1
ARCHAEOPARASITOLOGY REPORT –
JOINT COURTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT, TUCSON
Prepared By:
Karl J. Reinhard
PathoEcology Services
2020 Smith Street
Lincoln, NE 68502
Prepared for:
Statistical Research, Inc.
PO Box 31865
Tucson, AZ 85751-1865
2
ABSTRACT
Archaeoparasitological analysis of 110 inhumations from the Joint Courts Site,
Tuscon, Arizona was completed. Comparative analysis of macrofossils and microfossils
from control and sacrum samples was conducted to determine which inhumations had
sufficient preservation to allow for reliable parasitological results. Insufficient
preservation was encountered in 35 inhumations. However, 61 inhumations exhibited
taphonomic conditions that would allow for parasite egg preservation. The other 14
inhumations had moderate preservation that would probably result in egg preservation.
None of the samples revealed parasite eggs. Therefore, I conclude that none of the 75
inhumations exhibiting acceptable taphonomic conditions represent parasitized
individuals. This absence of parasitism is corroborated by the analysis of latrines. Seven
latrines were represented by 20 samples. Three of these latrine features were represented
by at least one sediment sample with good to excellent preservation. No parasite eggs
were found in the latrine samples. Therefore, the Tucson communities represented by the
inhumations and latrines were free of intestinal parasite infection. This absence of
infection is unique in the archaeoparasitology of historic communities and begs
explanation.
3
ANALYSIS GOALS AND SUMMARY
The purpose of the contracted work on the Joint Courts inhumations and latrines
was for an archaeoparasitological survey. This has been accomplished for the first all
samples. These were excavated from seven latrines and 110 inhumations. The
preservation potential varied greatly between the samples. Thus, there is a question as to
whether a paucity of parasite eggs was due to a very low level of parasitism or due to
post-depositional conditions that promoted decomposition.
In the process of laboratory analysis of the samples, other types of remains were
observed. These types of remains include insects, pollen, starch, and macrofossils. I am
undertaking the analysis of these remains to assess the preservation potential of the
samples. The pollen analysis is underway for selected samples specified in Table 1. All
insect pupae cases and eggs are currently being identified by forensic entomologists. The
macrofossil analysis, general microfossil analysis, and starch analysis are completed
(Tables 2-4 respectively).
The continued pollen analysis of selected latrine and inhumation samples will
elucidate some dietary practices in the coming weeks.
4
INTRODUCTION – INHUMATION AND LATRINE POTENTIALS AND
LIMITATIONS
The excavation and analysis of inhumation sediments for evidence of diet and
disease has a long history in archaeology. Witenberg (1961) reported parasite eggs from
sediments excavated from Palestinian sites. Since that time, refinements in methodology
have been accomplished (Reinhard et al. 1986) but focused analysis of inhumations is
still rarely included in excavation research designs. Most recently, Fugassa et al. (2008)
reveals that even tiny amounts of sediment brushed from sacra results in the recovery of
parasite eggs.
Dietary analysis of inhumation sediments is more commonly accomplished
(Reinhard and Bryant, 2007). To my knowledge, the earliest analysis of inhumation
sediments was done at Shanidar Cave by Ralph Solecki (see review by Sommer, 1999).
This analysis focused on palynology. More recent, holistic analysis focuses on recovery
of all types of dietary evidence including seeds, fibers, pollen, starch, and other remains
(Berg 2001; Reinhard and Bryant, 2007; Reinhard et al. 2006; Reinhard et al. 1992).
Any grave is composed of microenvironments, some overlapping and others
discrete. Each microenvironment has a different preservation potential. Recent research
into microfossils from dentition shows that dental calculus is its own microenvironment
(Boyadjian et al. 2007; Henry and Piperno 2008; Reinhard et al. 2001; Wesolowski et al.
2007). Indeed, this is such an easy area to sample and analyze, that dental calculus study
is the most rapidly growing area of recent dietary research in inhumations. For dental
calculus, the microenvironment forms during life during the development of plaque and
then calculus. Plaque is an ephemeral film composed of food fragments, cellular debris,
5
minerals and bacteria. Plaque mineralizes into dental calculus. The calculus
microenvironment represents microfossil accumulation and preservation. The
microfossils, including starch and phytoliths, are encapsulated in dental calculus matrix
and survive in inhumation environments. Such remains can survive in harsh preservation
environments. For example, Brazilian sambaquis (shell mound monuments) are
notoriously poor environments for plant microfossil preservation. However, plant
microfossils are consistently found in sambaqui cemeteries through recovery and analysis
of dental calculus.
The abdominal region is another inhumation environment that has long
recognized potential for diet and disease data preservation. This microenvironment is
less discrete than dental calculus because intestinal contents disperse into surrounding
sediment matrices as the body decomposes. Published method papers emphasize the
importance of the sediment within the pelvic girdle and especially the sediment in contact
with the sacrum (Reinhard et al., 1992; Berg, 2001; Reinhard and Bryant, 2007). In rare
instances, coprolites have been found within the pelvic cavity (Shafer et al., 1989;
Reinhard et al., 2003). The sacrum has been likened to a “bowl” that inhibits the
dispersion of colon contents into surrounding sediment (Reinhard et al. 1992). Visible
fecal remains are not usually obvious during excavation. However, processing sediment
from the pelvic cavity or from the anterior surface of the sacrum reveals the presence of
seeds, starch grains, phytoliths, pollen, and other types of residues of dietary and
medicinal importance (Reinhard et al. 1992; Berg 2001).
When graves are excavated, field procedures should be conducted with
consideration of laboratory analyses. As stated by Reinhard and Bryant (2009) “Failures
6
during the recovery phase, or the use of improper sampling strategies, will compromise
the ability to provide valid interpretations. In addition, inhumation sampling must
include control samples from the inhumation fill and surrounding contexts.” These
researchers go on to emphasize the importance of control samples. All interpretations of
disease and diet data from the pelvic cavity are dependent on reference to remains
recovered from control samples. Only when differences are found between the control
samples and pelvic samples can details of diet and disease be inferred. With regard to
parasitic disease, parasite eggs can be recovered and analyzed to identify the worm
species that parasitized the intestinal tracts of humans.
Analysis of latrines for parasite remains provides epidemiological information
about historic populations. Herrmann and Schulz in 1986 first defined these
epidemiological considerations of latrine analysis. They pointed out that a latrine rarely
represents the complete cross section of an entire community. More commonly, and in
my experience, a latrine represents a subset of a community. This can range from a
family household (Reinhard 2000), to the clientele of a restaurant or store (Reinhard et al.
2008), the guests hotel (Yamin et al. 2004), to workers at a boarding house (Reinhard
1996), to soldiers in a military facility (Higgins et al. 1995), to practitioners using a
specific religious building (Reinhard et al. 2008). Once the subset represented by the
latrine is identified, comparisons with other similar subsets is possible. For example,
household diet and disease can be compared across socioeconomic strata (Fisher et al.
2007). Therefore, it is important to know who used a latrine. The household level is the
most commonly studied population subset in historic archaeoparasitology.
7
Relative to parasitology, microfossil analysis of latrine dietary remains is less
commonly called for. Usually, zooarchaeological and macrobotanical analysis is
employed in the analysis of latrines. However, analysis of starch and pollen provides
evidence of starch sources and floral sources of food. Spices such as cloves, vegetables
such as broccoli, and condiments such as honey become evident in pollen analysis.
Tuber starches such as potato, and grain starches such as maize are evidenced in starch
analysis. Pollen can be used to identify the strata within latrine features that are derived
from nightsoil since pollen of dietary sources are especially abundant in nightsoils.
When macrofloral and microfloral analysis are completed for latrines, an especially
detailed picture of floral diet emerges (Yamin et al., 2002, 2004).
Analysis of inhumations and latrines from the same site offers greater details of
diet and disease. Analysis of the latrines provides an unbiased list of the parasite species
and food microfossils that might be recovered from inhumations. Inhumation data can be
a biased source of information. Inhumations should represent a specific subset of the
inhabitants of a site; a subset that would include a higher number of people who were
ailing. Therefore, the numbers of infections could be elevated and more medicinal plant
taxa might be present in the inhumation sediments. A cautionary study comes from
Shafer et al. (1989) who report on the analysis of sediments from a Mimbres inhumation.
The sediments contained corn ground to smaller fragments than ever noted in previous
studies. The pollen analysis revealed a dominance of medicinal plants. Therefore, this
individual could not be considered to represent the normal diet for Mimbres people.
One goal of modern parasitological study is to measure the incidence and
prevalence of infection. Prevalence refers to the number of people infected out of a
8
known population at a specified time. Incidence is the measured risk of infection in a
defined population over a specific time. In archaeoparasitology and the analysis of
inhumations, we can not approach measuring these modern epidemiological terms.
However, a inhumation population can provide us with good epidemiological date regard
the proportion of deaths associated with parasite infection (Martinson et al., 2003).
Parasitologists have observed repeatedly that most parasites of a given species are found
in just a few individuals of the host parasite species. Thus, parasite infections are
clumped which means that the majority of parasite infections are concentrated in a small
subset of hosts. Generally speaking, ten percent of a host population will have 70 to 90
percent of the infections. This can be quantified in inhumation populations (Reinhard
and Buikstra 2003). Therefore, in ideal preservation, inhumations can provide useful
parasitological data that can be modeled in a more general way than the unachievable
goals of incidence and prevalence used by epidemiologists.
Sacrum and latrine sediments are environments that promote good to ideal
preservation. Therefore, such sediments contain an abundance of parasite eggs, pollen
grains, and starch granules. The exine (outer shell) of pollen grains preserves in perfect
form through the human digestive tract. Coprolite samples typically contain thousands to
millions of pollen grains per gram. Inhumation sediment and latrine deposits typically
have fewer pollen grains due to mixture with surrounding inhumation fill. However, the
typical latrine sample or sacral sample contains tens of thousands of pollen grains.
Parasitic worms, collectively known as helminths, are remarkably fecund. The
most common helminth of humans is Ascaris lumbricoides. A typical female lays
200,000 eggs per day from a uterus that contains as many as 5,000,000 eggs. The second
9
most common human helminth, Trichuris trichiura, lays 20,000 eggs per day per female.
Hookworms lay thousands of eggs per day. The amazingly high production of resistance
eggs results in high concentrations of eggs from latrines and inhumations. The
concentration of eggs is so high in inhumations that eggs have been recovered from sacra
even after cleaning and curation in museums (Fugassa et al. 2007). Sediments from
latrines used by infected people typically have thousands of eggs per milliliter.
Therefore, the recovery of microfossils has great potential in historic archaeology.
Starch has not been quantified from latrines or inhumation sediments yet. I have
analyzed Chiribaya mummies from Peru and found an abundance of starch. Analysis of
Chilean coprolites (Vinton et al., in press) shows that thousands to millions of starch
granules are present per gram. However, my analysis of 10 latrines for starch granules
reveals that starch is relatively rare in latrine sediments relative to coprolites and mummy
intestinal contents. Considering the excellent preservation and yield of parasites eggs and
pollen grains in most latrine sediments, it is surprising that starch is relatively rare. This
may be due to the aerobic environment of latrines that promotes fungal decomposition of
organic remains.
