Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:50:19.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ceramic Petrography as a Technique for Documenting Cultural Interaction: An Example from the Upper Mississippi Valley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James B. Stoltman
James B. Stoltman*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The petrographic identification of ceramic tempers has long been known to be a fruitful line of inquiry for investigating intersite and interregional cultural interaction. By applying point-counting procedures to the recording of natural as well as humanly added mineral inclusions in ceramic thin sections, considerable power can be added to this traditionally qualitative technique. The effectiveness of this more quantitative approach in discriminating local from nonlocal vessels is demonstrated through a comparative analysis of two Middle Mississippian-contact sites in the upper Mississippi Valley region-Hartley Fort in northeast Iowa and the Fred Edwards site in southwest Wisconsin.

Résumé

Résumé

Desde hace mucho tiempo se ha reconocido la importancia de la identificación petrográfica de los desgrasantes cerámicos en la investigación de las relaciones culturales entre sitios y entre regiones. La técnica de identificación cualitativa tradicional puede mejorarse drasticamente si a ella se añode la técnica de “cuantificacion de puntos,” aplicable tanto a las inclusiones naturales como a las inclusiones minerales artiftcialmente incorporadas a la pasta cerámica que se observan en secciones delgadas. La eficacia del método cuantitativo queda demostrada al distinguir entre los recipientes localmente fabricados y los importados mediante el análisis comparativo de dos sitios tipo Mississipiano Medio (período de contacto): Hartley Fort, en el noreste de Iowa, y el sitio Fred Edwards en el suroeste de Wisconsin.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , January 1991 , pp. 103 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1991

