Hostname: page-component-6587cd75c8-rlsgg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-23T11:44:42.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RETREATMENT OF BONE MATERIAL IN THE GLIWICE RADIOCARBON LABORATORY USING ULTRAFILTRATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2024

Fatima Pawełczyk Open the ORCID record for Fatima Pawełczyk [Opens in a new window] ,
Magdalena Niedziałkowska ,
Sławomira Pawełczyk Open the ORCID record for Sławomira Pawełczyk [Opens in a new window] ,
Natalia Piotrowska Open the ORCID record for Natalia Piotrowska [Opens in a new window]  and
Maciej Sykut
Fatima Pawełczyk*
Affiliation:
Institute of Physics – CSE, Silesian University of Technology, Konarskiego 22B, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland
Magdalena Niedziałkowska
Affiliation:
Mammal Research Institute Polish Academy of Sciences, Stoczek 1, 17-230 Białowieża, Poland
Sławomira Pawełczyk
Affiliation:
Institute of Physics – CSE, Silesian University of Technology, Konarskiego 22B, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland
Natalia Piotrowska
Affiliation:
Institute of Physics – CSE, Silesian University of Technology, Konarskiego 22B, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland
Maciej Sykut
Affiliation:
Mammal Research Institute Polish Academy of Sciences, Stoczek 1, 17-230 Białowieża, Poland
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Preparation of bones for radiocarbon (14C) dating is still quite a challenge for researchers. The methods are being tested and improved, to increase reliability of dating results and to verify the previous ones. In this work, a set of gelatine samples, extracted from Cervus elaphus and Cervus canadensis bones from various sites in Europe and a set of human bones from archaeological sites in Poland were subjected to retreatment using ultrafiltration in Gliwice Radiocarbon Laboratory. The tested samples represent a wide range of ages, from older than 40,000 14C years BP to modern. The prepared material was subjected to the measurement of C/N atomic ratios and 14C dating using the accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique. Also, the stable isotopes (δ13C and δ15N) values were determined. In a few cases ultrafiltration allows to improve gelatine quality for long-stored samples, by increasing the %C and %N as well as decreasing C/Nat ratios. Nevertheless, this effect was not observed for majority of the samples. Remeasurements of long-term stored samples give mostly the same 14C ages for ultrafiltered ones and for those without ultrafiltration.

Keywords

AMS datingbones14Cultrafiltration
Type
Research Article
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , February 2024 , pp. 134 - 146
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of University of Arizona

