CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Cultural Heritage Materials AnalysisArchaeological and Geological StudiesArchaeology and ancient environmental studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 90 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Investigating Obsidian Procurement at Integration Period (ca. AD 700-1500)Tola Sites in Highland Northern Ecuador via Portable X-ray Fluorescence (pXRF)

Dyrdahl, Eric, Speakman, Robert J.·2013·ACS Symposium Series
DOI 10.1021/bk-2013-1147.ch012
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The study of long-distance exchange has long been a focus of research on Ecuadorian prehistory. One of the more prominent archaeological avenues for research on this front has been obsidian sourcing. While much attention has been paid to locating Ecuadorian obsidian sources and documenting their variability, only a few studies have focused on sourcing archaeological artifacts to understand the processes responsible for the distribution of obsidian in prehistory. The results of some of the first chemical characterization analyses of obsidian from Integration Period (ca. AD 700-1500) earthen mound (tola) sites in the País Caranqui region of highland northern Ecuador are presented in this chapter. The analyses of obsidian assemblages from two tola sites, Huataviro and Puntiachíl, suggest that there was differential access to low Fe Callejones obsidian during the Integration Period. Results also suggest that independent procurement processes most likely are responsible for the obsidian distribution patterns observed in the archaeological record. This initial research demonstrates that Caranquis primarily exploited Callejones and Mullumica obsidian. These sources most likely were utilized because of their proximity and it appears that there was some connection between the expedient flake technology employed by Caranquis and the lower quality obsidian from these sources. From the standpoint of chemical characterization research, the results of this study demonstrate that the Bruker Tracer III-V+ SD portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) instrumentation is capable of producing data that are accurate and precise enough to attribute artifacts to known Ecuadorian obsidian source signatures. The ability to bring portable XRF instrumentation to Ecuador will significantly aid in the further examination of some of the initial findings presented in this chapter.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Portable XRF analysis of 49 obsidian source specimens and 87 artifacts from two Integration Period *tola* sites in highland northern Ecuador shows that Caranquis mainly used Callejones and Mullumica obsidian, with Huataviro and Puntiachíl having nearly inverse source profiles. The authors argue this pattern reflects independent, decentralized procurement rather than centralized *mindaláe* exchange.

Key findings

  • The Bruker Tracer III-V+ SD pXRF produced data accurate and precise enough to differentiate Ecuadorian obsidian sources; replicate USGS RGM-1 values were comparable to recommended and published values, and Sr/Zr vs. Rb/Zr plus Mn vs. Nb bivariate plots separated source signatures.
  • At Huataviro (n=65), 51 artifacts (79%) were high Fe Callejones-Mullumica, 11 (17%) were low Fe Mullumica, 1 was low Fe Callejones, and 2 were La Chimba type.
  • At Puntiachíl (n=22), 13 artifacts (59%) were low Fe Callejones, while high Fe Callejones-Mullumica and low Fe Mullumica each accounted for 4 artifacts (18%); 1 artifact was unassigned to any known Andean source.
  • Across all 87 artifacts, assignments were 55 high Fe Callejones-Mullumica, 15 low Fe Mullumica, 14 low Fe Callejones, 2 La Chimba type, and 1 unassigned; no Yanaurco-Quiscatola obsidian was identified, supporting the hypothesis that its use ceased around AD 1000 in this region.

Methods

  • Analyzed 49 geologic source specimens (40 loaned by the University of Missouri Archaeometry Laboratory; 9 collected at Mullumica in 2011) and 87 archaeological artifacts (65 from Huataviro, 22 from Puntiachíl) using a Bruker Tracer III-V+ SD pXRF at the University of Georgia in 2012.
  • Instrument settings: Rh target, silicon drift detector, 40 kV, 25 µA, 12 mil Al / 1 mil Ti / 6 mil Cu filter, 200-second live-time count; measured Mn, Fe, Zn, Ga, Th, Rb, Sr, Y, Zr, and Nb, with Kα peak intensities ratioed to the Rh Compton peak and converted to ppm using a 40-standard obsidian calibration; Th used Lα.
  • Source assignments were made using bivariate plots of Sr/Zr vs. Rb/Zr and Mn vs. Nb, with 95% confidence ellipses for source samples; USGS RGM-1 was analyzed daily for accuracy and precision checks.

Limitations

  • Stated by the authors: Huataviro obsidian came from fill between *cangahua* blocks rather than clear primary contexts, so it is treated only as representative of the site’s overall assemblage; Puntiachíl’s sample came from limited excavations at Tola Peña, lacked absolute dates, and was treated as representative of the entire occupation without inferring change through time; contemporaneity of intra-site contexts is difficult to address; the initial study’s scope severely limits inferences about procurement processes; the Bermejo source sample was too small for a 95% confidence ellipse; low Fe Mullumica may contain multiple sub-groups requiring a larger assemblage; and cross-technique data comparability warrants caution.
  • Evident from the text: only two *tola* sites were analyzed, with uneven sample sizes (65 vs. 22 artifacts); no non-elite contexts were examined; and low Fe Callejones was represented only in artifact assemblages, not in the available source samples, so its source ellipse was theoretical.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/bk-2013-1147.ch012

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 90 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Investigating Obsidian Procurement at Integration Period (ca. AD 700-1500) Tola Sites in Highland Northern Ecuador via Portable X-ray Fluorescence (pXRF) · p. 2

    Caranquis primarily exploited Callejones and Mullumica obsidian.

