Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:16:06.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preliminary Results for Estimating the Bone Background Uncertainties at SUERC Using Statistical Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2017

P Naysmith ,
E Dunbar ,
E M Scott ,
G T Cook  and
B G Tripney
P Naysmith*
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride G75 0QF, Scotland, United Kingdom
E Dunbar
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride G75 0QF, Scotland, United Kingdom
E M Scott*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland, United Kingdom
G T Cook
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride G75 0QF, Scotland, United Kingdom
B G Tripney
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride G75 0QF, Scotland, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding authors. Email: [email protected]; [email protected].
*Corresponding authors. Email: [email protected]; [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bone is frequently dated in archaeological studies and, especially for very old bones (more than 40,000 years old), it is critical to have an accurate and precise measure of the material-specific background value and its associated uncertainty. The SUERC Radiocarbon Laboratory has obtained a mammoth bone as a background bone standard and an appropriate number are now routinely prepared and measured in each AMS batch, resulting in the accumulation of a large number of background bone results over a two-year period. Additionally, information on which of the two accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) instruments was used to make the radiocarbon (14C) measurements, and which sample pretreatment method (modified Longin or modified ultrafiltration) was used to extract and purify the collagen, is recorded for each sample. These data have been used to estimate the laboratory bone background (to be subtracted from each unknown bone sample prepared in the laboratory) and its associated analytical uncertainty. The statistical analysis of the bone results has made use of a linear mixed effects model to examine the variation, and to apportion the overall variation between and within batches on both AMS instruments, and the different pretreatment methods used at SUERC.

Keywords

bone backgrounduncertainty
Type
Method Development
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 59 , Special Issue 5: 8th International Symposium, Edinburgh, 27 June – 1 July, 2016 Part 1 of 2 , October 2017 , pp. 1579 - 1587
Copyright
© 2017 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Selected Papers from the 8th Radiocarbon & Archaeology Symposium, Edinburgh, UK, 27 June–1 July 2016

References

REFERENCES

Arslanov, KhA, Svezentsev, YuS. 1993. An improved method for radiocarbon dating fossil bones. Radiocarbon 35(3):387–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayliss, A, Bronk Ramsey, C, van der Plicht, J, Whittle, A. 2007. Bradshaw and Bayes: towards a timetable for the neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(S1):1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayliss, A, Whittle, A, editors. 2007. Histories of the dead: building chronologies for five southern British long barrows. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17 (Supplement 1).Google Scholar
Brock, F, Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, T. 2007. Quality assurance of ultrafiltered bone dating. Radiocarbon 49(2):187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, T, Bowles, A, Hedges, R. 2004. Improvements to the pretreatment of bone at Oxford. Radiocarbon 46(1):155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, TA, Nelson, DE, Vogel, JS, Southon, JR. 1988. Improved collagen extraction by modified Longin method. Radiocarbon 30(2):171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, TA, Southon, JR. 1997. Corrections for contamination background in AMS 14C measurements. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 123(1–4):208–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, GT, Higham, TFG, Naysmith, P, Brock, F, Freeman, SPHT, Bayliss, A. 2012. Assessment of infinite-age bones from the Upper Thames Valley, UK, as 14C background standards. Radiocarbon 54(3–4):845–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeNiro, MJ. 1985. Postmortem preservation and alteration of in vivo bone collagen isotope ratios in relation to palaeodietary reconstruction. Nature 317(6040):806–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, E, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P, Tripney, BG, Xu, S. 2016. AMS 14C Dating at the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre (SUERC) Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory. Radiocarbon 58(1):9–23.Google Scholar
Dunbar, E, Naysmith, P, Cook, GT, Scott, EM, Xu, S, Tripney, BG. 2017. Investigation of the analytical F14C bone background value at SUERC. Radiocarbon, this volume.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higham, TFG, Jacobi, RM, Bronk Ramsey, C. 2006. AMS radiocarbon dating of ancient bone using ultrafiltration. Radiocarbon 48(2):179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoper, ST, McCormac, FG, Hogg, AG, Higham, TFG, Head, MJ. 1998. Evalution of wood pretreatments on oak and cedar. Radiocarbon 40(1):45–50.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
Hüls, CM, Grootes, PM, Nadeau, M-J. 2009. Ultrafiltration: boon or bane? Radiocarbon 51(2):613–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, SG, Maddy, D, Buckingham, C, Coope, GR, Field, MH, Keen, DH, Pike, AWG, Roe, DA, Scaife, RG, Scott, K. 2006. Pleistocene fluvial sediments, palaeontology and archaeology of the upper River Thames at Latton, Wiltshire, England. Journal of Quaternary Science 21(2):181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longin, R. 1971. New method of collagen extraction for radiocarbon dating. Nature 230(5291):241–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCullagh, JSO, Marom, A, Hedges, REM. 2010. Radiocarbon dating of individual amino acids from archaeological bone collagen. Radiocarbon 52(2):620–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naysmith, P, Cook, GT, Freeman, SPHT, Scott, EM, Anderson, R, Xu, S, Dunbar, E, Muir, GKP, Dougans, A, Wilcken, K, Schnabel, C, Russell, N, Ascough, PL, Maden, C. 2010. 14C AMS at SUERC: improving QA data with the 5 MV tandem AMS and 250 kV SSAMS. Radiocarbon 52(2):263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, DE. 1991. A new method for carbon isotopic analysis of protein. Science 251(4993):552–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, EM. 2003. Part 2: the Third International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (TIRI). Radiocarbon 45(2):293–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P, Bryant, C, O’Donnell, D. 2007. A report on phase 1 of the 5th International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI). Radiocarbon 49(2):409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P. 2010a. A report on phase 2 of the Fifth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI). Radiocarbon 52(3):846–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P. 2010b. The Fifth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI): an assessment of laboratory performance in stage 3. Radiocarbon 52(3):859–865.Google Scholar
Scott, K, Buckingham, CM. 2001. Preliminary report on the excavation of late Middle Pleistocene deposits at Latton, near Cirencester, Gloucestershire. Quaternary Newsletter 94:24–29.Google Scholar
Slota, PJ Jr, Jull, AJT, Linick, TW, Toolin, LJ. 1987. Preparation of small samples for 14C accelerator targets by catalytic reduction of CO. Radiocarbon 29(2):303–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, TW Jr Hare, PE, Currie, L, Jull, AJT, Donahue, DJ. 1991. Accelerator radiocarbon dating at the molecular level. Journal of Archaeological Science 18(1):35–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tisnérat-Laborde, N, Valladas, H, Kaltnecker, E, Arnold, M. 2003. AMS radiocarbon dating of bones at LSCE. Radiocarbon 45(3):409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandeputte, K, Moens, L, Dams, R. 1996. Improved sealed tube combustion of organic samples to CO2 for stable isotopic analysis, radiocarbon dating and percent carbon determinations. Analytical Letters 29(15):2761–2773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, RE, Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, TFG. 2010. Refining background corrections for radiocarbon dating of bone collagen at ORAU. Radiocarbon 52(2):600–611.Google Scholar
Xu, S, Anderson, R, Bryant, C, Cook, GT, Dougans, A, Freeman, S, Naysmith, P, Schnabel, C, Scott, EM. 2004. Capabilities of the new SUERC 5MV AMS Facility for 14C dating. Radiocarbon 46(1):59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar