No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
THE NEED FOR A NEW APPROACH TO THE RADIOCARBON DATING OF HISTORIC MORTARS
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 November 2023
Abstract
This commentary aims at raising awareness and fostering a discussion on the need of a new approach to the radiocarbon (14C) dating of historic mortars. Over the last decades, important advancements have been made in the application of the 14C dating methods to lime mortar samples, including the use of lime lumps instead of generic pieces of mortar. However, a relevant number of results in disagreement with the chronological framework of the related archaeological cases are published every year without a clear understanding of the reasons for such results. This suggests that further developments to the methodology are needed. The commentary argues that to further develop this particular application of the 14C dating method, a new, more holistic approach is needed that moves away from the very “applied” approach that dominated the last decades and focuses more on the causes of contamination and the mechanism of the reactions involved. Two actions are suggested that can immediately improve our ability to critically assess the results obtained: the publication of a chemical and mineralogical characterization of the binding fraction for the dated mortars, and the publication of sampling depth for each dated sample.
- Type
- Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of University of Arizona
References
REFERENCES
Daugbjerg, TS, Lindroos, A, Heinemeier, J, Ringbom, Å, Barrett, G, Michalska, D, Hajdas, I, Raja, R, Olsen, J. 2021a. A field guide to mortar sampling for radiocarbon dating. Archaeometry 63(5):1121–1140.Google Scholar
Daugbjerg, TS, Lindroos, A, Hajdas, I, Ringbom, Å, Olsen, J. 2021b. Comparison of thermal decomposition and sequential dissolution—two sample preparation methods for radiocarbon dating of lime mortars. Radiocarbon 63(2):405–427.Google Scholar
Hajdas, I, Lindroos, A, Heinemeier, J, Ringbom, A, Marzaioli, F, Terrasi, F, Passariello, I, Capano, M, Artioli, G, Addis, A, et al. 2017. Preparation and dating of mortar samples—Mortar Dating Inter-Comparison Study (MODIS). Radiocarbon 59(6):1845–1858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemeier, J, Ringbom, Å, Lindroos, A, Sveinbjörnsdóttir, Á. 2010. Successful AMS 14C dating of non-hydraulic lime mortars from the medieval churches of the Åland Islands, Finland. Radiocarbon 52(1):171–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesce, G, Ball, R. 2012. Dating of old lime based mixtures with the “pure lime lumps” technique. In: Nawrocka DM, editor. Radiometric dating. InTech.Google Scholar
Lindroos, A, Heinemeier, J, Ringbom, Å, Braskén, M, Sveinbjörnsdóttir, Á. 2007. Mortar dating using AMS 14C and sequential dissolution: examples from medieval, non-hydraulic lime mortars from the Åland islands, SW Finland. Radiocarbon 49(1):47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindroos, A, Ringbom, Å, Heinemeier, J, Hodgins, G, Sonck-Koota, P, Sjöberg, P, et al. 2018. Radiocarbon dating historical mortars: Lime lumps and/or binder carbonate? Radiocarbon 60(3):875–899.Google Scholar
Lindroos, A, Ringbom, Å, Heinemeier, J, Hajdas, I, Olsen, J. 2020. Delayed hardening and reactivation of binder calcite, common problems in radiocarbon dating of lime mortars. Radiocarbon 62(3):565–577.Google Scholar
Marzaioli, F, Lubritto, C, Nonni, S, Passariello, I, Capano, M, Terrasi, F. 2011. Mortar radiocarbon dating: preliminary accuracy evaluation of a novel methodology. Analytical Chemistry 83(6):2038–2045.Google Scholar
Pachiaudi, C, Marechal, J, Va Strydonk, M, Dupas, M, Dauchot-Dehon, M. 1986. Isotopic fractionation of carbon during CO2 absorption by mortar. Radiocarbon 28:691–697.Google Scholar
Pesce, C. et al. 2023. Effects of sucrose on fresh-state and setting properties of air lime. Materials and Structures 56(7):1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesce, C, Lesley, A, Henry, A, David, J, Pesce, G. 2019. The use of dolomitic lime in mortar samples from a 15th-century buttress of York Minster (York, UK). In: Proceedings of the 5th Historic Mortars Conference, Pamplona (Spain), 19–21 June 2019.Google Scholar
Pesce, G, Quarta, G, Calcagnile, L, D’Elia, M, Cavaciocchi, P, Lastrico, C, Guastella, R. 2009. Radiocarbon dating of lumps from aerial lime mortars and plasters: Methodological issues and results from San Nicolò of Capodimonte church (Camogli, Genoa, Italy). Radiocarbon 51(2):867–872.Google Scholar
Ponce-Antón, G, Ortega, LA, Zuluaga, MC, Alonso-Olazabal, A, Solaun, JL. 2018. Hydrotalcite and hydrocalumite in mortar binders from the medieval castle of Portilla (Álava, North Spain): accurate mineralogical control to achieve more reliable chronological ages. Minerals 8(8):326.Google Scholar
Rayment, DL, Pettifer, K. 1987. Examination of durable mortar from Hadrian’s Wall. Materials Science and Technology 3(12):997–1004.Google Scholar
Ringbom, Å, Lindroos, A, Heinemeier, J, Sonck-Koota, P. 2014. 19 years of mortar dating: learning from experience. Radiocarbon 56(2):619–635.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Agudo, E, Kudłacz, K, Putnis, CV, Putnis, A, Rodriguez-Navarro, C. 2013. Dissolution and carbonation of portlandite [Ca(OH)2] single crystals. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1021/es402061c
Google Scholar
Van Strydonck, M, Van Der Borg, K, De Jong, A, Keppens, E. 1992. Radiocarbon dating of lime fractions and organic materials from buildings. Radiocarbon 34:873–879.Google Scholar
Vecchiattini, R. 2019. Archeologia dell’Architettura, XXIV, 2019 – La datazione delle malte in architettura tra archeologia e archeometria. All’Insegna del Giglio.Google Scholar