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.