    “This initial research demonstrates that Caranquis primarily exploited Callejones and Mullumica obsidian.”
    • Also stated in: § Introduction · p. 3 · hedged
      “the results suggest that Mullumica and Callejones were the primary obsidian sources utilized by late prehistoric groups living in the northern highlands.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The obsidian artifacts from Huataviro's tomb fill are representative of the site's overall obsidian assemblage.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The obsidian sample from Puntiachíl Tola Peña is representative of its entire occupation.
  • Findingown data
    § Results · p. 16

    Puntiachíl stands alone as the single site out of 80 whose assemblage consists of more than 10% of the low Fe Callejones variant.

    “Puntiachíl stands alone as the single site out of 80 whose assemblage consists of more than 10% of the low Fe Callejones variant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results · p. 12

    When the 87 artifacts are added to the source sample bivariate plot, a small theoretical Bermejo ellipse overlaps slightly with the low Fe Callejones ellipse.

    “When the 87 artifacts are added to the source sample bivariate plot of Sr/Zr and Rb/Zr ratios as seen in Figure 5, a small theoretical Bermejo ellipse overlaps slightly with the low Fe Callejones ellipse.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results · p. 16

    The single artifact in this study that could not be assigned to a known source area came from Puntiachíl.

    “the single artifact in this study that could not be assigned to a known source area came from Puntiachíl.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results · p. 11

    The best way to differentiate between the various source areas and geochemical signatures is a bivariate plot of Sr/Zr and Rb/Zr ratios.

    “These data demonstrate that the best way to differentiate between the various source areas and geochemical signatures is a bivariate plot of two ratios: Sr/Zr and Rb/Zr.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 23
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 34
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § Results · p. 12

    At Huataviro, the low Fe Callejones variant and La Chimba type were found in small quantities.

    “Two other signatures, the low Fe Callejones variant and La Chimba type, were found in small quantities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The obsidian artifacts from Huataviro's tomb fill are representative of the site's overall obsidian assemblage.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § Results · p. 12

    The small number of source samples available for the minor source of Bermejo is an issue; not enough samples were analyzed to produce a 95% confidence ellipse, but the Bermejo signature appears discrete when looking solely at source samples.

    “The one issue is the small number of source samples available for the minor source of Bermejo. Although not enough samples were analyzed to produce a 95% confidence ellipse, it appears that this signature is discrete when looking solely at the source samples.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § Results · p. 16

    Both the high Fe Callejones-Mullumica cluster and the low Fe Mullumica variant constituted 18% of the Puntiachíl assemblage.

    “Both the high Fe Callejones-Mullumica cluster and the low Fe Mullumica variant constituted 18% of the assemblage.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § Results · p. 12

    In addition to the low Fe Callejones variant, two other signatures not documented in the source material were identified: the La Chimba type (represented by two artifacts) and an unassigned signature (represented by a single artifact) that does not match any known source area in the Andes.

    “In addition to the previously mentioned low Fe Callejones variant, two other signatures not documented in the source material were identified.”
    • Also stated in: § Results · p. 12 · plain
      “This chemical signature is represented by two artifacts. The other new chemical signature is represented by a single artifact. This unassigned artifact has a chemical signature that does not match any known source area in the Andes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [18] 18. Ogburn, D.; Connell, S. V.; Gifford, C. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2009 , 36 , 740-751.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [22] 22. Asaro, F.; Salazar, E.; Michel, H. V.; Burger, R. L.; Stross, F. H. Latin Am. Antiquity 1994 , 5 , 257-277.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § Results · p. 12

    It might be possible to divide the low Fe Mullumica group in this study into two distinct sub-groups.

    “However, it appears that it might be possible to divide the low Fe Mullumica group in this study into two distinct sub-groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § Results · p. 12

    Of the eight source signatures present in the analysis of source samples, only two are relevant for the artifact assemblages: the high Fe cluster of Callejones-Mullumica and the low Fe variant of the Mullumica source area.

    “Of the eight source signatures present in our analysis of the source samples, only two are relevant for the artifact assemblages. One of these is the high Fe cluster of Callejones-Mullumica. The other is the low Fe variant of the Mullumica source area.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion · p. 18

    Low Fe Mullumica material represents roughly 30-40% of the Oroloma and Huataviro assemblages, and the La Chimba type and low Fe Callejones variant are found in small quantities.

