MINERALOGY AND MINERAL CHEMISTRY OF SOUTHEASTERN PIEDMONT
SOAPSTONES: IMPLICATIONS FOR SOURCING PREHISTORIC SOAPSTONE
ARTIFACTS
by
NICHOLAS CYRIL RADKO
(Under the direction of Samuel E. Swanson)
ABSTRACT
Soapstone is a soft, carvable metamorphic rock of ultramafic protolith that has been quarried for millennia by cultures around the globe to be fashioned into functional, decorative, and ritual objects. Archaeologists have long sought a methodology to reliably source soapstone artifacts to their geologic origin in order to better understand routes and mechanisms of exchange. This study uses traditional geologic methods to characterize prehistoric soapstone quarries in the Piedmont of the southeastern U.S. A combination of modal mineralogy and mineral chemistry data has been successful in uniquely characterizing three Late Archaic quarries—two from Soapstone Ridge, GA and one from the Hammett Grove Meta-igneous Suite,
SC. A total of 10 Late Archaic soapstone vessel sherds from the Ocmulgee, Oconee, and Satilla drainages in the Georgia Coastal Plain were also analyzed for comparison. Modal mineralogy, low-Ca amphibole and ilmenite compositions proved most useful in distinguishing samples.
INDEX WORDS: Soapstone, Steatite, Mineralogy, Microprobe, Late Archaic
MINERALOGY AND MINERAL CHEMISTRY OF SOUTHEASTERN PIEDMONT
SOAPSTONES: IMPLICATIONS FOR SOURCING PREHISTORIC SOAPSTONE
ARTIFACTS
by
NICHOLAS CYRIL RADKO
B.S., The University of Virginia, 2008
A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
ATHENS, GEORGIA
2011
© 2011
Nicholas Cyril Radko
All Rights Reserved
MINERALOGY AND MINERAL CHEMISTRY OF SOUTHEASTERN PIEDMONT
SOAPSTONES: IMPLICATIONS FOR SOURCING PREHISTORIC SOAPSTONE
ARTIFACTS
by
NICHOLAS CYRIL RADKO
Major Professor: Sam Swanson
Committee: Ervan Garrison Paul A. Schroeder
Electronic Version Approved:
Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2011
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to extend my most sincere thanks to Dr. Sam Swanson.
His constant efforts to guide me through my research and provide insightful and constructive feedback have, without a doubt, been the most reliable and important source of encouragement
(as well as assistance) throughout my thesis work. Dr. Swanson is the most dedicated teacher and advisor that I have encountered in my academic career, and his selfless commitment to his students, graduate and undergraduate, has never failed to amaze and inspire me.
Next I would like to acknowledge and thank my committee members, Dr. Ervan Garrison and Dr. Paul Schroeder. Their instruction in and outside the classroom has been invaluable to me during my time here at UGA, I am much obliged to them for all of their help and support.
I would be remiss to overlook the assistance and patience of Chris Fleisher, who’s guidance in the probe lab was irreplaceable. The independence I was afforded instilled much confidence.
Staying in the basement, I must thank all of my graduate student colleagues for making the academic and extracurricular pursuits comprising my life for the past two years most enjoyable. In particular, I’d like to acknowledge those students who matriculated in the Fall of
2009.
Finally, I want to thank the Department of Geology, not only for funding my project through the Miriam Watts-Wheeler Graduate Studies Student Fund, but also for providing so many wonderful opportunities and resources, not the least of which has been the chance to teach geology during my tenure as a student and beyond.
