Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:33:26.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Radiocarbon Dating of Fossil Eggshell

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Austin Long ,
R B Hendershott  and
P S Martin
Austin Long
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721.
R B Hendershott
Affiliation:
Feed Tuffs Processing Company, 28100 South Highway 33, Tracy, California 95376.
P S Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721.
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.

Controlled feeding experiments demonstrate that the 14C content of the carbonate fraction of fossil avian eggshell should reliably reflect the 14C activity of feed and contemporary atmospheric CO2 regardless of amounts of 14C depleted scratch injested. Consideration of biochemical pathways and exchange rates across lung membranes leads to the possibility that the carbonate fraction may, in some instances, be slightly 14C depleted. 14C dates on eggshell carbonate should require little or no correction. As with marine shell carbonate, normal soil-forming processes may alter the surficial carbon isotopes in eggshell carbonate. 14C dates on the protein fraction should be even more reliable than those on the carbonate fraction, but only if special precautions or separation techniques exclude non-indigenous carbon from the sample. Original protein contents are likely to be too low for conventional 14C dating techniques.

Type
V. General Aspects of 14C Technique
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 25 , Issue 2: 11th International Radiocarbon Conference , 1983 , pp. 533 - 539
Copyright
Copyright © The American Journal of Science 

References

Berger, R, Ducote, K, Robinson, K, and Walter, H, 1975, Radiocarbon date for the largest extinct bird: Nature, v 258, p 709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, K G and Olsson, I U, 1963, Some problems in connection with 14C dating of tests of Foraminifera: Geol Inst Univ Uppsala Bull, v 42, p 1–13.Google Scholar
Follinsbee, R E, Fritz, P, Krouse, H R, and Robblee, A R, 1970, Carbon-13 and oxygen-18 in dinosaur, crocodile, and bird eggshells indicate environmental conditions: Science, v 168, p 1353–1356.Google Scholar
Gross, M G, 1964, Variations in the 18O/16O and 13C/12C ratios of diagenetically altered limestones of the Bermuda Islands: Jour Geol, v 72, p 170–194.Google Scholar
Haynes, C V, in press, Great sand sea and selima sand sheet, eastern Sahara: Geochronology of desertification: Science, in press.Google Scholar
Taylor, T G, 1970, How an eggshell is made: Sci Am, v 222, p 88–95.Google Scholar
Taylor, T G and Stringer, D A, 1965, Eggshell formation and skeletal metabolism, in Sturkie, P D, ed, Avian physiology: Ithaca, Cornstock Pub Assoc.Google Scholar
Turner, J V, 1982, Kinetic fractionation of carbon-13 during calcium carbonate precipitation: Geochim et Cosmochim Acta, v 46, p 1183–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D L G, 1981, Genyornis eggshell (Dramornithidae; Aves) from the late Pleistocene of South Australia: Alcheringa, v 5, p 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar