A double-blind comparison of morphological and collagen fingerprinting (ZooMS) methods of skeletal identifications from Paleolithic contexts
Abstract Modeling the subsistence strategies of prehistoric groups depends on the accuracy of the faunal identifications that provide the basis for these models. However, our knowledge remains limited about the reproducibility of published taxonomic identifications and how they accurately reflect th...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2023-11-01
|
| Series: | Scientific Reports |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45843-4 |
| _version_ | 1797636994212298752 |
|---|---|
| author | Eugène Morin Ellie-May Oldfield Mile Baković Jean-Guillaume Bordes Jean-Christophe Castel Isabelle Crevecoeur Hélène Rougier Gilliane Monnier Gilbert Tostevin Michael Buckley |
| author_facet | Eugène Morin Ellie-May Oldfield Mile Baković Jean-Guillaume Bordes Jean-Christophe Castel Isabelle Crevecoeur Hélène Rougier Gilliane Monnier Gilbert Tostevin Michael Buckley |
| author_sort | Eugène Morin |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Modeling the subsistence strategies of prehistoric groups depends on the accuracy of the faunal identifications that provide the basis for these models. However, our knowledge remains limited about the reproducibility of published taxonomic identifications and how they accurately reflect the range of species deposited in the archaeological record. This study compares taxonomic identifications at three Paleolithic sites (Saint-Césaire and Le Piage in France, Crvena Stijena in Montenegro) characterized by high levels of fragmentation. Identifications at these sites were derived using two methods: morphological identification and collagen fingerprinting, the latter a peptide-based approach known as ZooMS. Using a double-blind experimental design, we show that the two methods give taxonomic profiles that are statistically indistinguishable at all three sites. However, rare species and parts difficult to identify such as ribs seem more frequently associated with errors of identification. Comparisons with the indeterminate fraction indicate that large game is over-represented in the ZooMS sample at two of the three sites. These differences possibly signal differential fragmentation of elements from large species. Collagen fingerprinting can produce critical insights on the range distribution of animal prey in the past while also contributing to improved models of taphonomic processes and subsistence behavior. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T12:43:00Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a9e0e2c6f4924006ab758497e5865f2a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2045-2322 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T12:43:00Z |
| publishDate | 2023-11-01 |
| publisher | Nature Portfolio |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Scientific Reports |
| spelling | doaj.art-a9e0e2c6f4924006ab758497e5865f2a2023-11-05T12:13:48ZengNature PortfolioScientific Reports2045-23222023-11-0113111110.1038/s41598-023-45843-4A double-blind comparison of morphological and collagen fingerprinting (ZooMS) methods of skeletal identifications from Paleolithic contextsEugène Morin0Ellie-May Oldfield1Mile Baković2Jean-Guillaume Bordes3Jean-Christophe Castel4Isabelle Crevecoeur5Hélène Rougier6Gilliane Monnier7Gilbert Tostevin8Michael Buckley9Department of Anthropology, Trent UniversitySchool of Natural Sciences, Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, University of ManchesterCenter for Conservation and Archaeology of MontenegroUniversité de Bordeaux, PACEADépartement d’Archéozoologie, Muséum d’histoire naturelleUniversité de Bordeaux, PACEADepartment of Anthropology, California State University, NorthridgeDepartment of Anthropology, University of MinnesotaDepartment of Anthropology, University of MinnesotaSchool of Natural Sciences, Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, University of ManchesterAbstract Modeling the subsistence strategies of prehistoric groups depends on the accuracy of the faunal identifications that provide the basis for these models. However, our knowledge remains limited about the reproducibility of published taxonomic identifications and how they accurately reflect the range of species deposited in the archaeological record. This study compares taxonomic identifications at three Paleolithic sites (Saint-Césaire and Le Piage in France, Crvena Stijena in Montenegro) characterized by high levels of fragmentation. Identifications at these sites were derived using two methods: morphological identification and collagen fingerprinting, the latter a peptide-based approach known as ZooMS. Using a double-blind experimental design, we show that the two methods give taxonomic profiles that are statistically indistinguishable at all three sites. However, rare species and parts difficult to identify such as ribs seem more frequently associated with errors of identification. Comparisons with the indeterminate fraction indicate that large game is over-represented in the ZooMS sample at two of the three sites. These differences possibly signal differential fragmentation of elements from large species. Collagen fingerprinting can produce critical insights on the range distribution of animal prey in the past while also contributing to improved models of taphonomic processes and subsistence behavior.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45843-4 |
| spellingShingle | Eugène Morin Ellie-May Oldfield Mile Baković Jean-Guillaume Bordes Jean-Christophe Castel Isabelle Crevecoeur Hélène Rougier Gilliane Monnier Gilbert Tostevin Michael Buckley A double-blind comparison of morphological and collagen fingerprinting (ZooMS) methods of skeletal identifications from Paleolithic contexts Scientific Reports |
| title | A double-blind comparison of morphological and collagen fingerprinting (ZooMS) methods of skeletal identifications from Paleolithic contexts |
| title_full | A double-blind comparison of morphological and collagen fingerprinting (ZooMS) methods of skeletal identifications from Paleolithic contexts |
| title_fullStr | A double-blind comparison of morphological and collagen fingerprinting (ZooMS) methods of skeletal identifications from Paleolithic contexts |
| title_full_unstemmed | A double-blind comparison of morphological and collagen fingerprinting (ZooMS) methods of skeletal identifications from Paleolithic contexts |
| title_short | A double-blind comparison of morphological and collagen fingerprinting (ZooMS) methods of skeletal identifications from Paleolithic contexts |
| title_sort | double blind comparison of morphological and collagen fingerprinting zooms methods of skeletal identifications from paleolithic contexts |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45843-4 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT eugenemorin adoubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT elliemayoldfield adoubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT milebakovic adoubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT jeanguillaumebordes adoubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT jeanchristophecastel adoubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT isabellecrevecoeur adoubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT helenerougier adoubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT gillianemonnier adoubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT gilberttostevin adoubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT michaelbuckley adoubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT eugenemorin doubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT elliemayoldfield doubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT milebakovic doubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT jeanguillaumebordes doubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT jeanchristophecastel doubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT isabellecrevecoeur doubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT helenerougier doubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT gillianemonnier doubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT gilberttostevin doubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts AT michaelbuckley doubleblindcomparisonofmorphologicalandcollagenfingerprintingzoomsmethodsofskeletalidentificationsfrompaleolithiccontexts |