+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|16|20|24|28|32|36|40|44|48|52|56|60|64|68|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Boraginaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Lithospermum_ | | | | | | | | | | 1| | | | |
_ruderale_ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Chenopodiaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Chenopodium_ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Grayia Brandegei_ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Cyperaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Carex_ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Scleria_ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Fagaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Quercus_ | | 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| | 3| 1| | | 1| |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Gramineae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Muhlenbergia_ | | | | | | 1| | | | | | | | |
_Paspalum_ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Zea Mays_ | | | 1|1?| | | | | | | 1| | | |
spp. | | | | 1| | | | | | | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Leguminoseae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Lupinus perennis_ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
spp. | | | | 1| | | | | | | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Lilliaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Allium_ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Musci | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Polytrichum_ | | | | | | | | | | | | 1| | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Pinaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Juniperus_ spp. | | | | | | | | | 1| | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Rosaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Cretaegus_ | | | | | | | | | 1| | | | | |
_Prunus_ spp. | | 1| 2| 4| 5| 1| 1| 1| | | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Umbelliferae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Taenidia_ spp. | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1| 1|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|72|76|80|84|88|92|96|100|104|108|112|116|120|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Boraginaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Lithospermum_ | | | | | | | 2| 1 | 1 | 1 | | | |
_ruderale_ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Chenopodiaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Chenopodium_ | 1| | 1| | | | | | | | | | |
_Grayia Brandegei_ | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Cyperaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Carex_ | | 1| 1| | | | | | | | | | |
_Scleria_ | | | 1| | | | | | | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Fagaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Quercus_ | 3| 4| 3| | | 2| 1| 1 | 1 | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Gramineae | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Muhlenbergia_ | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Paspalum_ | | | 1| | | | | | | | | | |
_Zea Mays_ | |1?| 2| | | | | | | | | | |
spp. | | | 1| | | | | | | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Leguminoseae | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Lupinus perennis_ | | | 1| | | | | | | | | | |
spp. | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Lilliaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Allium_ | | | | | | | | | | 1 | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Musci | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Polytrichum_ | | | 1| 1| | | 1| | | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Pinaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Juniperus_ spp. | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Rosaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Cretaegus_ | | | | 1| | | | 1 | | | | | |
_Prunus_ spp. | 1| | 5| | | | | | | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Umbelliferae | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
_Taenidia_ spp. | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
[Illustration: FIGURE 69—Floral Remains.]
[Illustration: FIGURE 70—Floral Remains.]
Maize (_Zea mays_) was originally thought to have descended from
teosinte, (_Euchlaena_), a wild plant occurring in Mexico. Now however,
most authorities believe that a primitive maize originated as a
distinct plant. (Mangelsdorf and Reeves, 1939). Teosinte, according to
their hypothesis is a later hybrid of maize and its distant relative,
_Tripsacum_. (A common species of _Tripsacum_ is Gama grass.) Pollen
studies of deep cores taken in Mexico City indicate that wild maize
may have grown in that area well back into the last iinterglacial.
(Barghoorn, Wolfe and Clisby, 1954).
From these obscure beginnings, maize underwent considerable development
and diversification, and later in many cases mixed with teosinte. One
of the basic races which evolved is represented by a modern Mexican
type called “Chapalote”. (Wellhausen et al., 1952). The three specimens
assigned to Complex D at LoDaisKa were identified as belonging to the
Chapalote type. W. C. Galinat has reviewed the early distribution
of Chapalote as follows: “The present-day Mexican race of maize
called ‘Chapalote’ was one of the basic races in North America in
prehistoric times. A re-examination of the actual cobs, photographs or
descriptive literature covering 14 sites in northwestern Mexico and
the southwestern United States suggests, that the archaeological maize
from this area was either pre-Chapalote, Chapalote or a more evolved
and more tripsacoid derivative called ‘Basketmaker’ corn. The Mexican
states with prehistoric Chapalote are Michoacan (lava impressions),
Sonora (Dark Cave), and Chihuahua (Swallow Cave, Slab Cave, Tau Cave,
Olla Cave). In the region now the United States, Chapalote occurred in
Arizona (Richards Cave, Tonto Cave, Painted Cave), Colorado (Cottonwood
Cave, LoDaisKa Cave), and New Mexico (Bat Cave, Tularosa Cave,
Cebollita Cave).”[8]
[8] Reprinted with the author’s permission from _Maize Genetics
Cooperation—News Letter_, No. 32 for March 15, 1958.
