Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:45:25.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of Infinite-Age Bones from the Upper Thames Valley, UK, as 14C Background Standards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

G T Cook ,
T F G Higham ,
P Naysmith ,
F Brock ,
S P H T Freeman  and
A Bayliss
G T Cook*
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride G75 0QF, United Kingdom
T F G Higham
Affiliation:
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
P Naysmith
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride G75 0QF, United Kingdom
F Brock
Affiliation:
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
S P H T Freeman
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride G75 0QF, United Kingdom
A Bayliss
Affiliation:
English Heritage, 1 Waterhouse Square, 138-142 Holborn, London EC1N 2ST, United Kingdom
*
Corresponding author. Email: Gordon.Cook@glasgow.ac.uk
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.

It is becoming increasingly clear that in order to generate accurate radiocarbon dates for bone collagen samples it is important to determine a sample-specific background correction to account for the greater complexity and higher number of steps in the pretreatment chemistry of this material. To provide suitable samples for the 14C community, 7 bone samples were obtained from contexts within British gravel quarries, which according to other dating techniques or stratigraphic information, should be of infinite age with respect to 14C. The bones were analyzed at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) and the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre (SUERC) to determine their suitability. In this paper, we show that 6 of the samples were indistinguishable from background. Both institutions measured finite ages for sample 387 from Oxey Mead that were statistically indistinguishable. Further work is required to establish whether this is because the bone was intrusive and of a younger age than expected or whether it is contaminated either postdepositionally or in the laboratory. We favor the former explanation because (1) the 2 chemistry laboratories use very different pretreatment schemes, (2) collagen yields were high, and (3) the laboratories produced ages that are in good agreement. The 6 “greater than” age samples will be made available to 14C laboratories to be used as background standards.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 54 , Issue 3-4 , 2012 , pp. 845 - 853
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by 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
Bayliss, A. 2009 Rolling out revolution: using radiocarbon dating in archaeology. Radiocarbon 51(1):123–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayliss, A, Bronk Ramsey, C. 2004. Pragmatic Bayesians: a decade of integrating radiocarbon dates into chronological models. In: Buck, CE, Millard, AR, editors. Tools for Constructing Chronologies: Tools for Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries. London: Springer Verlag. p 25–41.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
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(Supplement 1):1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, F, Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, T. 2007. Quality assurance of ultrafiltered bone dating. Radiocarbon 49(2):187–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, F, Higham, T, Ditchfield, P, Bronk Ramsey, C. 2010. Current pretreatment methods for AMS radiocarbon dating at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Radiocarbon 52(1):103–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, TFG, Bowles, A, Hedges, R. 2004. Improvements to the pretreatment of bone at Oxford. Radiocarbon 46(1):155–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, TA, Nelson, DE, Vogel, JS, Southon, JR. 1988. Improved collagen extraction by modified Longin method. Radiocarbon 30(2):171–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dee, M, Bronk Ramsey, C. 2000. Refinement of graphite target production at ORAU. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 172(1–4):449–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Elia, M, Gianfrate, G, Quarta, G, Giotta, L, Giancane, G, Calcagnile, L. 2007. Evaluation of possible contamination sources in the 14C analysis of bone samples by FTIR spectroscopy. Radiocarbon 49(2):201–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eeles, RMG. 2009. Summary of research undertaken at Nyett Field (Thrupp) in the parish of Radley, Oxfordshire [WWW document]. URL: http://www.radleyvillage.org.uk/ourvillage/natural_history/documents/THRUPPREPORTRMGEelesNov2009.pdf.Google Scholar
Freeman, SPHT, Cook, GT, Dougans, AB, Naysmith, P, Wilcken, KM, Xu, S. 2010. Improved SSAMS performance. Nuclear Instruments and Methods B 268(7–8):715–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedges, REM, van Klinken, GJ. 1992. A review of current approaches in the pretreatment of bone for radiocarbon dating by AMS. Radiocarbon 34(3):279–91.CrossRefGoogle 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, CM, 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):613–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacumin, P, Nikolaev, V, Ramigni, M. 2000. C and N stable isotope measurements on Eurasian fossil mammals, 40,000 to 10,000 years BP: herbivore physiologies and palaeoenvironmental reconstruction. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 163(1–2):33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobi, RM, Higham, TFG, Bronk Ramsey, C. 2006. AMS radiocarbon dating of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic bone in the British Isles: improved reliability using ultrafiltration. Journal of Quaternary Science 21(5):557–73.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):241–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCullagh, JSO, Marom, A, Hedges, REM. 2010. Radiocarbon dating of individual amino acids from archaeological bone collagen. Radiocarbon 53(2):620–34.Google 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 5MV tandem and 250kV SSAMS. Radiocarbon 52(2–3):263–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, DE. 1991. A new method for carbon isotopic analysis of protein. Science 251(4993):552–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, EM, Boaretto, E, Bryant, C, Cook, GT, Gulliksen, S, Harkness, DD, Heinemeier, J, McGee, E, Naysmith, P, Possnert, G, van der Plicht, H, Van Strydonck, M. 2004. Future needs and requirements for AMS 14C standards and reference materials. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 223–224:382–7.Google Scholar
Scott, K, Buckingham, CM. 2001. Preliminary report on the excavation of late Middle Pleistocene deposits at Latton, near Cirencester, Gloucestershire. Quaternary Newsletter 94:24–9.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):303–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, TW, 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
Stuiver, M, Polach, HA. 1977. Discussion: reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19(3):355–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tisnérat-Laborde, N, Valladas, H, Kaltnecker, E, Arnold, M. 2003. AMS radiocarbon dating of bones at LSCE. Radiocarbon 45(3):409–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandeputte, K, Moens, L, Dams, R. 1996. Improved sealed-tube combustion of organic samples to CO2 for stable carbon isotope analysis, radiocarbon dating and percent carbon determinations. Analytical Letters 29(15):2761–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Klinken, GJ. 1999. Bone collagen quality indicators for palaeodietary and radiocarbon measurements. Journal of Archaeological Science 26(6):687–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, RE, Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, TFG. 2010. Refining the ultrafiltration bone pretreatment background for radiocarbon dating at ORAU. Radiocarbon 52(2–3):600–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, S, Wu, X, Liu, K, Guo, Z, Cheng, X, Pan, Y, Wang, J. 2007. Removal of contaminants from oracle bones during sample pretreatment. Radiocarbon 49(2):211–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar