Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:54:17.584Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

14C Dating of Humic Acids from Bronze and Iron Age Plant Remains from the Eastern Mediterranean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2016

E M Wild ,
P Steier ,
P Fischer  and
F Höflmayer
E M Wild*
Affiliation:
University of Vienna, Vienna Environmental Research Accelerator (VERA), Faculty of Physics, Isotope Research and Nuclear Physics, Währinger Straße 17, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
P Steier
Affiliation:
University of Vienna, Vienna Environmental Research Accelerator (VERA), Faculty of Physics, Isotope Research and Nuclear Physics, Währinger Straße 17, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
P Fischer
Affiliation:
Cypriote and Near Eastern Archaeology, Department of Historical Studies, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
F Höflmayer
Affiliation:
German Archaeological Institute (DAI), Orient Department, Podbielskiallee 69-71, 14195 Berlin, Germany
*
2Corresponding author. Email: Eva.Maria.Wild@univie.ac.at.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Radiocarbon dating of plant remains is often difficult due to the complete dissolution of the samples in the alkaline step of the ABA pretreatment. At the VERA laboratory, this problem was encountered frequently when numerous Bronze and Early Iron Age samples from the eastern Mediterranean were dated in the course of the special research program SCIEM2000 and in other collaborations with archaeologists focused on that area and time period. For these samples, only a 14C age determination of the humic acid fraction was possible. Humic acids from archaeological samples are always assessed as a second-choice material for 14C dating. It is assumed that the 14C ages may be affected by the presence of humic acids originating from other (younger) organic material, e.g. from soil horizons located above a sample. Therefore, when humic acids are dated a verification of the dates is crucial. To address this basic requirement, we started some time ago to date both fractions of charred seeds, wood, and charcoal samples whenever available, i.e. the residue after the ABA treatment and the humic acids extracted from the samples in the alkaline step. The results of this comparison showed that for the investigated eastern Mediterranean archaeological sites, 50 (out of 52) humic acid dates were in agreement with the 14C dates of the respective ABA-treated samples. Statistical analysis of the age differences leads to the conclusion that the extracted humic acids originated from the samples themselves or from contemporaneous material and were not appreciably contaminated by extraneous material of different age.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 55 , Issue 2: Proceedings of the 21st International Radiocarbon Conference (Part 1 of 2) , 2013 , pp. 599 - 607
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the 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.)

References

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
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon calibration program. Radiocarbon 43(2A):355–63.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C, Dee, MW, Rowland, JM, Higham, TFG, Harris, SA, Brock, F, Quiles, A, Wild, EM, Marcus, ES, Shortland, AJ. 2010. Radiocarbon based chronology for Dynastic Egypt. Science 328(5985):1554–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Friedrich, WL, Kromer, B, Friedrich, M, Heinemeier, J, Pfeiffer, T, Talamo, S. 2006. Santorini eruption radiocarbon dated to 1627–1600 B.C. Science 312(5773):548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutschera, W, Bietak, M, Wild, EM, Bronk Ramsey, C, Dee, M, Golser, R, Kopetzky, K, Stadler, P, Steier, P, Thanheiser, U, Weninger, F. 2012. The chronology of Tell el-Daba: a crucial meeting point of 14C dating, archaeology, and Egyptology in the 2nd millennium BC. Radiocarbon 54(3–4):407–22.Google Scholar
Olson, EA, Broecker, WS. 1958. Sample contamination and reliability of radiocarbon dates. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences Series II 20(7):593–604.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Baillie, MGL, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, WJ, Bertrand, C, Blackwell, PG, Buck, CE, Burr, GS, Cutler, KB, Damon, PE, Edwards, RL, Fairbanks, RG, Friedrich, M, Guilderson, TP, Hughen, KA, Kromer, B, McCormac, FG, Manning, S, Bronk Ramsey, C, Reimer, RW, Remmele, S, Southon, JR, Stuiver, M, Talamo, S, Taylor, FW, van der Plicht, J, Weyhenmeyer, CE. 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3):1029–58.Google Scholar
Taylor, RE. 1987. Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective. Orlando: Academic Press. 212 p.Google Scholar
Ward, GK, Wilson, SR 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry 20(1):19–31.Google Scholar
Wild, EM, Arlamovsky, KA, Golser, R, Kutschera, W, Priller, A, Puchegger, S, Rom, W, Steier, P, Vycudilik, W. 2000. 14C dating with the bomb peak: an application to forensic medicine. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 172(1–4):944–50.Google Scholar
Wild, EM, Neugebauer-Maresch, C, Einwögerer, T, Stadler, P, Steier, P, Brock, F. 2008. 14C dating of the Upper Paleolithic Site at Krems-Hundssteig in Lower Austria. Radiocarbon 50(1):1–10.Google Scholar