Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:43:35.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Another Look at Hopewell Obsidian Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Richard E. Hughes
Richard E. Hughes*
Affiliation:
Institute of Archaeology and Cultural Studies, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Sacramento, CA 95819-6106
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hatch et al. (1990) recently presented the results of research on the sources and ages of obsidian artifacts from four Hopewell sites in Illinois and Ohio. The present comment identifies ambiguities in artifact-to-source attributions that compromise the subsequent source-specific obsidian-hydration objectives of the study. Examination of obsidian-hydration rim-measurement resolution and associated error estimates, disagreements about the validity of laboratory-induced obsidian-hydration rates used in the study, and contradictions between rim measurements on the same specimens lend no support to the authors' conclusion that obsidian was conveyed into these sites throughout the entire temporal duration of Hopewell mound construction.

Resumen

Resumen

Hatch et al. (1990) han presentado recientemente los resultados de su investigatión sobre las fuentes y edad de los artefactos de obsidiana provenientes de cuatro sitios Hopewell en Illinois y Ohio. El presente comentario identifica ambigüedades en las atribuciones de artefactos a ciertas fuentes que comprometen los objetivos del estudio en cuanto a la hidratación de obsidiana. El examen de la resolución de las mediciones de los hordes de obsidiana hidratada y los errores estimados que éstas implican, junto con desacuerdos en cuanto a la validez de los indices de hidratación inducidos en el laboratorio y contradicciones entre las mediciones de bordes en los mismos especímenes dejan sin fundamento la conclusión de los autores de que la obsidiana fue introducida en estos sitios durante todo el período de constructión de montículos Hopewell.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , July 1992 , pp. 515 - 523
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1992 

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

Reference Cited

Anderson, D. C., Tiffany, J. A., and Nelson, F. W. 1986 Recent Research on Obsidian from Iowa Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity 51: 837-852.Google Scholar
Baugh, T. G., and Nelson, F. W. 1988 Archaeological Obsidian Recovered from Selected North Dakota Sites and Its Relationship to Changing Exchange Systems in the Plains. Journal of the North Dakota Archaeological Association 3: 74-94.Google Scholar
Friedman, I., and Smith, R. L. 1960 A New Dating Method Using Obsidian: Part I, The Development of the Method. American Antiquity 25: 476-522.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. H., pp. 222-234. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. B. 1965 Hopewell and the Dark Black Glass. The Michigan Archaeologist 11: 115-155.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
Hatch, J. W., Michels, J. W., Stevenson, C. M., Scheetz, B. E., and Geidel, R. A. 1990 Hopewell Obsidian Studies: Behavioral Implications of Recent Sourcing and Dating Research. American Antiquity 55: 461-479.Google Scholar
Holmes, W. H. 1919 Handbook of Aboriginal American Antiquities. Part I: Introductory. The Lithic Industries. Bulletin No. 60. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. E. 1984 Obsidian Sourcing Studies in the Great Basin: Problems and Prospects. In Obsidian Studies in the Great Basin, edited by Hughes, R. E., pp. 1-19. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 45. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. E. 1986 Diachronic Variability in Obsidian Procurement Patterns in Northeastern California and Southcentral Oregon. University of California Publications in Anthropology 17. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. E. 1988a Archaeological Significance of Geochemical Contrasts Among Southwestern New Mexico Obsidians. Texas Journal of Science 40: 297-307.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. E. 1988b The Coso Volcanic Field Reexamined: Implications for Obsidian Sourcing and Hydration Dating Research. Geoarchaeology 3: 253-265.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. E. 1990 Obsidian Sources at James Creek Shelter, and Trace Element Geochemistry of Some Northeastern Nevada Volcanic Glasses. In The Archaeology of James Creek Shelter, edited by Elston, R. G. and Budy, E. E., pp. 297-305. Anthropological Papers No. 115. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. E., and Nelson, F. W. 1987 New Findings on Obsidian Source Utilization in Iowa. Plains Anthropologist 32: 313-316.Google Scholar
Jack, R. N., and Carmichael, I. S. E. 1969 The Chemical ‘Fingerprinting’ of Acid Volcanic Rocks. California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 100: 17-32. San Francisco.Google Scholar
Lynch, T. F., and Stevenson, C. M. 1992 Obsidian Hydration Dating and Temperature Controls in the Punta Negra Region of Northern Chile. Quaternary Research 37: 117-124.Google Scholar
Michels, J. W. 1973 Obsidian Hydration Dating. In Dating Methods in Archaeology 'by Michels, J. W., pp. 201-218. Seminar Press, New York.Google Scholar
Michels, J. W. 1981 Hydration Rate Constants for Obsidian Cliff Obsidian, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Rev. ed. MOHLAB Technical Report No. 2. State College, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Michels, J. W. 1983 Hydration Rate Constants for Camas-Dry Creek Obsidian, Clark County, Idaho. MOHLAB Technical Report No. 26. State College, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Michels, J. W., and Bebrich, C. A. 1971 Obsidian Hydration Dating. In Dating Techniques for the Archaeologist, edited by Michael, H. N. and Ralph, E. K., pp. 164-221. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Michels, J. W., and Tsong, I. S. T. 1980 Obsidian Hydration Dating: A Coming of Age. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 405-444. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Michels, J. W., Tsong, I. S. T., and Smith, G. A. 1983 Experimentally Derived Hydration Rates in Obsidian Dating. Archaeometry 25: 107-117.Google Scholar
Mills, W. C. 1907 The Explorations of the Edwin Harness Mound. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society Publications 16(2): 113-192.Google Scholar
Moorehead, W. K. 1922 The Hopewell Mound Group of Ohio. Anthropological Series 6(5). Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.Google Scholar
Nelson, F. W., Jr. 1984 X-ray Fluorescence Analysis of Some Western North American Obsidians. In Obsidian Studies in the Great Basin, edited by Hughes, R. E., pp. 27-62. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 45. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Squier, E. G., and Davis, E. H. 1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge No. 1. Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
Stevenson, C. M., Carpenter, J., and Scheetz, B. E. 1989 Obsidian Dating: Recent Advances in the Experimental Determination and Application of Hydration Rates. Archaeometry 31: 193-206.Google Scholar
Stevenson, C. M., Freeborn, W. P., and Scheetz, B. E. 1987 Obsidian Hydration Dating: An Improved Optical Technique for Measuring the Width of the Hydration Rim. Archaeometry 29: 120-123.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 1982 An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Measurements. University Science Books, Mill Valley, California.Google Scholar