Chapter III: Part 3

The differential accumulation of calcium carbonate in the profile is due to either variations in the texture of the deposits, with the greater accumulations occurring in the zones of finer particle size, or to the processes of weathering of the deposits (Miller and Leopold, 1953). The present study suggests that changes in the distribution of calcium carbonate and the fine silt and clay fractions in the deposits cannot be related to variations in the parent material, relief in the immediate area, or the mode of deposition. Concentrations of calcium carbonate may be associated with changes in the depth of the water table or in drainage conditions. There is no evidence that the water table ever came close to the surface in this area in Recent times; at present it is something more than 150 feet below the level of the site. Internal and external drainage conditions of the deposits have probably not changed since the beginning of human occupation of the shelter, being largely determined by the nature of the relief and parent rock.

It is possible that the particular accumulation of calcium carbonate and of fine silt and clay between 68 and 96 inches below base-level are the result of downward migration and concentration of the fine fraction and CaCO₃ due to weathering processes—defining a paleosol. Some change in climatic conditions, perhaps just sufficient to modify to some extent the nature of the vegetation cover (Nikiforoff, 1937) seems to offer one logical explanation for the distribution of calcium carbonate, and of the fine silt and clay fraction—the products of soil development in semi-arid environments (Bryan and Albritton, 1943). It is hoped that x-ray and mineralogical analysis of the samples will definitely establish whether or not we are dealing with a buried soil.

If we do interpret the results of the chemical analyses as indicating a period of increased aridity over conditions as they now exist in the area, one could establish a _terminus post quem_ for the archaeological complexes below approximately 64 inches below baseline. Accordingly, the artifactual materials with Great Basin influences and the earlier Duncan types may date from some time late in the Altithermal. This interpretation would not be completely out of keeping with a dating of the archaeological materials on typological grounds.

Acknowledgments

The author is particularly indebted to Dr. C. J. Rodden for his interest and assistance in the chemical analyses, and to Prof. John P. Miller for his suggestions and helpful criticisms of the preliminary draft of this manuscript.

References

Barshad, I., 1958 _Soil Development_:
Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, 69 p.
Bryan, K. and Albritton, C. C., 1943,
Soil phenomena as evidence of climatic change:
Amer. Jour. Sci., 241, 469.
Carroll, D., 1958,
Role of clay minerals in the transportation of iron:
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 14, 1.
Deb, B. C., 1958, The movement and precipitation of
iron oxides in podzol soils: reprint.
Hunt, C. B., 1954,
Pleistocene and Recent Deposits in the Denver Area,
Colorado: U.S.G.S. Bull. 996-C, 140 p.
Jenny, H., 1941, Factors of soil formation, a system of
quantitative pedology.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.,
New York.
Knight, S. H., 1929, The Fountain and the Casper
formations of the Laramie Basin:
Contri. from Dept. of Geology of Columbia Univ.,
XL, No. 5, 82 p.
Miller, J. P. and Leopold, L. B., 1953, The use of
soils and paleosols for interpreting geomorphic
and climatic history of arid regions:
Res. Council of Israel. Spec. Publ. No. 2, 453.
Miller, J. P., and Wendorf, D. F., 1958, The alluvial
chronology of the Tesuque Valley, New Mexico:
Jour. Geol., 66, 177.
Nikiforoff, C. C., 1937,
General trends of the desert type of soil formation:
Soil Sci., 43, No. 2, 105.
Simonson, R. W., 1954,
Identification and interpretation of buried soils:
Amer. Jour. Sci., 252, No. 12, 705.
Thorp, J., 1941,
The influence of environment on soil formation:
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 6, 39.

Vertebrate Fossils from the Rockshelter at the LoDaisKa Site[3]

By EDWARD LEWIS

[3] Publication authorized by the Director, U. S. Geological Survey.

Cynthia and Henry Irwin excavated the rock shelter at the LoDaisKa Site on the Otto Sanger property by Strain Gulch near Morrison, Colorado 1956-1957. The vertebrate fossils were identified by the Upper Cenozoic Research Group: C. B. Schultz, T. M. Stout, and L. G. Tanner of the University of Nebraska, and Edward Lewis of the U.S. Geological Survey. Minor elements of the vertebrate fauna identified by them include 1 amphibian bone fragment, 2 lacertilian reptile vertebrae, and 16 bird bones and fragments of undetermined genera and species. All the other vertebrate remains were mammalian and include:

_Lagomorphs_, gen-sp. undet.
_Lepus_ sp.†
_Cynomys_ sp.†
_Citellus_ sp.†
_Tamias_ sp. or _Eutamias_ sp.
?_Thomomys_ sp.
_Castor canadensis_ Kuhl
?_Peromyscus_ sp.
Microtinae, gen. and sp. indet.
_Canis_ sp.†
_Mephitis_ sp.
_Taxidea_ sp.†
?_Felis_ (Puma) sp.
_Cervus canadensis_ (Erxleben)†
_Odocoileus_ sp.†
_Odocoileus_ sp. cf. _O. hemionus_ (Rafinesque)
?_Bos taurus_ Linnaeus[4]
_Bison bison_ (Linnaeus)†
_Ovis canadensis_ Shaw

From one to seven individuals are represented by each of these names except _Odocoileus_, which accounts for the great majority of the specimens. We conclude that the people who were responsible for this deposit lived, while at this site, on a diet in which venison, probably from the Mule Deer (_Odocoileus hemionus_), predominated. There are surprisingly few _Bison_ bones, and just one specimen each of “Elk” and Bighorn.