The summary of recovery potential of microfossils above relates to ecological
zones that are conducive to good preservation. However, some environments do not
promote the preservation of microfossils.
To explore the potential of inhumations and latrine for recovery of diet and
disease date, sediment samples from the Joint Courts Site in Tucson were examined.
Two samples were submitted from each inhumation: a control sample and a sacrum
10
sample. From the latrines, multiple samples were submitted from different strata. This
was an ideal sampling strategy.
11
LABORATORY MATERIALS AND METHODS
The contracted work specified only parasitological analysis for the inhumations
and most of the latrines. However, to evaluate the preservation potential of the
sediments, I proceeded with macrofossil recovery for all samples and microfossil analysis
for a subset of samples that showed the best preservation potential.
Preliminary Steps
All sediment samples from inhumations were checked for evidence of human
bone. This was a necessary and time-consuming exercise. Each sample was screened
through a 2.0 mm mesh and the separated remains on top of the screens were examined
for trabecular bone or cortical bone.
Archaeoparasitological methods were developed by Reinhard et al. (1988) based
on multidisciplinary analysis of sediments from Providence, Rhode Island (Reinhard et
al. 1986). Later, Warnock and Reinhard (1992) formalized a method for simultaneous
recovery of seeds, parasite eggs and pollen grains from the same samples. Later research
by other archaeoparasitologists (Bain 2001; Mitchel et al. 2008) confirm the utility of the
methods described below for latrine sediments. In general, I use the methods of Warnock
and Reinhard (1992) with some refinements. I have found that eliminating the sonication
procedure of Warnock and Reinhard (1992), and reducing the amount of sediment
processed improves the processing results.
Carbonates are dissolved with hydrochloric acid, and silicates are dissolved with
hydrofluoric acid. These acids do not damage parasite eggs or larvae. Starch grains are
not damaged either. Therefore, parasitological analysis and starch analysis are done after
the hydrofluoric acid treatment. The next stage, acetolysis, destroys cellulose, starch, and
12
parasite larvae and some parasite eggs. However, pollen preserves through acetolysis
which facilitates pollen analysis.
To calculate the concentrations of microfossils in samples of sediment, I add
known number of Lycopodium spores into the samples (Reinhard et al. 2006). Three
Lycopodium spore tablets are place in each of five 350 ml beakers. For this analysis,
Lycopodium spore batch 212761 was used. Previous analysis shows that approximately
12,500 spores are present in each tablet. The tablets are dissolved in ten drops of
hydrochloric acid.
Preliminary Processing
While the tablets dissolved, 30 milliliters of fine sediment are removed from each
sample bag. When the Lycopodium spore tablets are completely dissolved, the 30 ml
sediment samples from each archaeological sample are added to the respective beakers
and labeled with that sample’s assigned laboratory number. Preliminary observations are
made. Then 5 drops of 40% hydrochloric acid are added to test whether or not the
samples needed to be treated with this acid. If a reaction results, then the sample is
treated with HCl until the reaction stops. More distilled water is added when the reaction
between the acid and the carbonates in the sediment stopped.
Once dissolved in acid, the samples are transferred to 300-milliliter beakers and
treated with the swirl technique. The contents of the beakers are swirled until all particles
are in suspension. The beakers are placed on a flat surface for 30 seconds. After 30
seconds, the fluid from the beakers is poured through 250-micrometer mesh screens into
600 ml beakers labeled with the appropriate lab numbers. This was repeated thrice. The
13
benefit of the swirl technique is that heavy, non-organic particles are removed from the
sample and macrofossils such as seeds are recovered on the screen.
Macrofossil Analysis
The macrofossils on the screens are examined for indicators of nightsoils for
latrines and dietary seeds for inhumations. I have found from the analysis of over two
hundred latrines from historic sites that the presence of Rubus seeds is a prime indicator
of night soils (Reinhard 1994). This has been supported by other researchers as reviewed
by Bain (2001). Dietary seeds can also be recovered from inhumations (Berg et al.
2001). The screened macroscopic remains are dried and transferred to Petri plates
marked with 1 cm grids. The seeds and other macroremains are distributed over the grids
and are counted.
Parasitological Analysis
Then the screened fluids in the 600 ml beakers are concentrated by centrifugation
in 50 ml centrifuge tubes. The sediments are washed three times in distilled water. Then
the sediments are transferred into labeled 500-milliliter polypropylene beakers. Fifty
milliliters of 48% hydrofluoric acid are added to each beaker and the sediments are
thoroughly mixed in the acid. The samples are left in the hydrofluoric acid for 24 hours
and are stirred occasionally during this period. Then the sediments are concentrated by
centrifugation in 50-milliliter centrifuge tubes. The sediments in the tubes are then
washed many times in distilled water until the supernatant is clear.
For archaeoparasitological analysis, drops of the sediments are transferred to glass
microscope slides with Pasteur pipettes. The sediment drops are mixed with glycerin and
covered with glass cover slips. A minimum of 6 preparations is examined and at least 25
14
Lycopodium spores are counted for each sediment sample. Parasite eggs and added
Lycopodium spores are counted. The concentrations of eggs are determined by the ratio
of eggs to the known number Lycopodium spores added to the samples. Identification of
the genera of the parasite eggs is done by morphological analysis. In the case of trichurid
eggs, the dimensions of the eggs are measured and compared to those of trichurid species
from a variety of hosts including humans, domestic animals, and rodents that commonly
infest habitations.
During archaeoparasitological analysis, the presence of starch and pollen is noted.
Also, general observations regarding the nature and content of the remains are made.
Starch Analysis
The sediments are then examined for starch grains using 250 and 400
magnification with polarized light. The grains are identified by comparison to my
collection of known starch grains from tubers and seeds. Three starch slides are counted
for each sample. The starch of cultivated plants can be identified based on longstanding
nutritional and botanical references (Wivinis and Maywald 1967). For lab samples 1100, 12 slides from each sample were examined for starch. This was time intensive and
not really productive. For samples 101-246, 3 slides from each sample were examined
for starch.
Pollen Analysis
After archaeoparasitological and starch analyses are completed, the samples are
processed for pollen. During the archaeoparasitological analysis, I noticed degraded
pollen grains. I adjusted the pollen recovery procedure accordingly. The tubes are
centrifuged and the water is poured out. Glacial acidic acid is added to the tubes. The
15
tubes are stirred until all particles are in suspension. Then the tubes are centrifuged and
the acidic acid is poured into a waste disposal container. Then, acetolysis solution (8
parts acetic anhydride to 1 part sulfuric acid) is added to each of the tubes. The tubes are
stirred and placed in water baths at 99 degrees Celsius for 3 minutes. The tubes are
transferred to cool water baths, 20 degrees Celsius for 3 minutes. I have found that this
method results in better recovery of degraded pollen than longer treatments in hot
solution. The tubes are centrifuged and the acetolysis solution is poured into a waste
disposal container. The sediments are then washed with glacial acidic acid and
subsequently with distilled water until the supernatant is clear in each tube. Then
microscope slides are prepared and examined at 400 power of magnification. Pollen
types are identified based on published keys, my reference collection, and past
experience. An attempt is made to achieve a 200 grain count for every sample.
Pollen grains are classified as “pristine”, “good”, “degraded”, or “unidentifiable”.
Pristine grains are those that are perfectly preserved. Good grains are intact in shape,
ornamentation, and aperturation but show some slight deformation. Degraded grains are
exhibited one or a combination of eroded surface structure, folding, rupture of the wall,
or fragmentation. Degraded grains are still identifiable to a taxon. Unidentifiable grains
are so eroded, folded, torn, and/or fragmented that they could not be identified.
Quantification
Concentrations of parasites, pollen grains, and starch grains are calculated with
the following formula:
Microfossil concentration = ((f/m) x e )/ v
16
f = microfossils counted, m = marker Lycopodium spores counted, e = Lycopodium
spores added, and v = volume of sediment.
RESULTS
General Observations
The preliminary classification of the inhumation sediments shows that the sacrum
samples have a higher organic content than the controls. The samples are classified as
organic-rich, decomposed organic-rich, silty, sandy, or ashy (Figure 1). Organic-rich
refers to the preservation of fiber and other plant tissues in recognizable form.
Decomposed organic-rich samples contain an abundance of plant organic residue but the
general form is decomposed. Silty and sandy classifications refer to the size of
incompletely dissolved silicious particles. Silty samples are dominated by fine particulate
matter, less than one micrometer is size. Sandy samples are dominated by larger particles
of sand that did not dissolve in acid. Ashy samples are dominated by microscopic
charcoal fragments. Thirty-four of 110 (31%) sacral samples were organic-rich and 42
(38%) were decomposed organic. Twenty sacral samples were silty (18%), 11 (10%)
were sandy, and three (3%) were ashy. Of 110 control samples, ten (9%) were organicrich, 25 (23%) were decomposed organic, 42 (38%) were silty, 27 (25%) were sandy, and
6 (5%) were ashy. Therefore, for most inhumations, there was a strong contrast between
the organic content between control and sacrum samples. This shows that the field
sampling methods were generally successful in recovering organic remains from within
the pelvic girdle.
The preservation potential of the samples analyzed so far is presented in Table 5.
Seventy-five inhumations have good preservation potential and the paucity of parasites in
17
these inhumations represents remarkably low infection levels. The remaining 35
inhumations represent moderate to poor preservation and the paucity of eggs could easily
be due to edaphic conditions that resulted in decomposition of eggs.
The latrine samples were variable. The three samples from latrine feature 650
were very sandy with few organics. The samples from latrine feature 734 were
dominated by ash with sand and silt. One sample, lab 60, from latrine feature 3040 was
organic-rich. The other four samples from this feature were ashy or sandy. The samples
from latrine features 3042 and 10099 were ashy with some sand. The preservation of the
samples from latrine feature 16500 was generally good except for lab sample 69 which
was dominated by ash. The samples from latrine feature 22355 were all excellent with
regard to microscopic organic content.
Parasitology
No parasite eggs were found in any latrine sediments, even those that contained
abundant evidence of night-soil origin. Therefore, the evidence shows that intestinal
worms were rarely, if ever, a problem for the subset of historic Tucsonians represented by
the latrine samples. The presence of insects and small mammal bone in some control
samples suggests that organisms entered the inhumations. These could introduced
parasite eggs into the inhumations.
The numbers of eggs found in the inhumations were low and the eggs were not in
perfect preservation. With such data, care must be taken not to over-interpret the finds.
Sample 11, inhumation 7552-9623, contained one object that was consistent with a
decorticated egg of Ascaris lumbricoides (Figure 2). Eggs of this species have an oval
chitin shell surrounded by a protein coat. An egg is said to be decorticated when the
18
protein coat is lost. This egg is of the same size and morphology as A. lumbricoides.
However, normally thousands of eggs are present in archaeological deposits. I could find
only one egg even after extensive examination of many additional microscope
preparations. Therefore, I am unconvinced that this single egg represents a true infection.
Two trematode fluke eggs were found in sample 19, inhumation 7935-18847.
