Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T02:33:43.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Bone Pretreatment Methods for AMS Dating of Samples >30,000 BP

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Sahra Talamo  and
Mike Richards
Sahra Talamo*
Affiliation:
Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany.
Mike Richards
Affiliation:
Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany. Also: Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia, 6303 NW Marine Drive, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z1, Canada.
*
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
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.

Bone is a commonly used material for radiocarbon dating, yet at ages close to the limit of the method (>30,000 BP), it is a substantial challenge to remove contamination and produce accurate ages. We report here on the preliminary results of a dating study of 2 bones older than 30,000 yr, which were each treated with a suite of pretreatment procedures, including ultrafiltration (Brown et al. 1988). Substantial differences in the 14C ages were observed, which is most likely linked to crucial steps in the removal of contamination both in the bone and in the laboratory. Using a comprehensive sequence of pretreatment procedures, including ultrafiltration, we obtain generally older ages.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , 2011 , pp. 443 - 449
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 The Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Ambrose, SH. 1990. Preparation and characterization of bone and tooth collagen for isotopic analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 17(4):431–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, F, Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, T. 2007. Quality assurance of ultrafiltered bone dating. Radiocarbon 49(2):187–92.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C, Pettitt, PB, Hedges, REM, Hodgins, GWL, Owen, DC. 2000. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 30. Archaeometry 42(2):459–79.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, T, Bowles, A, Hedges, R. 2004. Improvements to the pretreatment of bone at Oxford. Radiocarbon 46(1):155–63.Google Scholar
Brown, TA, Nelson, DE, Vogel, JS, Southon, JR. 1988. Improved collagen extraction by modified Longin method. Radiocarbon 30(2):171–7.Google Scholar
DeNiro, MJ. 1985. Postmortem preservation and alteration of in vivo bone collagen isotope ratios in relation to palaeodietary reconstruction. Nature 317(6040):806–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajdas, I, Bonani, G, Furrer, H, Mäder, A, Schoch, W. 2007. Radiocarbon chronology of the mammoth site at Niederweningen, Switzerland: results from dating bones, teeth, wood, and peat. Quaternary International 164–165:98–105.Google Scholar
Higham, TFG, Jacobi, RM, Bronk Ramsey, C. 2006. AMS radiocarbon dating of ancient bone using ultrafiltration. Radiocarbon 48(2):179–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hüls, MC, Grootes, PM, Nadeau, M-J. 2007. How clean is ultrafiltration cleaning of bone collagen? Radiocarbon 49(2):193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longin, R. 1971. New method of collagen extraction for radiocarbon dating. Nature 230(5291):241–2.Google Scholar
Mook, WG, Streurman, HJ. 1981. Physical and chemical aspects of radiocarbon dating. In: Mook, WG, Streurman, HJ, editors. Proceedings of the First International Symposium “14C and Archaeology.” PACT 8:31–55.Google Scholar
Van Klinken, GJ, Bowles, AD, Hedges, REM. 1994. Radiocarbon dating of peptides isolated from contaminated fossil bone collagen by collagenase digestion and reversed-phase chromatography. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 58(11):2543–51.Google Scholar