Advertisement

Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences

, Volume 11, Issue 11, pp 5983–5998 | Cite as

Evidence for non-random distribution of pollen in human coprolites

  • Chase W. BeckEmail author
  • Vaughn M. Bryant
  • Katelyn N. McDonough
Original Article
First Online:
  • 112 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Coprolite Research: Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental Potentials

Abstract

Methods of processing and sampling human coprolites have changed drastically since the early days of forcing material through metal grates by hand. However, it would seem that rather than standardizing sampling size and sampling location, practices for collecting material have become specialized by preference and research focus. When sampling a human coprolite for pollen data, sample size and sampling location are two important and interlinked factors that affect the conclusions of a study. By subsampling five coprolites, five times, in five different locations on each coprolite, we were able to compare the pollen ratios derived from each subsample. We conclude that not only is pollen distribution within a single coprolite heterogeneous, but this lack of homogeneity can result in different interpretations of the coprolites’ contents. These different interpretations can affect conclusions concerning the diets of ancient inhabitants and conclusions concerning the paleoenvironments of the associated archaeological sites. As this study is not definitive, we encourage others to attempt similar studies on coprolites from different sites for comparison.

Keywords

Human Coprolite Methodology Hinds Cave 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Supplementary material

12520_2019_839_MOESM1_ESM.docx (45 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 44 kb)