All of this fauna still lived in the same general area in historic times; it is a Recent fauna. The symbol (†) marks genera and species known to occur in the fauna of the Piney Creek alluvium (Hunt, 1954, p. 114-117).[5] These elements of the Piney Creek fauna have previously been reported from the nearby Denver area by Hunt (1954, p. 118), and have been identified by the Upper Cenozoic Research Group in the collections made by Scott[6] from the nearby Kassler area, and by Hunt[7] from the dark-colored, sandy and silty alluvium that occurs along Strain Gulch near the Sanger Site. It seems reasonable to believe that the age of the main deposit in the shelter, below the ceramic occupation layer, is approximately equivalent to the age of the dark-colored, sandy, silty alluvium and that of the Piney Creek alluvium.

[4] Apart from the fact that this specimen may represent _Bison bison_ rather than ?_Bos taurus_, the possibility exists that it is an accidental, late Recent association introduced by outside agency, as would be the case in a burial by a carnivore or man.

[5] Hunt, Chas. B., 1954, Pleistocene and Recent Deposits in the Denver Area, Colorado: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 996-C, p. 91-140.

[6] Scott, Glenn R., Geology of the Kassler Quadrangle, Colorado; manuscript in preparation.

[7] Hunt, Chas. B., Geology of the LoDaisKa site, p. 89, present publication.

Classification used in this report:

Animal Kingdom
Class Amphibia
Class Reptilia
Subclass Lepidosauria
Order Squamata
Suborder Lacertilia (lizards)
Class Aves
Subclass Neornithes
Superorder Neognathae (modern flying birds)
Class Mammalia
Subclass Theria
Infraclass Eutheria (placental mammals)
Order Lagomorpha (hares, rabbits, and pikas)
_Lepus_ (hares and “jack” rabbits)

Order Rodentia (rodents)
Family Sciuridae (squirrels)
_Cynomys_ (prairie “dog”)
_Citellus_ (ground squirrel)
_Tamias_ & _Eutamias_ (chipmunks)
Family Geomyidae
_Thomomys_ (pocket gopher)
Family Castoridae
_Castor_ (beaver)
Family Cricetidae
Subfamily Cricetinae
_Peromyscus_ (white-footed mouse)
Subfamily Microtinae (field mouse)

Order Carnivora
Family Canidae
_Canis_ (dog, coyote, or wolf)
Family Mustelidae
_Mephitis_ (skunk)
_Taxidea_ (American badger)
Family Felidae
_Felis_ (lynx, puma, etc.)

Order Artiodactyla
Family Cervidae
_Cervus_ (elk)
_Odocoileus_ (mule and white-tailed deer)
Family Bovidae
_Bos_ (domestic cattle)
_Bison_
_Ovis_ (bighorn sheep)

Table VII—Faunal Remains, LoDaisKa

---+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H |
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 95 108
-------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-
Amphibian | | | | 2 | 1 | | | |
Reptile | | | | | | | 2 | |
Bird | | 3 | | 2 | | 11 | | |
Lagomorphs, sp. undet | | | | 4 | | | 1 | |
Lepus | | | | | | 18 | | |
Rodentia, undet. | | | | | | | | 2 |
_Cynomys_ | | 4 | 1 | 1 | | 20 | 3 | 1 |
_Citellus_ | | | | | | 3 | 1 | |
_Tamias_ and _Eutamias_ | | 1 | | | | 2 | | |
_Thomomys_ | | | | | | 2 | | |
_Castor_ (_canadensis_) | | | | | | 2 | | |
_Peromyscus_ | | | | | | ?3 | | |
Microtine | | | | 2 | | 4 | | |
Carnivore, undet. | | | | | 1 | 1 | | |
_Canis_ | | 1 | | | | | | |
_Mephites_ | | | | | | | 1 | |
_Taxidea_ | | | | | | 1 | | 1 |
_Felis_ | | | | | | 3 | | |
_Cervus_ | | 1 | | | | | | |
_Odocoileus_ | | 26 | 18 | 32 | 42 | 44 | 70 | 17 |
?_Bos_ | | | 6 | | | | | |
_Bison_ (_bison_) | | | 4 | | 5 | 7 | 11 | |
_Ovis_ (_canadensis_) | | 1 | | | | | 1 | |
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-

Plant Remains from the LoDaisKa Site

By WALTON C. GALINAT

(Below Dr. Galinat has identified key specimens from the site from which data table was completed).

Area I 82-108 inches

Gramineae
Grass fragments—glumes and stems—S/F10/109-113
(numbers refer to stratigraphic position)

Liliaceae
_Allium_ (_cernuum_?)—wild onion seed—S/G11/103-107

Fagaceae
_Quercus_ spp.—acorn S/L11/102-106

Chenopodiaceae
_Grayia Brandegei_—carbonized fruits—S/L11/108-112

Rosaceae
_Crataegus_ spp.—partially decayed fragments of hawthorn
fruits—S/JK11/80-84

Area II 72-82 inches

Musci
_Polytrichum_ (_commune_?)—S/J11/78-82—this large
hair-cap moss may have been used as
padding or insulation.

Gramineae
_Zea Mays L._—S/G10/75-79—decayed corn cob of 14
rows and medium diameter similar to that
of Chapalote maize.
—S/G10/78-82—fragments, the same as above.

