Heritage Cases

THIS IS THE ARCHIVE FOR SAHRIS 1.0


THIS SITE IS NOW AN ARCHIVE AND IS NOT SUITABLE FOR MAKING APPLICATIONS

Please be aware that no content and application creation or changes to information on this version of SAHRIS will be retained.

To make applications or utilise SAHRIS for the creation of information, please use the new site:

https://sahris.org.za

Changes to SAHRIS!

The South African Heritage Resources Information System (SAHRIS) has undergone a generational upgrade and restructure. These changes to the site include, but are not limited to:

  • A new & modernised look and layout
  • Improved site usage flows with respect to applications and content creation
  • Improved site performance and stability

Launch for the new version of SAHRIS occurred on Monday the 30th of October 2023.

The new site can be found here:

SAHRIS | SAHRIS

SAHRA Application Closure

Please note the following concerning applications submitted to the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) during the December 2023 to January 2024 period.

The full notice is available here: Notice

Special Notice

Following comments received on the proposed Revised Schedule of Fees for applications made to the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA), made in terms of Section 25(2)(l) of the National Heritage Resources Act No. 25 of 1999 (NHRA) and published in the Government Gazette of 22 July 2022, SAHRA hereby publishes the final Revised Schedule of Fees for Applications made to SAHRA. Applications for provision of services submitted to the South African Heritage Resources Authority (SAHRA), in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act, No. 25 of 1999 (NHRA) must be accompanied by a payment of the appropriate fee, taking effect from 1 January 2023

Revised Schedule of Fees for Applications made to the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA)

Identification of protein residues in South African Later and Middle Stone Age materials

CaseViews

CaseHeader

HeritageAuthority(s): 

Case Type: 

ProposalDescription: 

Overview The processes that have led human populations of the past to develop the cultural innovations that make us different from our phylogenetically closer relatives (e.g., making composite tools, creating symbolic items, developing numerical symbol systems etc.) are the subject of intense debate. The emergence of cultural innovations implying the use of organic material (resins for hafting, poison for hunting, binders to produce paints, etc.) are highly relevant to these debates since the preparation of such compounds is often cognitively demanding and complex to transmit to new generations. We know that complex organic compounds were produced by both Middle Stone Age (MSA) populations in Africa and Neanderthals in Europe and the Near East since at least 180 ka, but evidence for these innovations remains circumstantial. One reason for this is that finding and identifying organic compounds are particularly challenging. Ancient protein residues are degraded and mostly present in small quantities and incorporated in a complex matrix of organic and inorganic materials such as pigments, degradation products and contaminants. Analysing these types of materials requires dedicated and sensitive analytical techniques. Palaeoproteomics provides information about the taxonomy and the tissue of the organism from which the protein(s) are derived. No other technique is able to provide such information. The Palaeoproteomic research unit at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, have already demonstrated that it is possible to extract and analyse ancient proteins from a wide variety of tissues [1–3] and dated to million years [4]. We, therefore, aim to further our understanding of the use of organic compounds in the African MSA by identifying protein residues in the inner surface of ostrich eggshells from the key site of Klipdrift Shelter (KDS), South Africa, for possible protein residues deriving from foodstuffs or beverages [5]. Additionally, we will analyse protein binder in liquefied ochre-rich mixtures contained in MSA toolkits from Blombos Cave (BBC), South Africa, considered among the first hallmarks of complex human cognition [6]. Analysing Later Stone Age (LSA) materials will add evidence to the theories relating to the route via which pastoralism was introduced to the southernmost Cape [7].

Expanded_Motivation: 

