PDA

View Full Version : Inside The Archaeology Of Paleofeces


Richard
02-12-2012, 10:57
So...you want me to pay for you to go to college and study what?!!?! :eek:

Wonder how much history we've denied future paleofecalists by using those cut-down barrels and diesel fuel... :rolleyes:

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Ancient Poop Science: The Archaeology Of Paleofeces
io9, 9 Feb 2012

The invention of the toilet accomplished many good things, but it did rob us of the chance at immortality - through our poop. Ancient humans have revealed some of their greatest secrets through paleofeces, the study of the waste they left behind.

In studying ancient humanity, there's no more powerful resource than preserved DNA... theoretically. While DNA has evolved to be the molecule of life, it's not built nearly as well to stick around after its organism is dead and gone. There are a few ways to preserve DNA for up to as much as a million years without complete degradation, but these mostly involve being frozen in ice or permafrost. Since most of humanity historically has stayed away from extremely cold climates, that naturally limits our sources of usable ancient human DNA.

That's where poop enters the picture. As one of the great works of Western literature once so cogently observed, everybody does it — and in the 99% or so of human history without sanitation services, humans pretty much just pooped wherever there was space. These "nonhardened fossils", as archaeologists have euphemistically referred to them, account for a shockingly high percentage of the material found in ancient cave sites. There's such a ridiculously high quantity of preserved human poop — paleofeces, if we're being technical — that being able to extract any amount of DNA would make them a massively useful resource.

Luckily, the dry, cool conditions of these caves provide workable conditions to preserve DNA for posterity, and the paleofeces provide the carrier that protects the DNA on its journey into history. The ancient dung can hold onto recoverable DNA through a process known as the Maillard reaction. As the feces dried out all those thousands of years ago, the sugars from the digested plant material began to react with surrounding amino acids, forming larger sugar compounds that formed around and encased the DNA, preserving it for future extraction. This same chemical reaction is crucial today in the coloring and flavoring of a bunch of foods, including French fries, biscuits, maple syrup, and brioche.

A 2005 article in Current Science recounts the simple, five-step process to extract DNA from poop. All you need is some liquid nitrogen, a diabetes drug, and a polymerase chain reaction machine... oh, and some preserved dung, of course. Freezing the samples in the liquid nitrogen allows them to be ground down to a fine powder, although the individual grains are still significantly bigger than the individual sugar and DNA fragments.

Next, the diabetes drug, which is designed to help people control their high blood sugar, is used to break down the sugar compounds surrounding the DNA. The chain reaction machine is used to make millions of copies of the recovered DNA, which can then be sequenced and compared to other DNA fragments from different sources, such as bones found at the same site. This is useful in establishing the accuracy of the sequencing and ensuring that degradation hasn't robbed the DNA of the useful information it once contained.

The first successful recovery of DNA from poop came in 1998, when Hendrik Poinar and Svante Paabo, at the time scientists at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, released DNA left by now-extinct ground sloths some 20,000 years ago. Poinar, who has since become one of, if not the leading expert in the archaeology of poop — though I'm guessing he wouldn't phrase it quite like that — then had similar success with dung samples from an extinct goat species and another ground sloth species. But these were all just examples of animal crap, which are called coprolites to distinguish them from the human paleofeces.

The big breakthrough in human DNA extraction came with the arrival of Kristin Sobolik, and archaeologist at the University of Maine Orono, who proposed Poinar and his colleagues test some of the thousands of paleofeces specimens found in Hinds Cave (pictured up top), an ancient dwelling in southern Texas whose preserved poop samples date from 8,500 to just 500 years ago. Using the method outlined above, the researchers tested five small samples dating between 400 and 100 BCE.

Their remarkable results are recounted in a July 2000 article in Science:


Poinar pulled out human mitochondrial DNA and found sequences, called haplogroups, that are known to be Native American. (An independent lab has replicated the findings.) The group next extracted chloroplast DNA, from which they matched sequences to buckthorn, acorns, sunflower, a shrub called ocotillo, and a kind of nightshade, probably wild tobacco. Sobolik examined the samples under a microscope but could see no remnants of these plants. (On the other hand, cacti and rodents found by Sobolik did not show up in the molecular analysis.) Both the DNA and visual methods identified traces of legumes, yuccas, and elm, which may have been used to brew tea.

The paleofeces also contain visible bones of pack rats and mice, as well as fish scales. Poinar didn't find DNA from these, perhaps because the samples that he tested lacked the tiny bone fragments. However, he did find sequences for sheep and pronghom antelope, bones of which have not been found in Hinds Cave. That suggests that the large game was killed and eaten elsewhere, Poinar says.

That's just an absurd amount of information, and it's almost all from the poop. Indeed, this is part of why paleofeces are such a powerful archaeological tool - they don't just reveal the DNA of a single organism, as bones would, but instead they give you the DNA of the organism and all the things it ate. In this case, it helped reveal the incredible diversity of foods eaten by these ancient hunter-gatherers, which is a vital fact of their existence that would have otherwise remain hidden from the view of archaeologists.

Indeed, the prevailing view before Poinar and Sobilik's work was that these ancient humans subsisted on a poor diet heavily dependent on foraged berries. On the contrary, one of the samples contained evidence of four different animals and three different plants, all of which had been eaten in the two days or so before defecation — I suspect a worrying percentage of modern poop couldn't match that kind of nutritional diversity. And thus, an ancient truth was illuminated...by poop.

There's really only one final, vital question left to consider, at least as far as I'm concerned — does ancient poop smell? Kristin Sobilik addressed this all-important question in a 2008 interview with the magazine Odyssey. The dried poop itself has no particular smell. The organic compounds that give poop its odor are encased inside the sugar compounds alongside the DNA — which means that the process of extracting the DNA can also mean releasing the poop smell of somebody who lived thousands of years ago. Now if that isn't leaving a legacy to future generations, I really don't know what is.

http://io9.com/5883873/paleofeces-inside-the-archaeology-of-poop

GratefulCitizen
02-13-2012, 13:16
It is interesting that determining the "age" of the sloth specimen isn't attributed to the DNA found.
The dating method was probably based on modern geology which is based on the principles (assumptions) of superposition and uniformitarianism.
(In other words, they assumed it was that old.)

DNA isn't a stable molecule and there shouldn't be any left after 10,000 years.
(Of course, that doesn't stop DNA from being found in 17 million year old leaves and 250 million year old bacteria.)

While I might think the dating techniques are crap, the archeology of crap is still pretty darn cool.

Richard
02-13-2012, 13:21
While I might think the dating techniques are crap, the archeology of crap is still pretty darn cool.

Sounds like a man who knows his s**t! Oh, crap! Did I say that? ;)

Richard :munchin

mark46th
02-13-2012, 14:03
A friend of mine, a retired Chemistry professor at a local Community College, used to go to Colorado every year to look for fossil pre-historic dog turds. I opted not to accompany him. He was strange then, he is strange now.

GratefulCitizen
02-13-2012, 17:51
A friend of mine, a retired Chemistry professor at a local Community College, used to go to Colorado every year to look for fossil pre-historic dog turds. I opted not to accompany him. He was strange then, he is strange now.

There's a rock shop in Fredonia, Arizona (across from the GUNS LOTTO AMMO BEER store) which sells petrified dinosaur turds.
It's one of the better selling rocks.

Sigaba
02-13-2012, 18:21
[Scientists] tends to ingore things that does not fit their view of the world.
They're not the only ones.

How facts backfire: Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/)

Excerpt: It’s one of the great assumptions underlying modern democracy that an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one. “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789. This notion, carried down through the years, underlies everything from humble political pamphlets to presidential debates to the very notion of a free press. Mankind may be crooked timber, as Kant put it, uniquely susceptible to ignorance and misinformation, but it’s an article of faith that knowledge is the best remedy. If people are furnished with the facts, they will be clearer thinkers and better citizens. If they are ignorant, facts will enlighten them. If they are mistaken, facts will set them straight.

In the end, truth will out. Won’t it?

Maybe not. Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs — aren’t blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”

These findings open a long-running argument about the political ignorance of American citizens to broader questions about the interplay between the nature of human intelligence and our democratic ideals. Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information. And then we vote.

This effect is only heightened by the information glut, which offers — alongside an unprecedented amount of good information — endless rumors, misinformation, and questionable variations on the truth. In other words, it’s never been easier for people to be wrong, and at the same time feel more certain that they’re right.

[The balance of this article is available at the link provided above.]

GratefulCitizen
02-13-2012, 19:02
They're not the only ones.

How facts backfire: Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/)

Excerpt:

Does this article reinforce your view?
:D