Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T06:00:08.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality Assurance of Ultrafiltered Bone Dating

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Fiona Brock ,
Christopher Bronk Ramsey  and
Thomas Higham
Fiona Brock*
Affiliation:
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Dyson Perrins Building, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom
Christopher Bronk Ramsey
Affiliation:
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Dyson Perrins Building, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom
Thomas Higham
Affiliation:
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Dyson Perrins Building, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom
*
Corresponding author. Email: fiona.brock@archaeology-research.oxford.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.

Ultrafiltration of bone collagen provides a method of purification that can be very effective in reducing environmental contamination from soil-derived amino acids as well as removing degraded collagen or other short-chain proteins. The Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) first implemented ultrafiltration in the pretreatment of bone material for accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating in 2000. However, the filters themselves contain carbonaceous material, and thus stringent quality control is required to demonstrate that this does not affect the accuracy of the dating. Here, we present quality assurance data from the bone pretreatment and dating program at ORAU, including dates on known-age and background-age bones over a range of sample sizes, and measurements of residual carbon contamination present in the filters after cleaning.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , 2007 , pp. 187 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

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 S1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, T, Bowles, A, Hedges, R. 2004 Improvements to the pretreatment of bone at Oxford Radiocarbon 46(1):155–63.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, TFG, Whittle, A, Bartosiewicz, L. Forthcoming a The radiocarbon chronology In Whittle, A, editor. The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: Investigations of the Körös Culture Site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. Budapest Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, TFG, Pearson, J. Forthcoming b. Bone pre-treatment by ultrafiltration: a report on unintended age offsets introduced by the method Eastney, Portsmouth, UK: English Heritage Centre for British Archaeology report.Google Scholar
Brown, TA, Nelson, DE, Vogel, JS, Southon, JR. 1988 Improved collagen extraction by modified Longin method Radiocarbon 30(2):171–7.Google 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.Google Scholar
Higham, TFG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Petchey, FJ, Tompkins, C, Taylor, M. 2004 AMS radiocarbon dating of Rattus exulans bone from the Kokohuia site (New Zealand). In: Higham, T, Bronk Ramsey, C, Owen, C, editors. Radiocarbon and Archaeology, Proceedings of the 4th Symposium, Oxford 2002. Oxford: Oxbow. p 135–51.Google Scholar
Higham, TFG, Jacobi, RM, Bronk Ramsey, C. 2006a. AMS radiocarbon dating of ancient bone using ultrafiltration. Radiocarbon 48(2):179–95.Google Scholar
Higham, TFG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Karavanić, I, Smith, FH, Trinkaus, E. 2006b. Revised direct radiocarbon dating of the Vindija G1 Upper Paleolithic Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103(3):553–7.Google Scholar
Higham, TFG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Brock, F, Baker, D, Ditchfield, P. Forthcoming. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system. Archaeometry. Datelist 32.Google 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
Jöris, O, Álvarez Fernández, E, Weninger, B. 2003. Radiocarbon evidence of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in southwestern Europe. Trabajos de Prehistoria 60(2):15–38.Google Scholar
Longin, R. 1971. New method of collagen extraction for radiocarbon dating. Nature 230(5291):241–2.Google 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
van Klinken, GJ. 1999. Bone collagen quality indicators for palaeodietary and radiocarbon measurements. Journal of Archaeological Science 26(6):687–95.Google Scholar