Tony,
In Australia we have a great field book called 'Tracks, scats and other
traces' (full ref below). Obviously this is not for archaeological
nuggets, but it may be of some help. Little use in Egypt identifying
marsupial poo you may think, but of the species of interest mentioned,
most are feral here and are included (except gazelle, even though
introduction was attempted), including the only wild camels anywhere for
that matter. It's also got some bones in there, and is a great little
book all around - even if the poo's too new at least take it as a random
recommendation if you ever find yourself over this way where almost
everything is nocturnal and rarely seen in person.
Triggs, B. 1996. Tracks, scats and other traces: a field guide to
Australian mammals. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Oliver Brown
------------------------------
>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:42:28 -0000
>From: "Gouldwell, A.J." <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Copronomy
>
>=20
>Dear all,
>
>I've been asked by an archaeobotanical colleague whether there exists
>any literature on identifying dung. I've replied as best I can
>including refs. to contents of earlier Zooarch correspondence.
>Particular species of interest are: donkey (plus wild ass?), camel,
>sheep, goat, gazelle (presumably dorcas?). Geographical area: Egypt.=20
>
>Suggestions would be welcome, please.
>
>Tony Gouldwell.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:29:30 +0000
>From: Sue Archer <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Copronomy
>
>Hi,
>
>I have a couple of possibly relevant refs:
>
>An Egyptian reference, but dealing with a species not on your list, the pig:
>
>Panagiotakopulu, E. 1999 "An examination of biological materials from
>coprolites from XVIII Dynasty Armana, Egypt" Journal of Archaeological
>Science 26, 547-551.
>
>Or from Iran, a discussion of whether charred seeds are spilt grain, or a
>component of dung:
>
>Miller, N. F. 1996 "Seed eaters of the Ancient Near East: Human or
>Herbivore", Current Anthropology 37, 521-528.
>
>As I remember, previous discussion has provided refences for distinguishing
>dung generally, and distinguishing that of equids from that of ruminants -
>is that what you have so far?
>
>Regards,
>
>Sue Archer
>PhD Student
>Department of Archaeology
>University of York
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:26:25 +0000
>From: Jill Weber <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Copronomy
>
>I sent this question to Naomi Miller, and here is her reply:
>
>There are several photos of dung on the web; generally, herbivore dung
>has a fibrous texture. The best way to to find out what it looks like
>is to collect it (that of sheep/goat, for example is dense and is
>smaller than camel; horse dung has a distinctive shape and is full of
>grass, etc.)
>
>An attractive photo of sheep/goat dung pellets is on Simone Riehl's
>website:
>http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/simone.riehl/
>
>Photos appear occasionally in articles
>Also, Akeret and Jacomet (1997)--drawing
>see reference in bibliography:
>http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~nmiller0/dung.html
>
>Also, is "the dung file" website: http://www.scirpus.ca/dung/dung.shtml
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of ZOOARCH Digest - 15 Mar 2006 to 16 Mar 2006 (#2006-60)
>*************************************************************
>
>
>
|