4.5 Article

Nitrogen content variation in archaeological bone and its implications for stable isotope analysis and radiocarbon dating

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Volume 93, Issue -, Pages 68-73

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2018.02.019

Keywords

Bone diagenesis; Collagen; Nitrogen content; Radiocarbon dating; Isotope studies

Funding

  1. European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) [324139]
  2. UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The collagen component of ancient bones is routinely isolated for radiocarbon dating and stable isotope studies. However, it is impossible to tell the state of collagen preservation from visual inspection of bones. At the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU), the percent nitrogen by weight (%N) of a similar to 5 mg sample of bone powder is measured on a mass spectrometer and used as a proxy for protein content. A previous study showed that samples with %N > 0.76 are considered likely to produce sufficient collagen for radiocarbon dating (Brock et al., 2010b). However, the extent of variation between bone %N and collagen yield is unclear, as is the intra-bone variation in %N. Here, we report a series of tests performed on Palaeolithic bones known to have variable collagen preservation. This new study shows significant variation in %N within the same bone and that there is sometimes a lack of correlation between %N and collagen yield. These results suggest that for bone samples from difficult environments or from Pleistocene contexts, it may be worth sub-sampling for %N in different locations of the bone (if possible) and then attempting to extract collagen from marginally preserved bones (%N around 0.2 - 0.7%), as they may still yield sufficient collagen for isotope and dating studies. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available