Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T02:49:21.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Obsidian Hydration Rate for Certain Obsidians in the American Southwest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Frank J. Findlow ,
Victoria C. Bennett ,
Jonathon E. Ericson  and
Suzanne P. De Atley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new hydration rate is presented for the Government Mountain-Sitgreaves Peak obsidian source in Arizona. It is based on an analysis of hydration measurements from a series of independently dated obsidian artifacts from that source. Since obsidian obtained from Government Mountain-Sitgreaves Peak was widely traded in the prehistoric Southwest, the new hydration rate should provide archaeologists working in many parts of the Southwest with a reliable and inexpensive absolute dating technique.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , July 1975 , pp. 344 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1975

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

Clark, Donovan 1961 The application of the obsidian dating method to the archaeology of Central California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Clark, Donovan 1964 The obsidian hydration method, Part 1. University of California, Los Angeles Archaeological Survey, Annual Report 6:141-217.Google Scholar
Ericson, Jonathon E., John, D. MacKenzie, and Rainer, n.d. Physics and chemistry of the hydration process in obsidians I: theoretical implications. In Advances in obsidian glass studies: archaeological and geochemical perspectives, edited by Taylor, R. E.. Noyes Press, Park Ridge, NJ. (In press, ms. 1973.)Google Scholar
Findlow, Frank J., Suzanne, P. De Atley, and Luanne, Hudson n.d. Source analysis of obsidian artifacts from the Chevelon Drainage, Northeastern Arizona: interim report. In University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology, Archaeological Survey, Monograph 2. (In press, ms. 1973.)Google Scholar
Friedman, Irving, and Robert, L. Smith 1960 A new dating method using obsidian, part 1. The development of the method. American Antiquity 25:476-493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Irving, Smith, R. L., and Long, W. D. 1966 The hydration of natural glass and the formation of perlite. Geological Society of America, Bulletin 77:323-330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jack, Robert N. 1971 The source of obsidian artifacts in Northern Arizona. Plateau 43(3): 103-114.Google Scholar
Jack, Robert N., and Carmichael, I. S. E. 1969 The chemical fingerprinting of acid volcanic rocks. California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 100:17-32.Google Scholar
Kimberlin, J. n.d. Obsidian hydration determinations on chemically characterized samples. In Advances in obsidian glass studies: archaeological and geochemical perspectives, edited by Taylor, R. E.. Noyes press, Park Ridge, NJ. (In press, ms. 1973.)Google Scholar
Lee, R. R., Leich, D. A., Tombrello, T. A., Ericson, J. E., and Friedman, I. 1974 Obsidian hydration profile measurements using a nuclear reaction technique. Nature 249:824-825.Google Scholar
Michels, Joseph W. 1973 Dating methods in archaeology. Seminar Press, New York.Google Scholar
Meighan, C. W., Foote, L. J., and Aiello, P. V. 1968 Obsidian dating in West Mexican archaeology. Science 160:1069-1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meighan, C. W., Frank, J. Findlow, and Suzanne, P. De Atley 1974 Obsidian dates No. 1. University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology, Archaeological Survey, Monograph 3.Google Scholar
Schreiber, John P., and William, J. Breed 1971 Obsidian localities in the San Francisco volcanic field, Arizona. Plateau 43(3): 115-119.Google Scholar
Ward, Graeme K. 1974 Comparison of source and artifact characterization using a generalized distance measure. American Antiquity 39:473-476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar