Another Look at Hopewell Obsidian Studies

Bibliographic Data

ID2575204
AuthorsRichard E Hughes (0000-0003-1668-3638, California State University, Sacramento, corresponding author)
Year1992
Volume57
Issue3
Pages515-523
Publication date1992-07-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Antiquity (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0002-7316 • E-ISSN: 2325-5064
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/280939
OpenAlexW2322413018
LanguageEN
Citations received19
References cited18

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

Archaeology · Artifact (error · Geography · Archaeology and ancient environmental studies · Archaeology and Natural History · Geology · Geology and Paleoclimatology Research · Psychology