The effect of eraser sampling for proteomic analysis on Palaeolithic bone surface microtopography.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 12 2021
08 12 2021
Historique:
received:
16
07
2021
accepted:
19
11
2021
entrez:
9
12
2021
pubmed:
10
12
2021
medline:
29
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34880290
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-02823-w
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-02823-w
pmc: PMC8655045
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
23611Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Semenov, S. A. & Thompson, M. W. Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear (Cory, Adams & Mackay, 1964).
D’Errico, F. & Villa, P. Holes and grooves: The contribution of microscopy and taphonomy to the problem of art origins. J. Hum. Evol. 33, 1–31 (1997).
pubmed: 9236076
doi: 10.1006/jhev.1997.0141
Chase, P. G., Dibble, H. L., Lindly, J., Clark, G. & Straus, L. G. On the emergence of modern humans. Curr. Anthropol. 31, 58–66 (1990).
doi: 10.1086/203804
Soressi, M. et al. Neandertals made the first specialized bone tools in Europe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 14186–14190 (2013).
pubmed: 23940333
pmcid: 3761603
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1302730110
d’Errico, F., Zilhão, J., Julien, M., Baffier, D. & Pelegrin, J. Neanderthal acculturation in western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its interpretation. Curr. Anthropol. 39, S1–S44 (1998).
doi: 10.1086/204689
Arrighi, S. et al. Bone tools, ornaments and other unusual objects during the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Italy. Quatern. Int. 551, 169–187 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2019.11.016
Bouzouggar, A. et al. 90,000 year-old specialised bone technology in the Aterian Middle Stone Age of North Africa. PLoS One 13, e0202021 (2018).
pubmed: 30281602
pmcid: 6169849
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202021
Gaudzinski, S. Middle palaeolithic bone tools from the open-air site Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (Germany). J. Archaeol. Sci. 26, 125–141 (1999).
doi: 10.1006/jasc.1998.0311
Henshilwood, C. S., d’Errico, F., Marean, C. W., Milo, R. G. & Yates, R. An early bone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and language. J. Hum. Evol. 41, 631–678 (2001).
pubmed: 11782112
doi: 10.1006/jhev.2001.0515
Gaudzinski, S. et al. The use of Proboscidean remains in every-day Palaeolithic life. Quatern. Int. 126–128, 179–194 (2005).
doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2004.04.022
Hutson, J. M. et al. The Origins of Bone Tool Technologies (Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2018).
Margaris, A. V. Reconsidering raw material selection. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 21, 669–695 (2014).
doi: 10.1007/s10816-012-9168-x
Martisius, N. L. et al. Non-destructive ZooMS identification reveals strategic bone tool raw material selection by Neandertals. Sci. Rep. 10, 7746 (2020).
pubmed: 32385291
pmcid: 7210944
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-64358-w
Wild, M. & Pfeifer, S. J. Choice of osseous raw materials for tool production at the Pleistocene/Holocene transition in north-western Central Europe: an approach addressing zooarchaeology and material properties. in Préhistoire de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest: Mobilités, climats et identités culturelles Vol. 2 (ed. Locht, C. M. J.-P. F.) 477–489 (Société préhistorique française, Paris, 2019).
Verna, C. & d’Errico, F. The earliest evidence for the use of human bone as a tool. J. Hum. Evol. 60, 145–157 (2011).
pubmed: 21131024
doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.07.027
Dekker, J. et al. Human and cervid osseous materials used for barbed point manufacture in Mesolithic Doggerland. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 35, 102678 (2021).
Bradfield, J., Forssman, T., Spindler, L. & Antonites, A. R. Identifying the animal species used to manufacture bone arrowheads in South Africa. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 11, 2419–2434 (2019).
doi: 10.1007/s12520-018-0688-5
Desmond, A. et al. ZooMS identification of bone tools from the North African Later Stone Age. J. Archaeol. Sci. 98, 149–157 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2018.08.012
Sinet-Mathiot, V. et al. Combining ZooMS and zooarchaeology to study Late Pleistocene hominin behaviour at Fumane (Italy). Sci. Rep. 9, 12350 (2019).
pubmed: 31451791
pmcid: 6710433
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-48706-z
Buckley, M., Collins, M., Thomas-Oates, J. & Wilson, J. C. Species identification by analysis of bone collagen using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 23, 3843–3854 (2009).
pubmed: 19899187
doi: 10.1002/rcm.4316
Welker, F., Soressi, M., Rendu, W., Hublin, J.-J. & Collins, M. Using ZooMS to identify fragmentary bone from the Late Middle/Early Upper Palaeolithic sequence of Les Cottés, France. J. Archaeol. Sci. 54, 279–286 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.12.010
Hofreiter, M. &. P. Using ancient DNA to elucidate raw material origin of bone points from Potočka zijalka (Slovenia): Preliminary results. in Mitt. Komm. Quartärforsch. Österr. Akad. Wiss. 201–210 (2004).
