Natural Resources, School of
Title
Pathoecology and the Future of Coprolite Studies in Bioarchaeology
Document Type
Article
Date of this Version
February 2008
Abstract
Human coprolites currently provide an
expanding array of information about the diet, health,
and ecology of prehistoric people in the Southwest,
but for many years coprolites were not recognized or
preserved, or they were not considered important and
thus were not saved (Bryant and Dean 2006). With
the expansion of archaeological field work during the
last half of the twentieth century archaeologists have
increasingly explored the “complete” potentials of
sites, including the collection and analysis of
geomorphologic, botanical, and faunal data. In some
ideal habitats (e.g., very dry or frozen) this includes
exploring the scientific potential of human coprolite
studies.
Pathoecology is the study of the environmental
determinants of disease (Martinson et al. 2003;
Reinhard 2008a, 2008b). These include human
factors such as crowding, sanitation, hygiene, and
trade. They also include biotic factors such as
presence of pathogens, disease reservoirs, and
intermediate hosts. Finally, physical factors such as
climate and soil conditions can be studied.
Pathoecology began to emerge in the Southwest with
the establishment of a link between the emergence of
parasitic disease and Ancestral Pueblo cultural
development (Reinhard 1988b).
As demonstrated by our discussion of past
studies, the combined theoretical approach to
pathoecology combined with the data and
methodologies derived from coprolite research are
essential elements for Southwestern bioarchaeology.
Currently, the greatest need is to refine certain areas
of this research.
There are potential bioarchaeological
applications that can be gained from studies of
coprolite analyses. Nevertheless, before
bioarchaeologists can discover and apply these
applications to answer questions, they will need to
become familiar with the pathoecological approach
to coprolite analysis. Once this “marriage” has been
achieved, questions can be asked and testable
hypotheses developed for coprolite studies.
In summary, we firmly believe that the field of
bioarchaeology must broaden its scope to include
coprology as one of its central tools. In essence, it
must become the “host” for the further development
of coprolite research.
Download
Comments
Paper in Press - Reinhard KJ, Bryant VM (2008) Pathoecology and the Future of Coprolite Studies. In (Ann W. M. Stodder. ed.) Bioarchaeology, in: Reanalysis and Reinterpretation in Southwestern Bioarchaeology. Arizona State University Press: Tempe (manuscript accepted for 2008 publication).