In investigating interrelationships one criterion to consider is the
degree of evolution of the Chapalote: Specimens from LoDaisKa are less
primitive than the pre-Chapalote pod-pop corn from the first stratum
of Bat Cave (Dick, n.d., and Mangelsdorf and Smith, 1949). At the
other extreme they are less evolved than the material from Cottonwood
Cave. (Hurst, 1948). They are closer to some of the specimens from the
pre-ceramic levels of Swallow Cave, Chihuahua (Mangelsdorf and Lister,
1956).
A second criterion for comparison is the amount of mixing with
teosinte. Several archaeological sequences in this area show a rather
sudden alteration in maize type due to an introgression of teosinte,
e.g. Bat Cave, Swallow Cave, Tularosa Cave. Mangelsdorf and Lister (op.
cit., p. 173-4) conclude that “a very marked change in the maize of
northwestern Mexico and adjoining area of New Mexico occurred at about
750 ± 250 A.D.” The LoDaisKa specimens show no evidence of teosinte
introgression. In this they approximate most closely the pre-ceramic
material from Swallow Cave, maize from Strata II and III of Bat Cave
and early levels of Tularosa Cave.
[Illustration: FIGURE 71—_Zea mays_, Chapalote type. Above, fragments
of cobs from LoDaisKa Site. Below, Modern Chapalote maize. (Lent by W.
C. Galinat). 2× actual size.]
[Illustration: FIGURE 72—_Zea mays_, fragments of cob of popcorn(?). 2×
actual size.]
The fourth example of corn was assigned to Complex B. W. C. Galinat
(this report) described it as a 16-rowed cob with very small kernels,
“possibly a popcorn”. With only this cob preserved, little more
can be determined. It is evidently more evolved than the previous
specimens. According to P. C. Mangelsdorf, (Personal Communication,
1959), the high row number and small size are similar to a Mexican type
called _Conico_, but it is more probable that the LoDaisKa variety
is ultimately derived from a Chapalote-teosinte mixture. Teosinte
introgression often involves a high degree of variability, which could
include the small 16-rowed form. Kivett (1952a) reports popcorn from
a Woodland Site in Nebraska, and Mangelsdorf (Personal Communication,
1959) believes that this is probably Chapalote.
It is probable that a second type of maize was also cultivated at this
time. Two single component Woodland sites in the Morrison area have
yielded a dent-type corn. (Irwin and Irwin, n.d.).
[Illustration: FIGURE 73—_Zea mays_, “dent” variety. Left kernel from
LoDaisKa site. Right, modern (hybrid) dent maize. Actual size.]
The remaining two maize specimens consist of kernels rather than cobs
and were assigned to Complex A. They were identified as a variety
of dent corn. This is a much more evolved type, resulting from the
crossing of a flinty starch corn with a softer type, and probably
originally involving _teosinte_ introgression. A dent maize is
characteristic of sites of the Fremont Culture in Utah (Wormington,
1955). Its occurrence has been the subject of much discussion. Fremont
maize shows some similarities to pyramidal dent corn of the Mesa
Centrale (Mexico), and even more to _Zapalote Chico_, a type grown on
the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. It is present in some Basketmaker sites,
but not in the later Pueblo localities. Various authorities, (Nickerson
in Wormington, 1955; Carter, 1945; Anderson, 1948) have expressed doubt
that dent corn reached the Fremont area by any direct route through the
Anasazi, Hohokam or Mogollon areas. A possible route via the Plains
was suggested, but evidence was totally lacking because of the absence
of perishables in most Plains sites. The Morrison area provides some
support of the Plains hypothesis: Fremont peoples evidently did range
into areas where dent corn was used and could have acquired it there.
However, until much more evidence is available, the question must
remain open.