Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Contrasting the crystallinity indicators of heated and diagenetically altered bone mineral

By Keith Rogers, Sophie Beckett, Samira Kuhn, Andrew Chamberlain and John Clement


Modifications to bone mineral as a result of diagenesis or heating include a marked increase in crystallinity. Although these processes are not completely understood a number of simple, pragmatic approaches are in general use to quantify crystallinity and thus provide a relative metric for features such as preservation state. A preliminary investigation into the interpretation of crystallinity as measured by X-ray diffraction has been undertaken. The microstructural changes associated with diagenetically altered (archaeological) and heated contemporary bone have been examined. A common analysis approach was adopted and thus direct comparison between the physical features of these material systems has been possible. The data clearly demonstrate the pronounced anisotropic nature of the crystallite microstructure for both diagenetically altered and contemporary bone. The limitations of adopting simple crystallinity indices for characterising such materials are explored. Crystallite size and strain were shown to be dependent upon crystallographic direction. Overall, the diagenetically altered bone mineral possessed greater long range lattice order than that of contemporary heated bone. Further, significant differences between the directional nature of the microstructure of diagenetically altered and modern heated bone were observed. This study has enabled a direct comparison of the effects of heating and diagenesis upon bone mineral. It has demonstrated the need to consider bone microstructure anisotropically

Topics: Bone, Crystallinity, X-ray diffraction, Diagenesis
Publisher: Elsevier
Year: 2010
DOI identifier: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2010.06.021
OAI identifier:
Provided by: Cranfield CERES

Suggested articles


  1. (2008). A new calibration of the XRD technique for the study of archaeological burned human remains. doi
  2. (1995). Age and temperature related changes to the ultrastructure and composition of human bone mineral. doi
  3. (2002). An X–ray diffraction study of the effects of heat treatment on bone mineral microstructure. doi
  4. (2007). Application of biochemical and X–ray diffraction analyses to establish the postmortem interval. doi
  5. (2008). Bone diagenesis: new data from infrared spectroscopy and X–ray diffraction. doi
  6. (2003). Bone mineral change during experimental heating: an X–ray scattering investigation. doi
  7. (1993). Bone preservation in Kebara Cave, Israel using on–site Fourier–transform infrared spectroscopy. doi
  8. (2004). Can crystallinity be used to determine the degree of chemical alteration of biogenic apatites? doi
  9. (1992). Characterization and dating of recent and fossil bone by X-ray diffraction. doi
  10. (2008). Characterization of archaeological burnt bones: contribution of a new analytical protocol based on derivative FTIR spectroscopy and curve fitting of the ν 1 ν 3 PO4. doi
  11. (1995). Differential burning, recrystallisation, and fragmentation of archaeological bone. doi
  12. (1995). Early diagenetic evolution of bone phosphate: an X–ray diffractometry analysis. doi
  13. (1999). Early palaeolithic bone diagenesis in the Arago cave at Tautavel, France. doi
  14. (1995). Measurements and relationships of diagenetic alteration of bone from three archaeological sites. doi
  15. (2001). Standardising infra–red measures of bone mineral crystallinity: an experimental approach. doi
  16. (1951). The diffraction pattern of cold worked metals: I the nature of extinction. doi
  17. (1997). The effects of sample treatment and diagenesis on the isotopic integrity of carbonate in biogenic hydroxlapatite. doi
  18. (1993). The use of pattern decomposition to study the combined X–ray diffraction effects of crystallite size and stacking faults in ex–oxalate zinc oxide. doi
  19. (2007). Thermal alterations in archaeological bones. doi
  20. (2008). Why do crystallinity values fail to predict the extent of diagenic alteration of bone mineral? doi
  21. (1954). X–ray diffraction procedures for polycrystalline and amorphous materials. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.