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ambrose, SH. 1990. Preparation and characterisation of bone and tooth collagen for isotopic analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:431–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaumont, W, Beverly, R, Southon, J, Taylor, RE. 2010. Bone preparation at the KCCAMS laboratory. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268(7–8):906–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, F, Dee, M, Hughes, A, Snoeck, C, Staff, R, Ramsey, CB. 2018. Testing the effectiveness of protocols for removal of common conservation treatments for radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 60(1):35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, F, Geoghegan, V, Thomas, B, Jurkschat, K, Higham, TFG. 2013a. Analysis of bone “collagen” extraction products for radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 55(2):445–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, F, Higham, T, Ramsey, CB. 2013b. Comments on the use of Ezee-filters™ and ultrafilters at ORAU. Radiocarbon 55(1):211–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, F, Ramsey, CB, Higham, T. 2007. Quality assurance of ultrafiltered bone dating. Radiocarbon 49(2):187–192.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, TA, Nelson, DE, Vogel, JS, Southon, JR. 1988. Improved Collagen extraction by modified Longin method. Radiocarbon 30:171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherkinsky, A. 2009. Can we get a good radiocarbon age from “bad bone”? Determining the reliability of radiocarbon age from bioapatite. Radiocarbon 51(2):647–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, MJ, Nielsen-Marsh, CM, Hiller, J, Smith, C I, Roberts, JP, Prigodich, RV, Wess, TJ, Csapò, J, Millars, AR, Turner-Walker, G. 2002. The survival of organic matter in bone: a review. Archaeometry 44(3):383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crann, CA, Grant, T. 2019. Radiocarbon age of consolidants and adhesives used in archaeological conservation. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 24:1059–1063.Google Scholar
DeNiro, MJ. 1985. Postmortem preservation and alteration of in vivo bone collagen isotope ratios in relation to palaeodietary reconstruction. Nature 317(6040):806–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeNiro, MJ, Weiner, S. 1988. Use of collagenase to purify collagen from prehistoric bones for stable isotopic analysis. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 52(10):2425–2431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deviese, T, Comeskey, D, McCullagh, J, Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, T. 2018. New protocol for compound-specific radiocarbon analysis of archaeological bones. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 32:373–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doan, K, Niedziałkowska, M, Stefaniak, K, Sykut, M, Jędrzejewska, B, Ratajczak-Skrzatek, U, Piotrowska, N, Ridush, B, Zachos, FE, Popović, D, et al. 2022. Phylogenetics and phylogeography of red deer mtDNA lineages during the last 50 000 years in Eurasia. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 194(2):431–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doan, K, Zachos, FE, Wilkens, B, Vigne, J-D, Piotrowska, N, Stanković, A, Jędrzejewska, B, Stefaniak, K, Niedziałkowska, M. 2017. Phylogeography of the Tyrrhenian red deer (Cervus elaphus corsicanus) resolved using ancient DNA of radiocarbon-dated subfossils. Scientific Reports 7(1):1–9.Google Scholar
Fedi, ME, Caforio, L, Liccioli, L, Mandò, PA, Salvini, A, Taccetti, F. 2014. A simple and effective removal procedure of synthetic resins to obtain accurate radiocarbon dates of restored artworks. Radiocarbon 56(3):969–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fewlass, H, Tuna, T, Fagault, Y, Hublin, JJ, Kromer, B, Bard, E, Talamo, S. 2019. Pretreatment and gaseous radiocarbon dating of 40–100 mg archaeological bone. Scientific Reports 9(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geist, V. 1998. Deer of the world: their evolution, behaviour, and ecology. Stackpole Books.Google Scholar
Gillespie, R, Hedges, RE, Wand, JO. 1984. Radiocarbon dating of bone by accelerator mass spectrometry. Journal of Archaeological Science 11(2):165–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonfiantini, R, Rozanski, K, Stichler, W. 1990. Intercalibration of environmental isotope measurements: the program of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Radiocarbon 32(3):369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goslar, T, Czernik, J, Goslar, E. 2004. Low-energy 14C AMS in Poznań radiocarbon laboratory, Poland. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 223:5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajdas, I, Michczynski, A, Bonani, G, Wacker, L, Furrer, H. 2009. Dating bones near the limit of the radiocarbon dating method: study case mammoth from Niederweningen, ZH Switzerland. Radiocarbon 51:675–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrando-Pérez, S. 2021. Bone need not remain an elephant in the room for radiocarbon dating. Royal Society Open Science 8(1):201351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hüls, CM, Grootes, PM, Nadeau, MJ. 2009. Ultrafiltration: boon or bane? Radiocarbon 51(2):613–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hüls, MC, Grootes, PM, Nadeau, MJ. 2007. How clean is ultrafiltration cleaning of bone collagen? Radiocarbon 49(2):193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longin, R. 1971. New methods of collagen extraction for radiocarbon dating. Nature 230(5291):241–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marom, A, McCullagh, JS, Higham, TF, Hedges, RE. 2013. Hydroxyproline dating: Experiments on the 14C analysis of contaminated and low-collagen bones. Radiocarbon 55(2):698–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marom, A, McCullagh, JS, Higham, TF, Sinitsyn, AA, Hedges, RE. 2012. Single amino acid radiocarbon dating of Upper Paleolithic modern humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:6878–6881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marom-Rotem, A. 2012. Development and application of an analytical method for radiocarbon dating bones using the amino acid hydroxyproline [doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford].Google Scholar