Methodology Since the materials to be studied are up to ~100,000 years old, low preservation of organic residues is expected. Thus, the most advanced palaeoproteomics methods for the recovery and analysis of ancient protein residues will be used, following the robust experimental protocols developed and routinely used at the University of Copenhagen. To analyse the artefacts using palaeoproteomic techniques, a small quantity of material (few milligrams—mg, see details below) is taken from the sample mechanically. We will sample areas of the artefacts which are most likely to preserve organic residues, such as those not exposed to the external contaminants. When possible, 2-3 locations on each artefact will be sampled. As the exact nature and complexity of each category of starting material (ochre-rich mixtures, ostrich eggshells, sheep bones) are highly different, the first stage of sample preparation will take this difference into consideration. Proteins will be extracted from the aliquots of the samples removed from the artefacts and then digested into smaller fragments, i.e. peptides, using several chemical solutions/solvents (Please find the list of reagents in [1]). The peptides will be analysed using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The amount of mass spectrometric data generated in this way is so large that it needs to be processed using bioinformatic tools such as MaxQuant [8]. Finally, the identification of peptides allows the identification of the composing proteins of the sample [9], leading to a taxonomic or tissue attribution. Sample types, sampling locations and minimum sample requirement BBC c. 100 ka MSA Toolkit: Ochre-red sand mixture inside toolkits—Samples are from both the mixture itself and the orange ring residues that were scraped from the shell’s inner surface. To obtain robust results, the amount of sample needed is approximately 50 mg. BBC c. 85-72 ka MSA: Unwashed Ostrich eggshells—The inner surface of unwashed eggshells will be gently scraped. To obtain robust results, the amount of sample needed is approximately 20-50 mg. If scraping the inner surface of eggshells does not yield robust results, a subset of 5 shell fragments will be completely powdered and analysed. KDS c. 66 ka MSA: Unwashed Ostrich eggshells—The inner surface of unwashed engraved eggshells will be gently scraped. To obtain robust results, the amount of sample needed is approximately 20-50 mg. BBC c. 2 ka LSA: Sheep (Ovis aries) bones (calcaneum and left mandible)—Initial analysis of the two pieces of sheep bone will be by a non-destructive approach, where the bones are immersed in a solvent to extract proteins without altering the appearance or morphology of the artefact. This way, the destructive physical sampling step is omitted. If we do not obtain good results using this approach, then a sample will be taken from each piece using the more standard method, which involves drilling the bone to acquire approximately 50-100 mg of sample powder. Non-destructive techniques such as immersing the object in a solvent not only omits the mechanical sampling step but also helps to preserve the integrity of the object. It is good practice to start the analysis with such an approach. Since the quantity of proteins left in the ancient objects could be extremely low, this technique might not provide useful information for such old materials. If the non-destructive procedure does not yield robust results, we request permission to carry out other approaches such as extracting small samples by drilling. Soil—Soil surrounding the sampled artefacts will be analysed in parallel with the object itself, using the same laboratory procedure. The rationale is to detect possible contaminants in the soil which, in the absence of soil analysis, could hamper interpretation of data from the samples.

ApplicationDate: 

Tuesday, November 30, 2021 - 14:09

CaseID: 

17648

OtherReferences: 

ReferenceList: 

CitationReferenceType
M. Mackie, P. Rüther, D. Samodova, F. Di Gianvincenzo, C. Granzotto, D. Lyon, D.A. Peggie, H. Howard, L. Harrison, L.J. Jensen, Palaeoproteomic profiling of conservation layers on a 14th century Italian wall painting, Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. 57 (2018) 7369–7374.
E. Cappellini, L.J. Jensen, D. Szklarczyk, A. Ginolhac, R.A.R. da Fonseca, T.W. Stafford Jr, S.R. Holen, M.J. Collins, L. Orlando, E. Willerslev, Proteomic analysis of a pleistocene mammoth femur reveals more than one hundred ancient bone proteins, J. Proteome Res. 11 (2012) 917–926.
E. Cappellini, F. Welker, L. Pandolfi, J. Ramos-Madrigal, D. Samodova, P.L. Rüther, A.K. Fotakis, D. Lyon, J.V. Moreno-Mayar, M. Bukhsianidze, Early Pleistocene enamel proteome from Dmanisi resolves Stephanorhinus phylogeny, Nature. 574 (2019) 103–107.
B. Demarchi, S. Hall, T. Roncal-Herrero, C.L. Freeman, J. Woolley, M.K. Crisp, J. Wilson, A. Fotakis, R. Fischer, B.M. Kessler, Protein sequences bound to mineral surfaces persist into deep time, Elife. 5 (2016) e17092.
C.S. Henshilwood, K.L. van Niekerk, S. Wurz, A. Delagnes, S.J. Armitage, R.F. Rifkin, K. Douze, P. Keene, M.M. Haaland, J. Reynard, E. Discamps, S.S. Mienies, Klipdrift Shelter, southern Cape, South Africa: preliminary report on the Howiesons Poort layers, J. Archaeol. Sci. 45 (2014) 284–303.
Images
 
 

Search form