999a) suggests that all or most
pole beans are in fact beans that were once grown in
cornfields. This may be true, although significant adaptation
may have taken place during the last several
hundred years in pole beans that have been grown in full
sun that would now make them less successful in a
cornfield setting. Den Biggelaar (personal communication)
has suggested to me that cornfield beans are better
adapted to the shady conditions of a cornfield. It is also
possible, based on my own observations and those of
others (D. Bradford, personal communication), that
cornfield beans are less-heavy producers that set their
beans in characteristic clusters along the vine. Despite
this apparent confusion, the term ‘‘cornfield beans’’ as
used by most southern Appalachian growers signifies a
bean that is traditionally grown in a mutualistic relationship
with corn. Best (1999a) also subdivides cornfield
varieties into ‘‘cutshort’’ and ‘‘greasy’’ categories
(and he may be correct in doing so), but I have listed both
cutshort and greasy bean varieties separately because
they are usually not connected with the cornfield label in
the beans that I have collected.
Butterbean
This name (as I have encountered it) refers to a different bean
than what growers outside of southern Appalachia usually
refer to as a butterbean. Growers in the non-Appalachian
South usually call lima-type heat-loving beans that don’t
grow well in the mountains butterbeans (Phaseolus lunatus),
whereas the growers I have interviewed call runner bean
varieties (P. coccineus) butterbeans.
Beans
P. vulgaris
Half-runner Cornfield ButterbeanBunch Pole
P. vulgaris P. vulgaris P. coccineusP. vulgaris P. vulgaris
ShellyCutshort Cutshort CutshortCutshort
Greasy Greasy GreasyGreasy
Shelly Shelly ShellyShelly
Lazywife Lazywife LazywifeSpeckled
Speckled Speckled SpeckledPollinator
PollinatorPollinator Pollinator
October
Figure 1. Southern Appalachian bean classification (results for western North Carolina)..
128 James R. Veteto
Pole beans
This term follows standard American nomenclature and
signifies a bean with a running vine that needs to be
trellised. See ‘‘cornfield beans’’ above for a discussion on
the difference between ‘‘pole beans’’ and cornfield beans.
Cutshort Beans
These are beans in which the seeds in the pods are so
tightly packed together that it causes them to square off
on the ends (as opposed to the typical rounded seed
type). Because they do not grow into the completely
round shape of most seeds they are considered to be ‘‘cut
short’’ (Best, 1999a).
Greasy beans
This is a bean that doesn’t have any hairs on its pods,
causing it to have a ‘‘greasy’’ or slick appearance.
Shelly beans
These are beans that are grown to be eaten when the
seeds have grown to maturity but have not yet dried. The
(usually) large seed is then removed from the hull and
cooked. I have also heard people refer to beans that are
grown to be dried as ‘‘shell beans’’ but the general use
for the term ‘‘shelly bean’’ is as described above.
Lazywife beans
The term ‘‘lazywife’’ refers to beans that grow in clusters
of 4–5 pods at separate nodes along the vine. The variety
got the name ‘‘lazywife’’ because it has been traditionally
favored by Appalachian housewives due to their ease of
harvest compared to beans that grow sporadically up the
vine, individually, or in pairs of pods along various nodes
on the vine.
Speckled beans
‘‘Speckled’’ is simply a modifier that indicates that the
bean seed is not uniform in color but has speckles of one
color on top of another, therefore the bean is called
‘‘speckled.’’
Pollinator beans
This refers to beans that are notorious for cross-pollinating
at high frequencies with other bean varieties. This
is a useful distinction because most bean varieties are 90–
95% self-pollinating.
October beans
These are very late season beans (often harvested after
the first frost), usually eaten as shelly or dried beans, and
are typically very large and meaty. It is often the case that
a single bean variety can be classified in several of the
categories listed above. For example, a bean could be
called a ‘‘Long Speckled Greasy Cutshort Cornfield
Bean’’ (Best, 1999a). The general pattern is to start with
more specific bean characteristics at the beginning of the
name and move to more general categories at the end of
the name. Using a combination of the several bean categories
in naming a particular variety allows the southern
Appalachian grower to more accurately describe the
physical characteristics of the bean to someone who is
familiar with their system.