The egg morphology is suggested of a Paragonimus species of lung fluke, or an
Echinostoma species of intestinal fluke or Dicrocoelium species of liver fluke. Eggs
range are 42x27 micrometers; too small for Echinostoma or Paragonimus. However,
they are well within the size range of Dicrocoelium dentriticum, the eggs of which range
36-45 micrometers by 22 to 30 micrometers. Sheep, cattle, goats, and pigs are the normal
definitive hosts form D. dentriticum. Definitive hosts are animals in which the parasite
carries out sexual reproduction. For, D. dentriticum, there are two intermediate hosts.
The first is a land snail, Cionella lubrica. The snails eat the eggs of D. dentriticum which
hatch in the snail. A stage of asexual reproduction occurs in the snail and then D.
dentriticum larvae, called cercaria, are passed from the snail to the environment in slime
balls. Ants eat the slime balls and the cercaria encyst in ants in a form called
metacercaria. The metacercaria alter the ants’s behavior such that the ants migrate to the
tips of grass stems and affix themselves to the stems with their mandibles. The definitive
hosts eat the ants with grass. The flukes migrate to the liver where the adults form.
Humans can become infected by eating ants. This is very rare. More often,
humans who eat infected liver pass the D. dentriticum eggs in their feces. I believe that
the D. dentriticum most likely represents a false infection due to the consumption of
19
infected liver. However, the individual in inhumation 7935-18847 could also have
suffered a true infection.
Sample 175, inhumation 7853-16850, contained one trematode egg, 31µm x 24
µm in longest and shortest dimension. This egg is not consistent with flukes that infect
humans. This egg of a fluke that parasitized a non-human animal could have entered this
sacral sample from the colon contents of the inhumation or from inhumation fill.
Sample 186, inhumation 10138-23296, contained a distorted trichurid egg, 31µm
x 22µm in longest and shortest dimension. These measurements are much too small for
the whipworm that infects humans, Trichuris trichiura. This is a contaminant from burial
fill.
Macrofossils
Macroscopic remains were very poorly preserved. The control samples were
critical for determining what were the common background remains. The most common
background remains were wood fragments. The focus of the analysis was on identifying
any non-wood plant tissue exclusive to the sacrum samples. Excluding wood as the
origin of sacrum plant tissue became relatively easy. However, identifying the non-wood
sacrum plant fiber was usually impossible, other than to note fiber that was consistent in
form with what typically is found in coprolites, latrines, mummy intestinal tract contents
or other fecal sources in archaeological sites.
Macrofossils of dietary origin, or probable dietary origin were found in 38 sacrum
samples. These were dominated by plant fibers. However, seeds and plant epidermis
were noted in a few (Tables 2 and 5). The following inhumations have macrofossil
evidence of dietary residue: 3277-6933, 3283-7080, 5213-8856, 709-13422, 7529-8941,
20
7608-14911, 7666-14557, 7683-14609, 7690-14652, 7713-14826, 7719-16736, 778613337, 7814-14608, 7831-14974, 7833-18562, 7835-16920, 7843-16989, 7856-10454,
7858-18560, 7862-18599, 7883-18830, 7884-17429, 7903-21756, 7917-18925, 791818955, 7935-18847, 7945-18923, 7955-18965, 7978-19540, 10081-10206, 10103-11970,
10321-30790, 12495-13246, and 13541-21826. The provenience information for
several samples was not recorded in the specimen list sent to me. Four sacrum samples
from this group have dietary residue. These samples are represented by field specimen
numbers 15921, 25759, 26409 and 30652.
Seeds of dietary origin were found in some latrine samples. Latrine feature/levels
3040/2 and 16500/11 contained Rubus seeds and unknown seeds. The sample from
7935-18847 contained fiber.
Starch
A search for starch was completed for 12 microscopic slides for samples 1-150,
and three slides for samples 151-246. As noted in Materials and Methods, the
examination of 12 slides was excessively time consuming.
Starch was observed in all types of samples: latrines, control, and sacral (Tables 3
and 4). A diversity of types was found (Figure 3). Maize was the most common.
However, potato and wheat were found as well as manioc (Manihot esculenta). When
manioc was found in inhumation contexts, it was found in the control samples. Another
common name for manioc is tapioca. Starch of this type has more than just dietary uses.
Manioc starch was used in laundry and also glue. Therefore, I suspect that the limited
finds of manioc in the inhumation samples came from starched clothing or glue.
21
In inhumations, eleven sacral samples were positive for maize starch and seven
control samples were positive for maize starch. However, the concentrations of starch
were so low in inhumations that I hesitate to interpret the evidence as dietary in origin. I
believe that the most parsimonious interpretation of the maize starch is that starch from
sources surrounding the cemetery entered the inhumation pits when they were originally
excavated. Potato starch also appears in control samples and sacral samples. Therefore,
potato starch also appears to be an ambient introduction into the inhumation sediments.
Starch in latrines spiked in those samples that were positive for macroscopic seeds
and fiber. Only maize, wheat and manioc occur in the latrines. Maize is most common.
The fact that some maize starch granules are altered by heat suggests that the maize
starch in samples from 3040/2, 16500/7, and 16500/11 had a dietary origin.
Microfossil Fiber Residue
The majority of inhumations exhibited microscopic evidence of plant fibers or
partly decomposed plant tissue in the sacral samples but not the control samples (Tables 3
and 5, Figure 4). These microscopic remains are too tiny for specific identification
except for sample 89, inhumation 18098, which contained curved microscopic fibers
similar, in my experience, to mesquite.
Pollen
The pollen analysis of 40 samples is on-going. Preliminary observations show
that some inhumations contain a diversity of pollen (Table 6, Figure 5). Cheno-am pollen
is very common and was found in 31 inhumation samples, both control and sacrum. This
pollen type is clearly a background type that entered the sediments from some ambient
source. Large clumps of cheno-am pollen were found in samples 19, 20, 41, 81 and 93
22
and may indicate dietary use of pigweed or goosefoot. Two inhumations contain a wider
variety of pollen types and further work may recover pollen from even more inhumations.
Latrine samples, in general, have excellent pollen preservation. However, the
preservation of pollen in the Joint Courts latrine samples was characterized by partially
decomposed grains (Table 6). The counts are dominated by degraded tricolpate,
degraded tricolporate, and pollen fragments classified as unidentifiable. Some types that
are common to latrines throughout the US include Brassicaceae (consistent with
broccoli), Fagopyrum (buckwheat), stephanoporate Lamiaceae (consistent with mint),
Trifolium (clover-type pollen), Poaceae – large (possible from cultivated grains),
Rosaceae – Fragaria (consistent with strawberry), and Zea mays (maize). I am
continuing to count pollen from more latrine and inhumation samples.
DISCUSSION
The sample size of sediment samples submitted for archaeoparasitological
analysis was large enough to identify parasite infections. Sediments from seventy-five
inhumations showed sufficient preservation of organics for parasite eggs recovery. No
definite infections with common human intestinal worms were found. One burial
contained a possible ascarid parasite egg, one burial contained possible eggs of an
infective fluke, and two burials contained eggs of parasites non-infective to humans. I
conclude that the Tucson population sample represented by these inhumations was
remarkable free of intestinal parasite infection.
The absence of parasites is verified by the latrine sediment analysis. No human
intestinal parasite eggs were found. I have analyzed sediments from over 100 latrines
from a variety of urban and rural settings. These sites have been from California, Alaska,
23
Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska. I have consistently found parasite eggs in latrine
samples from town sites. Only farms in rural settings can be parasite free. It is surprising
then that Tucson latrine samples are free of intestinal parasite eggs. One would expect
that emigrants would bring their parasite infections to Tucson and leave some trace of
those infections in latrines even if the parasites did not cycle in Tucson itself.
Immigrant populations transfer parasites from one locality to another. For
example, 19th century latrines excavated in San Bernardino contained eggs of Chinese
liver flukes that arrived with Chinese immigrants (Reinhard et al. 2008). I have found
whipworm eggs transferred to Alaska with gold miners (Cooper 1998). These parasites
could not complete their life cycles naturally in these places, but the arrival of infected
immigrants resulted in the deposition of eggs in the local archaeological record. I would
anticipate that immigrants arriving in Tucson dispersed infective eggs into Tucson, but an
infection cycle was not established to perpetuate infection in the town.
Thus, there appears to have been barriers to the establishment of intestinal
parasite transmission in Tucson. Foremost would have been effective sanitation systems.
A simple latrine system is effective if the system is used by the population. I believe that
parasite infection at 19th century Five Points, New York was due to the fact that although
effective latrines were built and used by some households, not all individuals used them
(Reinhard 2000). Latrine systems do not work where environmental conditions result in
the flooding of latrines or mixture of latrine effluent with drinking water sources. The
analysis of the Albany, New York latrine system showed that the drains from the latrines
passed eggs into the environment (Fisher et al. 2007). Latrine systems also fail if
24
nightsoil from the latrines is used to fertilize yard gardens as was shown to be the case in
Revolutionary War period Newport, Rhode Island (Reinhard et al. 1987). Failure will
also result from simple systems that do not adequately separate feces from surrounding
sediments. In an unpublished report, I found that the early colonies of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania used barrel latrines. These were not deep enough to prevent contamination
of the environment with eggs and also spaces apparently opened between the staves and
parasite eggs leaked into the surrounding soils as shown by control samples. The
absence of eggs in the Tucson latrines shows that the sanitation system was adequate to
separate feces from the environment.
The environment of Tucson may have not been completely favorable for the
transmission of parasites. Whipworm eggs embryonate best in warm, moist, shaded soils.
Ascaris roundworms are only partially resistant to desiccation. Therefore, Tucson’s
environment make have limited the infectivity of eggs that may have escaped the latrine
sanitation system. Thus, sanitation and environment are the two aspects of Tucson in the
late 19th century that limited infection.
25
REFERENCES
Bain A (2001) Archaeoentomological and Archaeoparasitological Reconstructions at Îlot
Hunt (Ceet-110), Quebec, Canada: New perspectives in historical archaeology (18501900) BAR S973.
Boyadjian CHC, Eggers S, Reinhard K (2007) Dental wash: a problematic method for
extracting microfossils from teeth. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 1622-1628.
Jones, AKG (1979) Parasite Remains from "Oslogate 7". In, E Schia (ed): De
Arkeologiske Utgravninger i Gamlebyen, Oslo Volume 2. Akademisk Forlag:Alvheim
and Eide. pp.138-139.
Cooper, D.C. (1998) Archeological Investigations in Skagway, Residential Life on Block
39, Vol 6, 21 p, U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Klondike Gold Rush
National Historical Park, Skagway, AK.
Jones AKG (1982) Human parasite remains: prospects for a quantitative approach. In AR
Hall and HK Kenward (eds): Environmental Archaeology in the Urban Context. The
Council for British Archaeology, Research Report no. 1. pp. 66-70.
Jones AKG (1985) Trichurid Ova in Archaeological Deposits: Their Value as Indicators
of Ancient Feces. In NJR Fieller, DD Gilbertson and NGA Ralph (eds): Paleobiological
Investigations: Research Design, Methods and Data Analysis, BAR International Series
266. Oxford:British Archaeological Reports. pp. 105-114.
Herrmann B (1985) Parasitologisch-Epidemiologische Auswertungen mittelalterliche
Kloaken. Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 13:131-161.
