A multi-isotopic (δ13C, δ15N, and δ34S) faunal baseline for Maya subsistence and migration studies

Comparison of human and faunal enamel isotopes reveals diverse paleodiet and exchange patterns at the highland Maya Site of Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala

“…The case of the two non-local gophers interred in the Mound E-III-3 base deposit suggests this diminutive rodent may have had a larger role in Maya rituals than previously believed. It also serves as a warning against the assumption that rodents and other small mammals were moved infrequently by humans in the past, supporting similar evidence found recently by Rand et al (2021) concerning armadillos and agoutis. Whether the long-distance movement of rodents was a frequent activity across the Maya region, or done primarily for special, ceremonial purposes, is a question that warrants further investigation.…”

“…The majority of these came from special deposits, likely as offerings. Although most animals recovered from Kaminaljuyu came from special deposits, where preservation is better than in domestic deposits, other sourcing studies in the Maya region have noted that non-local terrestrial mammals are rare (e.g., Rand et al 2020Rand et al , 2021Sharpe et al 2018;Thornton 2011;Thornton et al 2016). When they are encountered, they are usually found in special contexts (Sharpe et al 2018;Thornton 2011).…”

“…Rodents, (especially mice) are frequently used for creating local isotopic baselines globally for this reason (Conlee et al 2009;Kootker et al 2016;Price et al 2002;Sharpe et al 2021). Only recently has the potential for non-local small animals been raised, with the identification of a possibly non-local armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) and agouti (Dasyprocta punctata) using sulfur isotopes from two sites around the Chetumal Bay (Rand et al 2021).…”

“…These studies have used faunal diets as proxies for landscape vegetation cover and its change over time (Emery et al 2000;Emery and Thornton 2008;Sugiyama et al 2020), and to better understand human diets and subsistence strategies (Gerry and Krueger 1997;Rand et al 2020;White et al 1993). They have been used to identify animal trade and management practices, necessary for sustaining large populations across a broad area (Freiwald and Pugh 2017;Rand et al 2021;Sharpe et al 2018;Thornton 2011;White et al 2001White et al , 2004. Isotope studies on human and animal remains have also been used with other archaeological datasets to interpret differences in social status and resource distribution in the Maya region (Price et al 2008(Price et al , 2010Somerville et al 2016;Wright 2012;Wright et al 2010).…”

Freshwater wetland–driven variation in sulfur isotope compositions: Implications for human paleodiet and ecological research

“…More recently, there has been a growing awareness among archaeologists (e.g., Szpak and Buckley, 2020;Rand et al, 2021;Guiry et al, 2021a;Lamb and Madgwick, 2022) of the potential for sulfides, which have a very low δ 34 S, to influence the isotopic composition of consumer tissues, a relationship that has been noted ecologically for decades in select marine-influenced environments (Carlson and Forrest, 1982;Fry et al, 1982). Following their earlier ecological counterparts (Peterson and Howarth, 1987;Mizota et al, 1999;Oakes and Connolly, 2004;Chasar et al, 2005), recent archaeological studies have shown, for instance, that in marine-influenced settings, such as saltmarshes (Guiry et al, 2021a), seagrass beds (Guiry et al, 2021c), and benthic microalgal-subsidized areas (Szpak and Buckley, 2020), coastal and marine archaeological consumers and their broader food webs can have δ 34 S values that are strongly impacted by sulfur with a sulfide-influenced δ 34 S value.…”