4.5 Article

ArcHives-combined palynological, genomic and lipid analysis of medieval wax seals

期刊

HERITAGE SCIENCE
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1186/s40494-022-00848-6

关键词

Sealing wax; Conservation; Heritage science; Beeswax; DNA; Palynology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Beeswax, previously used in medieval sealing wax, has the potential to be a biomolecular archive for historical information. Analysis of medieval wax seals revealed the presence of pollen and fungal spores, but only a small amount of DNA could be sequenced. This study provides a framework for future research on using wax seals as biological archives and understanding the degradation of cultural heritage objects.
Beeswax is a product of honeybees (Apis mellifera) and has been used extensively through time, especially as the primary component in medieval sealing wax for authenticating millions of documents. Today, these seals form large collections which, along with the historical information in the documents that the seals are attached to, could be a potential biomolecular archive for honeybees. Here, we investigate the possibility of obtaining biological information from medieval wax seals by performing a palynological and shotgun metagenomic analysis on eight medieval wax seal fragments. Our palynological results show that some pollen and fungal spores remain in the seals, albeit very little. Only one out of eight samples yielded enough DNA for sequencing. Moreover, only minor parts of the DNA reads could be taxonomically identified and were identified as plant and fungal DNA. These results demonstrate some potential for using wax seals as biological archives, but most importantly provides a framework for future studies, in addition to understanding further the degradation of seals as cultural heritage objects. We emphasize that future analyses should focus on other methodologies to retrieve data for historical context or alternatively improve molecular methods and screen sample collections broadly.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据