26
Herrmann B (1986) Parasitologische Untersuchung mittelalterlicher Kloaken. In B
Herrmann (ed): Mensch und Umwelt im Mittelalter. Stuttgart:Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt.
pp. 161-169.
Herrmann B, Schulz U (1986) Parasitologische Untersuchungen eines SpätmittelalterlichFrühneuzeitlichen Kloakeninhaltes aus der Fronerei auf dem Schrangen in Lübeck.
Lübecker Schriften zur Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte 12: 167-172.
Higgins III TF, Downing CM, Stuck KE, Brown GJ, Reinhard KJ (1995) The Civil War
at Gloucester Point: Mitigation of Site 44GL358, Gloucester County, Virginia. College of
William and Mary Technical Report 19.
Higgins III TF, Downing CM, Bradshaw JM, Reinhard KJ, Brown GJ, Davenport DL,
Rovner I (1993) The Evolution of an Early Tidewater Town: Phase III Data Recovery at
Sites 44HT38 and 44HT39, City of Hampton, Virginia vol.1. College of William and
Mary Technical Report Series 12.
Raymer LE, Reinhard KJ (2006) Paleoethnobotany and Parasitology of Area F.
Appendix IV in (J. Gerhardt) Life on the Philadelphia Waterfront 1687-1826: A Report
on the 1977 Archeological Investigation of the Area F Site, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
West Chester: John Milner Associates. pp.373-448.
Reinhard KJ (2004) Archaeoparasitological analysis of sediments from the Pearl Street
Excavations. In Pearl Street Reconstruction Part I: Archaeological Mitigation Report,
Pearl Street from Madison avenue to Pine Street, City of Albany, Albany County, New
York. New York Division of Research and Collection, Cultural Resources Survey
Program. pp. 93-97.
27
Reinhard KJ (2001) Pollen analysis of the Miles Brewton House. In (M. Zierden ed.)
Archaeology at the Miles Brewton House, 27 King Street. Archaeological Contributions
29: Charleston Museum. pp.197-210.
Reinhard KJ (2000) Parasitic disease at Five Points: Parasitological Analysis of
Sediments from the Courthouse Block. In (R. Yamin, ed.) Tales of Five Points: Working
Class Life in Nineteenth-Century New York, Volume II, An Interpretive Approach to
Understanding Working Class Life. West Chester: John Milner Associates. pp.391-404.
Reinhard KJ (1999) Parasitological Analysis of the Brush-Everard Site, Williamsburg,
Virginia Archaeological Investigations at the Brush-Everard Site, Williamsburg, Virginia
by Patricia Samford. Colonial Williamsburg Research Publications. Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation. pp. 159-162.
Reinhard KJ (1994) Sanitation and parasitism at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. Journal of
Historic Archaeology 28:62-67.
Reinhard KJ (1988) Pollen and Parasite Analysis of the Peyton Randolph Site,
Williamsburg, Virginia. In Archaeology of the Peyton Randolph Houselot. Andrew
Edwards, Linda K. Derry and Roy A. Jackson. Draft report on file at the Department of
Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.
Reinhard KJ (1986) Palynological and Parasitological Investigations of Soils from
Tazewell Hall, Williamsburg, Virginia. In Archaeological Excavations on the Tazewell
Hall Property. Patricia Samford, Gregory Brown and Ann Smart. Report on file at the
Department of Archaeological Research. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg, VA.
28
Reinhard KJ and Bryant VM (2007) Burials, Dietary and Parasitological Sampling
Methods. In (D Pearsall ed) Encyclopedia of Archaeology. Elsevier Press: New York.
Section 41.
Reinhard K, Confalonieri UE, Herrmann B, Ferreira LF, Araujo A (1988) Recovery of
parasite eggs from coprolites and latrines: aspects of paleoparasiological technique.
Homo 37: 217- 239.
Reinhard KJ, Souza SMF, Rodrigues CD, Kimmerle E, Dorsey-Vinton S (2001)
Microfossils in Dental Calculus: A New Perspective on Diet and Dental Disease. In (E.
Williams, ed.) Human Remains: Conservation, Retrieval, and Analysis. British
Archaeology Research Council: London. pp. 113-118
Sommer JD (1999) The Shanidar IV 'Flower Burial': A re-evaluation of Neanderthal
burial ritual. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(1):127-129.
Witenberg G (1961) Human parasites in archaeological findings. Bulletin if the Israeli
Exploration Society 25: 86.
Wesolowski V, Souza SFM, Reinhard K, Ceccantini (2007) Grânulos de amido e fitólitos
em cálculos dentários humanos: contribuição ao estudo do modo de vida e subsistência
de grupos sambaquianos do litoral sul do Brasil. Revista do Museu de Arqueologia e
Etnologia 17:191-210.
Wivinis GP, Maywald EC (1967) Photographs of Starches. In: Starch:Chemistry and
Technology. ed. Roy L. Whistler and Eugene F. Paschall. Academic Press. New York
and London.
Yamin R, Bartlett AB, Benedict TL, Gerhardt J, Milner C, Raymer LE, Reinhard KJ,
Tobias NS (2004) After the Revolution, Two Shops on South Sixth Street, Archeological
29
Data Recovery on Block 1 of Independence Mall. Report on file at Independence
National Historical Park,
Philadelphia.
Yamin R, Bartlett AB, Benedict TL, Pitts RH, Raymer LE, Reinhard KJ (2002) Hudson’s
Square-A Place Through Time, Independence Mall. Report prepared Milner Associates,
Inc., Philadelphia.
30
Table 1: Provenience Information and laboratory goals per sample. Inhumations include
lab numbers 1-48 and 75 onward. For inhumations, odd numbers are pelvic samples,
even numbers are controls. Abbreviations: Fea.= feature number; mls.= number of
milliliters sampled; Macro = macroscopic search accomplished; Starch = starch analysis
completed; (12 slides were scanned for starch for numbers 1-150 and 3 slides for 151246). Parasite = parasite analysis completed; Pollen = palynological analysis completed.
The notation “not found” refers to bag numbers that were not listed in the packing list.
For lab number 97, the bag number is inconsistent with the provenience number in the
packing list.
Lab
Field
Fea.
mls.
Macro
Starch
Parasite
#
#
1
Pollen
11721
7617-11613
30
X
X
X
2
11722
7617-11613
30
X
X
X
3
18601
7862-18599
30
X
X
X
X
4
18602
7862-18599
30
X
X
X
X
5
12859
7797-13206
30
X
X
X
6
12860
7797-13206
30
X
X
X
7
12613
7609-11802
30
X
X
X
8
12614
7609-11802
30
X
X
X
9
16411
7945-18923
30
X
X
X
X
10
16410
7945-18923
30
X
X
X
X
11
11241
7552-9623
30
X
X
X
12
11242
7552-9623
30
X
X
X
31
13
18469
7944-19513
30
X
X
X
14
18470
7944-19513
30
X
X
X
15
19637
7978-19540
30
X
X
X
X
16
19638
7978-19540
30
X
X
X
X
17
19346
7918-18955
30
X
X
X
18
19345
7918-18955
30
X
X
X
19
19143
7935-18847
30
X
X
X
X
20
19141
7935-18847
30
X
X
X
X
21
14941
7690-14652
30
X
X
X
22
14942
7690-14652
30
X
X
X
23
16049
7831-14974
30
X
X
X
24
16048
7831-14974
30
X
X
X
25
18899
7936-18857
30
X
X
X
26
18900
7936-18857
30
X
X
X
27
15564
7683-14609
15
X
X
X
28
15565
7683-14609
20
X
X
X
29
16771
7719-16736
30
X
X
X
30
16772
7719-16736
30
X
X
X
31
15921
not found
30
X
X
X
X
32
15922
not found
30
X
X
X
X
33
15465
7803-16869
30
X
X
X
34
15466
7803-16869
30
X
X
X
35
12526
7584-11612
30
X
X
X
32
36
12527
7584-11612
30
X
X
X
37
17052
7839-16821
30
X
X
X
X
38
17051
7839-16821
30
X
X
X
X
39
18704
not found
30
X
X
X
40
18705
not found
30
X
X
X
41
8371
5196-8659
30
X
X
X
42
8372
5196-8659
30
X
X
X
43
9421
7529-8941
30
X
X
X
X
44
9422
7529-8941
30
X
X
X
X
45
15750
7678-14960
30
X
X
X
X
46
16084
7678-14960
30
X
X
X
X
47
30035
10312-30013
30
X
X
X
X
48
30036
10312-30013
30
X
X
X
X
49
10628
650, L1
30
X
X
X
X
50
10640
650, L2
30
X
X
X
X
51
10641
650, L3
30
X
X
X
X
52
4666
734
30
X
X
X
53
4667
734
30
X
X
X
54
4668
734
30
X
X
X
55
4669
734
30
X
X
X
56
4671
734
30
X
X
X
57
10706
3040
30
X
X
X
58
10716
3040, L6
30
X
X
X
33
59
10718
3040, L7
30
X
X
X
60
27081
3040, L2
30
X
X
X
61
27082
3040, L3
30
X
X
X
62
27097
3042, L2
30
X
X
X
63
27098
3042, L3
30
X
X
X
64
27099
3042, L4
30
X
X
X
65
27033
10099, L6
30
X
X
X
66
27183
16500, L7
30
X
X
X
X
67
27184
16500, L8
30
X
X
X
X
68
27185
16500, L9
30
X
X
X
X
69
27186
16500, L10
30
X
X
X
X
70
27187
16500, L11
30
X
X
X
X
71
10982
22355, L3
30
X
X
X
X
72
10983
22355, L4
30
X
X
X
X
73
10984
22355, L5
30
X
X
X
X
74
10891
22355, L2
30
X
X
X
X
75
11550
7557-9729
30
X
X
X
76
11551
7557-9729
30
X
X
X
77
12914
7787-13390
12
X
X
X
78
12915
7787-13390
30
X
X
X
79
13341
not found
30
X
X
X
80
13342
not found
30
X
X
X
81
13895
7798-14681
30
X
X
X
34
82
13896
7798-14681
30
X
X
X
83
17101
7685-16835
30
X
X
X
84
17102
7685-16835
30
X
X
X
85
17341
7858-18560
30
X
X
X
86
17342
7858-18560
30
X
X
X
87
18248
689-17416
30
X
X
X
88
17473
689-17416
30
X
X
X
89
18098
7843-16989
30
X
X
X
90
18099
7843-16989
20
X
X
X
91
18877
7883-18830
30
X
X
X
92
18876
7883-18830
30
X
X
X
93
19033
7928-18679
7
X
X
X
94
19034
7928-18679
17
X
X
X
95
19461
7955-18965
18
X
X
X
96
19460
7955-18965
15
X
X
X
97
24624? 13541-21826?