_Paspalum_ spp.—grain—S/K11/78-82
glumes—S/K11/78-82
stem—S/L11/78-82

Cyperaceae
_Scleria_ spp.—grain—S/L11/78-82 } These sedges
} indicate the
} presence of a
} permanent source
} of water in
_Carex_ spp.—grain—S/L11/78-82 } the area.

Chenopodiaceae
_Chenopodium_ spp.—fruit—S/L11/78-82

Leguminoseae
_Lupinus perennis L._—carbonized immature beans—S/L11/78-82
—May have been roasted as a green vegetable.

Area III 57-72 inches

Cyperaceae
_Scleria relicularis_—grain, spikelet, and plant fragments
—S/I9/65-69 (three samples).

Chenopodiaceae
_Chenopodium_ spp.—seed—S/L6/68-72

Rosaceae
_Crataegus_ spp.—partially decayed fragments of hawthorn
fruits—S/J11/70-74

Umbellifereae
_Taenidia_ spp.—tiny seeds—S/F8/61-55 and S/19/65-69

Area IV 0-57 inches

Pinaceae
_Juniperus_ spp.—wood fibers—S/K9/46-50

Gramineae
_Zea Mays_—fragments from a small diameter, 16-rowed
cob. Must have borne small kernels, possibly
a popcorn. S/I11/53-57
—one kernel of a dent corn—S/0910/22-26.
Not highly dented, in size and shape does not
closely resemble modern commercial varieties.
—one large kernel of yellow sweet corn resembling
that of modern varieties. Must be
an intrusion. S/010/MIRB
(S/010/MIRB was a portion of a collapsed
material with no stratigraphic position).
_Muhlenbergia_ spp.—florets with grain destroyed.
S/08-9/31-35

Rosaceae
_Prunus_ spp.—one stone (drupe). S/L7/26-30
Leguminoseae
One fragment from a large pod (legume). S/L7/26-30
Boraginaceae
_Lithospermum ruderale_—medicinal fruit may have been
used as a contraceptive—S/L11/50-54

Authors’ Comments on Floral Remains

It is interesting to note the following uses of some of these plants by modern Indians in the general area.

Boraginaceae, _Lithospermum ruderale_
Shoshone—contraceptive
Gosiute—seeds eaten as food

Chenopodiaceae, _Chenopodium_
Hopi—seeds ground for mush
Navajo—seeds ground for food

Chenopodiaceae, _Grayia_
Gosiute—seeds gathered

Fagaceae, _Quercus_
Navajo—eaten raw, boiled, roasted, dried like corn meal
Gosiute—eaten in season

Gramineae, _Muhlenbergia_
Hopi—seeds ground for bread meal

Leguminoseae, _Lupinum_
Gosiute—gathered. Use?

Musci, _Polytrichum_
Gosiute—use?

Pinaceae, _Juniperus_
Gosiute—various uses
Shoshone—twigs used for medicinal tea
Navajo—needles used for cold lotions

For further information see: Chamberlain, 1911; Train, Henricks, and Archer, 1941; P. A. Vestal, 1952, P. A. Vestal, 1940 and the bibliographies appended to these works.

Authors’ Comments on Maize from LoDaisKa

Six specimens of _Zea mays_ were recovered from the LoDaisKa Site. These were distributed vertically through the deposit, with 3 assigned to Complex D, 1 to Complex B, and 2 to Complex A. These few examples represent 3 different types of corn. In order to understand the significance of the LoDaisKa material, an attempt has been made to relate it to other prehistoric maize developments.

Table VIII—Floral Remains

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|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. | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+

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.

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.).

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.

Fossil Pollen and Spores from the LoDaisKa Site, Colorado

By DONALD R. WHITEHEAD

Introduction

A preliminary pollen analytical investigation has been attempted on material from the LoDaisKa Site in order to determine the feasibility of working with such sediments, and to see what culturally significant plants might be represented. Due to the extremely poor preservation in all but the lowermost levels no pollen diagram has been prepared. Such a diagram would be misleading, because many of the original constituents of the pollen flora might have been destroyed by differential degradation. A brief description of the investigation follows, with a discussion of the potentially significant grass pollen.

Techniques

All samples were prepared by boiling for six minutes in 10% KOH, washing with 10% HCI to remove carbonates, boiling for ten minutes in about 30% HF, actolysing for one minute, staining with fuchsin, and mounting in silicone oil. For each sample a total of four slides was counted by making traverses at one millimeter intervals.

Identification of Large Grass Pollen

In order to attempt an identification of the various large grass pollen encountered, the long axis of each grain and the pore diameter (including annulus) were measured, and the ratio between the two plotted. Barghoorn, Wolfe, and Clisby (1954) have suggested that this ratio can be used to supplement size measurements in attempting to identify fossil pollen of the tribe Maydeae. However, one can not compare directly the size data from the LoDaisKa fossils with the data from modern pollen assembled by Barghoorn, Wolfe, and Clisby (l.c.). Christensen (1945) has shown that not only do recent and fossil grains of the same species differ in size (depending partly upon the type of sediment in which the pollen is preserved), but also, different methods of preparation greatly affect the size, often differentially with respect to fossil and modern pollen. The recent pollen measured by Barghoorn, Wolfe, and Clisby (l.c.) was prepared by acetolysis and mounted in glycerine jelly. By comparing the size of modern _Corylus avellana_ pollen prepared and mounted in this manner (ca. 28, Christensen, 1945) with the size of fossil _Corylus avellana_ pollen from a variety of sediment types prepared and mounted by the technique used in the present investigation (ca. 24, S. T. Andersen, pers. comm.), one can arrive at a factor (7/6) by which the size of the fossils can be multiplied in order to compare more directly with the data presented by Barghoorn, Wolfe, and Clisby (l.c.). It should be emphasized that such an absolute comparison is dangerous, because there is no way of determining precisely how the environment of preservation at LoDaisKa has affected the pollen, and there is no guarantee that size changes of Corylus and Gramineae pollen are absolutely proportional.

