Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T00:09:34.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative Study of the Radiocarbon Dating of Different Bone Collagen Preparations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

D M Gurfinkel
D M Gurfinkel*
Affiliation:
Collegium Archaeometricum, c/o Department of Metallurgy and Materials Science, University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A4
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.

Four different bone collagen preparation procedures were compared and were found useful as a means of assessing the nature of contaminants present in a sample. Weathered bone however appeared to contain contaminants that could not be eliminated by any of the procedures studied.

Type
Research Article
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , 1987 , pp. 45 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © The American Journal of Science 

References

Berger, R, Horney, A G and Libby, W F, 1964, Radiocarbon dating of bone and shells from their organic components: Science, v 144, p 999–1001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berglund, B E, Håkansson, S and Lagerlund, E, 1976, Radiocarbon-dated mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius Blumenbach) find in South Sweden: Boreas, v 5, p 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beukens, R P, Gurfinkel, D M and Lee, H W, 1986, Progress at the Isotrace radiocarbon facility, in Stuiver, M and Kra, R S, eds, Internatl 14C conf, 12th, Proc: Radiocarbon, v 28, no. 2, p 229–236.Google Scholar
Blake, W Jr, 1975, Radiocarbon age determinations and post-glacial emergence at Cape Storm, Southern Ellesmere Island, Arctic Canada: Geog Annaler, v 57, ser A, p 1–71.Google Scholar
Donahue, R, Jull, A J T and Zabel, T H, 1984, Results of radioisotope measurements at the NSF-University of Arizona tandem accelerator mass spectrometer facility: Nuclear Instruments & Methods Phys Research Sec B, p 162–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, R, Hedges, R E M and Wand, J, 1984, Radiocarbon dating of bone by accelerator mass spectrometry: Jour Archeol Sci, v 11, p 165–170.Google Scholar
Harington, C R (ms) 1977, Pleistocene mammals of the Yukon territory: Ph D dissert, Univ Alberta.Google Scholar
Haynes, C V, 1967, Bone organic matter and radiocarbon dating, in Radiocarbon dating and methods of low-level counting: Vienna, Internatl Atomic Energy Agency, p 163–168.Google Scholar
Longin, R, 1971, New method of collagen extraction for radiocarbon dating: Nature, v 230, no. 5291, p 241–242.Google Scholar
Lowdon, J A and Blake, W Jr, 1979, Geological Survey of Canada radiocarbon dates XIX: Geol Survey Canada, Paper 79–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, I U and El-Daoushy, M F A F, 1978, Uppsala natural radiocarbon measurements XII: Radiocarbon, v 20, p 469–486.Google Scholar
Olsson, I U, El-Daoushy, M, Farid, A F, Abd-El-Mageed, A I and Klasson, M, 1974, A comparison of different methods for pretreatment of bones I: Geol Foren Stockholm Forh, v 96, p 171–181.Google Scholar
Sellstedt, H, Engstrand, L and Gejvall, N G, 1966, New application of radiocarbon dating to collagen residue in bones: Nature, v 212, p 572–574.Google Scholar
Stevenson, F J, 1982, Humus chemistry: Genesis, composition, reactions: New York, Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Tamers, M A, and Pearson, F J, 1965, Validity of radiocarbon dates on bone: Nature, v 208, p 1053–1055.Google Scholar
Taylor, R E and Slota, P, 1979, Fraction studies on marine shell and bone samples for radiocarbon analyses, in Berger, R and Suess, H E, eds, Radiocarbon dating, Internatl 14C conf, 9th, Proc: Berkeley/Los Angeles, Univ California Press, p 422–432.Google Scholar