    “Low Fe Mullumica material represents roughly 30-40% of the assemblage and the La Chimba type and low Fe Callejones variant are found in small quantities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion · p. 16

    The majority of Puntiachíl's assemblage is low Fe Callejones with small quantities of high Fe Callejones-Mullumica and low Fe Mullumica.

    “the majority of Puntiachíl's assemblage is low Fe Callejones with small quantities of high Fe Callejones-Mullumica and low Fe Mullumica.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 3

    In northern Ecuador, there is ethnohistoric evidence for long-distance exchange conducted by traders known as mindaláes and marketplaces or tiangueces in cities such as Quito.

    “In northern Ecuador, there is ethnohistoric evidence for both long-distance exchange conducted by traders known as mindaláes and marketplaces or tiangueces in cities such as Quito ( 1 -7 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 7 sources checked
    • cites [1] 1. Salomon, F. Native Lords of Quito in the Age of the Incas: The Political Economy of North Andean Chiefdoms ; Cambridge University Press: New York, 1986. source
    • cites [2] 2. Burger, R. L.; Asaro, F.; Michel, H. V.; Stross, F. H.; Salazar, E. Latin Am. Antiquity 1994 , 5 , 228-255.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [3] 3. Bray, T. L. J. Field Archaeol. 1995 , 22 , 137-148.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [4] 4. Bray, T. L. J. Field Archaeol. 2005 , 30 , 119-141.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [5] 5. Bray, T. L. In Handbook of South American Archaeology ; Silverman, H., Isbell, W., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: New York, 2008; pp 527-543.
    • cites [6] 6. Topic, J. In Merchants, markets and exchange in the Pre-Columbian World ; Hirth, K. G., Pillsbury, J., Eds.; Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection: Washington, DC, 2013; pp 335-360.
    • cites [7] 7. Hirth, K. G.; Pillsbury, J. Curr. Anthropol. 2013 , in press.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Introduction · p. 3

    There was a connection between the expedient flake technology employed by Caranquis and the lower quality obsidian from Callejones and Mullumica.

    “and a relationship between the Caranqui's expedient flake technology and the utilization of Mullumica and Callejones obsidian.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The obsidian artifacts from Huataviro's tomb fill are representative of the site's overall obsidian assemblage.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The obsidian sample from Puntiachíl Tola Peña is representative of its entire occupation.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Obsidian Research in Ecuador · p. 9

    The available evidence for obsidian utilization in the País Caranqui indicates obsidian was used almost completely for the production of expedient flake tools.

    “The available evidence for obsidian utilization in the País Caranqui indicates obsidian was used almost completely for the production of expedient flake tools ( 2 , 4 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [2] 2. Burger, R. L.; Asaro, F.; Michel, H. V.; Stross, F. H.; Salazar, E. Latin Am. Antiquity 1994 , 5 , 228-255.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [4] 4. Bray, T. L. J. Field Archaeol. 2005 , 30 , 119-141.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Introduction · p. 3

    Elites at different tola sites procured obsidian via different interaction networks and not through some form of centralized process.

    “these initial results suggest that elites at different tola sites procured obsidian via different interaction networks and not through some form of centralized process.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The obsidian artifacts from Huataviro's tomb fill are representative of the site's overall obsidian assemblage.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The obsidian sample from Puntiachíl Tola Peña is representative of its entire occupation.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisenone given
    § Obsidian Research in Ecuador · p. 7

    Twelve obsidian sources have been documented in Ecuador.

    “Twelve obsidian sources have been documented in Ecuador.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § Site Background · p. 9

    At Huataviro, obsidian was not found as a grave good in any tombs; it was routinely found in small quantities in the fill placed between cangahua blocks used to line the tombs.

    “Interestingly, obsidian was not found as a grave good in any of these tombs. Instead, it was routinely found in small quantities in the fill placed between the cangahua (hard-packed volcanic mud) blocks used to line the tombs ( 27 ).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] 27. Pazmiño, E., Montalvo, C., Cajas, O. Instituto Nacional del Patrimonio Cultural, Quito, Ecuador, unpublished.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 3

    Only a few researchers have attempted to use geochemical sourcing data to address archaeological questions.

    “and only a few researchers have attempted to use geochemical sourcing data to address archaeological questions ( 2 , 18 , 23 , 24 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [2] 2. Burger, R. L.; Asaro, F.; Michel, H. V.; Stross, F. H.; Salazar, E. Latin Am. Antiquity 1994 , 5 , 228-255.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [18] 18. Ogburn, D.; Connell, S. V.; Gifford, C. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2009 , 36 , 740-751.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [23] 23. Schreyer, S. L. MA Thesis, California State University-Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, 2012.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [24] 24. Zeidler, J. A., Giauque, R. L., Asaro, F., Stross, F. H. In Regional Archaeology in Northern Manabí, Ecuador, Volume 1: Environment, Cultural Chronology, and Prehistoric Subsistence in the Jama River Valley ; Zeidler, J. A., Pearsall, D. M., Eds.; Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh, PA, 1994; pp 141-144.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Site Background · p. 9

    Radiocarbon dates of organic materials from burial contexts at Huataviro returned dates ranging from cal. AD 680 to 1300 at two sigma confidence intervals.