For each grass grain both the long axis measurement and the pore axis ratio are tabulated in the results below. Only fully expanded grains were measured.

Sampling (Author’s Note)

The provenience of the samples analyzed below is as follows:

All samples were taken at 6 inch intervals.

Samples W 1-10 were collected in Square J8,
starting at 38 inches below baseline.

Samples E₁ 1-6 were collected in Square M11,
starting at 38 inches below baseline.

Samples E₂ 3-7 were collected in Square P 9-10,
starting at 62 inches below baseline.

_Samples E₁ 1 - E₁ 5_ (38-68″)

Preservation extremely poor, only badly corroded pine pollen,
a few Compositae grains, and many plant fragments
(mostly coniferous tracheids).

_Sample E₁ 6_ (68-74″)
_Pinus_—9
_Gramineae_—2, (70,21ₘ, pore obscured by detritus),
(40.46ₘ, 1:4.9)

_Sample E₂ 3_ (62-68″)
_Pinus_—10

_Sample E₂ 4_ (68-74″)
_Pinus_—19
_Picea_—2
Fern spore—1
Gramineae—1, (71.40ₘ, pore distorted)
unknowns—2

_Sample E₂ 5_ (74-80″)
_Pinus_—66
_Picea_—1
_Juniperus_—2
_Quercus_—1
Compositae (total)—24, (_Artemisia_—11,
_Ambrosia type_—2, Liguliflorae—1)
Chenopodiaceae—11 Caryophyllaceae—4
_Allium_—3 _Geranium_—1
_Polygonum_, sect. _Pericaria_—3
Gramineae—5, (53.55ₘ, 1:3.8), (70.21ₘ, pore
obscured), (46.41ₘ, 1:4.3), (58.30ₘ, 1:5.5),
(45.22ₘ, 1:3.5) unknowns—5

_Sample E₂ 6_ (80-86″)
_Pinus_—60
_Quercus_—2
Compositae (total)—22, (_Artemisia_—14, Liguliflorae—1)
Convolvulaceae—1 (fragment of a large periporate type)
Caryophyllaceae—5
Chenopodiaceae—4
cf. Cruciferae—3
_Polygonum_, sect. _Pericaria_—1
_Allium_—1
Gramineae—6, (40.46ₘ, 1:4.2), (61.88ₘ, 1:4.0),
(52.36ₘ, pore distorted),
(50.35ₘ, pore greatly enlongated),
(46.41ₘ, 1:4.9),
(45.22ₘ, 1:5.4). unknowns—10

_Sample E₂ 7_ (86-92″)
_Pinus_—54
_Picea_—2
_Juniperus_—1
Compositae (total)—20, (_Artemisia_—11,
_Ambrosia_ type—1, Liguliflorae—2)
Caryophyllaceae—2
Chenopodiaceae—2
_Geranium_—1
_Lonicera_—2
Onagraceae—2
Gramineae—3, (50.35ₘ, pore obscured), (29.75ₘ, 1:4.1),
(39.75ₘ, pore distorted)
unknowns—6

_Samples W1 - W8_ (38-86″)

Preservation extremely poor, only corroded pine, composite,
and chenopod pollen. Abundant coniferous wood fragments.

_Sample W9_ (86-92″)
_Pinus_—14
Chenopodiaceae—2
_Artemisia_—1
Caryophyllaceae—1
Gramineae—1, (51.17ₘ, 1:3.9)
unknowns—3

_Sample W10_ (92″-base)
_Pinus_—13
_Picea_—1
_Quercus_—5
Compositae (total)—6, (_Artemisia_—5,
_Ambrosia_ type—1, Liguliflorae—1)
Chenopodiaceae—1
_Polygonum_, sect. (Pericaria—1)
_Lonicera_—1
Gramineae—6, (49.98ₘ, 1:4.2), (52.36ₘ, 1:40), (49.98ₘ, 1:4.2),
(58.30ₘ, 1:4.5), (57.12ₘ, 1:4.0), (54.74ₘ, 1:4.2)
unknowns—4

Discussion

It is interesting to note that many of the plants identified from their megascopic remains by Walton C. Galinat are likewise represented in the pollen flora (e.g., _Allium_, _Quercus_, _Juniperus_ and chenopods). As Galinat has also identified several fragments of _Zea Mays_, it was hoped that pollen of _Zea_ might be found in some of the oldest levels. Unfortunately, none of the fossil grass pollen can be definitely identified as that of _Zea_. It seems obvious that the three largest grass grains (over 70ₘ) are too large to be _Tripsacum_, but whether they represent _teosinte_ or _Zea_ can not be established. The pore of two of these was obscured by detritus, and that of the third was greatly distorted. Thus no ratio could be established.