! "#!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iv
LIST OF FIGURES...... vii
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION...... 1
2 GEOLOGY...... 3
ORIGIN OF SOAPSTONE...... 3
SOAPSTONE IN THE SOUTHEAST...... 4
3 ARCHAEOLOGY...... 11
SOAPSTONE NOMENCLATURE...... 11
SOURCING STUDIES ...... 12
SOAPSTONE AND SOUTHEASTERN PREHISTORY ...... 14
HISTORY OF SOAPSTONE RESEARCH...... 16
STUDY QUARRIES...... 19
4 METHODS...... 30
SAMPLE SELECTION AND PREPARATION ...... 30
MODAL MINERALOGY...... 32
ELECTRON MICROPROBE ANALYSIS (EMPA)...... 32
X-RAY DIFFRACTION (XRD)...... 34
5 RESULTS...... 36
! "! MODAL MINERALOGY...... 36
MINERAL CHEMISTRY...... 40
X-RAY DIFFRACTION (XRD)...... 58
6 DISCUSSION...... 61
QUARRIES ...... 61
ARTIFACTS ...... 63
7 CONCLUSIONS ...... 67
REFERENCES CITED ...... 69
APPENDICES...... 74
A MINERALOGY AND X-RAY DIFFRACTION (XRD) ...... 75
A.1 MODAL MINERALOGY...... 76
A.2 MINERALOGY ...... 77
A.3 X-RAY DIFFRACTION (XRD) ...... 81
A.4 BULK CHEMISTRY ...... 89
B MINERAL CHEMISTRY ...... 90
B.1 - CHLORITE ...... 91
B.2 - CALCIC AMPHIBOLE ...... 116
B.3 - NON-CALCIC AMPHIBOLE ...... 152
B.4 - MAGNETITE...... 184
B.5 - ILMENITE ...... 224
B.6 - RUTILE...... 248
B.7 - TALC...... 256
! "#!
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Soapstone deposits in the Southeast with study quarry locations...... 6
Figure 2: Location and general geology of SSR ...... 8
Figure 3: Location and general geology of HGMS ...... 9
Figure 4
a: Bowl blank at PA with the author for scale...... 20
b: Bowl scar at PA...... 20
c: Unfinished vessel at PA...... 21
Figure 5: Detail of PA (38Sp12) study area ...... 21
Figure 6: Regional watersheds and sample locations...... 23
Figure 7: SSR showing LO (9Da139) and CW (9Da248)...... 24
Figure 8: LO (9Da139) and CW (9Da248) quarries ...... 25
Figure 9: Provenience of LO samples ...... 27
Figure 10: CW quarry site (9Da248a) ...... 29
Figure 11
a: Ternary diagram of talc, chlorite, and amphibole modes ...... 37
b: Quarry sample modal ranges represented by ellipses...... 37
Figure 12
a: Ternary diagram of talc, chlorite, and opaque phase modes ...... 38
b: Quarry sample modal ranges represented by ellipses...... 38
! "##! Figure 13: Chlorite types after the classification of Zane and Weiss (1998) ...... 41
Figure 14: Chlorite species after the classification of Hey (1954)...... 42
Figure 15: Variation of chlorite compositions based on total Al, Mg, and Fe ...... 44
Figure 16: Cr content in chlorite ...... 45
Figure 17: Low-Ca amphibole after Leake et al. (1997) ...... 47
Figure 18: High-Ca amphibole species after Leake et al. (1997)...... 48
Figure 19: Acicular low-Al tremolite in PA1...... 49
Figure 20: Cr content in high-Ca amphiboles ...... 50
Figure 21: Al content in high-Ca amphiboles ...... 52
Figure 22: Mn content in low-Ca amphiboles...... 53
Figure 23: Backscatter electron image showing ilmenite with magnetite...... 54
Figure 24: Fe+3 versus Cr in magnetite...... 55
Figure 25: Mg versus Mn in ilmenite ...... 57
! "###!
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Soapstone is a low- to medium-grade metamorphic rock of ultramafic protolith that contains an appreciable amount of the phyllosilicates talc and/or chlorite (moh’s hardness: 1 and
2-2.5, respectively) which lend its trademark softness and carvability. This defining characteristic, in addition to its high capacity for heat afforded by the presence of these hydrous phases, has made soapstone a popular material for manufacturing functional, decorative, and ritual objects around the globe, throughout history and into pre-history.
Considering the wide geographic distribution of archaeological soapstone, geological sources of soapstone are relatively rare. Where soapstone does occur, it typically forms belts or clusters of small bodies, pods, or lenses associated with orogenic mountain belts (Hess, 1955).
The nature of this distribution makes any attempt to match soapstone artifacts to their geologic sources based on geography alone difficult. The origin of archaeological materials has important implications for determining exchange patterns of past cultures, therefore analytical methodologies designed to attribute the source of an artifact can be invaluable to researchers
(Garrison, 2003).
The role of the geoarchaeologist is to understand how geologic processes modify materials and how the modifications influence archaeological features. In the case of soapstone and other stony archaeological materials this involves a knowledge of mineralogy and geochemistry in order to characterize sources of material. Ideally, these factors can be used to classify and distinguish between sources and allow artifacts to be traced to their geologic origin.
