Advertisement

Economic Botany

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 233–239 | Cite as

DomesticatedChenopodium of the Ozark Bluff Dwellers

  • Hugh D. Wilson
Article

Abstract

Previous suggestions that prehistoric agriculturalists of the Ozark Bluff Dweller culture utilized a fully domesticated form ofChenopodium have been confirmed. Comparative examination of infructescence and fruit structure indicates that archaeological material is assignable toC. berlandieri ssp.nuttalliae, a product of Mexican agriculture. Large-fruited chenopod remains from other sites in eastern North America, often identified as those of wild species, may also belong to the Mexican domesticated form. A related, wild species of northeastern North America,C. bushianum, shows similarities to the Mexican weed-crop complex that may reflect prehistoric genetic interaction. This is the first documented report of domesticatedChenopodium from prehistoric North America.

Keywords

North America Seed Coat Wild Species Economic Botany Fruit Size 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Aellen, P., and T. Just. 1943. Key and synopsis of the American species of the genusChenopodium L. Amer. Midl. Naturalist 30: 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asch, D. L., and N. B. Asch. 1977. Chenopod as cultigen: a reevaluation of some prehistoric collections from eastern North America. Mid-continental J. Archaeol. 2: 3–45.Google Scholar
  3. Chomko, S. A. and G. W. Crawford. 1978. Plant husbandry in prehistoric eastern North America: new evidence for its development. Amer. Antiquity 43: 405–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gandarillas, H. 1968. Estudios de herencia de la quinua. Inst. Boliviano de Cultivos Andinos, Minist. Agric. Bol. Exp. 35.Google Scholar
  5. Gilmore, M. R. 1931. Vegetal remains of the Ozark Bluff Dwellers culture. Pap. Michigan Acad. Sci. 14: 83–103.Google Scholar
  6. Harlan, J. R. 1965. The possible role of weed races in the evolution of cultivated plants. Euphytica 14: 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hunziker, A. T. 1952. Los pseudocereales de la agricultura indigena de America. Mus. Bot. Cordoba Publ. Misc. No. 3.Google Scholar
  8. Karssen, C. M. 1970. The light promoted germination of the seeds ofChenopodium album L. III. Effect of the photoperiod during growth and development of the plants on the dormancy of the produced seeds. Acta Bot. Neerl. 19: 81–94.Google Scholar
  9. Pickersgill, B. 1977. Taxonomy and the origin and evolution of cultivated plants in the world. Nature 268: 591–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rydberg, P. A. 1924. Plants used by ancient American Indians. J. New York Bot. Gard. 24: 204–206.Google Scholar
  11. Wahl, H. A. 1952–53. A preliminary study of the genusChenopodium in North America. Bartonia 27: 1–46.Google Scholar
  12. Wilson, H. D. 1980. Artificial hybridization among species ofChenopodium sectionChenopodium. Syst. Bot. 5: 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. —, and C. B. Heiser. 1979. The origin and evolutionary relationships of ‘huauzontle’ (Chenopodium nuttalliae Safford), domesticated chenopod of Mexico. Amer. J. Bot. 66: 198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Winton, A. L. 1932. The Structure and Composition of Foods, pp. 322–325. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugh D. Wilson
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of BiologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station

Personalised recommendations