Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 223–224 (2004) 731–734

www.elsevier.com/locate/nimb

14
AMS C age of the Upper Palaeolithic skeletons from
Sungir site, Central Russian Plain
a,*
Y.V. Kuzmin , G.S. Burr b, A.J.T. Jull b, L.D. Sulerzhitsky c

a
Pacific Institute of Geography, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Radio St. 7, Vladivostok 690041, Russia
b
NSF-Arizona AMS Facility, Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0081, USA
c
Geological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pyzhevsky Per. 7, Moscow 119017, Russia

Abstract

Bones of three human individuals, found at the Upper Palaeolithic site of Sungir (central European Russia) in graves
with unique adornments and other rich burial goods, have recently been 14 C-dated at the NSF-Arizona AMS Facility.
Collagen for dating was extracted using slow demineralization of whole bone fragments in weak hydrochloric acid. For
the Sungir 1 burial, a 14 C value of
19 200 BP was obtained; for the double burial Sungir 2 and 3, 14 C values of

26 200–27 200 BP (average
26 400 BP) were obtained. This contradicts earlier 14 C dates made at the Oxford AMS
Lab, with collagen extracted following Longin’s technique:
22 900 BP for Sungir 1; and
23 800–24 100 BP (average

23 900 BP) for Sungir 2 and 3. The use of two different techniques of collagen extraction for the Tucson and Oxford
dates might be the cause of the age differences. Additional studies need to be conducted to resolve these 14 C age dif-
ferences.
Ó 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PACS: 91.35.N
14
Keywords: AMS C dating; Human bone collagen; Sungir site; Upper Palaeolithic; Central Russian Plain; Russia

1. Introduction (1957–77) and by N.O. Bader (1987–95) [1].

The Sungir site is a unique phenomenon in the
Old World Upper Palaeolithic. It is located on the
central part of the Russian Plain, 192 km east of
Moscow, at the outskirts of the city of Vladimir
(56°110 N latitude, and 40°300 E longitude). It was
found in 1955, and excavated by O.N. Bader
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +7-4232-320664; fax: +7-4232-
312159.
E-mail address: ykuzmin@tig.dvo.ru (Y.V. Kuzmin).
According to stone tool typology, the Sungir
assemblage represents a local cultural complex
within the broader Kostenki–Streletsk culture [2].
The particular feature of Sungir is the presence
of human bones. Four burials, one skull, and two
femur fragments were excavated within the cul-
tural layer at the site; two other skeletons were
found outside of the main site without associated
artifacts. In total, the remains of eight individuals
have been discovered. In the two best-preserved
graves, three skeletons named Sungir 1, 2 and 3,
were localized [1]. On each skeleton, up to 3500

0168-583X/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2004.04.135
732 Y.V. Kuzmin et al. / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 223–224 (2004) 731–734

