No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
DEVELOPMENT OF A 14C PROTOCOL AT THE LMC14 FOR THE DATING OF CULTURAL HERITAGE MATERIALS: HISTORICAL MORTARS. PARTICIPATION IN THE MODIS INTERNATIONAL INTERCOMPARISON CAMPAIGN
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 January 2024
Abstract
The absolute dating of mortar by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) has been the subject of renewed interest for several years. International intercomparison campaigns, called MODIS (MOrtar Dating Intercomparison Study), have been carried out. The first MODIS-1 campaign highlighted limitations in mortar dating, due to the similarity between the primary material to be dated (binder) and the contaminant (exogenous CaCO3). Methods have since emerged to overcome this problem and the need for a good preliminary characterization has been proven. The Laboratoire de Mesure du Carbone 14 (LMC14) took part in the second intercomparison campaign, MODIS2, by applying thermal decomposition increments to distinguish the carbonated binder, the organic matter contaminants (late in formation pyrogenic carbonate, LDH) and limestone. The LMC14 results on MODIS2 are quite conclusive on “pure” re-carbonated lime mortar binders containing little contaminant geological limestone but show their weaknesses for mortars heavily contaminated in Dolomites, which are difficult to discern from the binder. Recommendations for users of radiocarbon (14C) dating on mortar-based materials are made in the conclusion.
Keywords
- Type
- Conference Paper
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of University of Arizona
Footnotes
Selected Papers from the 24th Radiocarbon and 10th Radiocarbon & Archaeology International Conferences, Zurich, Switzerland, 11–16 Sept. 2022
References
REFERENCES
Artioli, G, Secco, M, Addis, A, Bellotto, M. 2017. Role of hydrotalcite-type layered double hydroxides in delayed pozzolanic reactions and their bearing on mortar dating. In: Gruyter, WD, editor. Cementitious materials: composition, properties, application. Berlin.Google Scholar
Barrett, GT, Donnelly, C, Reimer, PJ. 2020. Radiocarbon dating mortar: The identification of a Medieval Irish round tower using a multi-method inter-comparative approach. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 33. doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102538
Google Scholar
Barrett, GT, Keaveney, E, Lindroos, A, Donnelly, C, Daugbjerg, TS., Ringbom, Å, Olsen, J, Reimer, PJ. 2021. Ramped pyroxidation: a new approach for radiocarbon dating of lime mortars. Journal of Archaeological Science 129:105366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, L, Messager, C, Coelho, S, Caffy, I, Delqué-Količ, E, Perron, M, Mussard, S, Dumoulin, JP, Moreau, C, Gonzalez, V, Foy, E, Miserque, F, Bonnot-Diconne, C. 2019. Thermal decomposition of lead white for radiocarbon dating of paintings. Radiocarbon 61(5):1345–1356. doi: 10.1017/RDC.2019.64
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daugbjerg, T, Lindroos, A, Hajdas, I, Ringbom, Å, Olsen, J. 2021. Comparison of thermal decomposition and sequential dissolution—two sample preparation methods for radiocarbon dating of lime mortars. Radiocarbon 63(2):405–427. doi: 10.1017/RDC.2020.144
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donahue, DJ, Linick, TW, Jull, AJT. 1990. Isotope ratio and background corrections for accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon measurements. Radiocarbon 32:135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumoulin, JP, Comby-Zerbino, C, Delqué-Količ, E, Moreau, C, Caffy, I, Hain, S, Perron, M, Thellier, B, Setti, V, Berthier, B, Beck, L. 2017. Status report on sample preparation protocols developed at the LMC14 laboratory, Saclay, France: from sample collection to 14C AMS measurement. Radiocarbon 59:713–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goslar, T, Nawrocka, D, Czernik, J. 2009. Foraminiferous limestones in 14C dating of mortar. Radiocarbon 51(2):857–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajdas, I, Lindroos, A, Heinemeier, J, Ringbom, Å, 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
Hayen, R, Van Strydonck, M, Boaretto, E, Lindroos, A, Heinemeier, J, Ringbom, Å, Hueglin, S, Michalska, D, Hajdas, I, Marzaoili, F, et al. 2016. Analysis and characterisation of historic mortars for absolute dating. In: Proceedings of the 4th Historic Mortars Conference (HMC 2016). 656-667.Google Scholar
Hayen, R, Van Strydonck, M, Fontaine, L, Boudin, M, Lindroos, A, Heinemeier, J, Ringbom, Å, Michalska, D, Hajdas, I, Hueglin, S, et al. 2017. Mortar dating methodology: assessing recurrent issues and needs for future research. Radiocarbon 59(6):1859–1871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemeier, J, Jungner, H, Lindroos, A, Ringbom, Å, von Konow, T, Rud, N. 1997. AMS C-14 dating of lime mortar. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B 123(1–4):487–495
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemeier, J, Ringbom, Å, Lindroos, A, Sveinbjörnsdóttir, ÁE. 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
