Separating caprine (Capra/Ovis) distal tibiae: A case study from the Polish Neolithic

Abstract

Distinguishing the skeletal remains of sheep (Ovis aries) from goats (Capra hircus) is a fundamental and habitual problem in zooarchaeology. Such a distinction is desirable because the taxa can be raised to serve variable purposes, are behaviourally different and are biologically dissimilar; all factors influencing their role in past human economies. Although considerable effort has been spent exploring various methods for their distinction in the Near East, in the Mediterranean world, and in modern populations, the rarity of Neolithic caprines north of the Alps has meant that distinction has not been attempted on any systematic basis. In this study, we present the first attempt to do so, using one of the more problematic elements, the distal tibia, to investigate the caprine remains from Racot 18, Poland, a settlement of the Neolithic Late Lengyel culture. The assemblage is characterised by an unusual proportion of caprines, and ZooMS results indicate relative parity in numbers of sheep and goats. Standard and new biometrics and morphological identifications were also applied. Morphological identifications did not reliably distinguish the taxa. Nonetheless, both standard and new biometrics demonstrate significant size differences between the taxa in this assemblage. This study represents the first step required of establishing effective criteria for differentiation of caprines in Neolithic Poland and by extension other Neolithic contexts north of the Alps.

Paleoproteomics

“…Over the past decade, ZooMS has been used to answer a wide range of cultural heritage, archaeological, ecological, and paleontological questions. For example, ZooMS has been used to study the manufacture of worked bones, artifacts, and cultural heritage materials ,,,,,,− and to better characterize archaeological faunal assemblages and past human–animal relationships. ,,,,, It has been used to better define past domestic animal management strategies, ,,− document the introduction of commensal species associated with human activities, − and identify the exploitation of wild species. ,,, It has contributed to the reconstruction of past ecologies ,,,,,− and to the study of extinct megafauna. , ZooMS has also been notably used as a low-cost, high-throughput screening tool of bone fragments in large Pleistocene cave sequences, leading to the discovery of otherwise nondiagnostic hominid remains, ,,, including the offspring of a Neanderthal mother and Denisovan father. , Finally, because ZooMS can be performed using minimally invasive sampling techniques, ,,, it has proven a breakthrough technology in the emerging field of biocodicology, the multidisciplinary analysis of parchment manuscripts, codices, and other historic documents. ,,− …”

ZooMS confirms geometric morphometrics species identification of ancient sheep and goat

“…Zooarchaeology by mass spectrometry (ZooMS) is increasingly used in archaeology for reliable taxonomic identification of organic materials [1] such as bones [2], leather [3] or parchment [4]. ZooMS, by using peptide mass fingerprinting of collagen, provides an inexpensive tool for archaeological studies and has been used to distinguish domestic caprine species and to detect their arrival in Africa [5][6][7][8], Asia [9,10] and Europe [11,12], and to study distinct farming practices [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20].…”

Identifying marsupials from Australian archaeological sites: current methodological challenges and opportunities in zooarchaeological practice

“…Over the past few decades, there have been increasing calls worldwide to improve the analytical transparency of zooarchaeological data production and publish replicable and testable protocols for the taxonomic identification of faunal remains (Driver 2011;Gobalet 2001;Lyman 2019;Wolverton 2013). Zooarchaeology globally has a long history of producing identification manuals and bone atlases (Beisaw 2013: appendix 2), and zooarchaeologists 134 Identifying marsupials from Australian archaeological sites around the world are increasingly turning to quantitative techniques such as morphometric, proteomic or molecular analysis to augment traditional comparative methods of identifying archaeological specimens (Buckley et al 2017;Evin et al 2015;Gron et al 2020;Haruda 2017). However, very few identification manuals have been published for the Australian context, and the unique nature of Australia's native fauna means that we cannot borrow wholesale from the extensive global literature of 'bone guides'.…”

“…2015; Gron et al . 2020; Haruda 2017). However, very few identification manuals have been published for the Australian context, and the unique nature of Australia's native fauna means that we cannot borrow wholesale from the extensive global literature of ‘bone guides’.…”