The quest for an absolute chronology in human prehistory: anthropologists, chemists and the fluorine dating method in palaeoanthropology

Abstract

By the early twentieth century there was a growing need within palaeoanthropology and prehistoric archaeology to find a way of dating fossils and artefacts in order to know the age of specific specimens, but more importantly to establish an absolute chronology for human prehistory. The radiocarbon and potassium–argon dating methods revolutionized palaeoanthropology during the last half of the twentieth century. However, prior to the invention of these methods there were attempts to devise chemical means of dating fossil bone. Collaborations between Emile Rivière and Adolphe Carnot in the 1890s led to the development of the fluorine dating method, but it was not until the 1940s that this method was improved and widely implemented by Kenneth Oakley to resolve a number of problems in palaeoanthropology, including the Piltdown Man controversy. The invention of the fluorine dating method marked a significant advance in the quest for absolute dating in palaeoanthropology, but it also highlights interesting problems and issues relating to the ability of palaeoanthropologists and chemists to bring together different skills and bodies of knowledge in order successfully to develop and apply the fluorine dating method.

Comparison of fluoride and direct AMS radiocarbon dating of black bear bone from Lawson Cave, Missouri

“…It has been known for more than a century and a half that the amount of fluorine in osseous tissue laying in sediment increases with age (Goodrum and Olson 2009;Middleton 1844). As a dating method, fluoride dating became well known to anthropologists, archaeologists, and paleontologists in the middle of the 20th century when it was used to demonstrate that the Piltdown Man fossils did not represent a hominid ancestor (Heizer and Cook 1954;Oakley 1951Oakley , 1953Oakley and Hoskins 1950;Oakley and Weiner 1955;Weiner and Oakley 1954;Weiner et al 1953).…”

F-content variation in mammoth ivory from Aurignacian contexts: Preservation, alteration, and implications for ivory-procurement strategies

“…In spite of the significance of these artefacts, many details regarding the procurement, treatment, and use of mammoth ivory in the Early Upper Palaeolithic remain to be clarified. In the analysis of osseous archaeological materials, levels of geological Fluorine can be a source of useful information on preservation, taphonomy, and, with appropriate control of other variables, relative burial time (Gaschen et al, 2008;Goodrum and Olson, 2009;Lyman et al, 2012;Parker et al, 1974;Reiche, 2006).…”

Comments on “Dental lessons from past to present: ultrastructure and composition of teeth from plesiosaurs, dinosaurs, extinct and recent sharks” by A. Lübke, J. Enax, K. Loza, O. Prymak, P. Gaengler, H.-O. Fabritius, D. Raabe and M. Epple, RSC Adv., 2015,5, 61612

“…This fact has been known since the early nineteenth century and is one of the most studied diagenetic processes in archaeology and palaeontology. 10 In these elds, the concept of diagenesis, or more specically, fossildiagenesis, is used to cover all the chemical and mechanical changes that affect organic remains laying in a sediment or rock aer their initial burial. [11][12][13][14] Diagenetic modications to fossils include processes such as compaction or distortion, mineralisation (including inlling and chemical replacement) and dissolution.…”

“…21,22 The development of the uorine dating method 23,24 marked a turning point in the development of dating techniques, because it was the rst chemical procedure to date fossil specimens, and supplemented the stratigraphic methods used up until then. 10 Fluorine incorporation in fossil teeth and bones has been used extensively over the last century as a dating reference point, has solved important problems in palaeoanthropology and archaeology, and has been used to assess diagenetic processes in taphonomy. 25 In fact, "uorine dating" became very popular as a research tool when it was used with notable success to reveal one of the most famous frauds in science, the Piltdown man hoax.…”

“…6,30 Excellent comprehensive surveys (together with a denitive bibliography) on the evolution of studies on uoridation in fossil teeth and bones, and on the use and limitations of uorine dating have been recently published. 10,30 Therefore, it is evident that nding of uoroapatite in the dentine of fossilised shark teeth and in both the dentine and enamel/oid of plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, and dinosaurs, is not a surprising discovery (Abstract, pags. 61619, 61620) nor it is very unlikely due to a hitherto undescribed chemical pathway where hydroxyapatite recrystallized to uoroapatite during the millions of years of diagenesis.…”