When a ‘Waterhole’ Is Full of Dung: An Illustration of the Importance of Environmental Evidence for Refining Archaeological Interpretation of Excavated Features

Abstract

Prehistoric field systems sometimes encompass excavated, pit-like features which are difficult to classify due to the complex stratigraphies resulting from reuse, infilling and collapse. They are frequently classified as wells and watering holes, but other potential uses for excavated depressions are rarely cited. We argue the need for environmental archaeology in the interpretation of features of this nature, and present a case study from a Bronze Age site at Pode Hole, near Peterborough (UK), where fossil insect material clearly contradicts the archaeological interpretation. We present empirical evidence for a sealed context filled with dung which cannot be interpreted as a water source. This evidence strongly contrasts with other superficially similar features at the site.

Late Holocene anthropogenic landscape change in northwestern Europe impacted insect biodiversity as much as climate change did after the last Ice Age

“…The beetle data also provide additional information on the presence of grazing animals in the landscape that are not easily visible through other proxy data sources (e.g. [ 8 , 12 , 18 , 35 ]). The appearance of traits related to agropastoralism also demonstrates that humans have impacted the biodiversity of beetles in northwestern Europe for at least 6500 years.…”

“…Beetles (Coleoptera) are the most species-rich animal order on Earth [ 7 ]. They are extremely valuable ecological indicators, as individual species have different climatic, ecological and physiological requirements, and numerous species are restricted to specific habitats [ 8 ]. Consequently, major transitions in species composition indicate major changes in the landscape and/or climate.…”

Dung in the dumps: what we can learn from multi-proxy studies of archaeological dung pellets

“…presence of bone or decayed organic matter) (Evershed et al 1997;Shahack-Gross 2011). Additional proxies for detecting dung include urine salts (Abell et al 2019), dung-related fauna and intestinal parasites (Schelvis 1992;Buckland and Buckland 2019;Camacho et al 2020), coprophilous fungi (Perrotti and van Asperen 2019), lipid biomarkers (Evershed et al 1997;Bull et al 1999Bull et al , 2002Shillito et al 2011) and the combination of phytolith and chemical signatures (Lancelotti and Madella 2012). Phytolith concentrations and/or morphologies have also been used to identify dung remains, although this has methodological issues (Shahack-Gross et al 2005).…”