Labeyrie, J, Delibrias, G. 1964. Dating of old mortars by carbon-14 method. Nature 201(492):742.CrossRefGoogle 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, Sjoberg, P, Lancaster, L, Kaisti, R, Brock, F, Ranta, H, Caroselli, M, Lugli, S. 2018. Radiocarbon dating historical mortars: lime lumps and/or binder carbonate? Radiocarbon 60(3):875–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindroos, A, Ringbom, Å, Heinemeier, J, Hajdas, I, Olsen, J. 2020a. Delayed hardening and reactivation of binder calcite, common problems in radiocarbon dating of lime mortars. Radiocarbon 62(3):565–577. doi: 10.1017/RDC.2020.5
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindroos, A, Heinemeier, J, Ringbom, Å, Daugbjerg, TS, Hajdas, I. 2020b. The Roman amphitheatre in Mérida, Spain–Augustan or Flavian? Radiocarbon dating results on mortar carbonate. Geochronometria 47(1):187–195.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Messager, C, Beck, L, de Viguerie, L, Jaber, M. 2020. Thermal analysis of carbonate pigments and linseed oil to optimize CO2 extraction for radiocarbon dating of lead white paintings. Microchem. J. 154:104637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messager, C, Beck, L, Germain, T, Degrigny, C, Serneels, V, Cano, D, Cardoso, G et Equipe LMC14. 2021. Datation par la méthode du radiocarbone du blanc de plomb: du psimythion des cosmétiques antiques au pigment des peintures murales médiévales. Technè 52. doi: 10.4000/techne.10190.Google Scholar
Messager, C, Beck, L, Blamart, D, Richard, P, Germain, T, Batur, K, Gonzalez, V, Foy, E. 2022. 25 Centuries of lead white manufacturing processes identified by 13C and 14C carbon isotopes. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 46. doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103685.Google Scholar
Mook, WG, van der Plicht, J. 1999. Reporting 14C activities and concentrations. Radiocarbon 41:227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreau, C, Caffy, I, Comby, C, Delqué-Količ, E, Dumoulin, JP, Hain, S, Quiles, A, Setti, V, Souprayen, C, Thellier, B, Vincent, J. 2013. Research and development of the ARTEMIS 14C AMS facility: status report. Radiocarbon 55(2):331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreau, C, Messager, C, Berthier, B, Hain, S, Thellier, B, Dumoulin, JP, Caffy, I, Sieudat, M, Delqué-Količ, E, Mussard, S, Perron, M, Setti, V, Beck, L. 2020. ARTEMIS, the 14C AMS facility of the LMC14 national laboratory: a status report on quality control and microsample procedures. Radiocarbon 62(6):1755–1770. doi: 10.1017/RDC.2020.73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mateos Cruz, P. 1999. La basílica de Santa Eulalia de Mérida. Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología XIX, Madrid.Google Scholar
Ranta, H, Hansson, J, Lindroos, A, Ringbom, Å, Heinemeier, J, Brock, F, Hodgins, G. 2009. Om dateringen av Gotlands medeltida kyrkor. Hikuin 36:85–100.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Austin, WEN, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Blackwell, PG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Butzin, M, Cheng, H, Edwards, RL, Friedrich, M, et al. 2020. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 62(4):725–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricci, G, Secco, M, Marzaioli, F, Terrasi, F, Passariello, I, Addis, A, Lampugnani, P, Artioli, G. 2020. The Cannero Castle (Italy): development of radiocarbon dating methodologies in the framework of the layered double hydroxide mortars. Radiocarbon 62(3):617–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roosval, J. 1911. Die Kirchen Gotlands. Ein Beitrag zur mittelalterlichen Kunstgeschichte Schwedens. Nordstets 1911. 231 p.Google Scholar
Sjöberg, P, Lindroos, A, Ringbom, Å. 2011. Radiocarbon dating of the medieval churches of the Åboland Archipelago. In: Hansson J, Ranta H, editors. Archaeology and history of churches in the Baltic region. p 171–195.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M, Smith, CS. 1965. Radiocarbon dating of ancient mortar and plaster. In: Chatters, RM, Olson, EA, editors. International Conference on 14C and tritium dating, 6th, Proc: Clearinghouse for Fed Sci & Techl Inf, Natl Bur Standards, US Dept Commerce, Washington, DC. p. 338–341.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M, Polach, HA. 1977. Discussion reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19(3):355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toffolo, MB, Regev, L, Mintz, E, Poduska, KM, Shahack-Gross, R, Berthold, C, Miller, CE, Boaretto, E. 2017. Accurate radiocarbon dating of archaeological ash using pyrogenic aragonite. Radiocarbon 59(1):231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toffolo, MB, Regev, L, Mintz, E, Kaplan-Ashiri, I, Berna, F, Dubernet, S, Yan, X, Regev, J, Boaretto, E. 2020. Structural characterization and thermal decomposition of lime binders allow accurate radiocarbon age determinations of aerial lime plaster. Radiocarbon 62(3):633–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbanova, P, Boaretto, E, Artioli, G. 2020. The state-of-the-art of dating techniques applied to ancient mortars and binders: a review. Radiocarbon 62(3):503–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar