Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T21:46:59.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

AMS Radiocarbon Dating of Ancient Iron Artifacts: A New Carbon Extraction Method in Use at LLNL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Andrea C Cook
Affiliation:
High Tech High, 2861 Womble Road, San Diego, California 92106, USA. Email: [email protected].
Jeffrey Wadsworth
Affiliation:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, PO Box 808, Livermore, California 94551, USA
John R Southon
Affiliation:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, PO Box 808, Livermore, California 94551, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A new sealed double tube combustion method was developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to extract carbon from modern steels and ancient iron artifacts. Iron samples were chemically pretreated with 10% nitric acid, vacuum sealed in 6 mm quartz tubes with CuO, vacuum sealed again inside 9 mm quartz tubes, and combusted at 1000 °C for a minimum of 10 hr. The resulting CO2 was graphitized routinely using hydrogen reduction (Vogel et al. 1989). After the initial phase of development, carbon yields of 100% were consistently obtained. The activities of two modern high carbon steels (treated as process blanks, manufactured using only coal as the carbon source) were determined to be 0.0077 ± 0.0009 (n = 12, ± 1 σ) for a 1.3% C steel and 0.0090 ± 0.0038 (n = 12, ± 1 σ) for a 1.9% C steel, indicating that very little contamination is introduced during the sample preparation process. Since the Iron Age began less than 5000 years ago, these background uncertainties should introduce errors of no more than ±30 years to the radiocarbon ages of actual artifacts. Two ancient iron artifacts of known date were analyzed and demonstrate that the new methodology can be used to obtain the correct date of manufacture for iron objects, provided that they are made exclusively using charcoal that was contemporaneous with the manufacture of the artifact. Since only 1 mg of carbon is required for accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), very small iron samples can now be analyzed (50 mg of a 2.0% C iron or 1 g of a 0.1% C iron). We anticipate that this methodology will be particularly useful to archeologists who currently have to rely on context to date iron artifacts.

Type
I. Becoming Better
Copyright
Copyright © The Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Cresswell, RG. 1987. Radio-carbon dating of iron using accelerator mass spectrometry [MSc dissertation]. University of Toronto. 158 p.Google Scholar
Cresswell, RG. 1991. The radiocarbon dating of iron artifacts using accelerator mass spectrometry. Historical Metallurgy 25:7685.Google Scholar
Cresswell, RG. 1992. Radiocarbon dating of iron artifacts. Radiocarbon 34(3):898905.Google Scholar
Cresswell, R. 1997. Radiocarbon dating of iron artifacts. Extended abstract (paper #41). 6th Australasian Archaeometry Conference, Sidney Australia, 10–13 February.Google Scholar
Figiel, LS. 1991. On Damascus steel. Atlantis: Atlantis Arts Press. 145 p.Google Scholar
Igaki, K, Nakamura, T, Hirasawa, M, Kato, M, Sano, M. 1994. Radiocarbon dating study of ancient artifacts with accelerator mass spectrometry. Proceedings of the Japan Academy 70(B):4–9.Google Scholar
Kusimba, CM, Killick, DJ, Cresswell, RG. 1994. Indigenous and imported metals at Swahili sites on the coast of Kenya. Society, Culture, and Technology in Africa 11 (supplement):6377.Google Scholar
Nakamura, T, Hirasawa, M, Igaki, K. 1995. AMS radiocarbon dating of ancient oriental iron artifacts at Nagoya University. Radiocarbon 37(2):629–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayre, EV, Harbottle, G, Stoenner, RW, Washburn, W, Olin, JS, Fitzhugh, WW. 1982. The carbon-14 dating of an iron bloom associated with the voyages of Sir Martin Frobisher. American Chemical Society Symposium Series 176:441–51.Google Scholar
Sherby, OD, Wadsworth, J. 1985. Damascus steels. Scientific American 252(2):112–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southon, JR, Caffee, MW, Davis, JC, Moore, TL, Proctor, ID, Schumacher, B, Vogel, JS. 1990. The new LLNL AMS spectrometer. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research 52:301–5.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M, Polach, HA. 1977 Discussion: reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19(3):355–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M, Reimer, PJ, Bard, E, Beck, JW, Burr, GS, Hughen, KA, Kromer, B, McCormac, G, van der Plicht, J, Spurk, M. 1998. INTCAL98 radiocarbon age calibration, 24,000–0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40(3):1041–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Merwe, NJ. 1969. The Carbon-14 dating of iron. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 137 p.Google Scholar
van der Merwe, NJ, Stuiver, M. 1968. Dating iron by the carbon-14 method. Current Anthropology 9: 4853.Google Scholar
Vogel, JS, Nelson, DE, Southon, JR. 1989. Accuracy and precision in dating microgram carbon samples. Radiocarbon 31(1):145–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, K. 1992. Measurement of 14C age by accelerator mass spectrometry. Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History 38:171–98. In Japanese.Google Scholar