    “Radiocarbon dates of organic materials from burial contexts returned dates ranging from cal. AD 680 to 1300 at two sigma confidence intervals ( 27 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] 27. Pazmiño, E., Montalvo, C., Cajas, O. Instituto Nacional del Patrimonio Cultural, Quito, Ecuador, unpublished.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Obsidian Research in Ecuador · p. 9

    Obsidian was a utilitarian, high-weight, low-value good.

    “This makes obsidian a utilitarian, high-weight, low-value good”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Methods · p. 11

    The data from the Bruker Tracer III-V+ SD instrumentation for RGM-1 are comparable to other published values, demonstrating that the data from our analyses are accurate and precise enough to confidently make source attributions for obsidian artifacts of unknown origin where relevant sources have discrete chemical signatures.

    “The data from the Bruker Tracer III-V+ SD instrumentation for RGM-1 are comparable to other published values, demonstrating that the data from our analyses are accurate and precise enough to confidently make source attributions for obsidian artifacts of unknown origin in instances where the relevant sources have discrete chemical signatures.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisenone given
    § Obsidian Research in Ecuador · p. 8

    Obsidian from both the Callejones and Mullumica source areas have highly variable compositions.

    “Additionally, obsidian from both the Callejones and Mullumica source areas have highly variable compositions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 3

    Ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence suggest that coca, capsicum pepper, cinnamon, cotton, salt, pottery, gold, shell, greenstone axes, and obsidian likely were involved in some form of long-distance exchange.

    “Ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence also suggest that the following goods likely were involved in some form of long-distance exchange: coca, capsicum pepper, cinnamon, cotton, salt, pottery, gold, shell, greenstone axes, and obsidian ( 1 , 2 , 4 , 8 -10 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 6 sources checked
    • cites [1] 1. Salomon, F. Native Lords of Quito in the Age of the Incas: The Political Economy of North Andean Chiefdoms ; Cambridge University Press: New York, 1986. source
    • cites [2] 2. Burger, R. L.; Asaro, F.; Michel, H. V.; Stross, F. H.; Salazar, E. Latin Am. Antiquity 1994 , 5 , 228-255.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [4] 4. Bray, T. L. J. Field Archaeol. 2005 , 30 , 119-141.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [8] 8. Cordero, M. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 1998.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [9] 9. Martin, A. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 2009.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [10] 10. Oberem, U. In Native South Americans: Ethnology of the Least Known Continent ; Lyon, P. L., Ed.; Waveland Press: Prospect Heights, IL, 1974; pp 346-357.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § Site Background · p. 9

    In total, 97 lithic artifacts were found during excavations at Huataviro, and roughly 80% of the lithic assemblage was obsidian.

    “In total, 97 lithic artifacts were found during excavations at Huataviro, and roughly 80% of the lithic assemblage was obsidian ( 27 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] 27. Pazmiño, E., Montalvo, C., Cajas, O. Instituto Nacional del Patrimonio Cultural, Quito, Ecuador, unpublished.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given
    § Site Background · p. 9

    Puntiachíl is believed to be the center of the Cayambe polity during late prehistory.

    “The site is believed to be the center of the Cayambe polity during late prehistory.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § Site Background · p. 10

    Organic material from Puntiachíl returned radiocarbon dates ranging from cal. AD 670 to well into historic times, suggesting Puntiachíl was occupied throughout the Integration Period.

    “Organic material pulled from excavations at this mound returned radiocarbon dates ranging from cal. AD 670 to well into historic times ( 8 , 26 ), suggesting that Puntiachíl was occupied throughout the Integration Period.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [8] 8. Cordero, M. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 1998.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [26] 26. Cordero, M. El cacicazgo Cayambi: Trayectoria hacia la complejidad social en los Andes sepentrionales ; Abya-Yala: Quito, Ecuador, 2009.

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods · p. 11

    A sample of USGS RGM-1 was analyzed daily over the duration of the analyses to check the accuracy and precision of the instrument and calibration.

    “A sample of USGS RGM-1 was analyzed daily over the duration of the analyses in order to check the accuracy and precision of the instrument and calibration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Obsidian Research in Ecuador · p. 7

    Geochemical characterization of archaeological artifacts suggests that only six of Ecuador's obsidian sources were utilized in prehistory.