15
X
X
X
98
24625
13541-21826
30
X
X
X
99
30099
not found
30
X
X
X
100
30098
not found
30
X
X
X
101
5676
951-7017
30
X
X
X
102
5675
951-7017
30
X
X
X
103
6354
7568-9519
30
X
X
X
104
6355
7568-9519
30
X
X
X
35
105
6926
3358-6872
30
X
X
X
106
6927
3358-6872
30
X
X
X
107
7169
3277-6933
30
X
X
X
108
7170
3277-6933
30
X
X
X
109
7238
3311-6882
30
X
X
X
110
7239
3311-6882
30
X
X
X
111
7295
5167-7112
30
X
X
X
112
7296
5167-7112
30
X
X
X
113
8446
5214-8753
30
X
X
X
114
8447
5214-8753
30
X
X
X
115
8524
3246-6899
30
X
X
X
116
8525
3246-6899
30
X
X
X
117
8632
3280-7383
30
X
X
X
118
8633
3280-7383
30
X
X
X
119
8761
699-8696
30
X
X
X
120
8762
699-8696
30
X
X
X
121
8882
690-8877
30
X
X
X
122
8883
690-8877
30
X
X
X
123
9141
7524-5500
20
X
X
X
124
9142
7524-5500
30
X
X
X
125
9381
7504-9548
30
X
X
X
126
9382
7504-9548
30
X
X
X
127
9468
7587-9602
30
X
X
X
36
128
9469
7587-9602
30
X
X
X
129
9779
7526-8962
30
X
X
X
130
9780
7526-8962
30
X
X
X
131
10374
7709-16750
30
X
X
X
132
10375
7709-16750
30
X
X
X
133
11494
7600-11511
30
X
X
X
134
11495
7600-11511
30
X
X
X
135
12328
7610-11752
12
X
X
X
136
12329
7610-11752
15
X
X
X
137
14370
727-14540
30
X
X
X
138
14371
727-14540
30
X
X
X
139
14385
7666-14557
7
X
X
X
140
14386
7666-14557
20
X
X
X
141
14499
7786-13337
30
X
X
X
142
14500
7786-13337
30
X
X
X
143
14658
7814-14608
30
X
X
X
144
14659
7814-14608
30
X
X
X
145
14969
7608-14911
30
X
X
X
146
14970
7608-14911
30
X
X
X
147
16465
7917-18925
30
X
X
X
148
16464
7917-18925
30
X
X
X
149
30652
not found
30
X
X
X
150
30653
not found
30
X
X
X
37
151
7240
3283-7080
30
X
X
X
152
7241
3283-7080
30
X
X
X
153
8041
3274-7121
30
X
X
X
154
8042
3274-7121
30
X
X
X
155
8652
672-7458
30
X
X
X
156
8653
672-7458
30
X
X
X
157
8718
5195-8702
17
X
X
X
158
8719
5195-8702
30
X
X
X
159
8945
5213-8856
30
X
X
X
160
8946
5213-8856
30
X
X
X
161
8968
665-8604
30
X
X
X
162
8969
665-8604
30
X
X
X
163
9048
700-8903
30
X
X
X
164
9049
700-8903
30
X
X
X
165
11106
7531-8921
30
X
X
X
166
11107
7531-8921
30
X
X
X
167
13002
10103-11970
30
X
X
X
168
13003
10103-11970
30
X
X
X
169
14373
10081-10206
30
X
X
X
170
14374
10081-10206
30
X
X
X
171
14495
7775-14613
10
X
X
X
172
14496
7775-14613
25
X
X
X
173
15195
7713-14826
30
X
X
X
38
174
15197
7713-14826
30
X
X
X
175
17118
7853-16850
30
X
X
X
176
17117
7853-16850
30
X
X
X
177
17252
7835-16920
20
X
X
X
178
17253
7835-16920
30
X
X
X
179
17256
10435-16987
30
X
X
X
180
17255
10435-16987
30
X
X
X
181
19072
7927-18721
4
X
X
X
182
19073
7927-18721
30
X
X
X
183
23145
7903-21756
30
X
X
X
184
23144
7903-21756
30
X
X
X
185
23596
10138-23296
30
X
X
X
186
23597
10138-23296
30
X
X
X
187
23914
13517-25045
30
X
X
X
188
23915
13517-25045
30
X
X
X
189
24297
13541-21826
13
X
X
X
190
24296
13541-21826
30
X
X
X
191
25432
7998-25349
30
X
X
X
192
25433
7998-25349
30
X
X
X
193
25712
13566-25073
30
X
X
X
194
25713
13566-25073
30
X
X
X
195
25591
7997-21939
30
X
X
X
196
25590
7997-21939
30
X
X
X
39
197
26543
8000-21971
30
X
X
X
198
26544
8000-21971
30
X
X
X
199
28631
10306-28629
30
X
X
X
200
28632
10306-28629
30
X
X
X
201
11292
7554-9664
30
X
X
X
202
11293
7554-9664
30
X
X
X
203
12176
7753-11815
5
X
X
X
204
12177
7753-11815
30
X
X
X
205
12879
12495-13246
30
X
X
X
206
12880
12495-13246
30
X
X
X
207
14189
709-13422
25
X
X
X
208
14190
709-13422
30
X
X
X
209
17181
7856-10454
10
X
X
X
210
17182
7856-10454
30
X
X
X
211
18133
7833-18562
30
X
X
X
212
18132
7833-18562
30
X
X
X
213
19022
7884-17429
30
X
X
X
214
19023
7884-17429
30
X
X
X
215
19293
7954-18889
17
X
X
X
216
19294
7954-18889
22
X
X
X
217
20135
7899-19574
30
X
X
X
218
20136
7899-19574
30
X
X
X
219
20713
7979-19564
3
X
X
X
40
220
20714
7979-19564
30
X
X
X
221
24247
13512-21830
15
X
X
X
222
24248
13512-21830
30
X
X
X
223
24547
13521-21835
30
X
X
X
224
24548
13521-21835
30
X
X
X
225
24872
13576-25118
30
X
X
X
226
24873
13576-25118
28
X
X
X
227
25615
10150-22814
9
X
X
X
228
25614
10150-22814
30
X
X
X
229
25759
not found
30
X
X
X
230
25758
not found
30
X
X
X
231
25871
not found
30
X
X
X
232
25872
not found
30
X
X
X
233
25973
not found
30
X
X
X
234
25974
not found
30
X
X
X
235
26189
not found
30
X
X
X
236
26190
not found
30
X
X
X
237
26229
not found
30
X
X
X
238
26300
not found
30
X
X
X
239
26409
not found
30
X
X
X
240
26408
not found
30
X
X
X
241
26841
13594-26825
30
X
X
X
242
26867
13594-26825
30
X
X
X
41
243
30528
not found
30
X
X
X
244
30529
not found
30
X
X
X
245
30879
10321-30790
30
X
X
X
246
30880
10321-30790
30
X
X
X
42
Table 2: Macroscopic observations
Lab
Field
Observations
#
#
1
11721
no organic remains
2
11722
wood fragments and charcoal
3
18601
17 small seeds, probably mustard family
4
18602
2 insect mandibles
5
12859
no organic remains
6
12860
no organic remains
7
12613
no organic remains
8
12614
no organic remains
9
16411
35 ceroid cactus seeds
10
16410
no organic remains
11
11241
no organic remains
12
11242
no organic remains
13
18469
wood fragments
14
18470
wood fragments
15
19637
corn and black seed coat fragments
16
19638
1 fragment of charcoal
17
19346
1 pupa case, 1 monocot stem fragment
18
19345
ant head, wood fragments
19
19143
one badly decomposed plant tissue fragment
20
19141
no organic remains
43
21
14941
4 fragments of spongy plant fiber, similar to prickly pear
22
14942
no organic remains
23
16049
5 fiber fragments from stem or leaf
24
16048
wood fragments
25
18899
root fragments and 1 woven cloth fragment
26
18900
wood, charcoal, small mammal bone fragment
27
15564
decomposed insect egg or seed fragment, wood fragments
28
15565
wood fragments, charcoal, fly pupa case
29
16771
charcoal
30
16772
wood fragment
31
15921
fiber, decomposed insect egg or seed fragment
32
15922
rootlets
33
15465
wood fragments
34
15466
no organic remains
35
12526
no organic remains
36
12527
wood fragments
37
17052
wood fragments, rootlets
38
17051
rootlet and fungal spore capsules
39
18704
no organic remains
40
18705
ant fragment and ash
41
8371
no organic remains
42
8372
no organic remains
43
9421
monocot stem fragments and wood fragments
44
44
9422
wood fragments
45
15750
wood fragments
46
16084
monocot stem fragment
47
30035
ash
48
30036
ash, wood fragments
49
10628
charcoal
50
10640
charcoal
51
10641
no organic remains
52
4666
no organic remains
53
4667
charcoal
54
4668
charcoal
55
4669
charcoal
56
4671
white paste-like substance
57
10706
white paste-like substance
58
10716
charcoal
59
10718
white paste-like substance
60
27081
charcoal, 16 Rubus seeds, 13 unknown seeds
61
27082
white paste-like substance
62
27097
white paste-like substance
63
27098
charcoal, plant fiber, wood fragments
64
27099
charcoal, 1 grape seed
65
27033
charcoal
66
27183
charcoal, 4 Rubus seeds, 26 unknown seeds
45
67
27184
charcoal
68
27185
no organic remains
69
27186
charcoal, plant fiber, wood fragments
70
27187
71
10982
no organic remains
72
10983
no organic remains
73
10984
no organic remains
74
10891
no organic remains
75
11550
no organic remains
76
11551
no organic remains
77
12914
wood fragments
78
12915
wood fragments
79
13341
wood fragments
80
13342
no organic remains
81
13895
charcoal
82
13896
no organic remains
83
17101
wood fragments
84
17102
wood fragments, plant fiber, decomposed plant epidermis, possible hair
85
17341
18 plant fibers
86
17342
322 insect eggs or pupa cases
87
18248
no organic remains
88
17473
no organic remains
89
18098
mass of plant fibers similar to those in fruit pulp
46
90
18099
no organic remains
91
18877
prickly pear epidermis?
