Microscopic examination of ground sections – a simple method for distinguishing between bone and antler?

Abstract

Both bones and antlers have been used throughout history for manufacturing various products. Therefore, archaeologists often have to distinguish between these materials. The more the raw material (bone or antler) has been treated, the more complicated it is to distinguish. For this study, recent macerated and archaeological samples of bone and antler and their products have been compared. Antler is usually very easy to distinguish based on the characteristic surface structure; however, the original surface is not preserved in all artefacts. The inner surface of the diaphysis of long bones is mostly compact with prominent trabeculae and lamellae, whereas, after removal of the spongiosa, the inner surface of antler is characterised by numerous grooves. Sometimes, however, artefacts are found which are composed only of the compact bone substance, without inner and outer surfaces, and it is not possible to distinguish between bones and antlers macroscopically. Haversian systems can be found in histological and ground sections of both bones and antlers. In contrast to bones, antlers have few interstitial lamellae. The osteons of antler seem to be smaller and to consist of fewer layers than those of bone. Inner and outer circumferential lamellae cannot be distinguished in antlers. Although microscopic examination of sectioned samples does not allow distinction between bones and antlers in every case, it represents a valuable additional tool for distinguishing between these two materials in historic artefacts.

Healed antler fracture from a giant deer (Megaloceros giganteus) from the Pleistocene in Poland

“…Similar information on antler histology of extinct cervids is scanty (Paral et al, 2007). Our histological examination of the focus having a normal radiological shadow (Figure 2.1, asterisk) reveals the expected features of orderly arrangement of osteons of similar diameter, and well-developed Haversian systems (compact bone tissue, Figures 3.1, 3.2).…”

Differentiation of archaeological ivory and bone materials by micro-PIXE/PIGE with emphasis on two Upper Palaeolithic key sites: Abri Pataud and Isturitz, France

“…Matrixassisted Laser Desorption/Ionization (MALDI) -MS investigations were aimed at the identification of bone species (Buckley et al, 2010). A few studies deal with the differentiation between bone and antler using electron microscopy (Paral et al, 2007;Chadefaux et al, 2008). Reiche et al (2011) studied micro-morphological features by means of non-destructive micro computed tomography (micro-CT) in order to distinguish between ivory, bone and antler.…”

Evaluating the osseointegration of nanostructured titanium implants in animal models: Current experimental methods and perspectives (Review)

“…90 Despite playing an important biological and physiological role, the dimensions fine nanostructural and surface modifications of the nanoimplants are beyond the resolution limits used in histology and light microscopy. However, histology is the level most decisive for evaluating the osseointegration.…”