    “Geochemical characterization of archaeological artifacts suggests that only six of these sources were utilized in prehistory ( 2 , 18 , 20 -24 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 7 sources checked
    • cites [2] 2. Burger, R. L.; Asaro, F.; Michel, H. V.; Stross, F. H.; Salazar, E. Latin Am. Antiquity 1994 , 5 , 228-255.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [18] 18. Ogburn, D.; Connell, S. V.; Gifford, C. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2009 , 36 , 740-751.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [20] 20. Ogburn, D. Latin Am. Antiquity 2011 , 22 , 97-120.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [21] 21. Knight, C. L. F.; Cuellar, A. M.; Glascock, M. D.; Hall, M. L.; Mothes, P. A. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2011 , 38 , 1069-1079.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [22] 22. Asaro, F.; Salazar, E.; Michel, H. V.; Burger, R. L.; Stross, F. H. Latin Am. Antiquity 1994 , 5 , 257-277.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [23] 23. Schreyer, S. L. MA Thesis, California State University-Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, 2012.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [24] 24. Zeidler, J. A., Giauque, R. L., Asaro, F., Stross, F. H. In Regional Archaeology in Northern Manabí, Ecuador, Volume 1: Environment, Cultural Chronology, and Prehistoric Subsistence in the Jama River Valley ; Zeidler, J. A., Pearsall, D. M., Eds.; Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh, PA, 1994; pp 141-144.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Site Background · p. 9

    Puntiachíl was occupied at the time of the Inka's arrival in the region.

    “Unlike Huataviro, Puntiachíl was occupied at the time of the Inka's arrival in the region ( 8 , 26 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [8] 8. Cordero, M. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 1998.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [26] 26. Cordero, M. El cacicazgo Cayambi: Trayectoria hacia la complejidad social en los Andes sepentrionales ; Abya-Yala: Quito, Ecuador, 2009.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Obsidian Research in Ecuador · p. 7

    For northern Ecuador, the most important obsidian sources were Mullumica, Callejones, Yanaurco, and Quiscatola along with two La Chimba types whose source areas remain uncertain.

    “For northern Ecuador, research conducted to date suggests that the most important sources were the Mullumica, Callejones, Yanaurco, and Quiscatola sources along with two La Chimba types whose source areas remain uncertain ( 2 , 18 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [2] 2. Burger, R. L.; Asaro, F.; Michel, H. V.; Stross, F. H.; Salazar, E. Latin Am. Antiquity 1994 , 5 , 228-255.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [18] 18. Ogburn, D.; Connell, S. V.; Gifford, C. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2009 , 36 , 740-751.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Site Background · p. 10

    Cordero's excavations at Puntiachíl documented a significant amount of non-local Panzaleo ceramics that likely came from the eastern lowlands.

    “Her research documented a significant amount of non-local Panzaleo ceramics that likely came from the eastern lowlands ( 3 , 8 , 26 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [3] 3. Bray, T. L. J. Field Archaeol. 1995 , 22 , 137-148.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [8] 8. Cordero, M. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 1998.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [26] 26. Cordero, M. El cacicazgo Cayambi: Trayectoria hacia la complejidad social en los Andes sepentrionales ; Abya-Yala: Quito, Ecuador, 2009.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Obsidian Research in Ecuador · p. 9

    Obsidian potentially could still have been moved via informal exchange networks.

    “but it potentially could still have been moved via informal exchange networks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 18

    Schreyer reanalyzed Ogburn et al.'s samples as well as some additional obsidian from Oroloma, and modified some source assignments based on a combination of inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry and pXRF data.

    “Recently Schreyer ( 23 ) reanalyzed Ogburn et al.'s ( 18 ) samples as well as some additional obsidian from Oroloma. She modified some source assignments based on a combination of inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry and pXRF data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [23] 23. Schreyer, S. L. MA Thesis, California State University-Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, 2012.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [18] 18. Ogburn, D.; Connell, S. V.; Gifford, C. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2009 , 36 , 740-751.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationcitation
    § Discussion · p. 17

    This also supports the hypothesis that utilization of the Yanaurco and Quiscatola source areas ceased around AD 1000 and was not reinitiated until the Inka arrived in the region.

    “This also supports the hypothesis that utilization of the Yanaurco and Quiscatola source areas ceased around AD 1000 and was not reinitiated until the Inka arrived in the region ( 15 , 18 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [15] 15. Bigazzi, G.; Coltelli, M.; Hadler, J. C.; Osorio Araya, A. M.; Oddone, M.; Salazar, E. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 1992 , 6 , 21-32.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [18] 18. Ogburn, D.; Connell, S. V.; Gifford, C. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2009 , 36 , 740-751.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion · p. 17

    Based on the small quantities of lithics present, obsidian artifacts either were heavily curated or a large number of perishable tools were employed in lieu of lithics.

    “Based on the small quantities of lithics present, it would appear that obsidian artifacts either were heavily curated or a large number of perishable tools were employed in lieu of lithics.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Discussion · p. 17

    The ability to make inferences about the processes responsible for the documented patterns is severely limited by the scope of this initial study.

    “The ability to make inferences about the processes responsible for the documented patterns is severely limited by the scope of this initial study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Discussion · p. 17

    Based on the available data, there is no reason to believe that the artifacts analyzed are not representative of each site's overall assemblage.