92
18876
insect egg
93
19033
no organic remains
94
19034
no organic remains
95
19461
tiny fragments of unidentifiable plant tissue
96
19460
insect mandible
97
24624
seed testa, poorly preserved seed fragments
98
24625
insect egg
99
30099
no organic remains
100
30098
wood fragments
101
5676
wood fragments and charcoal
102
5675
wood fragments
103
6354
rootlets
104
6355
rootlets
105
6926
no organic remains
106
6927
no organic remains
107
7169
charcoal and dietary fiber
108
7170
wood fragments and charcoal
109
7238
charcoal
110
7239
charcoal
111
7295
wood fragments
112
7296
rootlets and wood fragments
47
113
8446
no organic remains
114
8447
no organic remains
115
8524
wood fragments
116
8525
wood fragments
117
8632
charcoal
118
8633
charcoal
119
8761
no organic remains
120
8762
tiny plant fibers
121
8882
charcoal
122
8883
charcoal
123
9141
no organic remains
124
9142
rootlets
125
9381
wood fragments
126
9382
wood fragments
127
9468
rootlets
128
9469
charcoal
129
9779
no organic remains
130
9780
no organic remains
131
10374
charcoal
132
10375
charcoal
133
11494
no organic remains
134
11495
no organic remains
135
12328
no organic remains
48
136
12329
no organic remains
137
14370
no organic remains
138
14371
no organic remains
139
14385
charcoal and dietary plant fiber
140
14386
charcoal
141
14499
charcoal, seeds, dietary fiber
142
14500
no organic remains
143
14658
charcoal
144
14659
charcoal
145
14969
seed and seed fragment
146
14970
wood fragments and seeds
147
16465
wood fragments
148
16464
wood fragments
149
30652
wood fragments
150
30653
charcoal
151
7240
wood fragments, fiber, course/curly hair strands, charred plant remains
152
7241
no organic remains
153
8041
wood fragments and course/curly hair strand
154
8042
light brown hair strand
155
8652
charcoal and wood fragments
156
8653
no organic remains
157
8718
no organic remains
158
8719
no organic remains
49
159
8945
dietary fibers
160
8946
no organic remains
161
8968
wood fragments
162
8969
no organic remains
163
9048
no organic remains
164
9049
no organic remains
165
11106
no organic remains
166
11107
no organic remains
167
13002
wood fragments and dietary fiber
168
13003
wood fragments
169
14373
dietary fiber
170
14374
no organic remains
171
14495
wood fragment
172
14496
wood fragments
173
15195
dietary fiber and grass epidermis
174
15197
wood fragments, insect fragments, rootlets, fiber from small plants
175
17118
wood fragments
176
17117
no organic remains
177
17252
wood fragments and dietary fiber
178
17253
wood fragments
179
17256
no organic remains
180
17255
wood fragments, insect fragments, grass stem epidermis
181
19072
no organic remains
50
182
19073
no organic remains
183
23145
wood fragments and herbaceous plant fiber
184
23144
wood fragments
185
23596
wood fragments
186
23597
no organic remains
187
23914
insect mandible
188
23915
no organic remains
189
24297
no organic remains
190
24296
no organic remains
191
25432
no organic remains
192
25433
no organic remains
193
25712
no organic remains
194
25713
no organic remains
195
25591
no organic remains
196
25590
no organic remains
197
26543
mass of charcoal
198
26544
small amount of charcoal
199
28631
wood fragments
200
28632
wood fragments
201
11292
no organic remains
202
11293
charcoal and wood fragments
203
12176
no organic remains
204
12177
charcoal and wood fragments
51
205
12879
woody stem fragments and grass stem
206
12880
wood fragments
207
14189
wood fragments
208
14190
wood fragments
209
17181
wood fragments and dietary (?) fiber
210
17182
grass stem
211
18133
long stem and plant epidermis
212
18132
long stem
213
19022
granular organic material
214
19023
no organic remains
215
19293
wood fragments
216
19294
decomposed wood
217
20135
wood fragments
218
20136
no organic remains
219
20713
no organic remains
220
20714
no organic remains
221
24247
plant epidermis, tiny cloth fragments
222
24248
no organic remains
223
24547
no organic remains
224
24548
plant fiber
225
24872
no organic remains
226
24873
no organic remains
227
25615
no organic remains
52
228
25614
plant fiber
229
25759
wood fragments and caryopsis glumes
230
25758
wood fragments
231
25871
no organic remains
232
25872
no organic remains
233
25973
decomposed woody tissue
234
25974
wood fragments
235
26189
no organic remains
236
26190
no organic remains
237
26229
no organic remains
238
26300
wood fragments
239
26409
decomposed plant tissue
240
26408
no organic remains
241
26841
wood fragments
242
26867
wood fragments
243
30528
no organic remains
244
30529
no organic remains
245
30879
decomposed plant fiber
246
30880
no organic remains
53
Table 3: Microscopic observations. The first notation under sediment type indicates the
dominant component and classification category. For example “decomposed organic,
sand” means that decomposed organic remains dominated the sample and sand was a
minor component. The sample would be classified as “decomposed organic” in the
Results section of the report.
Lab
Field
Sediment type
Starch, pollen, and other relevant observations
#
#
1
11721
decomposed organic
Pollen – cheno-am
2
11722
sand, silt
Pollen – cheno-am
3
18601
organic rich
none
4
18602
sand, silt
none
5
12859
decomposed organic
Starch – maize
6
12860
silt
Starch – unknown
7
12613
organic rich
Starch – maize: Pollen – cheno-am, ragweedtype, pine
8
12614
silt
Pollen – cheno-am
9
16411
organic rich
plant epidermal fragments
10
16410
sand
Starch – maize
11
11241
decomposed organic
Possible parasite egg – Ascaris: Starch –
unknown
12
11242
sand, silt
Starch – maize: Pollen – pine
13
18469
organic rich
none
14
18470
sand
none
54
15
19637
silt
Starch – maize
16
19638
sand, silt
Pollen – cheno-am, pine
17
19346
sand, silt
none
18
19345
sand, silt
none
19
19143
organic rich
Parasite egg - Unknown operculate egg 42x27
micrometers: Pollen – cheno-am
20
19141
silt
Pollen – cheno-am, pine
21
14941
ash
Pollen – cheno-am, pine
22
14942
ash
Pollen – cheno-am
23
16049
decomposed organic
Starch – unknown: Pollen – pine
24
16048
silt
none
25
18899
sand
Pollen - cheno-am
26
18900
sand
Starch – manioc, unknown: Pollen – cheno-am
27
15564
decomposed organic
Starch – maize, unknown
28
15565
sand, silt
none
29
16771
sand, silt
none
30
16772
sand, silt
none
31
15921
decomposed organic
none
32
15922
sand
starch – maize
33
15465
decomposed organic, silt
none
34
15466
sand
Pollen - cheno-am, pine
35
12526
decomposed organic, silt
none
36
12527
silt
Starch – maize, potato, manioc
55
37
17052
decomposed organic
Starch – maize: Pollen - cheno-am
38
17051
decomposed organic, sand Starch – unknown: Pollen – cheno-am,
Fabaceae clump
39
18704
decomposed organic
Starch – potato, large aggregate
40
18705
sand, silt
none
41
8371
organic rich
Starch - maize, unknown: Pollen - cheno-am,
low spine Asteraceae
42
8372
organic rich
Starch - manioc, potato, maize, unknown: Pollen
- cheno-am, ragweed-type
43
9421
organic rich
Starch – unknown: Pollen – cheno-am, prickly
pear, pine
44
9422
decomposed organic
Pollen – cheno-am
45
15750
organic rich
none
46
16084
sand
Starch – maize
47
30035
organic rich
Starch - maize, unknown: Pollen - cheno-am,
low spine Asteraceae
48
30036
decomposed organic, sand Pollen – cheno-am
49
10628
decomposed organic, sand Starch – maize
50
10640
sand
Starch – maize
51
10641
sand
none
52
4666
sand
none
53
4667
silt, ash
Pollen – cheno-am
54
4668
ash
none
56
55
4669
ash
Starch – maize
56
4671
sand, silt
none
57
10706
ash
Starch – maize
58
10716
ash
Starch – maize: Pollen – pine
59
10718
sand
none
60
27081
organic rich
Starch – maize
61
27082
silt
none
62
27097
ash
none
63
27098
sand, ash
Pollen – cheno-am
64
27099
sand, ash
none
65
27033
ash
none
66
27183
organic rich
Starch – maize
67
27184
decomposed organic
Starch – maize
68
27185
decomposed organic
Starch – maize: Pollen – cheno-am
69
27186
decomposed organic, ash
none
70
27187
organic rich
Agave epidermis: Starch – maize, wheat,
unknown
71
10982
organic rich
Starch – maize: Pollen – prickly pear
72
10983
organic rich
Starch – aggregate of unknown type: Pollen –
pine
73
10984
organic rich
Agave epidermis
74
10891
organic rich
Agave epidermis: Pollen – cheno-am
75
11550
decomposed organic
none
57
76
11551
sand
none
77
12914
organic rich
Starch – unknown type
78
12915
silt
Starch – unknown type: Pollen – pine
79
13341
organic rich
Starch – maize: Pollen – cheno-am, pine
80
13342
silt
none
81
13895
organic rich
Starch – maize, unknown: Pollen – cheno-am,
pine, prickly pear, unknown, ragweed-type,
thistle-type, sunflower-type, low spine
Asteraceae
82
13896
silt
none
83
17101
decomposed organic, silt
Pollen – cheno-am, pine
84
17102
silt, ash
none
85
17341
sand, silt
Pollen – cheno-am: glochidia
86
17342
silt
none
87
18248
ash
none
88
17473
silt, ash
none
89
18098
organic rich
Mesquite pod fibers: Starch – unknown type:
Pollen – cheno-am
90
18099
silt
none
91
18877
decomposed organic
Pollen – cheno-am
92
18876
organic rich
Starch – unknown type: Pollen – cheno-am
93
19033
decomposed organic, silt
Pollen – cheno-am
94
19034
silt
none
58
95
19461
silt
Starch – maize: Pollen – cheno-am: glochidia
96
19460
silt
Starch – maize
97
24624
decomposed organic, silt
Starch – maize: Pollen – cheno-am
98
24625
ash
Starch – unknown type: Pollen – pine
99
30099
organic rich
Pollen – cheno-am
100
30098
organic rich
none
101
5676
organic rich
starch – maize, wheat, unknown
102
5675
decomposed organic
none
103
6354
silt, ash
fungal spores abundant
104
6355
silt, ash
Pollen – cheno-am: fungal spores abundant
105
6926
decomposed organic, silt
Starch – altered maize, maize, wheat, unknown:
Pollen – cheno-am, low spine, pine
106
6927
silt, ash
none
107
7169
decomposed organic, silt
Starch – unknown: Pollen – cheno-am, prickly
pear
108
7170
decomposed organic
none
109
7238
sand
none
110
7239
decomposed organic, sand none
111
7295
decomposed organic, sand none
112
7296
silt
fungal spores abundant
113
8446
silt
none
114
8447
silt
none
115
8524
sand, ash
none
59
116
8525
silt
none
117
8632
decomposed organic
none
118
8633
silt
none
119
8761
organic rich
none
120
8762
sand
Starch – unknown
121
8882
silt
none
122
8883
silt
Starch – unknown
123
9141
sand
none
124
9142
sand
none
125
9381
organic rich
Pollen – degraded agave
126
9382
decomposed organic
none
127
9468
sand
none
128
9469
sand
none
129
9779
sand
none
130
9780
silt
fungal spores abundant
131
10374
decomposed organic, sand none
132
10375
sand
none
133
11494
silt
none
134
11495
sand, ash
none
135
12328
decomposed organic
fungal spores abundant
136
12329
decomposed organic
Pollen – cheno-am: fungal spores abundant
137
14370
decomposed organic, sand none
138
14371
silt
fungal spores abundant
60
139
14385
decomposed organic
Pollen – cheno-am, low spine
140
14386
decomposed organic
Pollen – cheno-am
141
14499
decomposed organic, silt
none
142
14500
silt
none
143
14658
organic rich
Pollen – mustard family, grass family
144
14659
decomposed organic
none
145
14969
silt
Starch – unknown
146
14970
decomposed organic, sand Starch – unknown
147
16465
silt
none
148
16464
organic rich
Starch – unknown: Pollen – cheno-am
149
30652
decomposed organic, silt
Starch – maize
150
30653
silt
none
151
7240
organic rich, silt
none
152
7241
ash, sand
none
153
8041
organic rich, silt
