Coprolite analysis can provide a great deal of information on prehistoric diet and subsistence. This includes both the analysis of macrobotanical and palynological remains, along with possible studies of many other materials. While palynology can contribute to studies of diet, it can also inform on the types of economic and background pollen, seasonality of site occupation, and paleoenvironmental conditions (Bohrer 1981; Bryant 1974a, b; Bryant and Holloway 1983; Hevly 1981; Kelso and Good 1995; Martin and Sharrock 1964; Pearsall 2000; Reinhard and Bryant 1992; Warnock and Reinhard 1992). Kelso has questioned some of the basic assumptions of the interpretations of pollen from coprolites. He suggests that absolute pollen frequencies are more reliable than relative frequencies (Kelso 1976). Also, he determined experimentally that rather than pollen found in coprolites representing pollen ingested in a 24-36 hour period, it actually represents a 5-7 day period. The pollen is also not uniformly distributed and differences in amounts of pollen in different samples do not reflect differences in quantities of pollen ingested at different times (Kelso 1976). However, while he finds environmental and seasonality interpretations to be problematic, he still sees coprolites as being reliable for the study of diet (Kelso 1976).
Once the coprolites are identified as human, which can be problematic, the pollen is extracted using common techniques (Bryant 1974a, b; Clary 1984; Pearsall 2000; Reinhard and Bryant 1992; Warnock and Reinhard 1992). The pollen can be used to reconstruct diet, although macrobotanical remains are probably more reliable, as pollen is often not intentionally consumed as food. Rather, it is more often incidentally consumed, both on food and, often, inhalation (Bohrer 1981). Pollen from latrine soils have also included dietary types, in some cases indicating differences in subsistence relative to differences in social status (Warnock and Reinhard 1992). The pollen represented are potentially environmental and can inform on the plants in the vicinity, including those potentially used economically, although it cannot be used for environmental reconstruction (Bryant 1974a, b; Clary 1984; Kelso 1976). One interesting interpretation of pollen from coprolites is the interpretation of the seasonality of occupation of the site. This assumes that the pollen incidentally consumed would only be able to be consumed during the season when that plant was flowering and, therefore, producing and dispersing pollen (Bryant 1974b; Reinhard and Bryant 1992). However, storage of economic plants could have led to the consumption of their pollen during any season (Williams-Dean and Bryant 1975).
One interesting potential interpretation of pollen from coprolites is pollen that appears to have been directly ingested. This is usually the interpretation for insect-pollinated plants which are less likely to be accidentally consumed through inhalation alone. This could occur through the consumption of flowers as food or transport on fruit or seeds that are consumed, or could be interpreted as a medicinal use of the plant (Bohrer 1981; Bryant 1974a, b; Kelso 1976; Martin and Sharrock 1964; Pearsall 2000; Reinhard and Bryant 1992; Reinhard et al. 1991; Trigg et al. 1994; Williams-Dean and Bryant 1975). There has been some discussion over the level at which the presence of a certain type of pollen is significant (Dean 1993; Reinhard 1993; Reinhard et al. 1991). Pollen concentration and relative frequencies have both been used and convey different information and conclusions, in some cases (Dean 1993; Reinhard 1993). The potential medicinal uses of plants in these studies, as well as other uses, draws heavily on ethnobotanical literature (Bohrer 1981; Reinhard et al. 1991). These sources provide potential uses for the plants found to have been used, although they must be applied carefully.
The analysis of coprolites, therefore, appears to be most useful for the interpretation of diet, including changes in diet (Martin and Sharrock 1964; Reinhard and Bryant 1992). However, environmental factors are also involved, but the degree to which they can be or are interpreted as such varies. They do appear to be a very valuable means of reconstructing diet and the use of plants for food, perhaps more reliable for this purpose than other means used (as it reflects what has been consumed), although the short time period represented by each coprolite, as well as the limitations outlined by Kelso, suggests that there could potentially be gaps in this record. For this reason, coprolite analysis should not be used alone to determine prehistoric subsistence.
Bohrer, V. L. 1981.
Methods of Recognizing Cultural Activity from Pollen in Archaeological Sites. Kiva 46(3):135-142.
Bryant, V. M. 1974a.
Prehistoric Diet in Southwest Texas: the Coprolite Evidence. American Antiquity 39:407-420.
_____________ 1974b The Role of Coprolite Analysis in Archeology. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 45:1-28.
Bryant, V. M., Jr., and R. G. Holloway 1983.
The Role of Palynology in Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, pp. 191-219. vol. 6, M. B. Schiffer, general editor. Academic Press, New York.
Clary, K. H. 1984.
Anasazi Diet and Subsistence as Revealed by Coprolites from Chaco Canyon. In Recent Research on Chaco Prehistory, edited by W. J. Judge, and J. D. Schelberg, pp. 265-279. Reports of the Chaco Center no. 8. Division of Cultural Resources, National Park Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Dean, G. 1993.
Use of pollen concentrations in coprolite analysis: an archaeobotanical viewpoint with a comment to Reinhard et al. (1991). Journal of Ethnobiology 13:102-114.
Hevly, R. H. 1981.
Pollen Production, Transport and Preservation: Potentials and Limitations in Archaeological Palynology. Journal of Ethnobiology 1(1):39-54.
Kelso, G. K. 1976.
Absolute Pollen Frequencies Applied to the Interpretation of Human Activities in Northern Arizona. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.
Kelso, G. K., and I. L. Good 1995.
Quseir Al-Qadim, Egypt, and the Potential of Archaeological Pollen Analysis in the Near East. Journal of Field Archaeology 22:191-202.
Martin, P. S., and F. W. Sharrock 1964.
Pollen Analysis of Prehistoric Human Feces: A New Approach to Ethnobotany. American Antiquity 30(2):168-180.
Pearsall, D. M. 2000.
Paleoethnobotany: a Handbook of Procedures. 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
Reinhard, K. J. 1993.
The utility of pollen concentration in coprolite analysis: expanding upon Dean's comments. Journal of Ethnobiology 13:114-128.
Reinhard, K. J., and V. M. Bryant 1992.
Coprolite Analysis: a Biological Perspective on Archaeology. In Archaeological Method and Theory vol. 4, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 245-288. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Reinhard, K. J., D. L. Hamiltion, and R. H. Hevly 1991.
Use of pollen concentration in paleopharmacology: coprolite evidence of medicinal plants. Journal of Ethnobiology 11:117-132.
Trigg, H. B., R. I. Ford, J. G. Moore, and L. D. Jessop 1994.
Coprolite Evidence for Prehistoric Foodstuffs, Condiments, and Medicines. In Eating on the Wild Side: the Pharmacologic, Ecologic, and Social Implications of using Noncultigens, edited by N. L. Etkin, pp. 210-223. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Warnock, P. J., and K. J. Reinhard 1992.
Methods for Extracting Pollen and Parasite Eggs from Latrine Soils. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:261-264.
Williams-Dean, G., and V. M. Bryant 1975.
Pollen Analysis of Human Coprolites from Antelope House, Canyon de Chelly National Monument, Arizona. Kiva 41:97-111.