    “based on the available data there is no reason to believe that the artifacts analyzed are not representative of each site's overall assemblage.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 18

    The inhabitants of Oroloma likely focused on exploiting the mountainous grassland páramo ecozone found at elevations above 3200 masl.

    “The inhabitants of this site likely focused on exploiting the mountainous grassland páramo ecozone found at elevations above 3200 masl ( 18 , 70 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [18] 18. Ogburn, D.; Connell, S. V.; Gifford, C. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2009 , 36 , 740-751.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [70] 70. Gonzalez, A. L. MA Thesis, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, 2010.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationcitation
    § Discussion · p. 17

    This finding supports Ogburn et al.'s analyses of material from late Caranqui fortifications that did not include any Yanaurco-Quiscatola material.

    “This finding supports Ogburn et al.'s ( 18 ) analyses of material from late Caranqui fortifications that did not include any Yanaurco-Quiscatola material.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [18] 18. Ogburn, D.; Connell, S. V.; Gifford, C. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2009 , 36 , 740-751.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given
    § Discussion · p. 17

    If merchant-like entities such as mindaláes were involved in obsidian distribution, we would expect to find much larger assemblages of obsidian and evidence for more intensive quarrying activity.

    “If merchant-like entities such as mindaláes were involved in obsidian distribution, we would expect to find much larger assemblages of obsidian and evidence for more intensive quarrying activity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 18

    Two artifacts from Oroloma were attributed to both the low Fe Callejones variant and the La Chimba type.

    “Finally, two artifacts were attributed to both the low Fe Callejones variant and the La Chimba type ( 18 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [18] 18. Ogburn, D.; Connell, S. V.; Gifford, C. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2009 , 36 , 740-751.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 17

    Using geochemical data, archaeologists sometimes are able to differentiate between independent and centralized procurement processes.

    “Using geochemical data, archaeologists sometimes are able to differentiate between independent and centralized procurement processes ( 69 ).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [69] 69. Hirth, K. G. Latin Am. Antiquity 2008 , 19 , 435-457.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 17

    If mindaláes or some centralized process was responsible, we typically would expect to find more evidence of homogenization in assemblages because a small group of individuals would be responsible for a significant portion of the obsidian distribution in the País Caranqui.

    “If mindaláes or some centralized process was responsible, we typically would expect to find more evidence of homogenization in assemblages because a small group of individuals would be responsible for a significant portion of the obsidian distribution in the País Caranqui ( 69 ).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [69] 69. Hirth, K. G. Latin Am. Antiquity 2008 , 19 , 435-457.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 18

    The Quiscatola source is much more homogenous than Mullumica and contains higher quality obsidian.

    “Salazar ( 12 , 14 ) suggests that the Quiscatola source is much more homogenous than Mullumica and contains higher quality obsidian ( 2 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [12] 12. Salazar, E. Talleres prehistóricos en los altos Andes del Ecuador ; Departamento de Difusión de la Universidad de Cuenca: Cuenca, Ecuador, 1980.
    • cites [14] 14. Salazar, E. In Arqueología en América Latina Hoy ; Politis, G., Ed.; Editorial Presencia: Bogotá, Columbia, 1992; pp 116-131.
    • cites [2] 2. Burger, R. L.; Asaro, F.; Michel, H. V.; Stross, F. H.; Salazar, E. Latin Am. Antiquity 1994 , 5 , 228-255.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 17

    Assemblages from major blade production areas such as central Mexico often number in the hundreds of thousands.

    “assemblages from major blade production areas such as central Mexico that often number in the hundreds of thousands (e.g. ( 64 , 69 )).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [64] 64. Hirth, K. G. In Obsidian Craft Production in Ancient Central Mexico: Archaeological Research at Xochicalco ; Hirth, K. G., Ed.; University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City, UT, 2006; pp 3-17.
    • cites [69] 69. Hirth, K. G. Latin Am. Antiquity 2008 , 19 , 435-457.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Discussion · p. 18

    Alternatively, the lithic technology could have been constrained by package size and the inability to access obsidian of a higher quality than Mullumica or Callejones.

    “Alternatively, the lithic technology could have been constrained by package size and the inability to access obsidian of a higher quality than Mullumica or Callejones.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Discussion · p. 17

    Part of the explanation for the lack of Yanaurco-Quiscatola obsidian in the País Caranqui during the Integration Period might stem from the lithic technology employed.

    “Part of the explanation for the lack of Yanaurco-Quiscatola obsidian in the País Caranqui during the Integration Period might stem from the lithic technology employed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 18

    Ogburn et al. analyzed 29 obsidian artifacts from the rural habitation site of Oroloma.

    “Ogburn et al. ( 18 ) analyzed 29 obsidian artifacts from the rural habitation site of Oroloma (Figure 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [18] 18. Ogburn, D.; Connell, S. V.; Gifford, C. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2009 , 36 , 740-751.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Conclusion · p. 19

    The portability of pXRF instrumentation and its rapid method of characterization allows for its use outside traditional laboratory settings.

