Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T13:18:59.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hopewell Obsidian Studies: Behavioral Implications of Recent Sourcing and Dating Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James W. Hatch ,
Joseph W. Michels ,
Christopher M. Stevenson ,
Barry E. Scheetz  and
Richard A. Geidel
James W. Hatch
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
Joseph W. Michels
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
Christopher M. Stevenson
Affiliation:
Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc., Centre Hall, PA 16828
Barry E. Scheetz
Affiliation:
Materials Research Laboratory, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
Richard A. Geidel
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Specific questions regarding the antiquity of major midwestern Hopewell culture sites and their role in regional exchange systems are addressed in this paper through the dating (obsidian hydration) and compositional characterization (neutron activation analysis [NAA] and atomic absorption spectroscopy [AAS]) of obsidian artifacts. The analysis of 34 specimens from the Seip, Mound City, and Hopewell sites, Ohio, and the Naples site, Illinois, increases fivefold the number of chronometric dates available from these sites and expands the sample of compositionally identified specimens beyond those resulting from Griffin et al."s (1969) pioneering work. The resulting hydration dates support earlier estimates of the age of these contexts based on 14C or artifact seriation alone. The range of dates (78 B.C.-A.D. 347) and the compositional variety within the sample favors an expanded view of the nature of obsidian trade in the Midwest to include additional western sources, a longer episode of importation, and possible changes in the sources used through time.

Résumé

Résumé

Este ensayo de dirige a cuestiones específicas respecto a la antigüedad de los principales sitios de la cultura Hopewell del medio oeste de los Estados Unidos y sus papeles en los sistemas regionales de intercambio. Esto se hace a través del fechamiento (hidratación de obsidiana) y la caracterización química (análisis por activatión de neutrones y espectroscopía de absorción atómica) de artefactos de obsidiana. El análisis de 34 especímenes de los sitios Seip, Mound City, y Hopewell en el estado de Ohio, y del sitio Naples en el estado de Illinois, aumenta por cinco veces el número de fechas cronométricas disponibles de estos sitios, e incrementa la muestra de especímenes composicionalmente identificados más alia de los resultados del estudio seminal de Griffin et al. (1969). Las fechas de hidratación de obsidiana apoyan las estimaciones anteriores de las edades de estos contextos, basadas enfechas de radiocarbono o la seriación de artefactos únicamente. La distributión de las fechas (78 A.C.-347 D.C.) y la variedad composicional dentro de la muestra favorecen una visión amplifkada de la naturaleza del intercambio de obsidiana en el medio oeste y sugiere que yacimientos occidentales adicionales feuron incluidos en el sistema, que el episodio de importatión fué más largo, y que habrián posibles cambios de los yacimientos aprovechados con el transcurso del tiempo.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , July 1990 , pp. 461 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1990 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Abbey, S. 1977 Studies in “Standard Samples” for Use in the General Analysis of Silicate Rocks and Minerals. 1977 Edition of “Usable” Values, Part 5, Geological Survey of Canada pp. 1-22. Ottawa, Ontario.Google Scholar
Brose, D. S., and Greber, N. 1979 Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillico the Conference. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.Google Scholar
Brown, J. A., and Baby, R. S. 1966 Mound City Revisited. Ohio Historical Society. Submitted to the National Park Service, Contract No. 14-10-0529-2727. Copies available from Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.Google Scholar
Friedman, I., and Long, W. 1976 Hydration Rate of Obsidian. Science 191: 347-352.Google Scholar
Friedman, I., and Trembour, F. 1983 Obsidian Hydration Dating Update. American Antiquity 48: 544-547.Google Scholar
Gordus, A. A., Griffin, J. B., and Wright, G. A. 1971 Activation Analysis Identification of the Geologic Origins of Prehistoric Obsidian Artifacts. In Science and Archaeology, edited by Brill, R., pp. 222-234. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Greber, N. 1983 Recent Excavations at the Edwin Harness Mound, Liberty Works, Ross County, Ohio. Special Paper No. 5. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. B. 1965 Hopewell and the Dark Black Glass. Michigan Archaeologist 11: 115-155.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. B. 1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156: 175-191.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. B., Gordus, A. A., and Wright, G. A. 1969 Identification of the Sources of Hopewellian Obsidian in the Middle West. American Antiquity 34: 1-14.Google Scholar
Lee, R. 1969 Chemical Temperature Integration. Journal of Applied Meteorology 8: 423-430.Google Scholar
Medlin, J. H., Suhr, N. H., and Bodkin, J. B. 1978 Atomic Absorption Analysis of Silicates Employing LiB02 Fusion. Atomic Absorption Newsletter 8: 25-29. Perkin Elmer, Norwalk, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Michels, J. W. 1981 Hydration Rate Constants for Obsidian Cliff Obsidian, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. In MOHLAB Technical Report No. 2, edited by Michels, J. W., pp. 1-4. State College, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Michels, J. W. 1983 Hydration Rate Constants for Camas-Dry Creek Obsidian, Clark County, Idaho. In MOHLAB Technical Report No. 26, edited by Michels, J. W., pp. 1-4. State College, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Michels, J. W., Tsong, I. S. T., and Smith, G. A. 1983 Experimentally Derived Hydration Rates in Obsidian Dating. Archaeometry 25(2): 107-117.Google Scholar
Mills, W. C. 1922 Exploration of the Mound City Group. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 31: 423-584. Columbus.Google Scholar
Moorehead, W. K. 1922 The Hopewell Mound Group of Ohio. Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Series 6: 73-184, Plates 51-83. Chicago.Google Scholar
Prufer, O. H. 1964a The Hopewell Complex of Ohio. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by Caldwell, J. R. and Hall, L., pp. 35-84. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers No. 12. Springfield.Google Scholar
Prufer, O. H. 1964b The Hopewell Culture. Scientific American 2 11 (6): 90-102.Google Scholar
Shetrone, C. 1926 Explorations of the Hopewell Group of Prehistoric Earthworks. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 35: 1-227.Google Scholar
Prufer, O. H. 1930 The Mound-Builders. D. Appleton, New York.Google Scholar
Struever, S., and Houart, G. L. 1972 An Analysis of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere. In Social Exchange and Interaction, edited by Wilmsen, E. N., pp. 47-78. Anthropological Papers No. 46. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Wernstedt, F. L. 1972 World Climatic Data. Climatic Data Press. Lamont, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Wishart, D. 1978 CLUSTANIC User's Manual. Computer Center, University College London, 19 Gordon Street, London.Google Scholar
Wright, G. A., and Chaya, J. 1985 Obsidian Source Analysis in Northwestern Wyoming: Problems and Prospects. Plains Anthropologist 30: 237-242.Google Scholar