References

  1. Adam DP, Mehringer PJ (1975) Modern pollen surface samples—an analysis of subsamples. J Res US Geol Surv 3:733–736Google Scholar
  2. Belknap SL (2011) Ancient diet in an arid environment: the view from Hinds Cave (41VV456). Thesis, University of MaineGoogle Scholar
  3. Bixler HJ, Rappe GC, Amicon Corp (1970) Ultrafiltration process. U.S. Patent 3,541,006Google Scholar
  4. Bryant VM (1974) Prehistoric diet in southwest Texas: the coprolite evidence. Am Antiq 39:407–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryant VM (1977) Preliminary pollen analysis of hinds cave. In: HJ S, VM B (eds) Archaeological and botanical studies at Hinds Cave, Val Verde County, Texas, vol 1. Texas A&M University Anthropology Laboratory Special Series, pp 70–80Google Scholar
  6. Bryant VM, Hall SA (1993) Archaeological palynology in the United States: a critique. Am Antiq 58:277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryant VM, Holloway RG (1983) The role of palynology in archaeology. In: Schiffer MB (ed) Advances in archaeological method and theory, vol 6. Elsevier Inc., pp 191–224Google Scholar
  8. Bryant VM, Reinhard KJ (2012) Coprolites and archaeology: the missing links to understanding human health. In Hunt et al. (eds) Vertebrate coprolites. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Bulletin 57:379–387Google Scholar
  9. Bryant VM, Williams-Dean G (1974) The coprolites of man. Sci Am 232:100–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callen EO, Cameron TWM (1960) A prehistoric diet revealed in coprolites. The New Sci 8:35–40Google Scholar
  11. Cotton CM, Wilkie P (1996) Ethnobotany: principles and applications. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  12. Cully AC (1979) Some aspects of pollen analysis in relation to archaeology. Kiva 44:95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cummings JH, Jenkins DJA, Wiggins HS (1976) Measurement of the mean transit time of dietary residue through the human gut. Gut 17:210–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dean GW (1984) Putting dinner on the table in the Texas archaic. Chihuah Desert Discov 15:10–13Google Scholar
  15. Dean GW (1993) Use of pollen concentrations in coprolite analysis: an archaeobotanical viewpoint with a comment to Reinhard et al.(1991). J Ethnobiol 13(1):102–114Google Scholar
  16. Dean GW (2006) The science of coprolite analysis: the view from Hinds cave. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 237:67–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2005.11.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dering JP (1979) Pollen and plant macrofossil vegetation record recovered from Hinds Cave, Val Verde County. Texas A&M University, TexasGoogle Scholar
  18. Edwards SK (1990) Investigations of late archaic coprolites: pollen and macrofossil remains from Hinds Cave (41VV456), Val Verde County, Texas. M.A. Thesis, Texas A and M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  19. Heizer RF, Napton LK (1969) Biological and cultural evidence from prehistoric human coprolites. Sci. 165:563–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jouy-Avantin F, Debenath A, Moigne A-M, Moné H (2003) A standardized method for the description and the study of coprolites. J. Arch. Sci. 30:367–372.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2002.0848 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Juggins S (1991-2014) C2 Version 1.7.6 Software for ecological and palaeoecological data analysis and visualisation. Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelso GK (1976) Absolute pollen frequencies applied to the interpretation of human activities in northern Arizona. Dissertation, The University of ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelso GK, Solomon AM (2006) Applying modern analogs to understand the pollen content of coprolites. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 237:80–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2005.11.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martin LK (1965) Randomness of particle distribution in human feces and the resulting influence on helminth egg counting. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene 14:747–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin PS, Sharrock FW (1964) Pollen analysis of prehistoric human feces: a new approach to ethnobotany. Am Antiquity 30:168–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Microsoft® Excel for Mac® (2018) Microsoft (Version 16.16.1)Google Scholar
  27. Microsoft® Excel® for Office 365 MSO (2016). Microsoft (Version 16.0.10827.20118) 32-bitGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Meara DP (2014) Ruminating on the past. A history of digestive taphonomy in experimental archaeology. In: Flores JR, Paardokooper R (eds) Experiments past: histories of experimental archaeology. Sidestone Press, Leiden, pp 131–151Google Scholar
  29. Onoda GY, Liniger EG (1990) Random loose packings of uniform spheres and the dilatancy onset. Phys Rev Lett 64:2727–2730.  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.2727 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pearsall DM (2010) Paleoethnobotany: a handbook of procedures, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  31. Poinar HN, Kuch M, Sobolik KD, Barnes I, Stankiewicz AB, Kuder T, Spaulding WG, Bryant VM, Cooper A, Pääbo S (2001) A molecular analysis of dietary diversity for three archaic native Americans. Proc Natl Academy Sci 98(8):4317–4322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna URL http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed Sept 25th-Oct 29th 2018
  33. Reinhard KJ (1988) Diet, parasitism, and anemia in the prehistoric southwest. Dissertation, Texas A&M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  34. Reinhard KJ (1993) Response: the utility of pollen concentration in coprolite analysis: expanding upon Dean’s comments. J Ethnobiol 13(1):114–128Google Scholar
  35. Reinhard KJ, Bryant VM (1992) Coprolite analysis: a biological perspective on archaeology. In: Shiffer M (ed) Advances in archaeological method and theory, vol 4. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, pp 245–288Google Scholar
  36. Reinhard KJ, Hevly RH (1991) Dietary and parasitological analysis of coprolites recovered from mummy 5, Ventana Cave, Arizona. Kiva 56:319–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reinhard K, Hamilton DL, Hevly RH (1991) Use of pollen concentration in paleopharmacology: coprolite evidence of medicinal plantsGoogle Scholar
  38. Riley T (2008) Diet and seasonality in the Lower Pecos: evaluating coprolite data sets with cluster analysis. J. Arch. Sci. 35:2726–2741.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.04.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Riley T (2012) Assessing diet and seasonality in the Lower Pecos canyonlands: an evaluation of coprolite specimens as records of individual dietary decisions. J Arch Sci 39:145–162.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.09.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scott LJ (1983) A model for the interpretation of Pitstructure activity areas at Anasazi sites (Basketmaker III-Pueblo II) through pollen analysis. University of Colorado, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  41. Scott Cummings L (1988) Sampling prehistoric structures for pollen and starch granules. In: Bryant VM, Wrenn JH (eds) New developments in palynomorph sampling, extraction, and analysis. (American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists, Contributions Series 33). AASP, Houston, pp 35–51Google Scholar
  42. Shafer HJ, Bryant VM (1977) Archeological and botanical studies at Hinds Cave, Val Verde County. Texas A & M University, Anthropology Laboratory, TexasGoogle Scholar
  43. Sobolik KD (1988) The importance of pollen concentration values from coprolites: an analysis of southwest Texas samples. Palynol. 12:201–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stock JA (1983) The prehistoric diet of Hinds Cave (41VV456), Val Verde County, Texas: the coprolite evidence. Dissertation, Texas A&M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  45. Tennison SVA (2005) The taphonomy of pollen in human faecal material: applications to environmental archaeology and forensic science. University of London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Wigand PE, Mehringer PJ (1985) Pollen and seed analysis vol 61. American Museum of Natural History.  https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1840.9285
  47. Williams-Dean GJ (1978) Ethnobotany and cultural ecology of prehistoric man in southwest Texas. Dissertation, Texas A&M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  48. Wood JR, Wilmshurst JM (2016) A protocol for subsampling Late Quaternary coprolites for multi-proxy analysis. Quat Sci Rev 138:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.02.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options