It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Chemical analysis of archaeological artefacts is used with increasing regularity to understand how wine was produced, traded, and consumed in the past and to shed light on its antiquity. Based both on an extensive review of the published literature and on new analyses, here we critically evaluate the diverse range of methodological approaches that have been used for wine identification. Overall, we conclude that currently none of the proposed chemical ‘biomarkers’ for wine provide unequivocal evidence. Nevertheless, valid interpretations may be offered if systematically supported by additional contextual data, such as archaeobotanical evidence. We found the extraction and detection method to be particularly crucial for successful identification. We urge the use of controls and quantification to rule out false positives. DNA sequencing offers potential for identifying wine and provides much higher taxonomic resolution, but work is needed to determine the limits of DNA survival on artefacts.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details



1 Department of Archaeology, BioArCh, University of York, York, UK
2 Department of Pre- and Protohistory, Eberhard Karls Universität, Tübingen, Germany; Department of Pre- and Protohistory, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich, Munich, Germany
3 Department of Archaeological and Forensic Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK
4 Department of Pre- and Protohistory, Eberhard Karls Universität, Tübingen, Germany
5 Department of Archaeology, BioArCh, University of York, York, UK; Department of Chemistry, University of York, York, UK
6 Department of Chemistry, University of York, York, UK