Comparison of XRF and PXRF for analysis of archaeological obsidian from southern Perú |
| |
| Authors: | Nathan Craig Robert J. Speakman Rachel S. Popelka-Filcoff Michael D. Glascock J. David Robertson M. Steven Shackley Mark S. Aldenderfer |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Laboratoire de Géographie Physique (LGP), UMR 8591-Université Panthéon Sorbonne Paris 1, CNRS, Université U-Pec, Meudon, France;2. Laboratoire IDEES-UMR 6266, Université de Rouen, France;3. Yüzüncü Yıl University, Van, Turkey;4. IRAMAT-CEB, UMR 5060, CNRS/Université d''Orléans, Orléans, France;5. Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l''Environnement, UMR8212, LSCE/IPSL, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-Sur-Yvette, France;6. Département de Préhistoire du Museum national d''Histoire naturelle, UMR 7194 du CNRS, 75013 Paris, France;7. Ecole française de Rome, Piazza Farnese 67, IT-00186 Roma, Italy;8. Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Universita degli Studi di Ferrara, C.so Ercole Italy d''Este I, 32, Ferrara, Italy;9. Université Nice Sophia Antipolis, CNRS, Cultures et Environnements Préhistoire, Antiquité, Moyen-Âge (CEPAM), UMR 7264, 24 avenue des Diables Bleus, 06300 Nice, France;10. Sakarya University, Department of Geography, 54187 Serdivan, Sakarya, Turkey;1. Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Minami-Osawa 1-1, Hachioji-shi, Tokyo 192-0397, Japan;2. Archaeometry Laboratory, Research Reactor Center, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1513 Research Park Dr., Columbia, MO 65211-3400, USA;3. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Science, Sakhalin State University, Sakhalin laboratory of Archaeology and Ethnography, Pogranichnaya str.70, Yzhno-Sakhalinsk, Russia;4. Kitami City Board of Education, 376 Sakaeura, Tokoro-cho, Kitami-shi, Hokkaido 093-0216, Japan;5. Tokyo Metropolitan Archaeological Center, 1-14-2 Ochiai, Tama-shi, Tokyo 206-0033, Japan;6. Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Letters, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan;1. McMaster Ancient DNA Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada;2. Department of Anthropology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada;3. School of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada;4. Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada;5. Department of Biochemistry, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada |
| |
| Abstract: | Chemical sourcing is becoming an increasingly important component of archaeological investigation. Instruments used for elemental analysis generally must be operated in a controlled laboratory environment. Further, many methods require destruction of a small portion of the objects under investigation. These facts inhibit the application of chemical sourcing studies in a number of research contexts. Use of portable non-destructive instruments would resolve these issues. Sixty-eight obsidian artifacts from the site of Jiskairumoko, in southern Perú, were examined by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) and portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (PXRF). Results were compared for consistency in terms of source determination and individual element concentrations. Both instruments determined that the same sixty-six artifacts derived from the Chivay obsidian source and both identified the same two artifacts that could not be assigned to source. Individual element comparisons showed significant differences, but these can be resolved through instrument cross calibration, and differences had no bearing on source identification. PXRF was found suitable for determining obsidian sources in southern Perú and for identifying specimens that require more sensitive analytical methods such as, instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA). Regular use of Chivay at Jiskairumoko suggests consistent trade relationships developed during the Archaic. |
| |
| Keywords: | XRF PXRF Obsidian Peru |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