The remainder of the grass grains seem to fall within the limits of the genus _Tripsacum_ (size extremes 33.6ₘ to 64ₘ, and ratio extremes 1:3.0 to 1:4.8), although the pore-axis ratio of some appears to be too large. However, the possibility must be left open that these smaller grains might not be _Tripsacum_. As yet there is very little pollen size data available for the grasses of North America. Geisler (1945) has measured pollen from 32 species and of these, _Zizania aquatica_ has the largest grains (range 38ₘ-50ₘ). It is important to note that she did not employ acetolysis, so that this range is on the small side. In Europe, Firbes (1936) has presented pollen size data for 103 species of grasses, and of those he studied, _Avena_, _Secale_, _Triticum_, _Hordeum_, and _Elymus_ possess pollen as large as that of _Tripsacum_. Hence it would appear to be necessary to study intensively the pollen of most of our native grasses in order to establish size and other morphological criteria for identifying the smaller LoDaisKa grass pollen.

As the preservation is distinctly better in the lower levels of the deposit, a careful and detailed pollen analytical investigation, with recourse to adequate reference material might be profitable.

Acknowledgments

The present investigation was carried out in the Laboratories of the Geological Survey of Denmark while the author was sponsored by a Fulbright Fellowship. The author is particularly indebted to Svend Th. Andersen for his suggestions and helpful criticisms of the manuscript.

Bibliography

Barghoorn, E. S., M. K. Wolfe, and K. H. Clisby, 1954.
Fossil Maize from the Valley of Mexico.
Bot. Mus. Leaflets, Harvard University 16: 229-240.
Christensen, B. Brorson, 1945. Measurements as a Means
of Identifying Fossil Pollen.
Danmarke Geologiske Undersgelse IV R., Bd. 3, Nr, 2.
Firbes, F., 1937. Der pollenanalytische Nachweis dos
Getreidebaus. Zeitschrift für Botanik, Bd. 31: 447-478.
Geisler, F., 1945. A study of Pollen Grains of
Thirty-two Species of Grasses.
Butler Univ. Bot. Studies 7: 65-73.

ETHNOGRAPHIC COMPARISONS

Below we shall summarize the life habits of two ethnographically known groups who lived near the Plains-Great Basin fringe. This is done in an effort to present a brief outline of the type of life people in the Morrison area could have lived. It is designed to serve as a guide for interpretation of the archaeological remains, and should provide insight into areas of social and religious action. The first group, the Ute, are known to have lived for a time in the region; the second, the Pawnee, were never in the area proper, but do represent the sort of pottery-using, corn-growing Indians that had occupied it in the past.

This use of comparative ethnology and the reconstruction which follows are in the nature of a theory, a theory of methodology. Too often, as J. O. Brew (1946) has pointed out, archaeological fact gathering has run riot ahead of the interpretation of these facts. Brew quoted C. C. Kluckhohn in this respect: “In any case the alternative is not between theory and no theory or a minimum of theory, but between adequate and inadequate theories.... For I am afraid that many of our anthropologists who are most distrustful of theory are like Molière’s character who spoke prose without knowing it, for a complex theoretical viewpoint is usually implicit in some of the most apparently innocent statements of facts.” (Brew, 1946, p. 45; but for full context see Kluckhohn 1939). We have striven, however, to remain aware of the assumptions involved.

On the Ethnology of the Ute

The Ute were among the first Indians to get horses from the Spanish. Subsequently they moved about rather freely and were rather quick to adopt the white man’s culture whenever this was present in their area. There are almost no early accounts of the Ute. They had neither the spectacular aspects of the true Plains Indians, nor lands close to the trails frequented by pioneers and early explorers. On the other hand, they did not enjoy the isolation of many of the Great Basin tribes which preserved their ways of life into comparatively recent times. Thus ethnography of the Ute is relatively scant except for a few accounts and short articles. There are three principal works. The first is Robert Lowie’s _Notes on Shoshonean Ethnography_ (1924), based primarily on observations at Ignacio, Navajo Springs and White Rock. The second is Omer Stewart’s “_Culture Element Distribution: XVIII, Ute, Southern Paiute_”, (1942), while the third is Edward Gifford’s _Culture Element Distribution XII: Apache-Pueblo_ (1940). Another short paper by Ralph Beals (1935) on the ethnology of Rocky Mountain National Park adds to the picture, though he draws heavily on Lowie’s work. Finally there is a collection of articles gathered by the Durango Public Library and edited by H. S. Daniels (1941). This is composed of a series of interesting papers by people intimately connected with the area surrounding the present Ute reservation. J. Alden Mason’s article “Myths of the Uintah Utes” (1940) contains numerous myths which may yield scraps of ethnographic material if care is used in selection. Other short works can be found in the bibliography and will be referred to in the text.

Subsistence Pattern

One of the greatest problems facing the Ute and Shoshone on mountain fringes was adaptation to several different ecological biomes. Their success is attested to by the fact that the Ute spread all over Colorado and southern Wyoming except the Plains.

The adoption of the horse resulted in significant changes in Ute culture. In general, the use of horses affected hunting methods and locomotion. Where it brought the Ute into intimate contact with Plains Indian cultures, many of their old Basin traits were replaced by borrowed artifacts and techniques. For example, articles of rawhide replaced basketry in most cases (Steward, 1940, p. 422). However, very little is known about the quasi-Plains Ute, as mountain lands were quickly appropriated by whites. Buffalo were exterminated from mountain parks in Colorado by 1870. The works cited refer to isolated groups on the western fringe which retained an essentially pre-horse culture.

The people we deal with then have the “gathering small game” traits of Steward’s Western Subarea of the Intermontane Region. In addition, uplands and mountain regions afforded some larger game. This dual economy was probably a great factor in their adaptability, and it was undoubtedly a close approximation of that of protohistoric and prehistoric inhabitants of the area.