! "! Reliable methodologies to characterize and source archaeological soapstone to geological occurrences has been sought by archaeologists worldwide. Patterns of Rare Earth Element
(REE) distributions, obtained through Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) and Inductively-
Coupled Plasma Mass Spectroscopy (ICP-MS), have been the most common means to geochemically characterize soapstone (Luckenbach, Holland, and Allen, 1975; Moffat and
Buttler, 1986; Truncer et al., 1998; Jones et al., 2007). These approaches are plagued with issues ranging from inherently low REE abundances in soapstone, to a complete failure to account for the uneven distribution of REE in modal mineral phases during sampling and subsequent analysis. As a result of these and other factors, REE-based methodologies, often supplemented with trace and transition element-based approaches, frequently fail to geochemically distinguish geological occurrences of soapstone and source artifacts.
This study takes a more traditional geologic approach to the problem using material from
Late Archaic soapstone quarries in the Piedmont of the southeastern U.S. By focusing on mineral assemblages and mineral compositions, with an emphasis and major and minor elements, this methodology avoids many of the problems facing REE, trace, and transition element-based techniques.
! "!
CHAPTER 2
GEOLOGY
ORIGIN OF SOAPSTONE
Soapstone is a metamorphic rock, typically of an alpine-type ultramafic protolith.
Alpine-type ultramafic rocks form irregular to elliptical bodies in orogenic belts (Hess, 1955), and at least some are thought to be ophiolites (Coleman, 1977). These rocks are distributed worldwide at active and former plate boundaries, and are a common (although minor) constituent of mountain chains.
Alpine-type ultramafics are usually altered to various degrees, producing a wide range of textures and mineralogies. Less altered ultramafic rocks contain relict olivine, orthopyroxenes, clinopyroxenes, Ca-plagioclase, and spinels from their protolith and retain granular textures.
More alteration, as in the case of soapstone, can produce Ca- and Mg-amphiboles, talc, chlorite, serpentines, and carbonate in schistose textures.
Alpine ultramafic rocks are particularly succeptible to low-temperature hydrous metamorphism, owing to the instability and anhydrous nature of primary ultramafic minerals.
Igneous minerals are replaced by hydrous phases such as talc, chlorite, anthophyllite, tremolite, and serpentine. Due to the high-Mg nature of the protolith, this process can occur nearly isochemically with an increase in volume (Raymond, 2002):
olivine + silica in solution ! serpentine
3Mg2SiO4 + H4SiO4 + 2H2O ! 2Mg3Si2O5(OH)4
! "!
Constant-volume serpentinization, with ions being removed allochemically by the metamorphic fluid, can also occur (Raymond, 2002):
olivine + water ! serpentine + Mg ion + hydroxyl ion + silica in solution
2+ - 5Mg2SiO4 + 10H2O ! 2Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 + 4Mg + 8(OH ) + H4SiO4
Talc is commonly formed from the alteration of primary ultramafic minerals or serpentine in a process called steatization (Naldrett, 1966):
Serpentine + carbon dioxide ! talc + magnesite + water
2Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 + 3CO2 ! Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 + 3MgCO3 + 3H2O
The mobility of less abundant elements during these reactions, and in particular Rare
Earth Elements, is poorly understood. Their depletion in alpine ultramafic rocks (0.001 to 0.5 times the chondrite norm) makes analytical errors a primary source of variability in many samples. Whether or not REE signatures are retained from protolith to serpentinite/steatite is largely unknown (Frey, 1984).
SOAPSTONE IN THE SOUTHEAST
Two parallel chains of alpine-type ultramafic bodies occur in the southeastern U.S. as part of the Appalachian orogenic belt (Hess, 1955) (Fig. 1). The westernmost is in the Blue
Ridge province, and is a more defined, though discontinuous chain that stretches from Alabama to Newfoundland. The eastern chain is comprised of a number of bodies scattered throughout
! "! the Piedmont province (Misra and Keller, 1978). The geologic distribution of soapstone in the
Southeast is confined to these occurrences of ultramafic rocks.