Regional trends and varieties
During the course of my research it became apparent that
some varieties were grown widely across the region (see
Table 5), while others seemed to be unique to particular
families or communities. For example, I gathered seven
different variety descriptions for ‘‘Pink Tip’’ beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris). It may seem redundant to gather
variety descriptions for the same bean multiple times, but
because of southern Appalachia’s diverse environmental
conditions, considerable variation may exist in vegetable
varieties that have the same name and may have derived
from the same parent plant. A farmer in Ashe County
(Anonymous, personal communication) told me that the
Pink Tip bean that he grows has a white hull and can be
grown as a bush bean. He also told me about another
farmer in his county that has some Pink Tip beans that
‘‘are purple, they’ve got a purple hull, they’re a wild
looking thing.’’ This shows that even growers that are in
the same county may have variations of the same variety
Table 5. Western North Carolina heirloom vegetable varieties
with region-wide distribution.
Variety Vegetable # collected % of that
individual
vegetable
variety
collected
Greasy Type Bean 15 18.5
Pink Tip Bean 7 8.6
Turkey Bean 3 3.7
October Bean 3 3.7
Butterbean Bean 2 2.5
Lazywife Bean 2 2.5
Goosebean Bean 1 1.2
Striped
German
Type
Tomato 7 29.2
Brandywine Tomato 1 4.2
Hickory King Corn 3 42.9
Candyroaster Squash 1 14.3
Cushaw Squash 1 14.3
Yellow
Crookneck
Squash 1 14.3
Early Rose Potato 1 25.0
Green Mountain Potato 1 25.0
Total/Average 49 (total) 13.99 (average)
History and survival of traditional heirloom vegetable varieties 129
that show a significant amount of phenotypic diversity.
Among Pink Tip bean seed that I collected I also noticed
a variation in seed size, shape, and color, although they
were all recognizable as Pink Tip-type brownish seeds. It
is also likely that one common name is used as a blanket
term to name several different distinct seed varieties in
some cases.
Another bean variety that seems to have diffused
throughout the region is the ‘‘Greasy Cutshort’’ (P. vulgaris).
Greasy Cutshort beans share two main characteristics:
(a) the pods are hairless and have a ‘‘greasy’’
appearance and (b) the seeds of the bean grow so close to
one another in the pod that they have a square-shaped
appearance (Best, 1999a). Most of the seven Greasy
Cutshort beans for which I gathered histories were white
colored of various sizes, but some of them were brown.
There is apparently a lot of genetic variation in the Greasy
Cutshort, so I documented all that I discovered. Another
popular bean name is ‘‘Greasy,’’ and the 15 different
Greasy Beans that I collected had a variety of names.3
There are five other bean varieties I collected that seem
to have a more regional distribution. They are the ‘‘Turkey
Bean,’’ ‘‘October Bean,’’ ‘‘Goose Bean,’’ ‘‘Butterbean,’’
and ‘‘Lazywife bean.’’ Turkey beans (P. vulgaris)
seem to have to most uniformity of the five and generally
have a brown seed with a white blush on one side that
comes in slightly different sizes and shades. October
beans (P. vulgaris) are generally late season beans with
large seeds. Some October beans may also be called
‘‘Cherry’’ beans in northwestern North Carolina. Goose
beans (P. vulgaris) have a dark, flat, and dull green seed (I
didn’t collect a variety of goose bean seeds, but Bill Best
confirmed their regional distribution). Butterbeans are a
‘‘runner bean’’ type (Phaseolus coccineus) with a very
large seed in a variety of colors; they are also referred to
as ‘‘Jack Beans’’ in northwestern North Carolina. The
Lazywife (P. vulgaris) is a bean variety that is widely
distributed but probably didn’t originate in western North
Carolina; other food historians have documented it as
being introduced into Pennsylvania in 1810 from Germany
(Stickland, 1998; Watson, 1996; Weaver, 1997).
Seven other vegetable varieties that I collected seem to
have a region-wide distribution. I documented three
‘‘Hickory King’’ corn varieties (Zea mays) that have
different numbers of rows of seeds on the cob (8–15) and
are either white or yellow and white. Several of my
informants agreed that Hickory King has traditionally
been the standard source for hominy corn in the region.
