Should I Measure It or Should I BLAST It? A Case for the Regular Integration of Osteoarchaeology and Ancient DNA

Summary

This is an abstract from the "SAA 2024: Individual Abstracts" session, at the 89th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

Osteoarchaeology, including bioarchaeology and zooarchaeology, has been a staple in our field for decades. Now, archaeogenetics (or aDNA) has also become a staple. But how do we decide when to use one approach or the other? What provides the best data for one's research questions? Here, I present data from a study of archaeological gophers from the Hall's Cave site in central Texas. Morphological and genetic results agree on the taxonomic identification for ~90% of the study sample, but ~10% of the individuals showed disagreement at the genus level between the two methods. Modern comparative ecological data suggests that this disagreement is a result of DNA inserts that can obscure accurate taxonomic identification from short genetic fragments. Thus, caution is warranted when using single-fragment aDNA to determine the taxonomy of archaeological faunal material. The use of both morphological and genetic identification methodologies can help to resolve this type of issue and is therefore an advantageous approach to questions of taxonomic identity in the archaeological record.

This Resource is Part of the Following Collections

• SAA 2024: Individual Abstracts   •
• Society for American Archaeology 89th Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA (2024)

Keywords

Spatial Coverage

Record Identifiers

Abstract Id(s): 40303.0