Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-11T18:15:39.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating the Variability of Southwestern Ceramics with X-ray Fluorescence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Patricia L. Crown ,
L. A. Schwalbe  and
J. R. London
Patricia L. Crown
Affiliation:
Arizona State Museum University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721
L. A. Schwalbe
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory P.O. Box 1663, Mail Stop C914 Los Alamos, NM 87545
J. R. London
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory P.O. Box 1663, Mail Stop C914 Los Alamos, NM 87545
Get access

Extract

For the period after about 100 B.C., the Southwest has been broadly divided into four culturally distinct regions: the Anasazi, Mogollon, Hohokara, and prehistoric Yuman culture areas. Definition and identification of these areas has been based largely on extant material culture, particularly pottery and house-types. Pottery is especially important in archaeological investigations because it is unquestionably man-made and it is virtually indestructible in the dry Southwestern climate. The pottery produced by the inhabitants of the Southwest is also highly variable through time and across space, so that over 900 distinct ceramic types have been defined for Southwestern culture groups. And since potters tended to use materials available in the vicinity of their villages, materials analysis of plastic and nonplastic constituents of ceramics can aid in evaluating where pottery was made.

Type
V. Applications of XRF and XRD to Life Sciences and the Environment
Information
Advances in X-Ray Analysis , Volume 28: Thirty-Third Annual Conference on Applications of X-ray Analysis, July 30 - August 3, 1984 , 1984 , pp. 169 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © International Centre for Diffraction Data 1984

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

Abbott, D. R., 1964, A technological assessment of ceramic variation in the Salt-Gila area: Towards a comprehensive documentation of Hohokam ceramics, in “Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct Central Arizona Project, Vol VIII: Material Culture,” Arizona S.t.ate Museum Archaeological Series 150. L. S. Teague and Crown, P.L., ed., Tucson: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Bishop, R. L., Rands, R. L., and Holley, G. R., 1982, Ceramic compositional analysis in archaeological perspective, in “Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory,” Vol 5, Schiffer, M. B., ed., New York: Academic Press, Inc. Google Scholar
Crown, P. L., 1984, An x-ray fluorescence analysis of Hohokam ceramics, in “Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol VIII: Material Culture,” Teague, L. S. and Crown, P.L., Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150. Tucson: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Dixon, W. J., Brown, M. B., Engleraan, L., Frane, J. W., Hill, M. A., Jennrich, K. I., and Toporek, J. D., 1981, “BMDP Statistical Software,” Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Doyel, D. E., 1974, Excavations in the Escalante ruin group, southern Arizona, Arizona State MuseumArcha eological Series 37 Tucson: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Doyel, D. E., 1979, The prehistoric Hohokam of the Arizona desert, American. Scientist 76(5): 544.Google Scholar
Gladwin, N., 1937, Petrography of Snaketown pottery, in “Excavations at Snaketown: Material Culture.” Medallion Papers XXV. Globe, Arizona: Gila Pueblo.Google Scholar
Haury, E. W., 1976, “The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsmen.” Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Hepburn, J. R., 1984, Ceramic petrographic analysis, Appendix B, in “Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol VIII: Material Culture,” Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150, Tucson: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Loomis, T. P., 1980, Petrographic analysis of prehistoric ceramics from Gu Achi, in “Excavations at Gu Achi: A Reappraisal of Hohokam Settlement and Subsistence in the Arizona Papagueria,” Western Archaeological. Center Publications in Anthropology 12, National Park Service, Tucson.Google Scholar
Masse, W. B., 1980, “Excavation at Gu Achi: A Reappraisal of Hohokam Settlement and Subsistence in the Arizona Papagueria,” Western Archaeological Center Publications in Anthropology 12, Tucson.Google Scholar
Rose, J. C. and Fournier, D. M., 1981, Petrographic analysis of four sherd types from the gila Bend area of Arizona, Appendix A, in “Test Excavations at Painted Rook Reservoir: Sites AZ Z:1:7, AZ Z:1:8, and AZ S : 16:36,” Arizona. State Museum Archaeological Series 143. Tucson: University of Arizona.Google Scholar