4.3 Article

Interpreting Past Human Diets Using Stable Isotope Mixing Models-Best Practices for Data Acquisition

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD AND THEORY
Volume 29, Issue 1, Pages 138-161

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10816-021-09514-w

Keywords

Stable isotopes; Palaeodietary reconstruction; Mixing models; Data acquisition

Funding

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-17-CE27-0023]
  2. Canada Research Chairs program
  3. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-17-CE27-0023] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study discusses the challenges faced by archaeologists in reconstructing palaeodiets using SIMMs, focusing on issues in data acquisition that could affect dietary quantification. A flowchart is provided to aid in sample selection for dietary reconstruction, aimed at reducing the likelihood of inaccurate outputs. The study also highlights areas where SIMMs may not be suitable for all archaeological contexts.
Using stable isotope mixing models (SIMMs) to quantify past diets is becoming increasingly common in archaeology. This study highlights important field-specific difficulties encountered by archaeologists in reconstructing palaeodiets using SIMMs. Focusing on the data acquisition stage, we discuss several issues that could confound dietary quantification if not accounted for. These issues are categorized under several broad categories: diagenesis, intra-individual variability, representativeness of both the consumers and sources, and other commonly encountered field-specific problems. We summarize these issues with a flow chart to help archaeologists to select the most appropriate samples for dietary reconstruction using SIMMs, thereby decreasing the probability that the outputs of the SIMM are inaccurate. We conclude by discussing the ways in which SIMMs may not be appropriate for all archaeological contexts, highlighting those areas that are likely to be the most problematic for end users.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available