Bradfield, J. Identifying animal taxa used to manufacture bone tools during the Middle Stone Age at Sibudu, South Africa: Results of a CT-rendered histological analysis. PLoS One 13, e0208319 (2018).
pubmed: 30496272
pmcid: 6264865
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208319
Bradfield, J., Kitchener, A. C. & Buckley, M. Selection preferences for animal species used in bone-tool-manufacturing strategies in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. PLoS One 16, e0249296 (2021).
pubmed: 33793614
pmcid: 8016335
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249296
Brandt, L. Ø., Haase, K. & Collins, M. J. Species identification using ZooMS, with reference to the exploitation of animal resources in the medieval town of Odense. Danish J. Archaeol. 7, 1–15 (2018).
doi: 10.1080/21662282.2018.1468154
Ives, J. W., Froese, D., Collins, M. & Brock, F. Radiocarbon and protein analyses indicate an early holocene age for the osseous rod from grenfell, saskatchewan, canada. Am. Antiq. 79, 782–793 (2014).
doi: 10.7183/0002-7316.79.4.782
von Holstein, I. C. C. et al. Searching for Scandinavians in pre-Viking Scotland: molecular fingerprinting of Early Medieval combs. J. Archaeol. Sci. 41, 1–6 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2013.07.026
Meadows, J., Eriksen, B. V., Zagorska, I., Dreves, A. & Simpson, J. Dating late paleolithic harpoons from Lake Lubāns, Latvia. Radiocarbon 56, 581–589 (2014).
doi: 10.2458/56.16957
Gates St-Pierre, C., St-Germain, C., Courtemanche, M., Chapdelaine, C. & Collins, M. An integrative approach to the study of bone tool manufacture and use: The case of the St. Lawrence iroquoians. Cuadernos del Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano Series Especiales 3, 54–73 (2016).
Hendy, J. et al. A guide to ancient protein studies. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 791–799 (2018).
pubmed: 29581591
doi: 10.1038/s41559-018-0510-x
van Doorn, N. L., Wilson, J., Hollund, H., Soressi, M. & Collins, M. J. Site-specific deamidation of glutamine: A new marker of bone collagen deterioration. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 26, 2319–2327 (2012).
pubmed: 22956324
doi: 10.1002/rcm.6351
Welker, F. et al. Variations in glutamine deamidation for a Châtelperronian bone assemblage as measured by peptide mass fingerprinting of collagen. STAR Sci. Technol. Archaeol. Res. 3, 15–27 (2017).
Fiddyment, S. et al. Animal origin of 13th-century uterine vellum revealed using noninvasive peptide fingerprinting. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 15066–15071 (2015).
pubmed: 26598667
pmcid: 4679014
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1512264112
Teasdale, M. D. et al. The York Gospels: A 1000-year biological palimpsest. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 170988 (2017).
pubmed: 29134095
pmcid: 5666278
doi: 10.1098/rsos.170988
Fiddyment, S. et al. Girding the loins? Direct evidence of the use of a medieval English parchment birthing girdle from biomolecular analysis. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, 202055 (2021).
pubmed: 33959357
pmcid: 8074970
doi: 10.1098/rsos.202055
Shepherd, L. D. A non-destructive DNA sampling technique for herbarium specimens. PLoS One 12, e0183555 (2017).
pubmed: 28859137
pmcid: 5578499
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183555
McGrath, K. et al. Identifying archaeological bone via non-destructive ZooMS and the materiality of symbolic expression: Examples from Iroquoian bone points. Sci. Rep. 9, 11027 (2019).
pubmed: 31363122
pmcid: 6667708
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-47299-x
BPG Surface Cleaning. 2021. Book and Paper Group Wiki. American Institute for Conservation (AIC). https://www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/BPG_Surface_Cleaning . Accessed July 5, 2021.
Coutu, A. N. et al. Palaeoproteomics confirm earliest domesticated sheep in southern Africa ca. 2000 BP. Sci. Rep. 11, 6631 (2021).
pubmed: 33758223
pmcid: 7988125
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-85756-8
McInnis, K. Study 2: Dry cleaning of paper. Inst. Conserv. Cult. Mater. 6, 43–52 (1980).
