Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:28:33.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Pretreatment Procedure for the AMS Radiocarbon Dating of Sub-Fossil Insect Remains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

J A Tripp ,
T F G Higham  and
R E M Hedges
J A Tripp
Affiliation:
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Oxford University, 6 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3QJ, England.
T F G Higham
Affiliation:
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Oxford University, 6 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3QJ, England.
R E M Hedges
Affiliation:
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Oxford University, 6 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3QJ, England.
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.

Two pretreatment methods for accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dating of insect remains were explored. One method involves a simple acid wash that removes carbonate, while the other is based on the industrial purification of chitin and results in isolation of polymeric chitosan. No contamination is observed from Maillard reactions during the deacetylation reaction used to isolate the chitosan. The methods were tested on Coleoptera samples from two Roman Britain sites. Our results demonstrate that both methods produce acceptable AMS dates that correspond well to the expected age of the deposits from which they came.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 46 , Issue 1: Proceedings of the 18th International Radiocarbon Conference (Part 1 of 2), Conference Editors: Nancy Beavan Athfield, Rodger J Sparks , 2004 , pp. 147 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Bronk Ramsey, C, Hedges, REM. 1999. Hybrid ion sources: radiocarbon measurements from microgram to milligram. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 123:539–45.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 42:459–79.Google Scholar
Coplen, TB. 1994. Reporting of stable hydrogen, carbon and oxygen isotopic abundances. Pure and Applied Chemistry 66:273–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elias, SA, Toolin, LJ. 1990. Accelerator dating of mixed assemblage of late Pleistocene insect fossils from the Lamb Spring site, Colorado. Quaternary Research 33: 122–6.Google Scholar
Elias, SA, Carrara, PE, Toolin, LJ, Jull, AJT. 1991. Revised age of deglaciation of Lake Emma based on new radiocarbon and macrofossil analysis. Quaternary Research 36:307–12.Google Scholar
Fayle, SE, Gerrard, JA. 2002. The Maillard Reaction. London: Royal Society of Chemistry. 116 p.Google Scholar
Hedges, REM, Law, IA, Bronk, CR, Housley, RA. 1989. The Oxford accelerator mass spectrometry facility: technical developments in routine dating. Archaeometry 31:99–113.Google Scholar
Hodgins, GWL, Thorpe, JL, Coope, GR, Hedges, REM. 2001. Protocol development for purification and characterization of sub-fossil insect chitin for stable isotopic analysis and radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 43(1):199–208.Google Scholar
Jones, A. 2003. Settlement, Burial and Industry in Roman Godmanchester, Excavations in the Extra-Mural Area: The Parks 1998, London Road 1997-8, and Other Investigations. BAR British Series 346. Oxford: Hadrian Books Ltd.Google Scholar
Mepham, L, Loader, E. 2001. Finds. In: Priors Gate, Bell Lane, Eaton Socon, St Neots, Cambridgeshire, Assessment Report on the Results of the Excavation. The Trust for Wessex Archaeology. p 11–4.Google Scholar
Neville, AC. 1975. Biology of the Arthropod Cuticle. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 448 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, GAF. 1992. Chitin Chemistry. Hong Kong: Macmillan Press Ltd. 368 p.Google Scholar
Robinson, M. 2001. Insects as palaeoenvironmental indicators. In: Brothwell, D, Pollard, AM, editors. Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. London: John Wiley & Sons. p 121–33.Google Scholar
Stankiewicz, BA, Briggs, DEG, Evershed, RP, Flannery, MB, Wuttke, M. 1997. Preservation of chitin in 25-million-year-old fossils. Science 276:1541–3.Google Scholar
Stankiewicz, BA, Mastalerz, M, Hof, CHJ, Bierstedt, A, Flannery, MB, Briggs, DEG, Evershed, RP. 1998. Biodegradation of the chitin-protein complex in crustacean cuticle. Organic Geochemistry 28:67–76.Google Scholar
Walker, MJC, Bryant, C, Coope, GR, Harkness, DD, Lowe, JJ, Scott, EM. Towards a radiocarbon chronology of the Late Glacial: sample selection strategies. Radiocarbon 43(2B):1007–19.Google Scholar