Except for the ecologic variation cited above, Ute culture was fairly uniform over a wide area. Because of this and the general limitation of data, it will be treated as a whole.

Hunting and Gathering

Seeds and berries of almost every description were gathered, mainly by the women of the camps. According to Lowie, among the neighboring Paviotso, men often participated in gathering piñon nuts, a fundamental element in the diet. Stewart’s data suggests that this was probably true of the Ute. Sunflower seeds were boiled; acorns were gathered and treated to render them edible. Fruits were exploited where available. These products were gathered in large baskets, certain of them being reserved for storage. Edible roots were dug up with the aid of a digging stick. Other gathering devices included notched poles, throwing sticks, and seed beaters.

Among the animals hunted, Lowie mentions buffalo, elk, deer, and rabbits; eagles were snared from pits. In Mason’s _Myths_ moose and bear are mentioned particularly. Possibly mountain sheep and antelope should be included in this list. Small game was important, such as quail and rodents, i.e., prairie dogs and squirrels. Stewart lists a number of insects eaten as part of the diet, which were roasted and parched then often stored.

Buffalo were surrounded by a circle of men and shot. Deer were often driven into a deep pit between converging arms of a sagebrush enclosure. Deer, antelope and buffalo decoy masks were often used. Rabbits and other small game were hunted by driving them into nets of bark fiber. Rodents were smudged out, and special blunt arrows were often used in shooting prairie dogs. Mountain sheep were pursued until cornered and then shot with arrows.

Fish were also undoubtedly a common article of diet. John Dewey, a Ute, told Mason about taking fish by means of arrows and fish lines, while Lowie mentions fish shooting and describes grass rafts for the Uintah, and Ute fish weirs.

For all hunting and fishing, ritual observances and purification were important. Gifford mentions ceremonial sweat houses in this connection, while Stewart lists a number of important taboos.

Food Preparation

Hand stones and grinding slabs were employed for preparing seeds and berries. Some pounding was done. Seeds could be roasted underground or could be made into a kind of gruel. Meat, according to McCall (Daniels, ed., 1941), was roasted over the fire or jerked. In this connection some statements of E. G. Palmer concerning the Paiute are of interest. The Paiute were very similar in culture to the Ute and before 1700 were probably indistinguishable from them (Schroeder, 1953). In particular Palmer mentions cooking by heating rocks, covering the desired edibles with wet grass and sprinkling them with water to create a kind of steam bake. About their food in general Palmer says, “As to food the Pah Utes will eat anything that will not prove absolutely poisonous soon after being swallowed.”

Gifford notes roasting and eating of both yucca and cacti. He also lists the use of surface salt and clay for flavoring. Small animals were pounded up whole and cooked. Bone was cracked for marrow or ground up and eaten if possible.

Shelter

Prior to the use of small skin tepees, the Eastern Ute used a conical or domed-shaped shelter of brush. These were used even after white contact, but usually only for summer habitation. The door faced east. Gifford and Stewart both note that the Ute used available rockshelters and lean-tos on hunting trips. C. T. Hurst in 1943 excavated an overhang containing evidence of Ute habitation. According to several sources, sweat houses were built.

Fire Making and Other Technologies

Lowie reports that the Ute used fire drills only rarely though an informant told Mason that they did not use such devices. Obviously every effort was made to keep the fire going but apparently if one’s fire went out, one borrowed a light from a neighbor. Perhaps in an emergency fire tools could have been made.

Concerning the stone technology of the Ute we will quote a section from Powell (1875; noted in Lowie, 1924). “Obsidian or other stone of which the implement is to be made is first selected by breaking up larger masses of the rock and choosing those which exhibited the fracture desired; then the pieces are baked or steamed—perhaps I might say annealed—by placing them in a damp earth covered with a brush fire for twenty-four hours, then with sharp blows they are still further broken down into flakes approximately the shape desired. For more complete fashioning a tool of ... horn is used.” He also states that a small skin cushion was employed in the hand, and that often a few especially skilled people would exchange their products for other items. Barber (1876) notes that a Ute hunter could differentiate between the types of stone projectile points used by various tribes. This is of special interest to the archaeologist for it indicates that point styles for such a group were intentional and fairly consistent over a period of time. Stone knives, scrapers, rough flakes and drills are listed by Gifford and Stewart in addition. According to Gifford’s informant, stone axes were polished. Arrowheads were stemmed or stemless, while the shafts were marked by rills engraved along the length. These were feathered and painted.

Pottery

Lowie reports that the Ute made some pottery, and Opler (1941) found further evidence to support the claim. However, the production appears largely limited to cooking vessels, and stone boiling was popular. Stewart notes the occurrence of unfired figurines made for children.

Skin Preparation and Other Technology

In skin preparation, the flesh was first removed with a serrated scraper. For especially tough hides an adze-shaped scraper was used. Hair was removed with a split bone, the skin then moistened, stretched and smoked. According to Stewart this was done by the women. Some skins were painted with designs. Gifford and Stewart both report the use of skin shields.

Before white contact, an informant told Mason, the Ute used juniper bark and sagebrush fiber for blankets. Sinew was employed for thread, while pine pitch and horn served for glue. Baskets made by coiling were manufactured, as were twined mats. Important types were conical gathering baskets, water bottles, flat trays and dippers. Willow was the principal material used.