Due to the economic importance of soapstone and associated rock types in the early 20th century, possible sources were documented by geologists in Georgia (Hopkins, 1914) and South
Carolina (Sloane, 1908). Both authors describe a wide range of bodies with talc- and/or chlorite- rich zones termed “soapstone” that fall in the two belts defined above. For the state of Georgia,
Hopkins (1914) identifies and describes occurrences of talc-rich soapstone in Towns, Union,
Harris, Stephens, Lumpkin, Cherokee, Gwinnett, DeKalb, Paulding, Douglas, Carroll, Heard,
Meriwether, Elbert, and Columbia Counties. Sloane (1908) documents a similarly wide distribution of metaultramafic rocks in South Carolina. He recognizes soapstone in Oconee,
Pickens, Abbeville, Edgefield, Laurens, Spartanburg, Union, Cherokee, Lexington, Chester, and
York Counties.
Additional reviews of Southeastern ultramafic bodies have been compiled by Misra and
Keller (1978), Vincent et al. (1990), and Butler (1989). These reviews largely overlap with the work done in the early 20th century, though they provide more insight into mineralogy, tectonic setting, and significance of the bodies. More recent studies (e.g. Warner et al., 1989; Mittwede,
1989; Swanson, 2001) provide details on mineralogy of select ultramafic bodies, including some soapstone. In all, only a portion of these occurrences are reported to have soapstone, although the existence of numerous undocumented minor bodies throughout the Piedmont and Blue Ridge is suggested.
Soapstone Ridge, GA
Soapstone Ridge (SSR) is the largest mapped mafic-ultramafic body in the Southeast, located in the Georgia Piedmont immediately south of Atlanta (Fig. 2). Numerous aboriginal
! "!
Figure 1. Soapstone deposits in the Southeast with study quarry locations (modified from Elliot, 1986). Sites studied include 9Da238 and 9Da139 at Soapstone Ridge and the Pacolet Quarry, 38Sp12.
! "! soapstone quarries are found within the body, including the Live Oak and Charlotte Woods quarries (LO and CW). The body comprises its own (Soapstone Ridge) thrust sheet that is stratigraphically the highest in the Georgiabama thrust stack, located immediately above the
Ropes Creek thrust sheet (Higgins et al., 1988). Two principal rock types are recognized—a hornblende diorite and a metapyroxenite. These are cut by felsic dikes and quartz veins. The metapyroxenite is most typically a chlorite-anthophyllite-actinolite-talc schist with foliations parallel to relict pyroxene. Locally this metapyroxenite is more talc-rich, and can be called soapstone (Pickering and Scneeberger, 1972).
A more detailed mineralogical investigation of ultramafic rocks at SSR was conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. Blake (1982) reports on a number different talc-chlorite rocks with variable amounts of cummingtonite/anthophyllite and Fe oxides, although the emphasis of the study is on the presence or absence of asbestiform minerals.
A former graduate student in geology at the University of Georgia, Aleta Turner, started a thesis project with Dr. Swanson as her advisor, working on Soapstone Ridge. She and Dr.
Swanson secured samples from Soapstone Ridge, made polished thin sections, and did some bulk rock analyses. Preliminary microprobe studies were done on some of the samples. An abstract reported preliminary results from these studies (Turner et al., 1998). Bulk chemical analyses of soapstone reported by Turner are shown in Appendix A.4. The suite of samples is relatively homogenous chemically, with the exception of CW16, which has more Si, Al, and Ca than the other samples.
Hammett Grove, SC
The Hammett Grove Meta-igneous Suite (HGMS) is a mafic-ultramafic complex located in the South Carolina Piedmont south of Spartanburg (Fig. 3). A number of
! "!
Figure 2. Location and general geology of SSR (modified from Blake, 1982).
! "!
Figure 3. Location and general geology of the HGMS (modified from Ferguson, 1980).
! "! prehistoric soapstone quarries are located within the HGMS, including the Pacolet River quarry
(PA). The suite is directly west of the Kings Mountain belt on the eastern margin of the Inner
Piedmont, and stretches approximately 11km along strike with widths ranging from 0.2 to 1.0 km. The basal contact with Inner Piedmont gneisses is defined by a low angle fault and an associated mylonitic zone, suggesting tectonic emplacement (Mittwede et al., 1987).
The complex has been studied by Mittwede (1987, 1988, 1989), who identifies soapstone and serpentinite, metapyroxenite, metagabbro, and metabasalt as the principal rock types.
Mittwede (1989) suggests an ophiolitic origin for the HGMS.
Bulk chemical data reported by Mittwede et al. (1987) is shown in Appendix A.4. The
“altered ultramafites” analyzed include impure soapstone (161), chloritic serpentinite (176A), and talc schist (183). These rocks are quite variable chemically, especially with respect to Si, Fe, and Al. High Mg and low Al content suggest an olivine-rich protolith.