Two potato varieties, ‘‘Early Rose’’ and ‘‘Green Mountain,’’
(Solanum tuberosum) seem to have historically
had regional distribution but now are grown by select
individuals only. Neither of these varieties is uniquely
southern Appalachian, as Green Mountain was originally
introduced in Vermont in 1885 (Stickland, 1998; Weaver,
1997) and Early Rose in New York in 1861 (Weaver,
1997). Both varieties are cultivated outside of the region
today and are well known to seed savers. I documented
the varieties because they have a long history in the
region and may have developed particular adaptations to
western North Carolina and also because it is rare to
come across someone in the region who has been continuously
maintaining traditional potato varieties.
Three squash varieties that I collected are regionally
distributed. The ‘‘Candyroaster’’ (Cucurbita maxima) is
thought to have been bred by the Cherokee Indians and
is indigenous to western North Carolina; the ‘‘Roughbark
Candyroaster’’ is a unique Candyroaster variety
that I discovered in my research. The ‘‘Cushaw’’
(C. mixta) squash originated in the West Indies and was
introduced into the southeast before 1700 (Stickland,
1998). It has historically been grown across western
North Carolina and is still grown today, but appears to
be rare. ‘‘Yellow Crookneck’’ (C. pepo) is another
squash variety that I collected that has both regional
and national distribution.
The final two vegetable varieties I collected that have
regional variation are tomatoes (Lycopersicum esculentum).
The first has a variety of names. The names that I
collected it under include ‘‘Boyd Smith German
Yellow,’’ ‘‘Candystripe,’’ ‘‘Mister Stripey,’’ ‘‘Striped
German,’’ ‘‘Stripe,’’ ‘‘Striper,’’ and ‘‘Stripey.’’ It is
known to most long-time gardeners native to the region
and is also sometimes called ‘‘Hillbilly,’’ ‘‘Pineapple,’’
‘‘Georgia Streak,’’ and ‘‘Old German.’’ It is a very large
beefsteak-type tomato that has characteristic yellow and
red stripes and is quite sweet. Many of the different
names signify varieties that differ slightly in size and
color pattern. The variety may have originated in Mennonite
or Amish communities (Best, 1999b), is thought
to have been introduced into western North Carolina
from Virginia about 30 years ago (T. McCoury, personal
communication), and is now perhaps the most popular
regional cultivar. The other variety that has a wide distribution
and a long history in the region is the ‘‘Brandywine,’’
a traditional Amish tomato that has an
international reputation for excellent eating quality.
Variety descriptions and history
I collected descriptive histories for 134 seed varieties
following memory banking protocols (Nazarea, 1998).
This valuable and interesting cultural history and cultivar
propagation information is rich and occupies 15 pages of
text. I have included one example of a seed variety his-
tory.4
The following is a quotation from the grower who
maintains this heirloom variety:
Well, that’s that old-timey mustard. And I watched it,
little as it was a week or two, it looked to me like
there was another plant that come up in there,
130 James R. Veteto
mustard. And I let it go to seed and got my seed off
of it. Yes sir. That’s the best mustard to me that there
is. Just has a better taste to it, you know, than the
other ones. Some of them don’t have any taste to it.
This mustard’s kind of good. It’s not a curly mustard,
it’s a straight mustard.’’ (J. Banner, personal communication,
January 14, 2005; Green Valley Community,
Watauga County).
Conclusions
Southern Appalachia has a long history as a region that
is rich in crop biodiversity. From the Pioneer-era farmer
up until the mid-20th century, growers in western North
Carolina have maintained a wide diversity of crop
species. Since the 1950s the subsistence orientation and
farming population of western North Carolina have
declined dramatically, resulting in a threat to the survival
of heirloom vegetable varieties. However, western
North Carolina remains a region of marginality within
the United States. As late as the 1960s many writers
described living conditions within southern Appalachia
as analogous to those in many countries in the Global
South (Gragson and Bolstad, 2006). Although conditions
have changed considerably since that time, many
areas within southern Appalachia remain among the
poorest in the US (Crooks, 2001). Rhoades and Nazarea
(1999: 219–220) observed, ‘‘Universally, regions of rich
biodiversity exist along the margins of their economic
and political worlds. Landrace cultivars are typically
found in more remote mountains, islands, rainforests, or
desert agroecosystems which are momentarily insulated
from the dominant forces of the outside world economy.’’
Although it can hardly be argued that southern
Appalachia, or anywhere else in the US for that matter,
is ‘‘momentarily insulated from the outside world
economy,’’ this study confirms that western North
Carolina is a region of relative marginality that is also
rich in crop biodiversity. With the documentation of 134
named vegetable varieties in a little more than 5 months
of field research, the amount of biodiversity found in
western North Carolina compares favorably with results
from similar studies of crop plant biodiversity in remote
indigenous mountain communities in the Global South
(e.g., Skarbo, 2006).
This study confirmed my assumption that the majority
of western North Carolina’s heirloom vegetable varieties
are maintained by homegardeners. The propensity of
residents of the region to value family culinary traditions
(B. Best, personal communication) has perhaps motivated
western North Carolina gardeners to save heirloom
vegetable varieties long after the region became a postagrarian
rural society. The salience of such culinary
traditions and other important cultural traditions and
memories and their contribution to the persistence of
biodiversity offers a promising direction for future
research (Nazarea, 2006). However, it became increasingly
obvious during the course of my research that many
of western North Carolina’s heirloom vegetable varieties
have been lost. Many individuals that I identified as
being likely sources of heirloom seeds no longer kept the
varieties of their forefathers. I talked to several individuals
who told me that they had saved seeds that had been
handed down to them by their parents for many years,
but had recently let them die out. It also appeared that
many communities had only a few individuals who still
saved heirloom seeds, whereas some communities seem
to have lost their heirloom vegetable heritage altogether.
As farming continues to die out as a way of life and as
young people are forced to continue to move out of the
region due to increasing land prices and lack of economic
opportunities, it seems highly likely that what is left of
the cultural tradition of seed saving will continue to
disappear.
I was surprised to find that most of the varieties I
collected were not being maintained by the older generations.
Based on previous experience, I had assumed that
most varieties would be provided by growers 60 years or
older. The observation that individuals between the ages
of 40 and 49 represented the highest percentage of
growers that maintained the highest percentage of the
total varieties collected of any 10-year age group was
unexpected. I would be interested to see what age group
a more comprehensive study would find to be maintaining
the highest levels of diversity.
Of the heirloom varieties that I collected in this study,
beans were the most numerous and tomatoes were the
second most numerous. From there the numbers of particular
varieties that I collected dropped off considerably.
It is telling that out of 26 individuals that I interviewed,
only four are maintaining heirloom corn varieties (of
which three are in the same family), and only four are
maintaining old-timey potato varieties. I imagine that if
you interviewed individuals during the first part of the
20th century, almost every family would have been
growing heirloom corn, beans, squash, and potatoes.
What varieties do remain today are vestiges of an era
where crop biodiversity was the very foundation of an
agrarian way of life.
To comprehensively document all of the remaining
heirloom vegetable varieties in western North Carolina
would require a research project much larger in scope.
One of my informants (B. Best, personal communication)
indicated strongly that Madison County, North Carolina
might contain more heirloom beans than any other state
in America, but I was unable to develop very many
useful contacts there. Future research should incorporate
a detailed investigation into the persistence of heirloom
varieties in Madison County.
History and survival of traditional heirloom vegetable varieties 131
Many of the 134 varieties that I documented in this
study have a high likelihood of being varieties that are
unique to particular individuals or families and may be in
danger of being lost forever. One example is the
‘‘Roughbark Candyroaster’’ winter squash (Cucurbita
maxima). It is being maintained by the Bradford Family
of Bald Mountain in Yancey County and in their opinion
it has a much richer flavor than regular ‘‘slick candyroasters’’
(which are more numerous and are an endemic
cultivar to North Carolina that originated with the
Cherokee Indians), and is distinguished by its rough and
hard skin that improves its storing qualities. Darick
Bradford (personal communication) also believes that the
‘‘Roughbark’’ is a more primitive form of ‘‘Candyroaster’’
than the regular ‘‘slick roasters.’’ It is traditionally used
for pies, candyroaster butter, candyroaster bread, and as a
wintertime compliment to bean dishes. In addition to the
‘‘Roughbark Candyroaster,’’ it is likely many other unique
vegetable varieties that I have documented in this
study are in danger of extinction.
