|
|
Uwe Müller wrote:
> "Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:1149119580.383471.94750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Dylan Sung wrote:
> > > "Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1149036584.080726.293140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > Peter Alaca wrote:
> > > >> Dylan Sung wrote: news:e5goqp$fq2$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> > "Tom McDonald" wrote
> > > >> >> Peter Alaca wrote:
> > > >> >>> Tom McDonald wrote:
> > > >> >>>> Peter Alaca wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >>>>> " Human feces reveal much about ancient human
> > > >> >>>>> dietary practices. The oldest know are from
> > > >> >>>>> Homo erectus at Terra Amata (France) that may
> > > >> >>>>> date to 300,000 ya.
> > > >> >>>>> "Fossilized feces" are called coprolites.
> > > >> >>>>> How can you tell if they are human? Human
> > > >> >>>>> coprolites soaked in trisodium phosphate
> > > >> >>>>> solution for 72 hours turn brown to black. No
> > > >> >>>>> other species produces this effect. "
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> (Note in a reader, from "The Evolution of Human
> > > >> >>>>> Nutrition" by Barry Bogin.)
> > > >>
> > > >> >>>> Good job you don't have to use the technique by which
> > > >> >>>> fossilized bone is differentiated from rock.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> Human bone?
> > > >>
> > > >> >> Any bone.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> Tell me more.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> It has to do with...no, I can't bring myself to say. <blush>
> > > >>
> > > >> > Blush? I can't imagine why. Please tell, pretty please!
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes Tom, please.
> > > >> Thomas, Thomas, Thomas!
> > > >
> > > > Well, you asked for it.
> > > >
> > > > To tell fossilized bone from rock, you...um...this part is
> hard...let's
> > > > just say it has to do with...oral skills. <furiously blushing>
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not the dental skills? I know that they do the rubbing test to see if a
> > > pearl is real or not. This is done against your tooth enamel. A real
> pearl
> > > feels rough in comparison to a glass bead apparently.
> >
> > No, not dental. Do I have to come right out and say it?
> >
> > One practices litholigus. <melts into a Victorian pool of shame>
>
> You could just as well use a magnifying glass, feces are very heterogenous,
> contain bits and pieces of plants, bones etc.
>
> Have they really told you, this would be the only way to make sure it's not
> just a piece of rock?
No, not the only way. But it's the technique that, when applied
(inappropriately, I know) to coprolites, produces an interesting mental
image.
> This beats having a guy scrub 150 big stones with lots of water and a brush
> ('for the photo, so they look clean') while temperatures were way below zero
> (we had to wait two days till the ice vanished, before we could take the
> photo).
Was that guy you, Uwe? :-)
Seems a bunch of archaeologists might have thought this through better.
Was there no place warm (i.e. above 32 degrees F/0 C) to scrub the
rocks? Or were you not in a hurry to get the pictures taken?
BTW, what was the investigation about that required 150 big, clean
stones?
|
|