    “This is important given the portability of pXRF instrumentation and its rapid method of characterization which allows for its use outside traditional laboratory settings ( 71 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [71] 71. Craig, N.; Speakman, R. J.; Popelka-Filcoff, R. S.; Glascock, M. D.; Robertson, J. D.; Shackley, M. S.; Aldenderfer, M. S. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2007 , 34 , 2012-2024.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Discussion · p. 18

    Considering the issues related to comparing data produced via different chemical characterization techniques, we refer only to Ogburn et al.'s original source attributions for the Oroloma assemblage.

    “considering the issues related to comparing data produced via different chemical characterization techniques (see ( 65 , 66 )), we refer only to Ogburn et al.'s ( 18 ) original source attributions for the Oroloma assemblage.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [65] 65. Glascock, M. D. Int. Assoc. Obsidian Stud. Bull. 1999 , 23 , 13-25.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [66] 66. Hancock, R. G. V.; Carter, T. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2010 , 37 , 243-250.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [18] 18. Ogburn, D.; Connell, S. V.; Gifford, C. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2009 , 36 , 740-751.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Discussion · p. 18

    Considering the limited research and the large time spans covered by these sites, it is difficult to determine whether the difference is a product of independent processes or a shift through time in obsidian procurement strategies.

    “Considering the limited research and the large time spans covered by these sites, it is difficult to determine whether this difference is a product of independent processes or a shift through time in obsidian procurement strategies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 18

    The Mullumica and Callejones source areas are slightly closer to the País Caranqui than Yanaurco and Quiscatola and would have been easier to access based on least-cost path analyses.

    “The Mullumica and Callejones source areas are slightly closer to the País Caranqui than Yanaurco and Quiscatola and would have been easier to access based on least-cost path analyses ( 23 ) (Figure 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [23] 23. Schreyer, S. L. MA Thesis, California State University-Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, 2012.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion · p. 18

    Considering the lithic technology employed in the País Caranqui did not require the highest quality obsidian available, it would have been possible to make the trade-off of lower quality obsidian for lower procurement costs.

    “Considering the lithic technology employed in the País Caranqui did not require the highest quality obsidian available, it would have been possible to make the trade-off of lower quality obsidian for lower procurement costs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 17

    Burger, Asaro and colleagues suggest that Yanaurco, Quiscatola, and Mullumica were the most heavily utilized source areas in Ecuadorian prehistory.

    “Burger, Asaro and colleagues suggest that Yanaurco, Quiscatola, and Mullumica were the most heavily utilized source areas in Ecuadorian prehistory ( 2 ).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] 2. Burger, R. L.; Asaro, F.; Michel, H. V.; Stross, F. H.; Salazar, E. Latin Am. Antiquity 1994 , 5 , 228-255.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion · p. 18

    At this time, we believe that the former possibility is more likely because there is no available evidence that suggests Caranquis would have been unable to access the Yanaurco or Quiscatola sources that were no more than 25 additional km away.

    “At this time, we believe that the former possibility is more likely because there is no available evidence that suggests Caranquis would have been unable to access the Yanaurco or Quiscatola sources that were no more than 25 additional km away (Figure 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
52 of 52

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The obsidian artifacts from Huataviro's tomb fill are representative of the site's overall obsidian assemblage.

    “Therefore, the results of our geochemical characterization research are treated as merely representative of the site's overall obsidian assemblage and no attempt is made to compare assemblages from various tomb contexts.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The obsidian assemblage at Huataviro is the product of elite activities because there was no permanent non-elite activity at this tola site.

    “Despite the lack of clear primary contexts, the obsidian assemblage still is most likely the product of elite activities because the available evidence and our current understanding of Caranqui society suggest there was no permanent non-elite activity at this tola site.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The obsidian sample from Puntiachíl Tola Peña is representative of its entire occupation.

    “The limited obsidian assemblage available, combined with the lack of absolute dates for Tola Peña, led to the decision to consider the sample as representative of its entire occupation and not to draw inferences about change through time in obsidian procurement.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The La Chimba type signature that matches a section of the Callejones source area can be treated as a low Fe variant of Callejones.

    “Following Ogburn et al. ( 18 ), we tentatively treat the one La Chimba type signature that appears to have the same chemical signature as a section of the Callejones source area as a 'low Fe variant of Callejones.'”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Ogburn et al.'s high Fe Mullumica assignments can be treated as high Fe Callejones-Mullumica.

    “Therefore, in the discussion section we treat Ogburn et al.'s ( 18 ) high Fe Mullumica assignments as high Fe Callejones-Mullumica.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Obsidian constitutes the majority of lithics found at Caranqui sites.

    “Although obsidian constitutes the majority of lithics found at Caranqui sites, the quantity of obsidian typically numbers in the hundreds.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The quantity of obsidian at Caranqui sites typically numbers in the hundreds.