This study has attempted to contribute toward the task
of preserving some of western North Carolina’s heirloom
vegetable varieties. The fact that the varieties I have
documented are now known outside of the families that
have grown them for generations is a good start. The
varieties for which I was able to obtain seed samples
have been multiplied and donated to the seed collection
of the Southern Seed Legacy at The University of
Georgia. Transcriptions of the interviews that I conducted
with growers will also be deposited at the
Southern Seed Legacy. I have also made copies of the
vegetable variety descriptions and sent them out to
individuals who participated in this study and to other
interested growers and organizations. So in the short
term, many of the 134 vegetable varieties that I documented
and the cultural information that goes along with
them are not in danger of going extinct. But what of the
hundreds of other heirloom vegetable varieties that must
exist in western North Carolina? It can only be hoped
that a comprehensive seed conservation strategy can be
developed and maintained for western North Carolina
(Veteto 2005) and that the results of this study may help
contribute to the task. Western North Carolina is a region
that has a rich heirloom vegetable tradition which
contains genetic and cultural information that may help
toward the survival of future generations.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Christof den Biggelaar,
Pat Beaver, and Gary Walker for serving on my graduate
committee for the thesis from which this work was
largely taken. Funding for this research was provided
by an Appalachian State University Graduate School
Thesis Grant and a travel grant provided by the
Graduate School Senate Association. Feedback from
Ted Gragson, members of the fall 2006 Anthropological
Data Analysis class at The University of Georgia, AHV
editor Laura B. DeLind, and three anonymous reviewers
was of great help. My profound appreciation goes to the
many growers who are maintaining western North Carolina’s
heirloom vegetable heritage and to those who
took the time to share their seeds and experiences with
me.
Notes
1. Memory Banking is a methodology pioneered by Virginia
Nazarea (1998) that seeks to compliment the more conventional
methods of seedbanking crop genetic resources.
Memory Banking makes an effect to collect ethnoecological
knowledge about crop varieties such as when to plant them,
what kind microclimates they thrive in, how they are best
preserved, and what kind of inputs they need. Cultural
information is also collected such as mythologies and beliefs
associated with the crops, culinary traditions and recipes,
and memories and stories. Memory Banking gives anyone
attempting to use or understand heirloom crop varieties in
collections a much broader context than traditional Ôpassport
data’ that is collected in ex situ conservation.
2. The Southern Seed Legacy is an innovative seed saving project
that is housed in the Department of Anthropology at The
University of Georgia. More information about the project can
be found on their website at http://www.uga.edu/ebl/ssl/
3. Names for ‘‘greasy beans’’ include: ‘‘Bertie Best Greasy,’’
‘‘Big Greasy,’’ ‘‘Big Greasy Bean,’’ ‘‘Big Speckled Greasy,’’
‘‘Cherokee Greasy,’’ ‘‘Greasy Bean,’’ ‘‘Greasy Stone Bean,’’
‘‘Late Long Greasy,’’ ‘‘Little Greasy Cornfield Beans,’’
‘‘Margaret Best Greasy,’’ ‘‘Medium Greasy,’’ ‘‘North Carolina
Long Greasy,’’ ‘‘North Carolina Market Greasy,’’
‘‘Small Lazywife Greasy,’’ and ‘‘White Greasy Bean.’’
Numerous shapes, colors, sizes, and patterns appear on these
seeds. It is obvious that there is a lot of diversity in beans
named ‘‘greasy.’’ To make matters even more confusing,
some beans that are named ‘‘greasy’’ have cutshort beans, so
they should actually be properly named ‘‘greasy cutshorts.’’
