Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T02:12:41.356Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dating Materials in Good Archaeological Contexts: The Next Challenge for Radiocarbon Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Elisabetta Boaretto
Elisabetta Boaretto*
Affiliation:
Radiocarbon and Cosmogenic Isotopes Laboratory, Kimmel Center for Archaeological Science, Weizmann Institute of Science. Also: Dept. of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Bar Ilan University. Email: elisabetta.boaretto@weizmann.ac.il
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.

Radiocarbon dating has had an enormous impact on archaeology. Most of the dates are obtained using charred materials and, to a lesser extent, collagen from bones. The contexts in which charred materials and bones are found are often, however, not secure. There are 3 other datable materials that are usually in secure contexts: plaster/mortar, phytoliths, and the organic material in the ceramic of whole vessels. The plaster/mortar of walls and floors are often in very secure contexts. Phytoliths are abundant in archaeological sites and in some situations form well-defined surfaces. Whole vessels are usually found in secure contexts and their typologies are indicative of a specific period. Dating each of these materials has proved to be difficult, and solving these technical problems represents major future challenges for the 14C community. The effective use of charcoal and bone collagen for dating can also be improved by paying careful attention to the micro-contexts in which they are found, such as in clusters or as part of well-defined features. Pre-screening to identify the best preserved material can also contribute to improving the accuracy of the dates obtained. A general objective should be to have an assessment of the quality of the material to be dated so that the potentially invaluable information from outliers can be exploited.

Information

Type
Archaeology
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , 2009, pp. 275 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

