Journal of Archaeological Science (2002) 29, 585–592 doi:10.1006/jasc.2001.0731, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on Bone Preservation and Ancient DNA: The Application of Screening Methods for Predicting DNA Survival Susan Haynes* and Jeremy B. Searle Department of Biology, University of York, P.O. Box 373, York YO10 5YW, U.K. Amanda Bretman Ecology and Evolution Programme, School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K. Keith M. Dobney† Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, U.K. (Received 17 January 2001, revised manuscript accepted 5 July 2001) Given the technical difficulties associated with ancient DNA research, any methods that help to identify samples that will yield amplifiable DNA will be of great value. This study examined the relationships between gross preservation, histological preservation, bone size and the ability to amplify short fragments of mitochondrial DNA in 323 goose humeri from the Anglo-Saxon site at Flixborough. Bone size was not a good predictor of the presence of amplifiable DNA, but there was a significant association between both gross and histological preservation and DNA survival. This suggests that it is worthwhile to preferentially select morphologically well-preserved bones for ancient DNA studies. Our results with ancient avian bone mirror those previously obtained with mammalian archaeological bone, although the relationship between DNA survival and histological preservation was stronger for the latter.  2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. Keywords: ANCIENT DNA, AVIAN BONE, PRESERVATION, HISTOLOGY, MITOCHONDRIAL DNA. Introduction T he degradation of DNA has been studied exten- sively in vitro (Lindahl, 1993, 1996; Lindahl & Andersson, 1972; Lindahl & Nyberg, 1972) but the exact mechanisms underlying its persistence in biological materials are poorly understood. Due to the technical difficulties that are associated with ancient DNA research (degraded templates, low yields of DNA, very low success rates etc.), any means that serve to increase the likelihood of recovering DNA are of particular value. Several techniques have been pro- posed for assessing the potential for DNA recovery. Some of the methods determine molecular preserva- tion, e.g. amino acid racemization (e.g. Poinar et al., 1996) or nitrogen content (e.g. Bailey et al., 1996), while other techniques investigate the degree of morphological preservation, e.g. histology (e.g. Colson et al., 1997a). In the present study, we have considered whether archaeological bone preservation (gross morphology and histology) and/or bone size are associated with DNA survival, testing our methods on goose humeri from the Anglo-Saxon site at Flixborough. Measures of morphological preservation have the advantage that they are easy to use, inexpensive and readily adopted by other workers. Although amino acid racemization (AAR) has been particularly advocated as a molecular method for screening bones prior to DNA extraction (e.g. Poinar et al., 1996; Poinar & Stankiewicz, 1999; Bada, Wang & Hamilton, 1999), this method is expen- sive, requires specialized equipment and may not be very accurate since AAR and DNA degradation have very different kinetics in bone (Collins, Waite & van Duin, 1999). Gross preservation The assessment of gross preservation (i.e. the overall outward appearance of the bone), by eye or with the *Present address: Department of Biomolecular Sciences, UMIST, P.O. Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, U.K. †Corresponding author: Dr K. M. Dobney, Department of Archae- ology, University of Durham, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, U.K. Fax: 0191 3743619; E-mail: k.m.dobney@durham.ac.uk 585 0305–4403/02/$-see front matter  2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.