mammoth ivory beads and dozens of polar fox
tooth pendants, both used as cloth adornments,
have been found. Among other burial goods, there
were ivory figurines and straightened ivory spears
made on whole mammoth tusks, up to 2.4 m long.
Careful fixation of beads and pendants allows to
reconstruct the shape of Palaeolithic clothes. Thus,
the Singir age determination is crucial for the
study of the Upper Palaeolithic of Europe and
the whole world. Conventional 14 C dating of the
Sungir artifact-associated material, including
bones of woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primige-
nius Blum.), Pleistocene horse (Equus caballus L.),
and reindeer (Rangifer tarandus L.), was con-
ducted before our study. The age of animal bones
falls within a time interval of
20 400–28 800 BP
using 21 data of 14 C values, and most of them (18
data) fall within an interval of
26 300–28 800 BP
[3].
2. Material and methods
For the study of the 14 C age on human bone,
three skeletons were chosen: Sungir 1 (male, 55–65
years old); Sungir 2 (male, 12–14 years old) and
Sungir 3 (female (?), 9–10 years old) buried
simultaneously in a double grave [2]. Previously,
three 14 C dates were obtained from these skeletons
at the Oxford AMS Lab [4] (Table 1, OxA-dates).
Fragments of vertebra and rib bones were
sampled for dating. The special technique of col-
lagen extraction was developed in Russia in the
1970s [5,6]. The general idea is that slow dissolu-
tion of the mineral parts of whole pieces of bone in
diluted hydrochloric acid (HCl) allows extraction
of well-preserved collagen, with its initial fibre-like
collagen structure. This is different from the widely
accepted Longin’s technique of collagen extraction
[7], where bone material is powdered before
demineralization.
In our case, pieces of bones were cleaned from
any surface compounds, and demineralized in 5%
HCl solution, under the temperature of 2–3 °C. As
the surface layer became soft, once every few days
it was scraped with a knife, and the demineral-
ization continued until the complete dissolution of
the mineral part of bone. Extracted gelatin-like
collagen was thoroughly washed with distilled
water; repeated washing removes all possible bac-
teria. In order to remove humic acids, centrifuging
was used (acceleration of 2500–3000 g).
As one can observe after bone demineralization
by cold HCl, well-preserved collagen keeps the fi-
bre-like structure while the degraded collagen
usually has an ‘‘amorphic’’ appearance. The visual
structure of the Sungir collagen was of fibre-like
type. Collagen was again washed with the distilled
water, dried, and carbonized by combustion in a
gas oven in open air, in order to remove phos-
phorous and sulfur compounds.
Finally, the carbonised collagen was used for
CO2 gas preparation according to a routine pro-
cedure [8]. The d13 C values of the gas were mea-
sured on Fisons Optima mass spectrometer at the
NSF-Arizona AMS Facility. The CO2 was con-
verted to graphite by reduction with Zn, using Fe
powder as a catalyst. The graphite produced was
pressed into a target holder, which fits the car-
rousel of the AMS ion source. The NSF-Arizona
AMS machine is 3MV NEC Pelletron, in opera-
tion since early 2000.

