Perry and Flannery. 10.1073/pnas.0704936104. |
Fig. 3. Archaeological starch grains extracted from the surfaces and tissue of desiccated chili pepper specimens from Guilá Naquitz. (Left) Starch grain from Phaseolus sp. from square D12. (Right) Starch grain from Capsicum sp. from square E12.
Table 2. Maximum seed width in millimeters, Guilá Naquitz Zone A
Provenience | N | Range | Mean | Variance |
Sq. C8 | 20 | 2.51 - 3.76 | 3.06 | 0.13 |
Sq. D11 | 1 | 3.11 | 3.11 | |
Sq. E12 | 4 | 2.63 - 2.97 | 2.81 | .03 |
Feature 1 | 15 | 2.16 - 3.40 | 2.84 | .07 |
Feature 12 | 1 | 3.16 | 3.16 |
Table 3. Starch granules recovered from the unwashed pepper pericarp fragments, Guilá Naquitz Zone A
Provenience/taxon | Domesticated Capsicum | Phaseolus vulgaris | Phaseolus runner type | Phaseolus spp | Zea mays | Damaged, UD starch | Unidentified starch | Total |
Sq. C8 red chile | 2 | 2 | 49 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 57 | |
Sq. C10 | 5 | 1 | 14 | 1 | 21 | |||
Sq. D11 squash | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Sq. D11 Capsicum | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Sq. D12 | 2 | 3 | 92 | 1 | 98 | |||
Sq. E12 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | ||
Feature 1 #1 | 5 | 4 | 9 | |||||
Feature 1 #2 |
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
| 1 |
Feature 12 | 5 | 1 | 6 | |||||
Feature 13 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||
Total | 2 | 9 | 8 | 157 | 10 | 14 | 3 | 203 |
Table 4. Morphological characteristic typical of different cultivated species of Capsicum
C. annuum | C. frutescens | C. baccatum | C. chinense | C. pubescens | |
Calyx features | |||||
Annular constriction | No | No | No | Usually | No |
Irregular wrinkling at junction with peduncle | Sometimes | Often | Sometimes | No | No |
Veins prolonged into short teeth | Often | Seldom | No | No | Yes |
Veins prolonged into prominent (>.05 mm) teeth | No | No | Yes | No | No |
Seed features | |||||
Straw color | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Black color | No | No | No | No | Yes |
SI Methods
Macrobotanical Studies.
Botanists traditionally distinguish species, including those of Capsicum, from one another based upon the morphological features of flowers. Because flowers did not occur in this assemblage, features that have been documented as differing among the five major cultivated species were used (SI Table 4). These features included seed color, calyx morphology, and thickness of pericarp tissue (1-5). Cultivars were separated based upon morphological characters that varied among peduncle specimens. These diagnostic features included the size of the peduncle, the diameter of the peduncle "stem," the characteristics of the calyx margin (smooth, intermediate or dentate), the shape of the peduncle immediately above the calyx (flared or straight), and the size and extent of the calyx teeth. Separations into categories were somewhat conservative.
Because many of the specimens had been crushed after deposition, and peduncle diameter was difficult to ascertain with precision, the designations of "thin" and "thick" were determined both by eye and by measurement with digital calipers. Therefore, measurement data from crushed specimens was not used as the sole determinant in assigning a cultivar category. The single "very thin" peduncle from cultivar 7 measured 0.75 mm. Most thin peduncles ranged from 1.56 to 1.91 mm. Thick peduncles ranged from 2.0 to 2.88 mm, and the range of "very thick" was from 3.22 to 3.77 mm, with a single specimen having a measurement of 2.33 in the crushed dimension. Calyx margins were defined as smooth, intermediate, or dentate using criteria from drawings in Andrews (3). Calyx teeth were examined using a 10´ Hasting's triplet hand lens.
Starch Studies.
Fragments of the pericarp from desiccated specimens of peppers were mechanically macerated in small quantities of reverse-osmosis filtered water, and the resulting slurry was placed on a glass slide for observation using light microscopy. Starch grain morphology was examined and species designations were assigned using standard methods (e.g., refs. 6-9).
1. Pickersgill B (1969) Am Anthropol 34:54-61.
2. D'Arcy WG, Eshbaugh WH (1974) Baileya 19:93-105.
3. Andrews J (1995) Peppers: The Domesticated Capsicums (Univ of Texas Press, Austin).
4. Zewdie Y, Bosland PW (2003) J Heredity 94:355-357.
5. Baral JB, Bosland PB (2004) J Am Soc Hort Sci 129:826-832.
6. Perry L (2004) J Arch Sci 31:1069-1081.
7. Perry L (2005) Lat Am Ant 16:409-426.
8. Perry L, Sandweiss D, Piperno DR, Rademaker K, Malpass M, Umire A, de la Vera P (2006) Nature 440:76-79.
9. Perry L, Dickau R, Zarrillo S, Holst I, Pearsall DM, Piperno DR, Berman MJ, Cooke R, Rademaker K, Ranere AJ, et al. (2007) Science 315:986-988.