Reinterpreting the Pollen Data from Dos Cabezas

The published pollen analysis of the Dos Cabezas giants, Geyer et al. (2003), lists variety of purported dietary pollen types. The paper also hypothesises that the giants were poisoned with plant toxins. We have severe reservations about the pollen evidence of diet and poisoning. We suggest that the analysts made several errors in their interpretation. Firstly, some of the discovered pollen types are not prehistoric endemics to the Dos Cabezas region of coastal Peru. These include the pollen of fava beans (cultivated in the Old World), and specified species of agave and sage. We believe that some or all of the identifications of pollen from arracacha, maca, yuca, oca, potato, peanut, ciruela and tarwi are in error based on the distance they grow from Dos Cabezas and/or their ecological/pollination requirements. We think that it is unlikely that the giants were poisoned because the poisons made from six poisonous plants are not made from the flowers and five of them grow on the opposite side of the Andes from Dos Cabezas. We present an alternative dietary interpretation of the Dos Cabezas giants and suggest methods by which palynological analysis could be improved

The Mapping of Composite Pollen from Point Sampled Data and Cartographic Generalization

Pollen grains are microgametophytes produced by angiosperm and gymnosperm plants. They are responsible for transporting genetic material and carrying out fertilization. The study of pollen has numerous practical applications such as plant biodiversity, paleoclimatology, archaeology, allergy studies, the study of nectar sources in honey (melissopalynology), searching for sources of petroleum, and more recently, using pollen as a trace evidence component in forensics. Once pollen grains become airborne, their dispersal is controlled by a number of physical factors that determine the deposition distance from their source area. The purpose of this work is to study spatial pattern of composite pollen in Big Bend National Park using pollen information contained in the top soil layer, test the accuracy of four interpolation methods and use cartographic generalizations to present the results. The focus is on a composite pollen group that is a member of the Asteraceae plant family and is a prolific producer of airborne pollen (Figure 1). FIGURE 1 POLLEN GRAIN OF HELIANTHUS (ASTERACEAE

The first occurrence of a toxodont (Mammalia, Notoungulata) in the United States

This is the publisher's version, also available electronically from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.2012.711405#.U1qJK4UvDGJ.Toxodonts were a group of large-sized notoungulates of South American origin. They were diverse and widespread in South America in deposits ranging in age from late Oligocene to late Pleistocene. Sparse remains have been found from the Pleistocene of isolated regions of Central America. All of the Central American specimens have been referred to the genus Mixotoxodon (Van Frank, 1950). They were not previously known north of the southern Mexican states of Michoacan and Veracruz, except for an unconfirmed report of an occurrence in Tamaulipas (Arroyo-Cabrales et al., 2010). Here we report the occurrence of a single toxodont tooth, a left upper third molar, from late Pleistocene deposits in Harris County, Texas (30◦N). This is the first record of toxodonts, or any notoungulate, in the United States and extends the geographic range of this group 1600 km north of their previously known localities at Hihuitlán, Michoacan (18◦52' 3"0 N, 103◦24' 14 "W) and La Estribera, Veracruz (18◦07 '01.27" N, 94◦53 '15.59W) (Polaco et al., 2004) to latitude 30◦N

A comparison of pollen counts: Light versus scanning electron microscopy

Palynologists use compound light microscopy (LM) for pollen identification and interpretation and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for morphological comparisons and taxonomy. As we are unaware of any published reports comparing LM and SEM pollen counts and identifications of the same sample, we decided to examine a surface soil sample using both microscopes. Standard palynological extraction techniques were used. Two, 300 grain counts were made using LM, and two, 300 counts with SEM. Pollen grains viewed with SEM were also divided into three categories, ‘‘identifiable,’’ ‘‘obscured,’’ and ‘‘virtually impossible to identify’’. Eighty-six (86) percent of the pollen grains counted with SEM were classified as ‘‘identifiable’’ or ‘‘obscured.’’ Pollen concentration values ranged from 385,714 (LM Count #2) to 900,000 (SEM Count #1) per gram of soil. Regardless of the microscope used, Ligustrum spp., Myrtaceae-type, and Tilia spp. had the greatest number of pollen grains. A total of 73 taxa were found. A scan of the unexamined portion of the stubs resulted in 20 additional taxa. There were no significant differences between the counts made with the two microscopes (ANOVA, pw0.05, F50.18, df576). However, there were significantly more taxa found with SEM than with LM (t-test, T50.05). Sample preparation and the time needed to count, analyze, photograph and print the micrographs are the same regardless of the microscope used. The sample, information needed, and funding will determine which technique to use

Coprolite Analysis: A Biological Perspective on Archaeology

The most remarkable dietary remains recoverable from archaeological contexts are coprolites. Coprolites are desiccated or mineralized feces that are preserved in sheltered and open sites in arid regions, primarily in the New World. These dietary remains are remarkable from several perspectives. They typically contain a variety of macroscopic and microscopic remains that form interrelated data sets for the reconstruction of diets. Because contexts containing coprolites are typified by excellent preservation, the remains coprolites contain tend to be in better states of preservation than dietary remains recovered from nonfecal deposits. Coprolites also contain the well-preserved remains of intestinal parasites and pathogens which affected prehistoric health. Thus, coprolites provide excellent evidence of diet and disease for arid regons. Today, coprolites are recovered from caves, open sites, mummies, and occasionally from burials. Latrine deposits and trash middens are another source of coprolite data, even when individual coprolites are not identifiable in the soil matrix. Our paper offers a history of coprolite research, critically examines the types of data which can be recovered from human coprolites, evaluates interpretive value of coprolite data, and summarizes current directions in coprolite studies

Burials: Dietary Sampling Methods

The analysis of burials for botanical and zoological remains evidence of diet is a proven method of nondestructive analysis in the mortuary setting. The value of such analyses is directly dependent on sampling strategies that must include a number of control samples

Pathoecology and the Future of Coprolite Studies in Bioarchaeology

Human coprolites currently provide an expanding array of information about the diet, health, and ecology of prehistoric people in the Southwest, but for many years coprolites were not recognized or preserved, or they were not considered important and thus were not saved (Bryant and Dean 2006). With the expansion of archaeological field work during the last half of the twentieth century archaeologists have increasingly explored the complete potentials of sites, including the collection and analysis of geomorphologic, botanical, and faunal data. In some ideal habitats (e.g., very dry or frozen) this includes exploring the scientific potential of human coprolite studies. This is not easy to do: very few coprolites have what might be considered a characteristic shape and size. In our experience, the majority of coprolites are usually fragmented, flattened by age, or in many cases are preserved as amorphous masses of various sizes similar in shape to \u27\u27patties\u27\u27 left behind by cattle. These flat, amorphous human coprolites are especially common in sites used by foragers with diets very high in plant fiber. Coprolites and coprolite fragments are sometimes collected in situ during archaeological excavations, but most often they are found during screening, when dirt is being separated from artifacts. If unrecognized, coprolites may be crushed into dust, along with clods of dirt, and their contents lost