Elsevier

Radiation Measurements

Volume 44, Issues 5–6, May–July 2009, Pages 472-476
Radiation Measurements

The relevance of parametric U-uptake models in ESR age calculations

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2009.02.011Get rights and content

Abstract

In the ESR dating three basic parametric U-uptake models have been applied for dating teeth: early U-uptake (EU: closed system), linear U-uptake (LU) and recent U-uptake (RU, it is assumed that the dose rate contribution of U in the dental tissues is zero). In many ESR dating publications it is still assumed that samples comply with one or the other parametric U-uptake model calculation or that their correct age lies somewhere between EU and LU. Observations of the spatial distribution of uranium in dental tissues show that it is difficult to predict any relationships between the relative uptake in the dental tissues. Combined U-series/ESR age estimates can give insights into the actual U-uptake. An evaluation of published data shows that for cave sites, a significant number of results fall outside the EU and LU bracket, while for open air sites, the majority of data are outside this bracket, particularly showing greatly delayed U-uptake. This may be due to changes in the hydrological system, leading to erosion which exposes the open air site. U-leaching has also been observed on samples from open air sites, in which case any reasonable age calculation is impossible.

Introduction

Ever since the inception of ESR dating of tooth enamel (Ikeya, 1982), it was clear that the unknown uranium uptake history has to be addressed in dose rate calculations. Over time, various parametric models have been proposed for the reconstruction of U-uptake of dental tissues, notably early (EU), linear (LU, Ikeya, 1982) and very recent (RU, Blackwell and Schwarcz, 1993) uptake. The EU model has some physical meaning, it presents the closed system and provides a minimum age. The RU model is physically less meaningful, but provides the maximum age. The main virtue of these three parametric models lies mainly in their reasonable simple computability (for explicit formulae, see Grün, 1989). Nevertheless, many publications have either favoured a particular U-uptake model, for the convenience to explain the result, or claimed that the correct age of the sample lay somewhere between the calculated EU and LU ages (e.g. Grün and Stringer, 1991). However, without any knowledge of the U-uptake history, it is only safe to assume that the correct age of a sample lies somewhere between the EU and RU. Depending on the contribution of the U in the dental tissues to the total dose rate, this difference ranges between negligible and utterly enormous.

Section snippets

Open system modelling

Uranium uptake can be modelled by combining ESR and U-series data. Although the explicit U-uptake in nature may occur in multiple phases, two models have been developed, which can bracket virtually all possible scenarios, as long as no U-leaching occurs. For the modeling of U-uptake, Grün et al. (1988) used a smooth diffusion function: U(t) = Um(t/T)p+1, where U(t) is the uranium concentration at the time t, Um the measured, present day U-concentration, T the age of the sample and p the uptake

U and U-series mapping

The introduction of laser ablation analysis to teeth (Eggins et al., 2003, Eggins et al., 2005) provides some insights about the general mode of U-uptake into tooth enamel. Fig. 1A shows a bovid tooth from the archaeological site of Holon (Porat et al., 1999). The samples in Fig. 1 are discussed in more detail in Eggins et al. (2003) and Grün et al. (2008a). While the uranium in the dentine is approximately uniform, the U-concentration in the enamel drops by about two orders of magnitude at the

Evaluation of p-values

To get more general insights into the general behaviour of U-uptake, published p-values were compiled and separated into two groups, from cave sites (and rock shelters) and open air sites. The p-values from the sites of Atapuerca Sima, Azokh, Bois Roche, Cave of Hearth, Cuddie Springs, Holon and Klasies River are hitherto unpublished data, the other data are from the following publications: Ambrona, Isernia (Falgueres et al., 2007), Atapuerca Grand Dolina (Falgueres et al., 1999, Falgueres

Conclusions

The statement that the correct ESR age of a sample probably lies somewhere between the EU and LU uptake age calculations is incorrect. It is not even true that the correct age lies always somewhere between the EU and RU model calculations, because there have been occasions of U-leaching. ESR results with significant differences between EU and RU age estimates can only be refined by U-series analyses of the dental tissues. Anything else is an oversimplified approach to ESR dating.

Acknowledgment

I thank J.J. Bahain, Département de Préhistoire du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, for critical comments. I thank the anonymous reviewer for thoughtful comments. This study was partly funded by the ARC discovery projects DP0666084 Out of Africa and into Australia: robust chronologies for turning points in modern human evolution and dispersal and ARC DP06604144 Microanalysis of human fossils: new insights into age, diet and migration.

References (43)

  • R. Grün et al.

    Revised U-series/ESR model ages for teeth from the Hoxnian type locality

    Quaternary Science Reviews

    (2000)
  • R. Grün et al.

    ESR and U-series analyses of dental material from Tabun C1

    Journal of Human Evolution

    (2000)
  • R. Grün et al.

    ESR dating of tooth enamel: Coupled correction for U-uptake and U-series disequilibrium

    Nuclear Tracks and Radiation Measurements

    (1988)
  • R. Grün et al.

    ESR and U-series analyses of teeth from the palaeoanthropological site of Hexian, Anhui Province, China

    Journal of Human Evolution

    (1998)
  • R. Grün et al.

    Detailed mass spectrometric U-series analyses of two teeth from the archaeological site of Pech de l'Aze II: implications for uranium migration and dating

    Journal of Archaeological Science

    (1999)
  • R. Grün et al.

    U-series and ESR analyses of bones and teeth relating to the human burials from Skhul

    Journal of Human Evolution

    (2005)
  • R. Grün et al.

    High resolution analysis of uranium and thorium concentrations as well as U-series isotope distributions in a Neanderthal tooth from Payre using laser ablation ICP–MS

    Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta

    (2008)
  • R. Grün et al.

    Two types of CO2 radicals threaten the fundamentals of ESR dating of tooth enamel

    Quaternary Geochronology

    (2008)
  • H.L. Jones et al.

    Coupled electron spin resonance (ESR)/uranium-series dating of mammalian tooth enamel at Panxian Dadong, Guizhou Province, China

    Journal of Archaeological Science

    (2004)
  • V. Michel et al.

    Datation ESR/U–Th combinèe des restes fauniques du site moustérien de plein air de Beauvais (France). Compte Rendous Académie des sciences

    Sciences de la terre et des planètes

    (1999)
  • A.R. Millard et al.

    A diffusion–adsorption model of uranium uptake by archaeological bone

    Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta

    (1996)
  • Cited by (52)

    • Combined US-ESR dating of fossil teeth from El Harhoura 2 cave (Morocco): New data about the end of the MSA in Temara region

      2020, Quaternary International
      Citation Excerpt :

      Consequently, we assumed instead a higher value of 10 ± 5% for age calculation (Grün, 1989). Combined US-ESR ages were calculated using DATA program (Grün, 2009) and the following parameters: α-efficiency of 0.13 ± 0.02 (Grün and Katzenberger-Apel, 1994), a water content of 5 ± 3 wt% in dentine and cement and null in the enamel. β-attenuation factors are from Brennan et al. (1997) and dose rate conversion factors from Guérin et al. (2011).

    • Re-dating Changyang Cave in Hubei province, southern China

      2020, Quaternary International
      Citation Excerpt :

      U-series and ESR dating could provide direct data by dating mammalian tooth fossils and their upper and lower limits could cover the age range of Middle Pleistocene hominins sites. However, U-series may provide an age that may be younger than the actual due to the complex uranium migration history of teeth (Grün, 2009; Ayling et al., 2017). U-series dating provided the reliable age of speleothem in the cave.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text