Dress

The Ute used rabbitskin and deerskin blankets as well as those of fiber. Men wore moccasins, a loincloth and some kind of garment for the upper part of the body, and possibly leggings in the winter. Women wore a type of skirt, moccasins, and possibly a shirt. Some Shoshones, probably including the Ute, wore sandals. However, these would be less suitable in rocky uplands than in mesa country. Various carrying devices such as bags or blankets were used. Cradles of two types were listed by Gifford.

Barber (1876) notes the extensive use by both sexes of ornaments and charm bags of red powder, possibly hematite. Gifford and Stewart both mention the use of paints and list beads, feather decoration and bone ornaments. Some people were tattooed and some had their ears pierced.

Games and Dances

Lowie mentions one game played by the Ute. This is a hand game with guessing sticks and counters. Douglas and Jeancon (1930) cite others such as a hoop and stuffed ball game. Juggling games seem to have been popular also. Stewart lists a number of additional games. There were dances for both sexes accompanied by drums and notch-stick vibrators. Other musical instruments used may have included rattles of deer hooves, whistles, and possibly musical bows.

Social Organization

Society was probably arranged in bilateral exogamus kin groups. Inheritance may have been patrilineal. Marriage was a rather casual arrangement, the ceremony simple. Immediate residence was patrilocal, or at the father’s hut. Later, the couple built their own shelter. There was some polygamy, Steward (1938) notes that society was organized bilaterally in most places in the Intermontane Area. Relative equality of the sexes resulted from their approximately equal economic importance. If bison hunting and warfare tended to give northern Shoshone and Ute men an advantage, no formal institutions had developed to indicate it. Social organization was Neo-Hawaiian (Murdock, 1949) according to Stewart’s kin term list.

Religion

Some Ute recognized one especially powerful god represented by the sun, and many lesser gods and spirits. Individuals attempted to win their favor through magic. Myths and legends which featured these beings were told at night around low camp fires, but only during the winter according to Gifford. He also notes the naming of the sky as female, the earth as male, while various constellations were also designated. There was some development of the culture-hero idea in the person of Coyote among the Uintah Ute. Various tales of how Coyote obtained fire for man and helped him in other ways were related to Mason (1940). Ceremonies or rituals were probably held in open places, most likely in the form of dances. Medicine men or shamans were important figures. They were learned in the myths, and practiced as healers, using charms and herbs, some of which had true medicinal value. In addition the shamans were skilled at setting bones. They may have gotten their power from dreams or trances. During certain of what are termed life crises, birth, puberty, marriage, death, there were taboo observances. Certain foods were not eaten during pregnancy, while both Gifford and Stewart mention a special hut where girls were secluded during the first menses.

The Ute considered certain deeds to be “right or wrong” but there was no formal set of laws or authority to support moral judgment.

Language

The Ute language forms part of the Ute-Chemehuevi division, the southernmost of three divisions constituting the Plateau Branch of the Shoshonean stock of the Uto-Aztecan family. This northern orientation of language agrees well with certain cultural traits. There is very little structural resemblance with neighboring groups such as would be of interest in cultural interpretation. The language is characterized by an impression of phonetic softness rather than harshness; but of vagueness and lack of distinctness. (See Kroeber, 1910; Sapir, 1931; Stewart, 1957).

Disposal of the Dead

The dead were usually buried in rock crevices or were cremated. Supposedly their possessions were destroyed at this time, and their name became taboo in common usage.

On the Ethnology of the Pawnee

The Pawnee of Nebraska are commonly regarded as characteristic of the semi-sedentary agricultural peoples of the Central Plains. However, ethnographic material about them is surprisingly sparse. Because they already had the horse by the late 17th century there is no record of them in completely aboriginal conditions. The most complete work is a monograph by J. B. Dunbar published in 1880, based on a series of articles in the _Magazine of American History_. Besides this there are the early accounts of the Lewis and Clark Expedition (see Grass, 1904) and that of J. T. Irving (1835). More specialized works are those of G. B. Grinnell (1912) and A. Lesser (1933). Subsequent studies are brief, and for the most part oriented toward nineteenth century historical events (e.g., Hyde, 1951). Wedel has included some information in his works on Pawnee archaeology (1938) and Central Plains subsistence (1941). Further brief articles may be found in the bibliography.

Subsistence Agriculture

Maize played an important part in the economic life of the Pawnee. Most of the infrequent tillage was done by hoes consisting of bison scapulae lashed to bent or forked sticks. Hoeing was done only once or twice a year. The small cultivated patches, ranging in size from one-fourth to four acres, were usually located in the loose alluvium along creek bottoms. In addition to corn, beans, squash and watermelon were grown. All agricultural work was done by the women. They also gathered a large number of tubers, plants, berries, and fruits to supplement the diet. These included wild plum, huckleberry, chokecherry, sand cherry, wild potato, ground-bean and others.

Hunting

The products of the chase were also of great importance. The principal animal sought was the bison. One or two large scale hunting trips were organized yearly. The entire population of the earth lodge village moved to designated hunting areas. In pre-horse times the main method of hunting was the surround, although some hunters probably also worked singly, as they did in later times. The only weapon regularly used was the bow and arrow. The most important of these hunts was conducted in the early summer and ended just in time to harvest the crops.

Although the bison was the major subsistence animal, many other animals were hunted, especially for skins. Elk, deer, and antelope were taken by surrounds and “still hunting” or stalking. Beaver and otter were snared for their pelts; bears, cougars, and skunks were valued for both meat and hides. Prairie chickens and quails were hunted by boys with long withes.

Food Preparation

After the harvest, maize was cut from the cobs, boiled, roasted, or dried, and stored in large bell-shaped pits. Other vegetable foods were similarly treated. Meat was dried and/or smoked.