Pollen – cheno-am
154
8042
organic rich, silt
none
155
8652
decomposed organic
Pollen – pine
156
8653
silt, sand
none
157
8718
decomposed organic
Starch – Unknown altered: fungal spores
abundant
158
8719
sand
fungal spores abundant
159
8945
silt
fungal spores abundant
160
8946
decomposed organic, sand none
61
161
8968
silt, sand
none
162
8969
sand
none
163
9048
silt
Starch – maize
164
9049
decomposed organic, silt
none
165
11106
organic rich, sand
Pollen – cheno-am, ironwood
166
11107
silt
none
167
13002
organic rich
Pollen – cheno-am, pine
168
13003
silt, sand
none
169
14373
silt
none
170
14374
organic rich, sand
none
171
14495
organic rich
Pollen – cheno-am
172
14496
organic rich
Starch – unknown: Pollen – cheno-am
173
15195
decomposed organic
mites
174
15197
silt
none
16
17118
organic rich
Parasite - trematode egg, 31µm x 24 µm: mites,
176
17117
ash
Pollen – cheno-am, pine
177
17252
organic rich
Pollen – cheno-am
178
17253
decomposed organic
Pollen – cheno-am
179
17256
silt
none
180
17255
decomposed organic
mites
181
19072
decomposed organic
fungal spores abundant
182
19073
sand, ash
none
183
23145
silt
none
62
184
23144
decomposed organic
Pollen – cheno-am
185
23596
organic rich
Pollen – cheno-am, prickly pear
186
23597
decomposed organic, ash
Parasite – trichurid egg 22µm x 31µm: Pollen –
cheno-am,
187
23914
decomposed organic, sand Pollen – cheno-am
188
23915
silt, ash
none
189
24297
decomposed organic
none
190
24296
silt, ash
none
191
25432
ash
none
192
25433
decomposed organic
fungal spores abundant
193
25712
decomposed organic
fungal spores abundant
194
25713
ash
fungal spores abundant
195
25591
silt, sand
Pollen – pine, cheno-am
196
25590
sand, ash
none
197
26543
sand, ash
Starch – maize
198
26544
decomposed organic, ash
none
199
28631
silt
none
200
28632
organic rich
none
201
11292
decomposed organic
glochidia,
202
11293
decomposed organic
203
12176
organic rich
Pollen – pine, prickly pear
204
12177
silt
Pollen – pine
205
12879
organic rich
Pollen – cheno-am and cheno-am aggregates
63
206
12880
silt
207
14189
decomposed organic
208
14190
silt
Pollen – cheno-am
209
17181
organic rich
fungal spores abundant
210
17182
silt
Starch – unknown
211
18133
decomposed organic
Pollen – pine, cheno-am
212
18132
decomposed organic
Pollen – pine, cheno-am
213
19022
decomposed organic
214
19023
sand, ash
215
19293
organic rich
Pollen – pine: very fine plant fibers
216
19294
organic rich
Pollen – cheno-am
217
20135
organic rich
non-wood fibers
218
20136
ash
219
20713
organic rich
220
20714
silt, sand, ash
221
24247
silt
222
24248
sand, ash
Pollen – pine, cheno-am: fungal spores abundant
223
24547
decomposed organic
Pollen – cheno-am: mites
224
24548
decomposed organic
225
24872
sand
fungal spores abundant
226
24873
silt
fungal spores abundant
227
25615
decomposed organic
Starch – maize
228
25614
silt, sand
Pollen – pine
64
229
25759
silt
230
25758
sand
231
25871
silt
232
25872
silt
233
25973
decomposed organic, sand
234
25974
decomposed organic, silt
Pollen – pine
235
26189
decomposed organic
Pollen – grass
236
26190
silt
237
26229
silt
238
26300
silt
239
26409
decomposed organic
240
26408
silt, sand
241
26841
decomposed organic
dietary fibers
242
26867
organic rich
wood fragments abundant
243
30528
organic rich
fungal spores abundant
244
30529
decomposed organic, ash
Pollen – pine, cheno-am
245
30879
organic rich
Pollen – cheno-am
246
30880
decomposed organic, silt
Pollen – cheno-am
Starch – maize
65
Table 4: Starch concentration values in terms of starch granules per milliliter of sediment.
Lab
Field
Maize
#
#
5
12859
6
12860
7
12613
50
10
16410
100
11
11241
12
11242
50
15
19637
50
23
16049
26
18900
27
15564
66
32
15922
150
36
12527
50
37
17052
100
38
17051
39
18704
41
8371
200
42
8372
250
43
9421
46
16084
100
47
30035
150
Wheat
Manioc
Potato
Unknown
50
50
trace
1,200
300
100
120
100
50
50
100
50
1,750
150
20,900
400
200
150
50
50
66
49
10628
50
50
10640
50
55
4669
50
57
10706
100
58
10716
100
60
27081
100
66
27183
625
67
27184
180
68
27185
trace
70
27187
200
71
10982
50
72
10983
200
77
12914
trace
78
12915
700
79
13341
trace
81
13895
trace
89
18098
trace
92
18876
trace
95
19461
1,000
96
19460
500
97
24624
1,000
98
24625
40
180
140
trace
trace
67
Table 5: Inhumation list rating potential of recovering useful parasitological information
from sacral samples. Samples rated “good” are those for which intestinal residue was
identifiable in the sacral samples. Parasite eggs, if present at the time of inhumation,
would have been recovered in excavation and analysis. Samples rated “moderate” are
those for which intestinal residue was identified but the residue was in a decomposed
state. Parasite eggs, if present at the time of inhumation, could have decomposed before
excavation. Samples rated “poor” did not provide evidence of intestinal residue.
Lab
Inhumation
Analysis
#
Number
Potential
1-2
7617-11613
poor
Comment
Minimal preservation of organic remains in
both sacrum and controls samples and only
background pollen and wood is evident.
3-4
7862-18599
good
Dietary seeds found in sacrum. Abundant
microscopic plant fibers in sacrum. Strong
contrast between sacrum and control.
5-6
7797-13206
poor
Sacrum and control samples are generally
similar although the microscopic
preservation of wood is evident in the
sacrum. Starch shared by both.
7-8
7609-11802
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum and
control.
9-10
7945-18923
good
Dietary seeds found in sacrum. Abundant
68
microscopic plant fibers and plant epidermal
fragments in sacrum. Strong contrast
between sacrum and control.
11-12
7552-9623
moderate
Possible parasite egg discovered in sacrum.
Abundant decomposed microscopic fibers in
sacrum. Contrast between sacrum and
control.
13-14
7944-19513
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum and
control.
15-16
7978-19540
good
Dietary seeds found in sacrum. Microscopic
preparations are silty.
17-18
7918-18955
poor
Sacrum and control samples are similar and
show no evidence of dietary residue.
19-20
7935-18847
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in
sacrum. Unusual parasite eggs found in
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum and
control.
21-22
7690-14652
moderate
Probable macroscopic dietary fiber found in
sacrum. Both samples contain inert ash
which limits information potential
23-24
7831-14974
good
Possible dietary fiber/leaf found in sacrum.
Abundant decomposed microscopic fibers in
69
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum and
control.
25-26
7936-18857
poor
Sacrum and control samples are similar and
have limited organics.
27-28
7683-14609
moderate
Abundant decomposed microscopic fibers in
sacrum. Contrast between sacrum and
control.
29-30
7719-16736
poor
Sacrum and control samples are similar and
have limited organics.
31-32
not found
moderate
Abundant decomposed microscopic fibers in
sacrum. Contrast between sacrum and
control.
33-34
7803-16869
poor
Sacrum and control samples are similar and
have limited organics.
35-36
7584-11612
poor
Sacrum and control samples are similar and
have limited organics. Control sample has
elevation of starch content.
37-38
7839-16821
good
Abundant decomposed microscopic fibers in
sacrum. Contrast between sacrum and
control.
39-40
not found
moderate
Abundant decomposed microscopic fibers in
sacrum. Contrast between sacrum and
control.
70
41-42
5196-8659
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in sacrum
and control sample with starch and pollen.
43-44
7529-8941
good
Probable dietary fiber found in sacrum.
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in sacrum
with diversity of pollen. Strong contrast
between sacrum and control.
45-46
7678-14960
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum and
control.
47-48
10312-30013
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in sacrum
with some pollen. Strong contrast between
sacrum and control.
75-76
7557-9729
moderate
Abundant decomposed microscopic fibers in
sacrum. Good microscopic organic contrast
between sacrum and control.
77-78
7787-13390
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum and
control.
79-80
not found
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in sacrum
with some pollen. Strong contrast between
sacrum and control.
81-82
7798-14681
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in sacrum
with a diversity of pollen. Strong contrast
71
between sacrum and control.
83-84
7685-16835
moderate
Many decomposed microscopic fibers in
sacrum. Contrast between sacrum and
control.
85-86
7858-18560
poor
Sacrum and control samples are similar and
have limited organics.
87-88
689-17416
poor
Sacrum and control samples are similar and
have no organics.
89-90
7843-16989
good
Probable dietary fiber found in sacrum.
Abundant microscopic mesquite-type fibers
in sacrum sample. Strong contrast between
sacrum and control.
91-92
7883-18830
poor
Control sample has better preservation than
sacrum sample. Sacrum sample is
dominated by inert silt. Fungal spores and
fungal fibers are common in both samples.
93-94
7928-18679
poor
Sacrum and control samples are similar and
have limited organics.
95-96
7955-18965
poor
Sacrum and control samples are similar and
have limited organics.
97-98
13541-21826
good
Probable dietary seed found in sacrum.
Cooked maize starch and pollen found in
sacrum. Abundant microscopic plant fibers
72
in sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum
and control.
99-100
not found
good
Both control and sacrum samples are rich in
microscopic plant fibers.
101-102
951-7017
good
Maize, wheat and unknown starch found in
sacrum. Macroscopically, sacrum and
control samples are similar. There is a strong
contrast between sacrum and control
microscopically.
103-104
7568-9519
poor
Very bad preservation environment. Rootlets
and fungus dominate both samples.
105-106
3358-6872
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in
sacrum. A diversity of starch and pollen in
sacrum but absent in control. Strong contrast
between sacrum and control.
107-108
3277-6933
good
Some starch and pollen in sacrum but absent
in control. Abundant microscopic
decomposed plant fibers in sacrum and
control. Probable dietary fiber found in
sacrum but not in control.
109-110
3311-6882
poor
No starch or pollen in samples.
Macroscopically, sacrum and control
samples are similar. Better microscopic
73
preservation in control.
111-112
5167-7112
moderate
Some microscopic decomposed fibers in
sacrum. Macroscopically, sacrum and
control samples are similar.
113-114
5214-8753
poor
Silty samples with no identifiable remains.
115-116
3246-6899
poor
Silt, sand and ash. No identifiable remains.
117-118
3280-7383
poor
There is some decomposed residue in
microscopic sacrum sample, but not
sufficient to indicate good preservation
conditions for parasite eggs.
119-120
699-8696
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum
and control.
121-122
690-8877
poor
Silt and charcoal only.
123-124
7524-5500
poor
Sand and charcoal only.
125-126
7504-9548
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum
and control.
127-128
7587-9602
poor
Sand and charcoal dominate samples. Roots
disturbed sacrum sample.
