The animal origin of thirteenth-century uterine vellum revealed using non-invasive peptide fingerprinting

Sarah Fiddyment, 2015

Data copyright © Sarah Fiddyment unless otherwise stated

This work is licensed under the ADS Terms of Use and Access.
Creative Commons License


European Union logo
British Academy BA logo

Resource identifiers

Digital Object Identifiers

Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) are persistent identifiers which can be used to consistently and accurately reference digital objects and/or content. The DOIs provide a way for the ADS resources to be cited in a similar fashion to traditional scholarly materials. More information on DOIs at the ADS can be found on our help page.

Citing this DOI

The updated Crossref DOI Display guidelines recommend that DOIs should be displayed in the following format:

https://doi.org/10.5284/1035166
Sample Citation for this DOI

Sarah Fiddyment (2015) The animal origin of thirteenth-century uterine vellum revealed using non-invasive peptide fingerprinting [data-set]. York: Archaeology Data Service [distributor] https://doi.org/10.5284/1035166

University of York logo

Introduction

The animal origin of thirteenth-century uterine vellum revealed using non-invasive peptide fingerprinting

Tissue-thin parchment made it possible to produce the first pocket Bibles: thousands were made in the thirteenth century. The source of this parchment, often called 'uterine vellum’, has been a longstanding controversy in codicology. Use of the Latin term abortivum in many sources has led some scholars to suggest that the skin of fetal calves or sheep was used. Others have argued that it would not be possible to sustain herds if so many pocket Bibles were produced from fetal skins, arguing instead for unexpected alternatives such as rabbit. We report a simple and objective technique using standard conservation treatments to identify the animal origin of parchment. The non-invasive method is a variant on ZooMS peptide mass fingerprinting but extracts protein from the parchment surface by using electrostatic charge generated by gentle rubbing of a PVC eraser on the membrane surface.

We found no evidence for the use of unexpected animals; however, we did identify the use of more than one mammal species in a single manuscript, consistent with the local availability of hides. These results suggest that ultrafine vellum does not necessarily derive from the use of abortive or newborn animals with ultrathin hides, but could equally well reflect a production process that allowed the skins of maturing animals of several species to be rendered into vellum of equal quality and fineness.