Corn was often pulverized in a wooden mortar. It was then boiled, or made into cakes cooked in the ashes or on hot flat stones. Fresh corn was also parched or boiled as hominy. Corn, beans and squash, fresh or dry, were prepared by boiling and seasoned with tallow. Fresh meat was either cooked in the ashes, broiled, or boiled with vegetables. Dried meat was eaten raw or boiled. Most of the cooking was done in large pottery vessels manufactured locally.

Shelter

During the winter the Pawnee inhabited large villages of stationary earth covered lodges. These measured 40 feet in diameter and 16 feet in height at the maximum. Such structures housed several related families. They were constructed as follows: the topsoil was removed and a framework erected. Inclined short poles were placed to form walls. Poles set on the inner and outer framework circles came to a blunt peak, forming the roof. Brush and willow were used for horizontal filling. Finally, hay and sod were heaped over the structure. Entrance was by means of a passage some 12 feet long. In the center was a fire basin about three feet in diameter. The floor was hardened by trampling and beating, and mats were spread over it. Sleeping places were near the walls on slightly raised platforms of willow rods, and were often partitioned off with skins or mats.

Summer dwellings were tepees, 12-17 feet in diameter. Twelve to 20 poles formed the framework, and the cover was of bison hide, with openings for the entrance and smokehole. On the ground around the central hearth were laid mats and hides. Sweat houses were used in all seasons. These consisted of a frame of willow withes about six feet in diameter, covered with skins. Heated stones were sprinkled with water to produce steam.

Clothing

The man’s costume was relatively simple, consisting primarily of breechclout and moccasins, with an additional skin robe in cold weather. For special occasions, the men wore elaborate shirts and headdresses of eagle feathers. Women wore moccasins, tight skin leggings, a skirt and a shirt suspended from the shoulders by thongs. Women wore their hair braided; the men had a horn-like scalp-lock. Paint was the main form of personal adornment. The types preferred were ochre, red and white clay, and yellow coloring obtained from flowers of a species _solidago_. These pigments were commonly mixed with bison fat or water.

Technology

There is very little descriptive material on the technology of the Pawnee. The manufacture of most of the utilitarian objects devolved on the women. Pottery was manufactured by the paddle and anvil technique. According to Grinnell (1912) a wooden or basketry mold was sometimes used for the base. Temper was of crushed rock. They wove mats of rushes, baskets of bark, and ropes of buffalo hair. Wooden mortars, pestles, bowls, dippers and spoons were shaped by burning and scraping. Bison horn was also employed for spoons. A stiff grass (_Stipa funcea_) was used for necklaces. Hide dressing and the making of clothing occupied a considerable portion of their time. A needle of deer metacarpal was used. Canoes were seldom made.

The men confined their technological interests to weapons for hunting and war. Bows were commonly four feet long and were made of “bois d’arc” (_Maciura canadensis_), hickory, “coffee bean” (_Gymnocladus canadensis_) and juniper. Formerly bison rib and elk-horn bows were also in use. Sinew backing was common. Arrow shafts were usually of dogwood (_Cornus stolonifera_). These had a series of three grooves running their length, which were variously explained as helping the flow of blood and keeping the arrow in the wound. These grooves were made with a very small chisel-like instrument. No information is available concerning flint working, but each tribe or large sub-group made a distinctive type of projectile point. Much care was lavished on this equipment and the accompanying skin quiver. Spears and rawhide shields were also manufactured.

Trade

Trade was not extensive among the Pawnee themselves, or between them and neighboring tribes. However, this situation may be relatively recent in origin, due to the hostilities arising from increased white pressure. The main articles traded were “bois d’arc”, eagle feathers, pipe stone, and corn.

Social and Political Organization

The Pawnee were divided into four sub-tribes or bands. Each of these consisted of a number of villages, and each village was also an endogamous matrilineal clan. Authority was vested in a hereditary chief and council of “leading men”. Band unity was maintained by large scale religious ceremonies and meetings of band councils, composed of the village chiefs. Similar mechanisms operated at a higher level to achieve a loose tribal organization.

Religion

The religious organization of the Pawnee was more highly developed and more sophisticated than that of most of the other Plains tribes. At the top of the supernatural pantheon was Tirawa, the creator. Below him were two classes of spirits—those of the earth and those of the heavens. The former were usually identified with animals and were the guardians of the people as a whole; the latter represented natural phenomena and were usually identified with stars. Foremost among these were the Morning and Evening Stars, representing the male and female principles, and parents of the first earth being.

Ceremonial action centered around collections of sacred objects—medicine bundles—which were believed to have been presented to the people in ancient times by the “gods”. Ceremonies connected with these usually involved a sacrifice or offering, or a ritual dramatization of the mythical receipt of the bundle. The most famous of these ceremonies was the annual sacrifice of a young girl to the Morning Star. Other important ceremonies revolved around the ever important corn and buffalo.

Shamans were organized into a secret society and power was received through instruction by an elder member. They were mediums and diviners and officiated in ceremonies. Each owned an ornate medicine bundle containing herbs and charms, such as fossil bones, etc. There were also “medicine men” who specialized in healing. Sickness was believed to be caused by intrusion of a foreign object or malign spirit, which was removed by sucking and chanting. Various plants were utilized for medicine, including _Artemisia bedoviciana_, _Acorus calamus_, _Monarda fistulosa_, and _fructata_, _Mentha canadensia_ and _Argemona mexicana_.