REFERENCES

Albert, RM, Weiner, S. 2001. Study of phytoliths in prehistoric ash layers using a quantitative approach. In: Meunier, JD, Colin, F, editors. Phytoliths: Applications in Earth Science and Human History. New York: Taylor and Francis. p 251–66.Google Scholar
Albert, RM, Shahack-Gross, R, Cabanes, D, Gilboa, A, Lev-Yadun, S, Portillo, M, Sharon, I, Boaretto, E, Weiner, S. 2008. Phytolith-rich layers from the Late Bronze and Iron Ages at Tel Dor (Israel): mode of formation and archaeological significance. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(1):57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alon, D, Mintz, G, Cohen, I, Weiner, S, Boaretto, E. 2002. The use of Raman spectroscopy to monitor the removal of humic substances from charcoal: quality control for 14C dating of charcoal. Radiocarbon 44(1):1–11.Google Scholar
Ambers, J. 1987. Stable carbon isotopes ratios and their relevance to the determination of accurate radiocarbon dates for lime mortars Journal of Archaeological Science 14(6):569–76.Google Scholar
Bird, MI, Ayliffe, LK, Fifield, LK, Turney, CSM, Cresswell, RG, Barrows, TT, David, B. 1999. Radiocarbon dating of “old” charcoal using a wet oxidation, stepped-combustion procedure. Radiocarbon 41(2):127–40.Google Scholar
Bird, MI, Turney, CSM, Fifield, LK, Jones, R, Ayliffe, LK, Palmer, A, Cresswell, R, Robertson, S. 2002. Radiocarbon analysis of the early archaeological site of Nauwalabila I, Arnhem Land, Australia: implications for sample suitability and stratigraphic integrity. Quaternary Science Reviews 21(8–9):1061–75.Google Scholar
Boaretto, E. 2007. Determining the chronology of an archaeological site using radiocarbon: minimizing uncertainty. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 56(2–4):207–16.Google Scholar
Boaretto, E, Jull, AJT, Gilboa, A, Sharon, I. 2005. Dating the Iron Age I/II transition in Israel: first intercomparison results. Radiocarbon 47(1):39–55.Google Scholar
Chu, V, Regev, L, Weiner, S, Boaretto, E. 2008. Differentiating between anthropogenic calcite in plaster, ash and natural calcite using infrared spectroscopy: implications in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(4):905–11.Google Scholar
Cohen-Ofri, I, Weiner, L, Boaretto, E, Mintz, G, Weiner, S. 2006. Modern and fossil charcoal: aspects of structure and diagenesis. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(3):428–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeNiro, M. 1985. Postmortem preservation and alteration of in vivo bone collagen isotope ratios in relation to palaeodietry reconstruction. Nature 317(6040):806–9.Google Scholar
DeNiro, M, Weiner, S. 1988. Chemical, enzymatic and spectroscopic characterization of “collagen” and other organic fractions from prehistoric bones. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 52(9):2197–206.Google Scholar
Gianfrate, G, D'Elia, M, Quarta, G, Giotta, L, Valli, L, Calcagnile, L. 2007. Qualitative application based on IR spectroscopy for bone sample quality control in radiocarbon dating. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259(1):316–9.Google Scholar
Hatté, C, Hodgins, G, Jull, AJT, Bishop, B, Tesson, B. 2008. Marine chronology based on 14C dating on diatoms proteins. Marine Chemistry 109(1–2):143–51.Google Scholar
Hedges, REM. 2002. Bone diagenesis: an overview of processes. Archaeometry 44(3):319–28.Google Scholar
Heinemeier, J, Jungner, H, Lindroos, A, Ringbom, Å, von Konow, T, Rud, N. 1997. AMS 14C dating of lime mortar. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B 123(1–4):487–95.Google Scholar
Lindroos, A, Heinemeier, J, Ringbom, Å, Braskén, M, Sveinbjörnsdóttir, A. 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.Google Scholar
Lowenstam, HA, Weiner, S. 1989. On Biomineralization. New York: Oxford University Press. 324 p.Google Scholar
Mulholland, SC, Prior, C. 1993. AMS radiocarbon dating of phytoliths. In: Pearsall, DM, Piperno, DR, editors. Current Research in Phytolith Analysis: Applications in Archaeology and Paleoecology. Philadelphia: The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. 212 p.Google Scholar
Piperno, DR. 2006. Phytoliths: A Comprehensive Guide for Archaeologists and Paleoecologists. Lanham, Maryland, USA: Altamira Press. 238 p.Google Scholar
Piperno, DR, Stothert, KE. 2003. Phytolith evidence for Early Holocene Cucurbita domestication in southwest Ecuador. Science 299(5609):1054–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, TD, Burton, JH, Bentley, RA. 2002. The characterization of biologically available strontium isotope ratios for the study of prehistoric migration. Archaeometry 44(1):117–35.Google Scholar
Rebollo, NR, Cohen-Ofri, I, Popovitz-Biro, R, Bar-Yosef, O, Meignen, L, Goldberg, P, Weiner, S, Boaretto, E. 2008. Structural characterization of charcoal exposed to high and low pH: implications for 14C sample preparation and charcoal preservation. Radiocarbon 50(2):289–307.Google Scholar
Scott, EM, editor. 2003. The Third International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (TIRI) and the Fourth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (FIRI), 1990–2002. Results, analyses, and conclusions. Radiocarbon 45(2):135–408.Google Scholar
Shahack-Gross, R, Albert, RM, Gilboa, A, Nagar-Hilman, O, Sharon, I, Weiner, S. 2005. Geoarchaeology in an urban context: the uses of space in a Phoenician monumental building at Tel Dor (Israel). Journal of Archaeological Science 32(9):1417–31.Google Scholar
Sharon, I, Gilboa, A, Jull, AJT, Boaretto, E. 2007. Report on the first stage of the Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: supporting a Low Chronology. Radiocarbon 49(1):1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stott, AW, Berstan, R, Evershed, P, Hedges, REM, Bronk Ramsey, C, Humm, MJ. 2001. Radiocarbon dating of single compounds isolated from pottery cooking vessel residues. Radiocarbon 43(2A):191–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Klinken, GJ. 1999. Bone collagen quality indicators for palaeodietry and radiocarbon measurements. Journal of Archaeological Science 26(6):687–95.Google Scholar
Van Strydonck, M, Dupas, M, Dauchot-Dehon, M, Pachiaudi, C, Marechal, J. 1986. The influence of contaminating (fossil) carbonate and the variations of δ13C in mortar dating. Radiocarbon 28(2A):702–10.Google Scholar
Van Strydonck, M, Dupas, M, Keppens, E. 1989. Isotopic fractionation of oxygen and carbon in lime mortar under natural environmental conditions. Radiocarbon 31(3):610–8.Google Scholar
Van Strydonck, M, Van Der Borg, K, de Jong, AFM, Keppens, E. 1992. Radiocarbon dating of lime fractions and organic material from buildings. Radiocarbon 34(3):873–9.Google Scholar
Yizhaq, M, Mintz, G, Khalaily, H, Weiner, S, Boaretto, E. 2005. Quality controlled radiocarbon dating of bones and charcoal from the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) of Motza (Israel). Radiocarbon 47(2):193–206.Google Scholar