Another Look at Hopewell Obsidian Studies

Datos Bibliográficos

ID2575204
AutoresRichard E Hughes (0000-0003-1668-3638, California State University, Sacramento, autor de correspondencia)
Año1992
Volumen57
Número3
Páginas515-523
Fecha de publicación1992-07-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaAmerican Antiquity (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0002-7316 • E-ISSN: 2325-5064
EditorialCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/280939
OpenAlexW2322413018
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas19
Referencias citadas18

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