In addition, some beans are named ‘‘greasybacks,’’ a
distinction that I haven’t quite figured out. As noted above,
southern Appalachian seed nomenclature has definitive categories
for naming seed types, but it appears that seeds are
often either misnamed or parts of the name are left out as they
are passed around. This confusion in nomenclature is perhaps
seen best in the ‘‘greasy’’ and ‘‘cutshort’’ types.
4. Old Timey Mustard: Banner recovered these mustard greens
when he was digging a hole to build his basement. Seeds
which sprouted in the dirt that he removed were recognized
by Best as the Old Timey Mustard that his mother had
grown in her garden since 1892 on Sugar Mountain in Avery
County. This mustard green has leaves that look like an
oakleaf and are green with a red/purple outline along the
edge of each leaf. It is very spicy when eaten raw but loses
132 James R. Veteto
its spicey character when cooked. When cooked, the mustard
tastes similar to kale. The leaves have hairs on them that
are similar to stinging nettles and may irritate the skin when
touched (J. Banner, personal communication).
References
Algeo, C. (1998). Tobacco Farming in the Age of the Surgeon
General’s Warning: The Cultural Ecology and Structuration of
Burley Tobacco Production in Madison County, North Carolina.
Doctoral dissertation, Departments of Anthropology and
Political Science, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
Appalachian Land Ownership Task Force (1981). Land Ownership
Patterns and Their Impacts on Appalachian Communities:
A Survey of 80 Counties. Boone, North Carolina:
Appalachian Land Ownership Task Force.
Beaver, P. D. (1984). ‘‘Appalachian cultural adaptations: An
overview.’’ In P. D. Beaver and B. P. Purrington (eds.),
Cultural Adaptation to Mountain Environments (pp. 73–93).
Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Berry, W. (1977). The Unsettling of America: Culture and
Agriculture. San Francisco, California: Sierra Club Books.
Best, B. (1999a). ‘‘Heirloom beans.’’ Appalachian Heritage
26(4): 19–24.
Best, B. (1999b). ‘‘Heirloom tomatoes.’’ Appalachian Heritage
26(4): 24–30.
Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Bureau of Home Economics,
Forest Service (1935). Economic and Social Problems
and Conditions of the Southern Appalachians (Miscellaneous
Publication No. 205). Washington, DC: United States Government
Printing Office.
Collins, W. W. and G. C. Hawtin (1999). ‘‘Conserving and
using crop plant biodiversity in agroecosystems.’’ In W. W.
Collins and C. O. Qualset (eds.), Biodiversity in Agroecosystems
(pp. 215–236). New York: CRC Press.
Crawford, M. (2001). Ashe County’s Civil War: Community and
Society in the Appalachian South. Charlottesville, VA: University
Press of Virginia.
Crooks, D. L. (2001). ‘‘Poverty and nutrition in eastern Kentucky:
The political economy of childhood growth.’’ In A. H.
Goodman and T A. Leatherman (eds.), Building a New
Biocultural Synthesis: Political-Economic Perspectives in
Human Biology (pp. 339–357). Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press.
Davis, D. E. (2000). Where There are Mountains: An Environmental
History of the Southern Appalachians. Athens:
The University of Georgia Press.
Dunaway, W. (1996). The First American Frontier: Transition
to Capitalism in Southern Appalachia, 1700–1860. Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Eller, R. (1982). Miners, Millhands, and Mountaineers.
Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.
Fisher, M. and M. Harnish (1981). ‘‘Losing a bit of ourselves:
The decline of the small farmer.’’ In Appalachia/America:
Proceedings of the 1980 Appalachian Studies Conference.
The Appalachian Consortium Press, East Tennessee State
University and the Appalachian Studies Conference. Boone,
North Carolina: Appalachian Consortium Press.
Fletcher, A. L. (1963). Ashe County: A History. Charlotte,
North Carolina: Heritage Printers.
Fowler, C. and P. Mooney (1990). Shattering: Food, Politics,
and the Loss of Genetic Diversity. Tucson: The University of
Arizona Press.
Gragson, T. L. and P. V. Bolstad (2006). ‘‘Land use legacies and
the future of southern Appalachia.’’ Society and Natural
Resources 19: 175–190.
