Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T00:03:36.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dating of Prehistoric Burial Mounds by 14C Analysis of Soil Organic Matter Fractions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Søren M Kristiansen ,
Kristian Dalsgaard ,
Mads K Holst ,
Bent Aaby  and
Jan Heinemeier
Søren M Kristiansen*
Affiliation:
Department of Agroecology, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark.
Kristian Dalsgaard
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Aarhus, Ny Munkegade Building 520, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Mads K Holst
Affiliation:
Department of Prehistoric Archaeology, University of Aarhus, Moesgård, DK-8270 Højbjerg, Denmark.
Bent Aaby
Affiliation:
National Museum Environmental Archaeology, National Museum of Denmark, Ny Vestergade 11, DK-1471 Copenhagen K, Denmark.
Jan Heinemeier
Affiliation:
The AMS 14C Dating Laboratory, Institute of Physics and Astronomy, University of Aarhus, Ny Munkegade Building 520, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
*
Corresponding author. Email: sorenm.kristiansen@agrsci.dk.
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.

Dating of prehistoric anthropogenic earthworks requires either excavation for archaeological artifacts or macroscopic organic matter suitable for 14C analysis. Yet, the former, in many cases, is undesirable and the latter is difficult to obtain. Here we present a soil science procedure, which has the potential to overcome these problems. It includes careful sampling of buried former soil surfaces, acid-alkali-acid fractionation of soil organic matter (SOM), and subsequent 14C AMS dating. To test the procedure, soil from one of the largest known burial mounds in Scandinavia, Hohøj, and 9 other Danish burial mounds were sampled. The 14C dates from extracted SOM fractions were compared to reference ages obtained by other methods. We show that humic acid fractions in 7 of the 10 mounds had the same age as the reference, or were, at maximum, 280 yr older than the reference ages. The best age estimates were derived from an organic-rich layer from the upper cm of buried soil or sod. Differences among SOM fraction ages probably indicate the reliability of the dating. Hohøj dated to approximately 1400 BC and, thus, was up to 500 yr older than other dated Scandinavian mounds of comparable size. The remaining investigated burial mounds were dated to between 1700 and 1250 BC. We conclude that combined sampling of buried soil surfaces, SOM fractionation, and 14C analysis allows for dating of archaeological earthworks when minimal disturbance is required, or if no macroscopic organic remains are found.

Type
Soils and Sediments
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , 2003 , pp. 101 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © The Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Aaby, B, Andreasen, E. 1999. Pollenanalytiske undersøgelser af bronzealderhøjen, Hohøj, ved Mariager. Nationalmuseets Naturvidenskabelige Undersøgelser 27:1–15. In Danish.Google Scholar
Bech, JG. 2003. Fra fortidsminder til kulturmiljø - hvad Alstrup Krat og Hohøj gemte. Copenhagen: Kulturministeriet. 200 p. In Danish.Google Scholar
Bird, M, Santrùcková, H, Lloyd, J, Lawson, E. 2002. The isotopic composition of soil organic carbon on a north-south transect in western Canada. European Journal of Soil Science 53:393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bol, RA, Harkness, DD, Huang, Y, Howard, DM. 1999. The influence of soil processes on carbon isotopes distribution and turnover in the British uplands. European Journal of Soil Science 50:41–51.Google Scholar
Breuning-Madsen, H, Holst, MK. Forthcoming. Soil description system for burial mounds—development and uses. Danish Journal of Geography 103.Google Scholar
Dalsgaard, K, Odgaard, BV. 2001. Dating sequence of buried horizons of podzols developed in wind-blown sand at Ulfborg, Western Jutland. Quaternary International 78:53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaudinski, JB, Trumbore, SE, Davidson, DA, Zheng, S. 2000. Soil carbon cycling in a temperate forest: radiocarbon-based estimates of residence times, sequestration rates and partitioning of fluxes. Biogeochemistry 51:33–69.Google Scholar
Grave, P, Kaelhofer, L. 1999. Assessing bioturbation in archaeological sediments using soil morphology and phytolith analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:1239–48.Google Scholar
Hatte, C, Morvan, J, Noury, C, Paterne, M. 2001. Is classical acid-alkali-acid treatment responsible for contamination? An alternative proposition. Radiocarbon 43(2):177–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedges, REM. 1994. Radiocarbon dating of soils in archaeology. SEESOIL 10:5–11.Google Scholar
Huang, Y, Li, B, Bryant, C, Bol, RA, Eglinton, G. 1999. Radiocarbon dating of aliphatic hydrocarbons: a new approach for dating passive-fraction carbon in soil horizons. Soil Science Society of America Journal 63: 1181–7.Google Scholar
Matthews, JA. 1980. Some problems and implications of 14C dates from a podzol buried beneath an end moraine at Hauga-Breen, southern Norway. Geografiska Annalar 63(A):185–208.Google Scholar
Paul, EA, Follett, RF, Leavitt, SW, Halvorsen, A, Peterson, GA, Lyon, DJ. 1997. Radiocarbon dating determination of soil organic matter pool size and dynamics. Soil Science Society of America Journal 61:1058–68.Google Scholar
Randsborg, K. 1993. Kivik. Archaeology & Iconography. Acta Archaeologica 64:1–147.Google Scholar
Rice, JA. 2001. Humin. Soil Science 166:848–57.Google Scholar
Scharpenseel, HW, Becker-Heidmann, P. 1992. Twenty-five years of radiocarbon dating soils: paradigm of erring and learning. Radiocarbon 34(3):541–9.Google Scholar
Scrudder, SJ, Foss, JE, Collins, ME. 1996. Soil science and archaeology. Advances in Agronomy 57:1–76.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M, Polach, HA. 1977. Reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19(3):355–63.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M, Reimer, PJ, Bard, E, Beck, JW, Burr, GS, Hughen, KA, Kromer, B, McCormac, G, van der Plicht, J, Spurk, M. 1998. INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000–0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40(3):1041–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Mourik, JM, Wartenbergh, PE, Mook, WJ, Streurmann, HJ. 1999. Radiocarbon dating of Paleosols in aerolian sands. Meddedlingen Rijks Geologische Dienst 52: 425–40.Google Scholar
Wang, Y, Amundson, R, Trumbore, S. 1996. Radiocarbon dating of soil organic matter. Quaternary Research 45: 282–8.Google Scholar
Wang, Y, Hseih, Y-P. 2002. Uncertainties and novel prospects in the study of the soil carbon dynamics. Chemosphere 49:781–804.Google Scholar