Archaeological bones or teeth-who wins the race? A geochemical reappraisal to evaluate the potential for palaeoscience research

The palaeoclimatic reconstruction based on sediment archives, spores and pollens, and invertebrate fossil records is widely explored in palaeoscience research. However, the disappearance or collapse of many civilisations due to climatic shifts over the geological timescale underscores the need to expand the realm of Palaeosciences to include archaeological remains. In this context, the bones and teeth from human and animal remains found in archaeological sites have become essential records for palaeoscientific research. These remains, which originate from a range of cultural and environmental contexts beyond necropolis sites, offer isotopic and chemical clues about past climatic conditions, mobility and diets. Although the primary focus of this study is on human remains, the conclusions are generally applicable to faunal materials, which raises the main question: which tissue—bone or tooth—offers more trustworthy insights for palaeoscientific research? The present study critically evaluates the potential of archaeological bones and teeth for reconstructing palaeoclimatic and palaeodietary landscapes, seeking a better asset for palaeoscientists. The teeth, particularly the enamel part, have been found here superior due to their higher degree of preservation owing to the mineral content and resistance to diagenetic changes. Therefore, the ability of fossilised teeth to consistently retain elemental and isotopic signals—a well-established characteristic based on biomineralisation science—makes them invaluable repositories for reconstructing palaeoenvironmental conditions and palaeodietary practices. In contrast, the bones, due to their porous structure and organic matrix, are more susceptible to post-mortem alterations and environmental contamination. Such secondary processes occurring in the fossilised bone raise doubts about the quality of information recorded from their chemical analyses. Therefore, their utilisation in palaeoscience poses some limitations and requires special care. The holistic overview of the temporal resolution, preservation quality and contextual integrity of both tissues reveals that the teeth provide a more precise snapshot of early-life environmental conditions, such as childhood diet and geographic origin. In contrast, the bones provide narratives into broader temporal patterns with relatively less precision. Although the significance of bones in reconstructing past climates and human adaptations cannot be ruled out, the teeth win the race for providing more accurate and high-resolution insights into early-life conditions.