Gray, E. (1999). ‘‘Preservation and utilization of Appalachian
crop germ plasm.’’ Appalachian Heritage 27(4): 35–43.
McDonald, M. (2001). ‘‘Protecting precious life.’’ The Seedhead
News 72: 1–2.
Nazarea, V. (1998). Cultural Memory and Biodiversity. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
Nazarea, V. (2006). ‘‘Local knowledge and memory in biodiversity
conservation.’’ Annual Reviews in Anthropology 35:
317–335.
Opie, J. (1980). ‘‘Where American history began: Appalachia
and the small independent family farm.’’ In Appalachia/
America: Proceedings of the 1980 Appalachian Studies
Conference. The Appalachian Consortium Press, East Tennessee
State University and the Appalachian Studies Conference.
Boone, North Carolina: Appalachian Consortium
Press.
Otto, J. S. (1987). ‘‘Forest fallowing in the southern Appalachian
Mountains.’’ Culture and Agriculture: Bulletin of the
Culture and Agriculture Group of the American Anthropological
Association 33: 1–4.
Rhoades, R. E. (1991). ‘‘The world’s food supply at risk.’’
National Geographic 179(4): 74–105.
Rhoades, R. E. and V. Nazarea (1999). ‘‘Local management of
biodiversity in traditional agroecosystems.’’ In W. W. Collins
and C. O. Qualset (eds.), Biodiversity in Agroecosystems (pp.
215–236). New York: CRC Press.
Skarbo, K. (2006). ‘‘Living, dwindling, losing, finding: Status
and changes in agrobiodiversity of Cotacachi.’’ In R. Rhoades
(ed.), Development with Identity: Community, Culture,
and Sustainability in the Andes Oxfordshire, UK and
Cambridge, Massachusetts: CABI Publishing.
Smale, M., (2004). ‘‘Economic policies for designing policies
to conserve crop genetic resources on farms.’’ Genetic
Resources and Crop Evolution 51: 121–135.
Stertzer, J. (2001). Agrarian Transformation: Environment and
Civil War in Cherokee and Macon Counties, North Carolina.
Masters thesis, Department of History, Appalachian State
University, Boone, North Carolina.
Stevens, E. (1987). Economic Development and Cultural Values
in Appalachia: The Case of Christmas Tree Growers in
Avery County, North Carolina. Masters thesis, Center For
Appalachian Studies, Appalachian State University, Boone,
North Carolina.
Stickland, S. (1998). Heirloom Vegetables: A Home Gardener’s
Guide to Finding and Growing Vegetables From the Past.
New York: Fireside.
Tuxill, J. (1999). Nature’s Cornucopia: Our Stake in Plant
Diversity (World Watch Paper No. 148). Washington, District
of Columbia: Worldwatch Institute.
Veteto, J. R. (2005). The History and Survival of Traditional
Heirloom Vegetable Varieties and Strategies for the Conservation
of Crop Biodiversity in the Southern Appalachian
History and survival of traditional heirloom vegetable varieties 133
Mountains of Western North Carolina. Masters Thesis, The
Center For Appalachian Studies, Appalachian State University,
Boone, North Carolina.
Virchow, D. (1999). Conservation of Genetic Resources: Costs
and Implications for a Sustainable Utilization of Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. New York:
Springer.
Watson, B. (1996). Taylor’s Guide to Heirloom Vegetables.
New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Weaver, W. W. (1997). Heirloom Vegetable Gardening: A
Master Gardener’s Guide to Planting, Growing, Seed
Saving, and Cultural History. New York: Henry Holt and
Company.
Whealy, K. (1998). ‘‘Foreword.’’ In S. Stickland (ed.), Heirloom
Vegetables: A Home Gardener’s Guide to Finding and
Growing Vegetables from the Past (pp. 7–9). New York:
Fireside.
Williams, J. (2002). Appalachia: A History. Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press.
Address for correspondence: James R. Veteto, Laboratories
of Agricultural and Natural Resource Anthropology and
Ethnoecology and Biodiversity, Department of Anthropology,
The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA
Phone: +1-706-5421430; Fax: +1-706-5423998;
E-mail: jv61598@uga.edu
134 James R. Veteto