Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:22:08.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply to Hughes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Christopher M. Stevenson ,
Barry Scheetz  and
James W. Hatch
Christopher M. Stevenson
Affiliation:
Archaeological Services Consultants, Inc., P.O. Box 02095, Columbus, OH 43202
Barry Scheetz
Affiliation:
Materials Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
James W. Hatch
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hughes (1992) raises two points in his evaluation of our paper on Hopewell obsidian studies (Hatch et al. 1990): (a) Why did we not attempt to identify the several possible western United States sources from which our Hopewell specimens were derived, and (b) was it legitimate to report hydration-rim measurements with a.1 μm or less level of accuracy? These issues are addressed within the context of our initial research goals and through reference to the literature on optical microscopy.

Resumen

Resumen

Hughes (1992) plantea dos objeciones en su exaluación de nuestro artículo sobre estudios de obsidiana Hopewell (Hatch et al. 1990): (a) porqué no intentamos identificar las posibles fuentes en el oeste de los Estados Unidos en donde nuestros especímenes fueron obtenidos, y (b) es legítimo comunicar las medidas de los hordes hidratados con un nivel de exactitud de .1 μm o menor? Se discuten estos temas en el contexto de las metas originales de nuestra investigación y a través de referencias a la literatura sobre microscopía óptica

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , July 1992 , pp. 524 - 525
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

Dyson, J. 1960 Precise Measurement by Image-Splitting. Journal of the Optical Society of America 50: 754-757.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., and Geidel, R. 1990 Hopewell Obsidian Studies: Behavioral Implications of Recent Sourcing and Dating Research. American Antiquity 55: 461-479.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. E. 1992 Another Look at Hopewell Obsidian Studies. American Antiquity 57: 515-523.Google Scholar
Michels, J. 1981 Hydration Rate Constants for Obsidian Cliff Obsidian, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Rev. ed. MOHLAB Technical Report No. 2. State College, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Scheetz, B., and Stevenson, C. M. 1988 The Role of Resolution and Sample Preparation in Hydration Rim Measurement: Implications for Experimentally Determined Hydration Rates. American Antiquity 53: 110-117.Google Scholar
Stevenson, C. M., Freeborn, W., and Scheetz, B. 1987 Obsidian Hydration Dating: An Improved Optical Technique for Measuring the Width of the Hydration Rim. Archaeometry 29: 120-123.Google Scholar