Provenance Studies in Archaeology

  • Charles C. Kolb
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_327-2

Introduction

A primary objective in the study of ancient artifacts is to discern where they were produced. When archaeologists, other scientists, students, the public, or children inquire about an object – “Where is it from?” – there are, of course, two answers. One is the place or location at which the object was found or discovered, for example, the context of its finding, and second, a more difficult question, what is the source of the object. The latter entails a diagnosis of the origin of the materials that comprise the object, the location, or site where it was produced or fabricated, who made it, and why and for what purposes. A related set of questions, often with complex answers, is how the object was relocated from its place of origin to location at which it was recovered. In archaeology, these questions apply as much to the composition of a pottery vessel as they do to a lithic tool or stone ornament but also to glass, metals, and textiles as other major artifact classes. To...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Cilberto, E., and G. Spotto. 2000. Modern analytical methods in art and archaeology, Chemical analysis series. Vol. 155. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Dussubieux, L., M. Golitko, and B. Gratuz. 2016. Recent advances in laser ablation ICP-MS for archaeology. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Glascock, M.D., and H. Neff. 2003. Neutron activation analysis and provenance research in archaeology. Measurement Science and Technology 14: 1516–1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goffer, Z. 2007. Archaeological chemistry, Chemical analysis. Vol. 170. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley-Interscience.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hauser, M.W. 2008. An archaeology of black markets: Local ceramics and economies in eighteenth-century Jamaica. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
  6. Hunt, A. 2012. On the origin of ceramics: Moving toward a common understanding of “provenance”. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 27 (1): 85–97.Google Scholar
  7. Hunt, A., ed. 2017. The Oxford handbook of archaeological ceramic analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kolb, C.C. 2008. Petrographic analysis of Afghanistan ceramics: Neolithic through the Iron Age. In Materials issues in art and archaeology VIII, Symposium proceedings, ed. P. Vandiver, F. Casadio, B. McCarthy, R.H. Tykot, and J.L.R. Sil, vol. 1047, 147–174. Pittsburgh: Materials Research Society.Google Scholar
  9. Kolb, C.C. 2011. Chaîne opératoire and ceramics: Classifications and typology, archaeometry, experimental archaeology, and ethnoarchaeology. In Archaeological ceramics: A review of current research, British Archaeological Reports international series, ed. S. Scarcella, vol. S-2193, 5–19. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  10. Lambert, J.B. 2005. Archaeological chemistry. In Handbook of archaeological methods, ed. H.D.G. Maschner and C. Chippindale, 478–500. Lanham: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  11. Marlowe, E. 2016. What we talk about when we talk about provenance: A response to Chippindale and Gill. International Journal of Cultural Property 23: 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Neff, H., ed. 1992. Chemical characterization of ceramic pastes in archaeology, Monographs in world archaeology. Vol. 7. Madison: Prehistory Press.Google Scholar
  13. Neff, H. 1998. Units in chemistry-based ceramic provenance investigations. In Unit issues in archaeology: Measuring time, space, and material, ed. A.F. Ramenofsky and A. Steffen, 115–127. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
  14. Paynter, S., and D. Dungworth. 2011. Archaeological evidence for glassworking: Guidelines for best practices. Swindon: English Heritage. Available at http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/glassworkingguidelines/
  15. Pollard, A.M., and C. Heron. 2008. Archaeological chemistry. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Pollard, A.M., C.M. Batt, B. Stern, and S.M.M. Young. 2007. Analytical chemistry in archaeology, Cambridge manuals in archaeology. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Price, T.D., and J.H. Burton. 2011. Provenience and provenance. In An introduction to archaeological chemistry, ed. T.D. Price and J.H. Burton, 213–241. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reedy, C.L. 2008. Thin-section petrography of stone and ceramic cultural materials. London: Archetype Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Rice, P.M. 2015. Pottery analysis: A sourcebook. 2nd ed. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sayre, E.V. 2000. Determination of provenance. In Science and technology in historic preservation, Advances in archaeological and museum science, ed. R.A. Williamson and P.R. Nickens, vol. 4, 143–169. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shackley, M.S., ed. 2011. X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) in geoarchaeology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Tykot, R.H. 2004. Scientific methods and applications to provenance studies. In Proceedings of the international school of physics “Enrico Fermi”, course CLIV, ed. M. Martini, M. Milazzo, and M. Piacenti, 407–432. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  23. Weigand, P.C., G. Harbottle, and E.V. Sayre. 1977. Turquoise sources and source analysis: Mesoamerica and the southwestern U.S.A. In Exchange systems in prehistory, ed. T.K. Earle and J.E. Ericson, 15–34. New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilson, L., and A.M. Pollard. 2001. The provenance hypothesis. In Handbook of archaeological sciences, ed. D.R. Brothwell and A.M. Pollard, 507–517. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles C. Kolb
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Preservation and AccessNational Endowment for the HumanitiesWashingtonUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • E. Christian Wells
    • 1
  • Arleyn Simon
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.School of Human Evolution & Social ChangeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA