Dear Zooarch
I wish too thank everybody who has, so far, provided much needed advice concerning the suitability of samples for carbon dating. The general concensus is that specimens with thicker cortical bone tend to yield the most collagen, however, severe fragmentation and poor preservation does not necessarily affect the collagen content of the bone - which obviously cannot be viewed by the naked eye. There are some labs which provide a 'collagen test' which is a risk-reducing approach to finding suitable samples before shelling out loads of dosh on unnecessary carbon dating which may lead to negative results. A quick explanation of the experiment was kindly provided by Andrew Millard.
Another point was raised by Richard Wright, which may also be of interest to the wider zooarch community, in the use of dating the carbon dioxide locked in the bone apatite, therefore precluding the need for the presence of bone collagen. Richard points out that the use of this technique was largely avoided after the advent and success of AMS dating and because of its unreliability in arid areas, but it may still be of use on material from more temperate climates such as Britain.
I will pass on all this information to my colleagues.
Thankyou one and all,
Martyn
|