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

References Cited

Arnold, D. E., Rice, P. M., Jester, W. A., Deutsch, W. N., Lee, B. K., and Kirsch, R. I. 1978 Neutron Activation Analysis of Contemporary Pottery and Pottery Materials from the Valley of Guatemala. In The Ceramics of Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala, edited by Wetherington, R. K., pp. 543–586. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.Google Scholar
Bareis, C. J., and Porter, J. W. (editors) 1984 American Bottom Archaeology. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
Bishop, R. L., Rands, R. L., and Holley, G. 1982 Ceramic Compositional Analysis in Archaeological Perspective. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 5, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 275–330. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Chayes, F. 1954 The Theory of Thin-Section Analysis. Journal of Geology 62 : 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chayes, F. 1956 Petrographic Modal Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Danson, E. B., and Wallace, R. M. 1956 A Petrographic Study of Gila Polychrome. American Antiquity 22 : 180–182.Google Scholar
Dickinson, W. R., and Shutler, R. Jr. 1971 Temper Sands in Prehistoric Pottery of the Pacific Islands. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 6 : 191–203.Google Scholar
Dickinson, W. R., and Shutler, R. Jr. 1974 Probable Fijian Origin of Quartzose Temper Sands in Prehistoric Pottery from Tonga and the Marquesas. Science 185 : 454–457.Google Scholar
Ferring, C. R., and Perttula, T. K. 1987 Defining the Provenance of Red Slipped Pottery from Texas and Oklahoma by Petrographic Methods. Journal of Archaeological Science 14 : 437–456.Google Scholar
Galehouse, J. S. 1971 Point Counting. In Procedures in Sedimentary Petrology, edited by Carver, R., pp. 385–408. Wiley Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
Garrett, E. M. 1986 A Petrographic Analysis of Black Mesa Ceramics. In Spatial Organization and Trade, edited by Plog, S., pp. 114—142. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Griffiths, J. C. 1967 Scientific Method in Analysis of Sediments. Mac Graw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Hantman, J. L., and Plog, S. 1982 The Relationship of Stylistic Similarity to Patterns of Material Exchange. In Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange, edited by Ericson, J. and Earle, T., pp. 237–263. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombard, J. P. 1987 Provenance of Sand Temper in Hohokam Ceramics, Arizona. Geoarchaeology 2 : 91–119.Google Scholar
Matson, F. R. 1960 The Quantitative Study of Ceramic Materials. In The Application of Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, edited by Heizer, R. F. and Cook, S. F., pp. 34–51. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology No. 28. Wenner-Gren Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
McKusick, M. B. 1964 Discovering the Hartley Fort. The Palimpsest 45 : 487–494.Google Scholar
McKusick, M. B. 1973 The Grant Oneota Village. Report No. 4. Office of the State Archaeologist of Iowa, Iowa City.Google Scholar
N., O' Malley, Tune, T. W., and Blustain, M. Stafford 1983 Technological Examination of Fayette Thick Ceramics : A Petrographic Analysis and Review. Southeastern Archaeology 2 : 145–154.Google Scholar
Peacock, D. P. S. 1968a Petrological Study of Certain Iron Age Pottery from Western England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34 : 414–427.Google Scholar
Peacock, D. P. S. 1969 Neolithic Pottery Production in Cornwall. Antiquity 43 : 145–149.Google Scholar
Peacock, D. P. S. 1970 The Scientific Analysis of Ancient Ceramics : A Review. World Archaeology 1 : 375–389.Google Scholar
D. P. S., Peacock (editor) 1977 Pottery and Early Commerce : Characterization and Trade in Roman and Later Ceramics. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Plog, S. 1980 Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, J. W. 1963a Bluff Pottery Analysis— Thin Section Experiment No. I : Thin Sectioning All Sherds from one Trash Pit. Research Report 3. Lithic Laboratory, Southern Illinois University Museum, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Porter, J. W. 1963b Bluff Pottery Analysis— Thin Section Experiment No. 2 : Analysis of Bluff Pottery from the Mitchell Site, Madison County, Illinois. Research Report 4. Lithic Laboratory, Southern Illinois University Museum, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Porter, J. W. 1963c Bluff Pottery Analysis— Thin Section Experiment No. 3 : Paste and Temper Variations in One Bluff Pottery Variety. Research Report 5. Lithic Laboratory, Southern Illinois University Museum, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Porter, J. W. 1964 Thin Section Description of Some Shell Tempered Prehistoric Ceramics from the American Bottom. Research Report 7. Lithic Laboratory, Southern Illinois University Museum, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Porter, J. W. 1966 Thin Section Analysis of Ten Aztalan Sherds. The Wisconsin Archeologist 47 : 12–28.Google Scholar
Porter, J. W. 1984 Thin Section Analysis of Ceramics. In The Robinson's Lake Site, edited by Milner, G. R., pp. 133–210. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 10. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
Rice, P. M. 1978 Clear Answers to Vague Questions : Some Assumptions of Provenience Studies of Pottery. In The Ceramics of Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala, edited by Wetherington, R. K., pp. 511–542. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.Google Scholar
Rose, J. C, and Fournier, D. 1981 Petrographic Analysis of Gray Ware and Brown Ware Ceramics. In Prehistory of the St. Johns Area, East-Central Arizona : The Tep St. Johns Project, edited by Westfall, D. A., pp. 405–420. Archaeological Series No. 153. Arizona State Museum, Cultural Resource Management Division, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Rugge, D., and Doyel, D. E. 1980 Petrographic Analysis of Ceramics from Dead Valley. In Prehistory in Dead Valley, East Central Arizona : The TG & E Springerville Report, edited by Doyel, D. E. and Debowski, S. S., pp. 189–204. Archaeological Series No. 144. Arizona State Museum, Cultural Resource Management Division, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Rye, O. S. 1976 Keeping Your Temper Under Control : Materials and Manufacture of Papuan Pottery. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11 : 106–137.Google Scholar
Rye, O. S. 1981 Pottery Technology : Principles and Reconstruction. Taraxacum, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Shepard, A. O. 1936 The Technology of Pecos Pottery. In The Glaze-Paint, Culinary, and Other Wares, edited by Kidder, A. V. and Shepard, A. O., pp. 389–588. The Pottery of Pecos, vol. II. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Shepard, A. O. 1942 Rio Grande Glaze Paint Ware. A Study Illustrating the Place of Ceramic Technological Analysis in Archaeological Research. Publication No. 528. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Shepard, A. O. 1954 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Publication No. 609. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Shepard, A. O. 1965 Rio Grande Glaze-Paint Pottery : A Test of Petrographic Analysis. In Ceramics and Man, edited by Matson, F. R., pp. 62–87. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology No. 41. Wenner-Gren Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
Steventon, R. L., and Kutzbach, J. E. 1986 University of Wisconsin Radiocarbon Dates XXIII. Radiocarbon 28 : 1206–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steventon, R. L., and Kutzbach, J. E. 1987 University of Wisconsin Radiocarbon Dates XXIV. Radiocarbon 29 : 397–15.Google Scholar
Steventon, R. L., and Kutzbach, J. E. 1988 University of Wisconsin Radiocarbon Dates XXV. Radiocarbon 30 : 367–383.Google Scholar
Steventon, R. L., and Kutzbach, J. E. 1990 University of Wisconsin Radiocarbon Dates XXVI. Radiocarbon 32 : 209–228.Google Scholar
Stoltman, J. B. 1989 A Quantitative Approach to the Petrographic Analysis of Ceramic Thin Sections. American Antiquity 54 : 147–160.Google Scholar
Tankersley, K., and Meinhart, J. 1982 Physical and Structural Properties of Ceramic Materials Utilized by a Fort Ancient Group. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7 : 225–243.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. 1894 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. 12th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1890-1891. Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Tif Fany, J. A. 1982 Hartley Fort Ceramics. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 89 : 133–150.Google Scholar
Vince, A. 1977 The Medieval and Post-Medieval Ceramic Industry of the Malvern Region : The Study of a Ware and its Distribution. In Pottery and Early Commerce, edited by Peacock, D. P. S., pp. 257–305. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Warren, A. H. 1967 Petrographic Analysis of Pottery and Lithics. In An Archaeological Survey of the Shusk Valley and the Chaco Plateau, New Mexico, by Harris, A. H., Schoenwetter, J., and Warren, A. H., pp. 104–134. Research Records No. 4. Museum of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Warren, H. 1969 Tonque, One Pueblo's Glaze Pottery Industry Dominated Middle Rio Grande Commerce. El Palacio 76 : 36–42.Google Scholar
Whitbread, I. K. 1989 A Proposal for the Systematic Description of Thin Sections Towards the Study of Ancient Ceramic Technology. In Archaeometry, Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium, edited by Maniatis, Y., pp. 127–138. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Williams, D. F. 1983 Petrology of Ceramics. In The Petrology of Archaeological Artefacts, edited by Kempe, D. R. C. and Harvey, A. P., pp. 301–329. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. L. 1978 Elemental Analysis of Pottery in the Study of its Provenance : A Review. Journal of Archaeological Science 5 : 219–236.Google Scholar