Evaluating protein residues on Gainey phase Paleoindian stone tools

Revisiting Paleoindian exploitation of extinct North American mammals

“…Although we are intrigued by these results, and are impressed by 235 the detailed nature of some of the analyses in this general realm (e.g., Seeman et al 2008), we remain 236 extremely cautious about them (Grayson and Meltzer 2002) and are unwilling to accept them at face value 237 in the absence of other supporting evidence of predation. 238…”

Integration of use-wear with protein residue analysis – a study of tool use and function in the south Scandinavian Early Neolithic

“…The correlation between the results from use-wear and protein residue analysis shows that the positive protein results are the result of working with the tools, not residue from hafting material (Seeman et al, 2008) or from other activities (Rots and Williamson, 2004).…”

“…Ancient protein residues are preserved and have been detected on stone tools of considerable age using CIEP (Gerlach et al, 1996;Kooyman et al, 2001;Seeman et al, 2008;Yost, 2008). In one of the largest samples of reactive protein residues from an archaeological site, Gerlach et al (1996) report a total of 45 positive reactions obtained on 40 of the 130 stone tools tested from an early North American Paleoindian site (ca.…”

“…Plant residues such as phytoliths, starches, pollen grains, cell walls and fibres, as well as animal and human residues including blood, protein, ancient DNA, hair, feathers and muscle tissue, have been analysed (Custer et al, 1988;Gurfinkel and Frankling, 1988;Kooyman et al, 1992;Loy and Hardy, 1992;Smith and Wilson, 1992;Cattaneo et al, 1993;Loy, 1993;Manning, 1994;Downs and Lowenstein, 1995;Fiedel, 1996;Petraglia et al, 1996;Tuross et al, 1996;Jahren et al, 1997;Newman et al, 1997;Hardy and Garufi, 1998;Fullagar, 1998;Loy and Dixon, 1998;Shanks et al, 1999Shanks et al, , 2001Craig and Collins, 2002;Wadley et al, 2004;Shanks et al, 2005;Lombard and Wadley, 2007;Seeman et al, 2008).…”

Towards the application of desorption electrospray ionisation mass spectrometry (DESI-MS) to the analysis of ancient proteins from artefacts

“…Following reports documenting the survival of proteins in dried blood (Sensabaugh et al, 1971;Dorrill and Whitehead, 1979), the first papers detailing the recovery and analysis of proteins sorbed to stone tools were published in the 1980s (Loy, 1983;Fredrickson, 1985;Loy and Wood, 1989). These studies met both with an expansion of interest (Richards, 1989;Hyland et al, 1990;Kooyman et al, 1992;Newman et al, 1996Newman et al, , 1997Newman et al, , 1998Shanks et al, 1999;Lowenstein et al, 2006;Reuther et al, 2006;Seeman et al, 2008) and increasing scepticism (Custer et al, 1988;Gurfinkel and Franklin, 1988;Smith and Wilson, 1992;Cattaneo et al, 1993;Eisele et al, 1995;Fiedel, 1996;Tuross et al, 1996;Craig and Collins, 2002). Critical papers highlight the dangers of false positive results, lack of suitable controls, evidence for rapid degradation of most sorbed proteins following burial, and the apparent inconsistency between the claimed persistence of adsorbed residues over millennia contrasted with the apparent ease with which they could be removed using simple solvents in the laboratory.…”