    “Although obsidian constitutes the majority of lithics found at Caranqui sites, the quantity of obsidian typically numbers in the hundreds.”
7 of 7

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Hirth K. G., 2013, Curr. Anthropol.
  2. Cordero, M. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA,1998.
  3. Martin, A. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA,2009.
  4. Oberem, U. InNative South Americans: Ethnology of the Least Known Continent; Lyon, P. L. , Ed.Waveland Press:Prospect Heights, IL,1974; pp346−357.
  5. Salazar E., 1980, Talleres prehistóricos en los altos Andes del Ecuador
  6. Salazar E., 1985, Miscelánea Antropológica Ecuatoriana, 5, 129
  7. Schreyer, S. L. MA Thesis, California State University-Fullerton, Fullerton, CA,2012.
  8. Cordero M., 2009, El cacicazgo Cayambi: Trayectoria hacia la complejidad social en los Andes sepentrionales
  9. Bray, T. L. Ph.D. Thesis, State University of New York-Binghamton, Binghamton, NY,1991.
  10. Ogburn, D. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA,2001.
  11. Connell S. V., 2003, Antiquity, 77, 295
  12. Fries, E. C. MA Thesis, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA,2010.
  13. de Aguilar, F. G. InRelaciones Geográfica de Indias;Jiménez de la Espada; Tipografia de los Hijos de M. C. Hernández:Madrid, Spain,1897; Vol.3, pp124−127.
  14. Borja, P. A. InRelaciones Geográfica de Indias;Jiménez de la Espada; Tipografia de los Hijos de M. C. Hernández:Madrid, Spain,1897; Vol.3, pp128−136.
  15. Paz Ponce de León, S. InRelaciones Geográfica de Indias;Jiménez de la Espada; Tipografia de los Hijos de M. C. Hernández:Madrid, Spain,1897; Vol.3, pp105−120.
  16. Cabello Balboa M., 1951, Miscelánea Antártica:Una Historia del Peru Antiguo
  17. Espinosa W., 1983, Los Caranquis y Los Cayambes
  18. Espinosa W., 1988, Los Cayambes y Carangues: Siglos XV-XVI: El Testimonio de la Etnohistoria, 3
  19. Caillavet C., 1985, Revista Andina, 3, 403
  20. de Cieza de León P., 1998, The Discovery and Conquest of Perú: Chronicles of the New World Encounter
  21. de Gamboa P. S., 2007, History of the Incas
  22. Athens, S. J. InResources, Power, and Interregional Interaction; Schortman, E. M. Urban, P. A. , Eds.Plenum Press:New York,1992; pp193−219.
  23. Schuller F. P., 1976, La incursión Inca en el septentrión andino ecuatoriano: antecedentes arqueológicos de la convulsiva situación de contacto cultural: primer informe preliminary
  24. Jijón y Caamaño J., 1914, Contribución al Conocimiento de los Aborígenes de la Provincia de Imbabura
  25. Jijón y Caamaño J., 1920, Boletín de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Estudios Históricos, 4, 1
  26. Oberem U., 1969, Verhandlungen des 38th Internationalen Amerikongresses, 1, 317
  27. Oberem U., 1981, Cochasqui: Estudios Arqueológicos, 3
  28. Athens S. J., 1980, El Proceso Evolutivo en las Sociedades Complejas y la Ocupación del Periodo Tardío-Cara en los Andes Septentrionales
  29. Uhle M., 1939, Boletín de la Academia Nacional de Historia, 18, 5
  30. Currie E., 2001, Internet Archaeology, 10
  31. Berenguer J., 1984, Gaceta Arqueológica Andina, 10, 4
  32. Bray T. L., 1994, Sarance, 20, 135
  33. Echeverria J., 1981, Sarance, 9, 25
  34. Jaramillo A., 1968, Repertorio Arqueológico Imbaya
  35. Rodriguez E., 1992, Fauna Precolombina de Nariño
  36. Glascock M. D., 1999, Int. Assoc. Obsidian Stud. Bull., 23, 13
  37. Larrain H., 1980, Demografía y Asentamientos Indígenas en la Sierra Norte del Ecuador en el Siglo XVI: Estudio Etnohistórico de las Fuentes Tempranas (1525−1600)
  38. Gonzalez, A. L. MA Thesis, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI,2010.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Dyrdahl, E., & Speakman, R. J.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Dyrdahl, Eric
Venue
ACS Symposium Series
Publisher
American Chemical Society
Published
2013-01
Pages
211-232
ISSN
  • 0097-6156 (ISSN-L)
  • 1947-5918
DOI
10.1021/bk-2013-1147.ch012
OpenAlex
W2493008484
Cited by
5
References
26
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
18.17
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACS symposium series (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Cultural Heritage Materials Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Archaeological and Geological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Archeology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
Keywords
obsidian sourcing, obsidian procurement, long-distance exchange, integration time, portable X-ray fluorescence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review