Fluoride Dating of Mastodon Bone from an Early Paleoindian Spring Site

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

“…Many recent applications of fluoride dating have used Fluoride Ion Selective Electrode (FISE) analysis to measure fluorine amounts (e.g., Chlubek et al 1996;Ezzo 1992;Hogue 2006;Johnsson 1997;Kshirsagar 1993;McFarlane and Blake 2005;Matsu'ura et al 1990;Schurr 1989;Schurr and Gregory 2002;Tankersley et al 1998;Wrobel 2007). It is unclear how FISE results might differ from NAA results because, to our knowledge, there has been no systematic comparison of measurements of fluorine using the two techniques across a series of bone samples.…”

“…This explains why fluoride dating is a less than straightforward chronometer; it provides relative ages at best, and even relative ages may not be revealed by fluorine amount if the values of SP, K, or H differ across multiple tissue samples. It is for this reason that those who use fluoride analysis as a dating technique verify its application with independent chronometric data (e.g., Cole 1954;Schurr and Gregory 2002;Tankersley et al 1998).…”

“…Approximate, if imperfect, correlations between two chronometers-the amount of fluorine and another chronological indicator (e.g., Goffer 1980: 289-290)-spurred additional research and applications (Casserino 2009;Coote and Sparks 1981;Gaschen et al 2008;Guerrero et al 2011;Hogue 2006;Kottler et al 2002;Matsu'ura 1982;Matsu'ura et al 1990;Schurr 1989;Spence et al 1981;Tankersley et al 1998;Wrobel 2007). Perhaps because correlations were sometimes found, a chapter on fluoride dating appeared in a book on dating techniques (Berger and Protsch 1991).…”

Fluoride Dating of Faunal Materials by Ion-Selective Electrode: High Resolution Relative Dating at an Early Agricultural Period Site in the Tucson Basin

“…Several different procedures have been developed to measure fluoride by ion-selective electrode (Callaghan 1986;Kshirsagarl993;Matsu'ura 1981;Singer and Armstrong 1965;Spence et al 1981;Tankersley et al 1998). The procedures differ in the processes used to dissolve the bone (type and concentration of acid, dissolution time and temperature), whether or not the bone is ashed before dissolution, the type of buffer used to control pH and remove interfering ions, and whether or not the fluoride concentration is normalized to the phosphate content of the sample.…”

“…The portion of the bone element sampled can also be important if fluoride varies across the profile of the bone. Such variations have been found to be significant in large bones with high fluoride contents, such as mastodon bones from spring settings (Tankersley et al 1998). Bone density also plays a role in fluoride uptake, as has been shown to be the case for fossilized bones, where more porous bones tend to have higher fluoride contents than denser bones from the same deposit (Parker et al 1974), and the same principle applies to subfossil bones (Johnsson 1997).…”