Pearlstein, E. J., Cabelli, D., King, A. & Indictor, N. Effects of eraser treatment on paper. J. Am. Inst. Conserv. 22, 1–12 (1982).
doi: 10.1179/019713682806028496
Abdel-Maksoud, G., Emam, H. & Ragab, N. M. From traditional to laser cleaning techniques of parchment manuscripts: A review. Adv. Res. Conserv. Sci. 1, 52–76 (2020).
doi: 10.21608/arcs.2020.111216
Villa, P. & d’Errico, F. Bone and ivory points in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. J. Hum. Evol. 41, 69–112 (2001).
pubmed: 11437521
doi: 10.1006/jhev.2001.0479
Olsen, S. L. & Shipman, P. Surface modification on bone: Trampling versus butchery. J. Archaeol. Sci. 15, 535–553 (1988).
doi: 10.1016/0305-4403(88)90081-7
Fernandez-Jalvo, Y. & Andrews, P. Atlas of Taphonomic Identifications: 1001+ Images of Fossil and Recent Mammal Bone Modification (Springer, 2016).
doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-7432-1
Fisher, J. W. Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2, 7–68 (1995).
doi: 10.1007/BF02228434
Hannus, L., Rossum, L. & Winham, P. Proceedings of the 1993 Bone Modification Conference, Hot Springs, South Dakota (Archeology Laboratory, Augustana College, 1997).
Martisius, N. L. et al. Time wears on: Assessing how bone wears using 3D surface texture analysis. PLoS One 13, e0206078 (2018).
pubmed: 30403706
pmcid: 6221309
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206078
Fewlass, H. et al. A 14C chronology for the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition at Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 794–801 (2020).
pubmed: 32393865
doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-1136-3
Hublin, J.-J. et al. Initial Upper Palaeolithic Homo sapiens from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria. Nature 581, 299–302 (2020).
pubmed: 32433609
doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2259-z
Smith, G.M. et al. Subsistence behavior during the Initial Upper Paleolithic in Europe: Site use, dietary practice, and carnivore exploitation at Bacho Kiro Cave (Bulgaria). J. Hum. Evol. 161, 103074 (2021).
pubmed: 34628301
doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2021.103074
Fiddyment, S. et al. So you want to do biocodicology? A field guide to the biological analysis of parchment. Herit. Sci. 7, 35 (2019).
doi: 10.1186/s40494-019-0278-6
Welker, F. et al. Palaeoproteomic evidence identifies archaic hominins associated with the Châtelperronian at the Grotte du Renne. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 11162–11167 (2016).
pubmed: 27638212
pmcid: 5056053
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1605834113
Gibb, S. & Strimmer, K. MALDIquant: A versatile R package for the analysis of mass spectrometry data. Bioinformatics 28, 2270–2271 (2012).
pubmed: 22796955
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts447
Schulz, E., Calandra, I. & Kaiser, T. M. Applying tribology to teeth of hoofed mammals. Scanning 32, 162–182 (2010).
pubmed: 20949615
doi: 10.1002/sca.20181
Schulz, E. et al. Dietary abrasiveness is associated with variability of microwear and dental surface texture in rabbits. PLoS One 8, e56167 (2013).
pubmed: 23405263
pmcid: 3566079
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056167
Martisius, N. L., McPherron, S. P., Schulz-Kornas, E., Soressi, M. & Steele, T. E. A method for the taphonomic assessment of bone tools using 3D surface texture analysis of bone microtopography. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 12, 251 (2020).
doi: 10.1007/s12520-020-01195-y
Iso, I.S.O.25178-2:2012—Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS)—Surface Texture: Areal—Part 2: Terms, Definitions and Surface Texture Parameters (International Standards Organization, 2012).
Vehtari, A., Gelman, A. & Gabry, J. Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Stat. Comput. 27, 1413–1432 (2017).
doi: 10.1007/s11222-016-9696-4
Stan Development Team. RStan: the R interface to Stan (2021).
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (2021).
Roth, M. Linköping university electronic press report: On the multivariate t distribution (2013).
Legrand, A. & Sidéra, I. Methods, means, and results when studying European bone industry. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00283607/document .
d’Errico, F., Borgia, V. & Ronchitelli, A. Uluzzian bone technology and its implications for the origin of behavioural modernity. Quatern. Int. 259, 59–71 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2011.03.039
Pedergnana, A. et al. Evaluating the microscopic effect of brushing stone tools as a cleaning procedure. Quatern. Int. 569–570, 263–276 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2020.06.031
Brink, J. The role of abrasives in the formation of lithic use-wear. J. Archaeol. Sci. 5, 363–371 (1978).
doi: 10.1016/0305-4403(78)90055-9
Rots, V., Hayes, E., Cnuts, D., Lepers, C. & Fullagar, R. Making sense of residues on flaked stone artefacts: Learning from blind tests. PLoS One 11, e0150437 (2016).
pubmed: 26930210
pmcid: 4773257
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150437
Marreiros, J., Mazzucco, N., Gibaja, J. F. & Bicho, N. Macro and micro evidences from the past: The state of the art of archeological use-wear studies. In Use-Wear and Residue Analysis in Archaeology (eds Marreiros, J. M. et al.) 5–26 (Springer International Publishing, 2015).
doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-08257-8_2
Van Gijn, A. L. Science and interpretation in microwear studies. J. Archaeol. Sci. 48, 166–169 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.024