Current Issues and Future Directions in Archaeological Volcanic Glass Studies

An Introduction
  • M. Steven Shackley
Part of the Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science book series (AAMS, volume 3)

Abstract

Not since R.E. Taylor’s 1976 edited volume, Advances in Obsidian Glass Studies: Archaeological and Geochemical Perspectives has there been an attempt to update the recent advances in archaeological obsidian studies. In these last twenty years, the use of obsidian archaeometry has witnessed almost boundless expansion, party due to the concomitant advances in computer technology and instrumental chemistry, and partly due to a recognition by archaeologists that archaeometrists provide much more than mere measurement. The primary purpose here is to present the most recent advances in volcanic glass geochemistry and hydration analysis as a coarse gained perspective for glass studies in archaeology for the next century. Not all the analytical techniques are used for archaeological obsidian are discussed here, but the most commonly used instrumental techniques are presented in this volume.

Obsidian hydration studies have seen an equally rapid growth in the serve of archaeological problem solving, albeit with a bit more argumentative reasoning. The papers focused on hydration issues in this volume present very current methodological and theoretical studies that follow the high level of experimentation typical of hydration work.

A secondary purpose of this volume overall, and probably the most important goal, is to communicate these important advances to the users: the archaeologist in academia and the private sector that depend on the validity and reliability of archaeometric research often without questioning sampling or analytic methods. For these reasons, this volume will hopefully act a guide to the analytical techniques that are used by the archaeometrists, the sampling methods used at the source localities in the field, and the problems faced in both the field and the laboratory.