Table 1
AMS 14 C dates for the Sungir site skeletons
14
Skeleton, bone C age, BP (± 1r error) Lab code d13 C, ‰ Source
Sungir 1, vertebra fragments 19 160 ± 270 AA-36473 )20.0 This paper
Sungir 1, bonea 22 930 ± 200 OxA-9036 )19.2 [4]
Sungir 2, right side ribs 27 210 ± 710 AA-36474 )19.3 This paper
Sungir 2, left side ribs 26 200 ± 640 AA-36475 )19.7 This paper
Sungir 2, bonea 23 830 ± 220 OxA-9037 )19.0 [4]
Sungir 3, rib fragments 26 190 ± 640 AA-36476 )19.7 This paper
Sungir 3, bonea 24 100 ± 240 OxA-9038 )18.9 [4]
a 15
d N values for these samples are +11.2–11.3‰ [11].
 Y.V. Kuzmin et al. / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 223–224 (2004) 731–734
14
Fig. 1. C dates of the Sungir 1–3 skeletons (±2r errors).
3. Results and discussion
The new results of AMS 14 C dating of humans
from the Sungir site, obtained in 2000, are pre-
sented in Table 1 (AA-dates). The age of Sungir 1
skeleton is
19 200 BP; for Sungir 2 it is
26 200–
27 200 BP; and for Sungir 3 it is
26 200 BP. Three
14
C values for the double burial of Sungir 2 and 3
overlap within ±2r errors (Fig. 1). Arizona AMS
dates are in general agreement with each other.
On the other hand, age determinations made in
Tucson (AA-) and Oxford (OxA-) diverge
considerably (Table 1; Fig. 1). For Sungir 1, the
difference is very significant, almost 3800 14 C years
–
19 200 BP (AA-36473) versus
22 900 BP
(OxA-9036). Two conventional charcoal dates
from the bottom of the pit underneath the Sungir 1
skeleton were obtained previously: 22 500 ± 600 BP
(GIN-326b) and 21 800 ± 1000 BP (GIN-326a) [3].
Charcoal probably originated from fossil wood,
due to almost treeless landscapes in this part of the
Central Russian Plain during the Last Glacial
Maximum, at
20 000–18 000 BP [9], including the
time of burial of the Sungir 1 individual at
19 000
BP. This might suggest that the Arizona date for
Sungir 1 is more correct because the Oxford value
of
22 930 BP is older than the two charcoal dates.
There is no discrepancy between Sungir 2 and 3
dates in the Arizona series (AA-36474, 36475 and
36476) as well as in the Oxford one (OxA-9037 and
9038) (Fig. 1), but the Arizona dates are signifi-
733
cantly (2100–2900 14 C years) older than the Ox-
ford values. 14 C dates AA-36474, 36475 and 36476
(
26 200–27 200 BP; average
26 400 BP [10]) are
synchronous with mammoth bone dates from the
main cultural layer (
26 300–28 800 BP) [3]. This
again might mean that the Tucson dates are more
correct.
It should be emphasized that two different
techniques of collagen extraction were used for the
Arizona and Oxford dates, and this might be the
cause of the age differences. However, the 14 C age
of a mammoth bone control sample from the main
cultural layer of the Sungir site, pretreated and
measured at the Oxford AMS Lab, 27 460 ± 310
BP (OxA-9039), is in good agreement with animal
bone 14 C dates run at the Geological Institute,
Moscow [3].
4. Conclusion
The conventional 14 C ages, obtained previously
from the Sungir site, are in agreement with the
Tucson AMS 14 C determinations of the human
bone collagen,
19 160 BP (Sungir 1), and
26 400
BP (average of three values for Sungir 2 and 3).
The origin of the significant discrepancy between
the two series of dates, made in Tucson and Ox-
ford for the same skeletons, is not clear. Addi-
tional dating is necessary to evaluate the age of the
Sungir humans.
734 Y.V. Kuzmin et al. / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 223–224 (2004) 731–734
Acknowledgements
This work was supported partly by grants from
US NSF (EAR97-30699), and from Russian RFFI
(99-05-64954 and 02-05-64991). We are grateful to
two anonymous reviewers for their comments.
References
[1] T.I. Alekseeva, N.O. Bader (Eds.), Homo Sungirensis.
Upper Palaeolithic Man: Ecological and Evolutionary
Aspects of the Investigation, Nauchny Mir Publication,
Moscow, 2000 (in Russian with English summary).
[2] O.N. Bader, N.O. Bader, in: T.I. Alekseeva, N.O. Bader
(Eds.), Homo Sungirensis. Upper Palaeolithic Man: Eco-
logical and Evolutionary Aspects of the Investigation,
Nauchny Mir Publication, Moscow, 2000, p. 21.
[3] L.D. Sulerzhitsky, P.B. Pettitt, N.O. Bader, in: T.I.
Alekseeva, N.O. Bader (Eds.), Homo Sungirensis. Upper
Palaeolithic Man: Ecological and Evolutionary Aspects of
the Investigation, Nauchny Mir Publication, Moscow,
2000, p. 30.
[4] P.B. Pettitt, N.O. Bader, Antiquity 74 (2000) 269.
[5] K.A. Arslanov, Radiouglerod: Geokhimiya i Geo-
chronologiya (Radiocarbon: Geochemistry and Geochro-
nology), Leningrad State University Press, Leningrad,
1987.
[6] L.D. Sulerzhitsky, in: A.A. Velichko, O.A. Soffer (Eds.),
Chelovek Zaselyaet Planetu Zemlya (Humans Settle the
Planet Earth), Institute of Geography, Russian Academy
of Sciences, Moscow, 1997, p. 184.
[7] R. Longin, Nature 230 (1971) 241.
[8] P.J. Slota, A.J.T. Jull, T.W. Linick, L.J. Toolin, Radio-
carbon 25 (1987) 303.
[9] Y.A. Lavrushin, L.D. Sulerzhitsky, E.A. Spiridonova, in:
T.I. Alekseeva, N.O. Bader (Eds.), Homo Sungirensis.
Upper Palaeolithic Man: Ecological and Evolutionary
Aspects of the Investigation, Nauchny Mir Publication,
Moscow, 2000, p. 36.
[10] A. Long, B. Rippeteau, American Antiquity 39 (1974) 205.
[11] M.P. Richards, P.B. Pettitt, M.C. Stiner, E. Trinkaus, in:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
USA 98, 2001, p. 6528.