Human and cervid osseous materials used for barbed point manufacture in Mesolithic Doggerland

Dekker, Joannes; Sinet‐Mathiot, Virginie; Spithoven, Merel; Smit, B.I.; Wilcke, Arndt; Welker, Frido; Verpoorte, Alexander; Soressi, Marie

doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102678

Cited by 8 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The field of paleoproteomics (here defined as the characterization of proteins from archeological and paleontological tissues using mass spectrometry [MS]) has grown exponentially since the first application of matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization (MALDI) MS to mammal remains 800–450 000 years old in 2000 . In the 22 years that followed, a variety of mass spectrometry-based methods have been used to investigate the preserved proteomic content of a diverse array of biological tissues (e.g., bones, teeth, baleen, turtle shell, mummified tissues), − objects (e.g., paintings, ethnologic objects, potsherds, parchment), − and species (e.g., mammoth, moa, giant beaver, whales, sea turtles). ,,,,,− However, the vast majority of these studies have focused on relatively young (<100 thousand years old) paleontological and archeological materials and remains. In this perspective, we discuss the development and progress of “deep time paleoproteomics (DTPp)”, here defined as MS characterization of material older than ∼1 million years (1 Ma).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deep Time Paleoproteomics: Looking Forward

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of paleoproteomics is to characterize proteins from specimens that have been subjected to the degrading and obscuring effects of time, thus obtaining biological information about tissues or organisms both unobservable in the present and unobtainable through morphological study. Although the description of sequences from Tyrannosaurus rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis suggested that proteins may persist over tens of millions of years, the majority of paleoproteomic analyses have focused on historical, archeological, or relatively young paleontological samples that rarely exceed 1 million years in age. However, recent advances in methodology and analyses of diverse tissues types (e.g., fossil eggshell, dental enamel) have begun closing the large window of time that remains unexplored in the fossil history of the Cenozoic. In this perspective, we discuss the history and current state of deep time paleoproteomics (DTPp), here defined as paleoproteomic study of samples ∼1 million years (1 Ma) or more in age. We then discuss the future of DTPp research, including what we see as critical ways the field can expand, advancements in technology that can be utilized, and the types of questions DTPp can address if such a future is realized.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deep Time Paleoproteomics: Looking Forward

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on the collagen peptide markers NSM1 and NSM30 are identified as Bovidae/Cervidae and NSM10 as cattle ( Table 5 ). For the Mesolithic North Sea area, the label Bovidae/Cervidae refers to a group of species that all share the same markers and consists of either red deer or elk [see 26 and references therein]. In addition, the presence of a peak at m/z 2216 in both samples also suggests we can further specify this to red deer [ 6 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dynamic lives of osseous points from Late Palaeolithic/Early Mesolithic Doggerland: A detailed functional study of barbed and unbarbed points from the Dutch North Sea

Aleo,

Kozowyk,

Baron

et al. 2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Osseous barbed and unbarbed points are commonly recovered from the Dutch North Sea and other Mesolithic sites of northern Europe. Interpreted as elements of projectile weaponry, barbed points are considered by archaeologists to be a technological innovation in the hunting equipment of hunter-gatherers. However, debate about their exact use and identification of the targeted prey species is still ongoing. To shed light on the function of these tools, we analysed a sample of 17 artefacts from the Netherlands with a multi-disciplinary approach encompassing morphometric, functional, and chemical analysis. 14C-AMS dating yielded the oldest date for a barbed point from the Dutch coast (⁓13000 cal. BP). The observation of microwear traces preserved on the tools provides solid evidence to interpret the function of barbed and unbarbed points. We show that there were two distinct tool categories. 1) Barbed points hafted with birch tar and animal or vegetal binding were likely projectile tips for terrestrial and aquatic hunting. We provide strong clues to support the link between small barbed points and fishing using wear traces. 2) Points without barbs served as perforators for animal hides. Our results highlight the importance of use-wear and residue analysis to reconstruct prehistoric hunting activities. The functional interpretation of projectile points must also rely on microwear traces and not merely on the association with faunal remains, historical sources, and ethnographic comparisons.

show abstract

“…In such a case, species composition and skeletal representation of a bone artefact assemblage could reflect species (and element) composition at the archaeological site or the faunal community present on the landscape. Alternatively, the raw material choice of a specific taxa and/or bone element can be based on the biomechanical properties required by the function of the tool, and knowledge thereof 12 – 14 , or can be driven by behavioural choices related to cultural and/or symbolic meanings associated with a specific taxa (and/or element) 15 , 16 . Therefore, species determination is greatly informative for our understanding of their production and the culturally-mediated behaviours associated with technological choices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The vast majority of bone material, including bone tools, found on Palaeolithic sites are highly fragmented due to various taphonomic processes and prevent the taxonomic assessment of these bone specimens based on morphology. Moreover, taxonomic assignments of bone artefacts based on visual inspection of the external appearance are rendered difficult by the removal of morphological features during the fabrication of the tools or, subsequently, during tool use 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 . Often, bone artefacts are analyzed without knowing species identity, or lack specific taxonomic assignment; e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of eraser sampling for proteomic analysis on Palaeolithic bone surface microtopography

Sinet‐Mathiot

Martisius

Schulz‐Kornas

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bone surface modifications are crucial for understanding human subsistence and dietary behaviour, and can inform about the techniques employed in the production and use of bone tools. Permission to destructively sample such unique artefacts is not always granted. The recent development of non-destructive proteomic extraction techniques has provided some alternatives for the analysis of rare and culturally significant artefacts, including bone tools and personal ornaments. The Eraser Extraction Method (EEM), first developed for ZooMS analysis of parchment, has recently been applied to bone and ivory specimens. To test the potential impact of the EEM on ancient bone surfaces, we analyse six anthropogenically modified Palaeolithic bone specimens from Bacho Kiro Cave (Bulgaria) through a controlled sampling experiment using qualitative and 3D quantitative microscopy. Although the overall bone topography is generally preserved, our findings demonstrate a slight flattening of the microtopography alongside the formation of micro-striations associated with the use of the eraser for all bone specimens. Such modifications are similar to ancient use-wear traces. We therefore consider the EEM a destructive sampling approach for Palaeolithic bone surfaces. Together with low ZooMS success rates in some of the reported studies, the EEM might not be a suitable approach to taxonomically identify Pleistocene bone specimens.

show abstract

Human and cervid osseous materials used for barbed point manufacture in Mesolithic Doggerland

Cited by 8 publications

References 51 publications

Deep Time Paleoproteomics: Looking Forward

Deep Time Paleoproteomics: Looking Forward

The dynamic lives of osseous points from Late Palaeolithic/Early Mesolithic Doggerland: A detailed functional study of barbed and unbarbed points from the Dutch North Sea

The effect of eraser sampling for proteomic analysis on Palaeolithic bone surface microtopography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About