McCullagh, JS, Marom, A, Hedges, RE. 2010. Radiocarbon dating of individual amino acids from archaeological bone collagen. Radiocarbon 52:620–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minami, M, Nakamura, T. 2000. AMS radiocarbon age for fossil bone by XAD-2 chromatography method. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 172(1-4):462–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misarti, N, Finney, B, Maschner, H, Wooller, MJ. 2009. Changes in northeast Pacific marine ecosystems over the last 4500 years: evidence from stable isotope analysis of bone collagen from archeological middens. The Holocene 19(8):1139–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, DE. 1991. A new method for carbon isotopic analysis of protein. Science 251:552–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nemec, M, Wacker, L, Gäggeler, HW. 2010. Optimisation of the graphitisation process at AGE-1. Radiocarbon 52(3):1380–1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niedziałkowska, M, Doan, K, Górny, M, Sykut, M, Stefaniak, K, Piotrowska, N, Jędrzejewska, B, Ridush, B, Pawełczyk, S, Mackiewicz, P, et al. 2021. Winter temperature and forest cover have shaped red deer distribution in Europe and the Ural Mountains since the Late Pleistocene. Journal of Biogeography 48(1):147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piotrowska, N, Goslar, T. 2002. Preparation of bone samples in the Gliwice radiocarbon laboratory for AMS radiocarbon dating. Isotopes in Environmental and Health Studies 38:267–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piotrowska, N, Tomczyk, J, Pawełczyk, S, Stanaszek, ŁM. 2019. Radiocarbon AMS dating of Mesolithic human remains from Poland. Radiocarbon 61(4):991–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scirè Calabrisotto, C, Fedi, ME, Caforio, L, Bombardieri, L, Mando, PA. 2013. Collagen quality indicators for radiocarbon dating of bones: new data on Bronze Age Cyprus. Radiocarbon 55(2–3):472–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, E, Naysmith, P, Cook, G. 2017. Should archaeologists care about 14C intercomparisons? Why? A summary report on SIRI. Radiocarbon 59(5):1589–1596.Google Scholar
Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P. 2010. A report on phase 2 of the Fifth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI). Radiocarbon 52:846–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sealy, J, Johnson, M, Richards, M, Nehlich, O. 2014. Comparison of two methods of extracting bone collagen for stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis: Comparing whole bone demineralization with gelatinization and ultrafiltration. Journal of Archaeological Science 47(1):64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shammas, N, Walker, B, De La Torre, HM, Bertrand, C, Southon, J. 2019. Effect of ultrafilter pretreatment, acid strength and decalcification duration on archaeological bone collagen yield. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 456:283–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, TW Jr, Brendel, K, Duhamel, RC. 1988. Radiocarbon, 13C and 15N analysis of fossil bone: removal of humates with XAD-2 resin. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 52(9):2257–2267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, TW Jr, Duhamel, RC, Haynes, CV Jr, Brendel, K. 1982. Isolation of proline and hydroxyproline from fossil bone. Life Sciences 31:931–938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svyatko, SV, Mertz, IV, Reimer, PJ. 2015. Freshwater reservoir effect on redating of Eurasian Steppe cultures: first results for Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age northeast Kazakhstan. Radiocarbon 57(4):625–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talamo, S, Fewlass, H, Maria, R, Jaouen, K. 2021. “Here we go again”: the inspection of collagen extraction protocols for 14C dating and palaeodietary analysis. STAR: Science & Technology of Archaeological Research 7(1):62–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Talamo, S, Richards, M. 2011. A comparison of bone pretreatment methods for AMS dating of samples> 30,000 BP. Radiocarbon 53(3):443–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, RE. 1992. Radiocarbon dating of bone: To collagen and beyond. In: Taylor, RE, Long, A, Kra, RS, editors. Radiocarbon after four decades: an interdisciplinary perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag. p. 375–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Klinken, GJ, Bowles, AD, Hedges, REM. 1994. Radiocarbon dating of peptides isolated from contaminated fossil bone collagen by collagenase digestion and reversed-phase chromatography. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 58(11):2543–2551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Klinken, GJ, Hedges, RE. 1992. Experiments on 14C dating of contaminated bone using peptides resulting from enzymatic cleavage of collagen. Radiocarbon 34(3):292–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Klinken, GJ, Hedges, RE. 1995. Experiments on collagen-humic interactions: speed of humic uptake, and effects of diverse chemical treatments. Journal of Archaeological Science 22(2):263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wacker, L, Nemec, M, Bourquin, J. 2010. A revolutionary graphitisation system: fully automated, compact and simple. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268(7–8):931–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, S, Wu, X, Gao, S, Wang, J, Cai, L, Liu, K, Li, K, Ma, H. 2000. Comparison of different bone pretreatment methods for AMS 14C dating. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 172(1–4):424–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Pawełczyk et al. supplementary material

Pawełczyk et al. supplementary material
Download Pawełczyk et al. supplementary material(File)
File 20.6 KB