 |
| Figure 1: Coprolite from Hinds Cave site (Image Source: Texas Beyond History) |
Move over artifacts, mummies, and large architectural wonders! These provide a great deal of information about ancient human populations, but there is another area of archaeological research that provides a different set of information pertaining to diets, seasonality, health, genetics, and more: the study of ancient poop (formally known as coprolites)! Yes, archaeologists do not just dig through the garbage but also look at literal crap left behind by past people, which is the topic of today's blog post. A discussion of what coprolites are, what we can learn from them, and new perspectives pertaining to these studies will be covered. So without further delay let's get down to business!
The term coprolite comes from the Greek roots for "feces" and "lithics". It was first coined in 1829 and used to identify dinosaur feces. While it was and remains an area of study among paleontologists it very quickly also became an area of study for archaeologists, who quickly realized that they could gain important insights into past populations. Coprolites are collected at sites throughout the New and Old World. Coprolites are most often collected from cave sites, privies, as well as mummies.
The study of coprolites has been used to glean information about past human populations, particularly regarding reconstructions of diets and subsistence strategies, as well as parasite infestations. From these scholars can also gain deeper insights into traded food items, technological innovations (e.g. the transition from foraging to agricultural strategies), seasonality of site occupation, and more. This information is gained through the dissection of coprolites, which contain a variety of items, such as animal remains (e.g. bone, shell, scales, hair, fur, feathers), plant remains (e.g. seeds, phytoliths, pollen, leaves, flowers, stems); grit (from sand or ground stone), fungus, viruses, bacteria, and even DNA (Figure 1).
The discovery of DNA in coprolites is a more recent discovery of the use of coprolite analyses, and it has opened up a new area of study for this analytical area of the field. While coprolite analyses can be done alone scholars have more recently advocated for the combination of coprolite analyses with other archaeological studies in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the past. The reason for this inclusion of additional studies with coprolite studies is because coprolites are limited in scope as they represent food consumption patterns from the past 24 hours prior to feces expulsion and therefore do not provide a complete picture of past life ways. Multidisciplinary and multifaceted investigations can fill in the gaps about the past.
In conclusion, archaeological and bioarchaeological analyses truly are dirty disciplines. This dirty work provides a great deal of insights into past populations. A great deal of information can be gained from the study of coprolites, making it a worthwhile subject to study.
References
Gilbert, M.T.P.; Jenkins, D.L.; Gotherstrom, A.; Naveran, N.; Sanchez, J.J.; Hofreiter, M.; Thomsen, P.F.; Binladen, J.; Higham, T.F.G.; Yohe II, R.M.; Parr, R.; Cummings, L.S.; Willerslev, E. 2008. "DNA from Pre-Clovis Human Coprolites in Oregon, Norht America." Science May 9: 786-789.
Iñiguez, A.M.; Araújo, A.;
Ferreira, L.F.; Vicente, A.C.P. 2003. “Analysis of Ancient DNA from Coprolites:
A Perspective with Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA-Polymerase Chain Reaction Approach.”
Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 98(Suppl.
1): 63-65.
Johnston, G.
2015. “Coprolite Analysts.” Archaeology
Expert http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/coproliteanalysts.html
Reinhard, K.J. 2000. “Coprolite
Analysis: The Analysis of Ancient Human Feces in Dietary Data.” Archaeological
Method and Theory: An Encyclopedia.
Reinhard, K.J. and Hevly, R.H. 1991.
“Dietary and Parasitological Analysis of Coprolites Recovered from Mummy
5, Ventana Cave, Arizona.” KIVA 56: 319-327.
Reinhard, K.J. and Bryant Jr., V.M. 1992.
“Coprolite Analysis: A Biological Perspective on Archaeology.” Papers
in Natural Resources 245-288.
Reinhard, K.J.; Ambler, J.R.; Szuter, C.R. 2007.
“Hunter-Gatherer Use of Small Animal Food Resources: Coprolite
Evidence.” International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 17: 416-428.
Wilke, P.J. and Hall, H.J.
1975. “Analysis of Ancient Feces:
A Discussion and Annotated Bibliography.”
Archaeological Research Facility, University of California-Berkley.