129-130
7526-8962
poor
Sand, silt, fungal spores dominate samples.
131-132
7709-16750
poor
Sand and charcoal dominant.
133-134
7600-11511
poor
Silt, sand and ash dominant.
74
135-136
7610-11752
poor
Abundant fungal spores in both samples.
Limited preservation potential
137-138
727-14540
moderate
Microscopic decomposed plant fibers in
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum
and control.
139-140
7666-14557
good
Probable dietary fiber found in sacrum.
Abundant microscopic decomposed plant
fibers in sacrum. Strong contrast between
sacrum and control.
141-142
7786-13337
good
Probable dietary seeds and fiber found in
sacrum. Abundant microscopic decomposed
plant fibers in sacrum. Strong contrast
between sacrum and control.
143-144
7814-14608
good
Strong contrast in microscopic preservation
with superior organic content in sacrum and
preservation of dietary pollen. Abundant
microscopic plant fibers in sacrum. Strong
microscopic remains contrast between
sacrum and control. Sacrum and control
macroscopic remains are similar.
145-146
7608-14911
good
Starch present in both samples with better
microscopic fiber preservation on control.
Probable dietary seed fragments found in
75
sacrum.
147-148
7917-18925
poor
Silt dominates microscopic remains.
149-150
not found
good
Abundant microscopic decomposed plant
fibers in sacrum. Strong contrast between
sacrum and control. Maize starch is present
in sacrum.
151-152
3283-7080
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum
and control. Probable macroscopic dietary
fiber found in sacrum sample with possible
human hair.
153-154
3274-7121
moderate
Sacral and control samples are similar
microscopically with abundance of wood
fibers. Wood fragments and possible human
hair found in samples. No macro organic
remains except for a light brown hair found
in control.
155-156
672-7458
good
Better microscopic organic content of
sacrum. Wood and charcoal in sacrum but
no macro remains present in control
157-158
5195-8702
good
Abundance of fungal spores in both samples.
Abundant microscopic decomposed plant
fibers in sacrum. Strong contrast between
76
sacrum and control.
159-160
5213-8856
good
Sacral and control samples are similar
microscopically. Probable macroscopic
dietary fibers found in sacrum.
161-162
665-8604
poor
Silt and sand dominate samples.
163-164
700-8903
poor
Sacral and control samples are slightly
different microscopically with better organic
content in control. No macro organic
remains in sacrum and control samples.
165-166
7531-8921
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum
and control.
167-168
10103-11970
good
Probable macroscopic dietary fiber found in
sacrum. Abundant microscopic decomposed
plant fibers in sacrum. Strong contrast
between sacrum and control.
169-170
10081-10206
good
Probable macroscopic dietary fiber found in
sacrum. Sacrum and control samples have
acceptable organic content.
171-172
7775-14613
good
Abundant microscopic plant remains in both
samples.
173-174
7713-14826
good
Probable dietary macroscopic fiber found in
sacrum. Abundant microscopic decomposed
77
plant fibers in sacrum. Strong contrast
between sacrum and control.
175-176
7853-16850
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum
and control.
177-178
7835-16920
good
Probable dietary fiber found in sacrum.
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum
and control.
179-180
10435-16987
poor
Better macroscopic and microscopic
preservation in control.
181-182
7927-18721
good
No macro organic remains in sacrum and
control samples. Microscopic preservation is
superior in sacrum sample.
183-184
7903-21756
good
Probable dietary fiber found in sacrum.
185-186
10138-23296
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers with
pollen in sacrum. Strong contrast between
sacrum and control.
187-188
13517-25045
good
Abundant microscopic decomposed plant
fibers in sacrum. Strong contrast between
sacrum and control.
189-190
13541-21826
good
Abundant microscopic decomposed plant
fibers in sacrum. Strong contrast between
78
sacrum and control.
191-192
7998-25349
poor
No macro organic remains in sacrum and
control samples. Microscopic preservation is
superior in control sample.
193-194
13566-25073
moderate
Abundant microscopic decomposed plant
fibers in sacrum. Strong contrast between
sacrum and control. Fungal activity in both
samples
195-196
7997-21939
moderate
No macro organic remains in sacrum and
control samples. Microscopic preservation is
fair in sacrum sample.
197-198
8000-21971
poor
Sacrum is composed of charcoal. Control
macro has very little organics other than
traces of charcoal. Microscopic preservation
is superior in control sample.
199-200
10306-28629
poor
Sacrum and control macro samples are
similar. Microscopic preservation is superior
in control sample.
201-202
11292-11293
good
Better macroscopic wood preservation in
control. Microscopic preservation is superior
in sacrum sample.
203-204
12176-12177
moderate
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum
79
and control.
205-206
12879-12880
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum
and control. Probable macroscopic dietary
fiber found in sacrum.
207-208
14189-14190
poor
Sacrum and control samples are similar
macroscopically. Poor microscopic
preservation in both samples.
209-210
17181-17182
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum
and control. Probable dietary fiber found in
sacrum..
211-212
18133-18132
good
Microscopic preservation is superior in
sacrum sample. Possible dietary fiber found
in sacrum. Microscopic preservation is
acceptable in both samples.
213-214
19022-19023
good
Abundant microscopic decomposed plant
fibers in sacrum. Strong contrast between
sacrum and control. Probable dietary fiber
found in sacrum.
215-216
19293-19294
good
Better macroscopic wood preservation in
control. Microscopic preservation is superior
in sacrum sample with dietary fibers.
80
217-218
20135-20136
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum
and control.
219-220
20713-20714
good
Abundant microscopic plant fibers in
sacrum. Strong contrast between sacrum
and control.
221-222
24247-24248
good
Macroscopic preservation is superior in
sacrum sample. Probable dietary fiber found
in sacrum. Microscopic preservation is
similar in both samples.
223-224
24547-24548
good
Abundant microscopic decomposed plant
fibers in sacrum. Strong contrast between
sacrum and control.
225-226
24872-24873
poor
No macro organic remains in sacrum and
control samples. Poor microscopic
preservation in both samples.
227-228
25615-25614
moderate
Some microscopic decomposed plant fibers
in sacrum. Weak contrast between sacrum
and control.
229-230
25759-25758
good
Macroscopic preservation is superior in
sacrum sample. Probable dietary fiber found
in sacrum. Microscopic preservation is
similar in both samples.
81
231-232
25871-25872
poor
Silt dominates samples.
233-234
25973-25974
good
Macroscopic and microscopic preservation
is superior in sacrum sample.
235-236
26189-26190
good
Abundant microscopic decomposed plant
fibers in sacrum. Strong contrast between
sacrum and control.
237-238
26229-26300
poor
Silt dominates samples.
239-240
26409-26408
good
Abundant microscopic decomposed plant
fibers in sacrum. Strong contrast between
sacrum and control. Probable dietary fiber
found in sacrum.
241-242
26841-26867
good
Possible microscopic dietary fiber is present
in sacrum sample. Abundant microscopic
decomposed plant fibers in sacrum. Strong
contrast between sacrum and control.
243-244
30528-30529
good
Abundant microscopic decomposed plant
fibers in sacrum. Strong contrast between
sacrum and control.
245-246
30879-30880
good
Macroscopic preservation is superior in
sacrum sample. Abundant microscopic plant
fibers in sacrum. Strong contrast between
sacrum and control.
82
Table 6: Pollen counts from latrine samples.
70
Lycopodium
66
110
69
25
Asteraceae –
100
1
Helianthus
Asteraceae –
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
6
3
2
1
4 (2)
1
2
1
Cheno-am
36
43
134 (2)
degraded
0
90
Artemisia
Asteraceae –
high spine
Asteraceae Liguliflorae
Asteraceae,
Ambrosia-type
Asteraceae,
low spine
Brassicaceae
tricolpate
degraded
6
tricolporate
degraded
stephanoporate
1
83
Ephedra
0
1
Fabaceae
4
4
Fabaceae –
2
Prosopis
Fagopyrum
3
Labiatae, steph
1
Large
6
1
Fabaceae
Larrea ?
8
Opuntia
3
Pinus
0
Pinus bladders
2
Poaceae –
6
3
2
3
15
1
Quercus
7
2
2
Rhus
1
2
1
1
large
Poaceae –
small
Rosaceae –
10
degraded
Rosaceae –
28
Fragaria type
Sarcobatus
1
84
Trifolium
Unidentifiable
2
62
45
Unknown
5
3
Zea mays
7
34
85
Table 7: Pollen results from selected cemetery samples.
3
4
9
10
15
16
Lycopodium 50
50
50
50
50
250
Cheno-Am
1
6
4
110
2
(14)(2)
(3)(9)(∞)
Low Spine
1(2)
1(4)
1
2
Pinus
2
Poaceae
1
Unident.
1
2
2
86
Table 7, Continued: Pollen results from selected cemetery samples.
19
Lycopodium
20
50
Asteraceae - High
27
50
28
31
32
50
50
50
50
1
3
2
3
1
Spine
Asteraceae -
1
Ambrosia
Asteraceae - Low
5 (3)
Spine
Cheno-Am
112 (2)
58 2(2), (6)
(4)(30)
degraded tricolpate
1
Pinus
1
Pinus Bladder
1
Poaceae
3
1
87
43
Lycopodium
44
50
49
50
50
Asteraceae - High
Spine
Asteraceae -
1
1
Ambrosia
Asteraceae - Low
1
Spine
Cheno-Am
29 (2)(∞)
13 (2)
degraded tricolpate
Pinus
5
Pinus Bladder
Poaceae
Unidentifiable
7
21
88
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: General preservation categories of samples. A, an example of “organic-rich”
exhibiting preservation of fiber and other plant tissues in recognizable form. B, an
example of “decomposed organic” exhibiting plant organic residue without preservation
of recognizable form. C, a “sandy” sample showing silica that persisted through the
hydrofluoric acid treatment. D, a “silt” samples dominated by fine particulate matter,
less than one micrometer is size.
Figure 2: Parasite eggs. A, shows an object similar to a decorticated Ascaris egg from
Sample 11, inhumation 7552-9623. B shows a well preserved Ascaris lumbricoides egg
for comparison to A. C and D show eggs consistent with Dicrocoelium dendriticum from
sample 19, inhumation 7935-18847. E, an isolated one trematode egg from sample 175,
inhumation 7853-16850. F, a poorly preserved egg with bipolar apertures from sample
186, inhumation 10138-23296.
The bar for C and D is 20 µm, the bar for E is 15µm,
and the bar for F is 10 µm.
Figure 3: Starch granules. A and B show manioc starch in bright field and polarized
light. C and D show potato starch in bright field and polarized light. E and F show a
pristing maize starch in bright field and polarized light. G and H show a eroded maize
starch in bright field and polarized light.
Figure 4: Fiber from sacrum samples. A-C show curved fibers from sample 81 possibly
from mequite. D shows vascular tissue from a herbaceous stem. E shows cellular
structure probably from a woody stem.
89
Figure 5: Pollen grains from sample 81. A and B shoe cheno-am pollen aggregates. C
and F show low spine Asteraceae grains. D is a prickly pear grain. E shows and
aggregate of pollen that is as yet unidentified.