Keywords

Neutron Activation Analysis Volcanic Glass Stepwise Discriminant Analysis Hydration Rate American Antiquity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold, D.E., Neff, E.H., and Bishop, R.L. 1991 Compositional analysis and “sources” of pottery: and ethnoarchaeological approach. American Anthropologist 93: 70–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baxter, M.J. 1992 Archaeological uses of the biplota neglected technique? In Lock, G., and Moffet J. eds., Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, 1991, pp. 141–148. BAR International Series 5577. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
  3. Stepwise discriminant analysis in archaeometry: a critique. Journal of Archaeological Science 21: 659–666.Google Scholar
  4. Bishop, R.L., Cannouts, B., Crown, P.L., and DeAtley, S.P. 1990 Sensitivity, precision, and accuracy: their roles in ceramic compositional data bases. American Antiquity 55: 537–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyer, W.W., and Robinson, P. 1956 Obsidian artifacts of northwestern New Mexico and their correlation with source material. El Palacio 63: 333–345.Google Scholar
  6. Bouska, V. 1993 Natural Glasses. New York, Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  7. Burton, J.H., and Simon, A. W. 1996 A pot is not a rock: a reply to Neff, Glascock, Bishop, and Blackman. American Antiquity 61: 405–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Church, T. 1995 Comment on neutron activation analysis of stone from the Chadron formation and a Clovis site on the Great Plains by Hoard et al. (1992). Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Day, P.M. 1992 Ceramic production and distribution in Late Bronze Age East Crete: a study by petrographic analysis. Paper presented at the 28`h International Symposium on Archaeometry, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  10. Day, PM., Brodie, N.J., and Kilikoglou, V. 1996 The presumption of local provenance and other deadly sins. Paper presented at the 30`h International Symposium on Archaeometry, Urbana. Gero, J.M., and Conkey, M.W., eds. 1991 Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford, Basil Blackwell, Ltd.Google Scholar
  11. Giaque, R.D., Asaro, F., Stross, F.H., and Hester, T.R. 1993 High-precision non-destructive X-ray fluorescence method applicable to establishing the provenance of obsidian artifacts. X-Ray Spectrometry 22: 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glascock, M. D. 1991 Tables for Neutron Activation Analysis ( 3rd Ed. ). Columbia, Research Reactor Facility, University of Missouri.Google Scholar
  13. Goffer, Z. 1980 Archaeological Chemistry: A Sourcebook on the Applications of Chemistry to Archaeology. New York, John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  14. Harbottle, G. 1982 Chemical characterization in archaeology. In Ericson, J.E. and Earle, T.K., eds., Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange. New York, Academic Press: 13–51.Google Scholar
  15. Hildreth, W. 1981 Gradients in silicic magma chambers: Implications for lithospheric magmatism. Journal of Geophysical Research 86: 10153–10192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hughes, R. E., ed. 1984 Obsidian Studies in the Great Basin. Berkeley, Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 45.Google Scholar
  17. Hughes, R. E. 1988 The Coso Volcanic Field Reexamined: Implications for obsidian sourcing and hydration dating research. Geoarchaeology 3: 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hughes, R. E., and Smith, R. L. 1993 Archaeology, geology, and geochemistry in obsidian provenance studies. In J.K. Stein, J.K and Linse, A.R., eds., Effects of Scale on Archaeological and Geoscientific Perspectives. Geological Society of America Special Paper 283: 79–91.Google Scholar
  19. Jack, Robert N. 1971 The source of obsidian artifacts in northern Arizona. Plateau 43: 103–114.Google Scholar
  20. Jackson, T.L. 1989 Late prehistoric obsidian production and exchange in the North Coast Ranges, California. In Hughes, R.E. ed., Current Directions in California Obsidian Studies. Berkeley, Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 48: 79–94.Google Scholar
  21. Jenkins, R., Gould, R.W., and Gedcke, D. 1995 Quantitative X-Ray Spectrometry. New York, Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  22. Layton, R., ed. 1989 Who Needs the Past?: Indigenous Values in Archaeology. London, Unwin Hyman. MacDonald, R., G.R. Davies, C.M. Bliss, P.T. Leat, D.K. Bailey, and R.L. Smith 1987 Geochemistry of high-silica peralkaline rhyolites, Naivasha, Kenya Rift Valley. Journal of Petrology 28: 979–1008.Google Scholar
  23. Mahood, G. A., and Hildreth, W. 1983 Large partition coefficients for trace elements in high-silica rhyolites. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 47: 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neff, H. 1994 RQ-mode principal components analysis of ceramic compositional data. Archaeometry 36: 115–130.Google Scholar
  25. Neff, H., Bishop, R.L., and Sayre, E.V. 1988 A simulation approach to the problem of tempering in compositional studies of archaeological ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Neff, H., and Glascock, M.D. 1995 The state of nuclear archaeology in North America. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 196: 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pearce, S. 1990 Archaeological Curatorship. Washington, DC, Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  28. Preucel, R.W., ed. 1991 Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past. Carbondale, Illinois, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper 10: 1–324.Google Scholar
  29. Redman, C.L. 1991 In defense of the seventies. American Anthropologist 93: 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schreiber, John P. and Breed, William J. 1971 Obsidian localities in the San Francisco Volcanic Field, Arizona. Plateau 43: 115–119.Google Scholar
  31. Shackley, M. S. 1992 The Upper Gila river gravels as an archaeological obsidian source region: Implications for models of exchange and interaction. Geoarchaeology 7: 315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sources of archaeological obsidian in the greater American Southwest: An update and quantitative analysis. American Antiquity 60: 531–551.Google Scholar
  33. Shackley, M.S., Hyland, J.R., and de la Luz Gutiérrez, M. 1996 Mass production and procurement at Valle del Azufre: a unique archaeological obsidian source in Baja California Sur. American Antiquity 61: 718–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shanks, M., and McGuire, R.H. 1996 The craft of archaeology. American Antiquity 61: 75–88. Taylor, R.E. ed. 1976 Advances in Obsidian Glass Studies: Archaeological and Geochemical Perspectives. Park Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Press.Google Scholar
  35. Tsolakidou, A., Day, PM., Kiriatzi, E., and Kilikoglou, V. 1996 Group therapy in Crete: a comparison between analyses by NAA and petrographic thin section of Early Bronze Age Pottery from Knossos. Paper presented at the 30th International Symposium on Archaeometry, Urbana.Google Scholar
  36. Wandsnider, L. 1992 Quandries and Quests: Visions of Archaeology’s Future. Carbondale, Illinois, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper 20: 1–273.Google Scholar
  37. Williams-Thorpe, O. 1995 Obsidian in the Mediterranean and the Near East: a provenancing success story. Archaeometry 37: 217–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wyckoff, D.G. 1993 Gravel sources of knappable alibates silicified dolomite. Geoarchaeology 8: 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Steven Shackley
    • 1
  1. 1.Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology and Department of AnthropologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations