{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022388059701492536, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.420212765957447, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[A comparison of trace element and isotope analysis in archeological bones (exemplified by a medieval bone series from Weingarten, Germany)].

The well established methods of isotope- and trace element analysis have been used as a reliable approach in archaeometry in order to reconstruct ecological and social parameters. Both methods offer access to palaeoecological information, however, frequently only one of the methods has been applied on the onegiven material. Up to now, isotope data are especially associated to the determination of food webs and palaeocliamtes, i.e. the position of the examined subjects within an ecological context is englightened. On the other hand, trace element analyses reveal knowledge about group specific nutrition and pollution with toxic substances. For the medieval human bone series of Weingarten (Germany), both methods have been applied independently. The results suggest special emphasis of diagenesis for the interpretation of trace element data: diagenesis and its impact on the stability of biological signals as well as consequences for data interpretation, which is dependent on the analysed phase of the material (mineral or gelatine) and its preservation.