4.5 Article

Lead isotope analysis as a new method for identifying material culture belonging to the Vazquez de Coronado expedition

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 58-66

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2011.07.025

关键词

Lead isotopes; Coronado; Piedras Marcadas Pueblo; The Jimmy Owens Site

资金

  1. NSF [BCS-0852270]
  2. National Park Service-Intermountain Region
  3. state of New Mexico
  4. District 13 Senator Dede Feldmen
  5. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  6. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci [0852270] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Archaeological evidence has become an increasingly important component of efforts to identify the route of the Francisco Vazquez de Coronado expedition through northern Mexico and the southwestern United States (1540-1542). Here, we report the first high-precision lead isotopic measurements of artifacts from two archaeological sites with strong material evidence for the expedition's presence: Piedras Marcadas Pueblo in New Mexico and the Jimmy Owens Site in Texas. The analysis of lead and copper armaments from both sites reveals that many artifacts have overlapping or extremely similar isotopic ratios. We propose that the narrow range of lead isotopic ratios measured on these artifacts can be interpreted as a geochemical fingerprint for some of the Coronado expedition's surviving material culture, and provides evidence that we interpret to suggest the expedition derived lead and copper metal from Mexican sources. Such a geochemical fingerprint presents an empirical method for discriminating between artifacts that belonged to the Coronado expedition and those related to subsequent Spanish, historical, or modern activity in the Southwest U.S. Thus, this method could significantly impact the search for and identification of archaeological sites associated with the Coronado expedition. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据