! "#!
CHAPTER 3
ARCHAEOLOGY
SOAPSTONE NOMENCLATURE
Due to its widely distributed use, both spatially and temporally, soapstone has gained many region- and culture-specific names and definitions. “Steatite” is variably used as a blanket term synonymous with soapstone (Garrison, 2003), but also as a specific rock type composed fine, micro- to crypto-crystalline talc (Hopkins, 1914). The term “potstone” is generally used in the Old World in reference to its use as a vessel material by Stone Age cultures (Garrison, 2003).
Potstone and “soft-stone” have been used to describe the material fashioned into decorated bowls found from the Indus Valley to Mesopotamia (Kohl et. al, 1979). More recently, “steatite” has been applied by R.E. Jones et al. (2007) to name a spectrum of soft stones used by Neolithic and
Viking cultures in the Shetland Islands, and by the Minoan culture on Crete. Ige and Swanson
(2008) use both steatite and soapstone in reference to the Nigerian soft stone of their study.
Similarly, contemporary American archaeologists prefer the terms steatite and soapstone, which are used interchangeably in reference to the soft stone vessels found commonly in late Archaic and early Woodland contexts (6000B.P. to 2000B.P) in the eastern U.S. (Sassaman, 2006;
Truncer, 2006). Finally, “pipestone” has been used to name like material carved into tobacco pipes by American Indians (Garrison, 2003).
Soapstone can, and often does, contain variable amounts of accessory minerals including amphiboles, olivine, pyroxene, serpentine, Fe/Ti/Cr oxides, carbonates, quartz, and sulfides. The presence or absence of these minerals typically does not influence archaeological nomenclature,
! ""! rather, the somewhat subjective, qualitative attribute of softness is the defining characteristic.
Likewise, geologists have no formal definition for these talc-rich rocks, variably referring to them as soapstone or steatite, or as talc schist with some descriptive modifier indicating accessory phases (e.g. amphibole talc schist). All of these soft stones, including the talc-chlorite- amphibole rocks that are the focus of this study, will be simply referred to as soapstone hereafter.
SOURCING STUDIES
An analytical method to determine the source of soapstone artifacts was first proposed, developed, and tested by Allen, Luckenbach, and Holland (1975) at the University of Virginia.
They followed the methods of contemporary researchers sourcing other archaeological materials, such as obsidian and flint, using trace and Rare Earth Element (REE) patterns to provide a geochemical fingerprint. Elemental abundances were determined for quarry and artifact samples though instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA), and then compared based on the relative abundances observed. The initial findings were considered promising, and R.O. Allen continued the work with other collaborators (Allen and Pennell, 1978; Allen et al., 1984). Soon, however, it became apparent that the REE abundances in soapstone were relatively low (Frey,
1984), and approached or fell below the minimum detection limits of the INAA methods (Allen et al., 1984).
Moffat and Butler’s (1986) study of REE distribution patterns in Shetland soapstone further brought into question the validity of this method. They observed REE distribution patterns to be inconsistent within individual quarries and localities. In addition, the observation that modal mineralogy and bulk geochemistry in soapstone can be extremely heterogeneous down to the outcrop scale was reaffirmed. Among their conclusions was that REE are unevenly distributed in soapstone’s constituent minerals, and that sources with similar igneous protoliths
! "#! may have similar REE patterns. The implication was that bulk samples must be very large and well-homogenized prior to INAA, and that the resulting signatures may not be unique anyway.
After a hiatus in soapstone sourcing studies, Truncer et al. (1998) re-tested the INAA method in their work with mid-Atlantic soapstone in the eastern U.S. They used unhomogenized samples, but significantly expanded the list of elements analyzed from simply REE and some trace elements to include many minor elements, including transition metals. These not only had higher abundances in soapstone than REE, but, they concluded, transition metals could potentially serve to fingerprint sources. Unfortunately, only 6 of 133 artifacts could be assigned a provenance with any confidence. All of these were collected from Virginia archaeological sites with attributions to local Virginia quarries.
Jones et al. (2007) took a more comprehensive approach to the problem in their study of
Shetland and Cretian soapstones. The basis of the study was using REE and transition metal chemistry derived from INAA as well as ICP-MS, which provided much greater resolution, lowering the detection limits which troubled Allen et al. (1984). Mineralogical analysis through
X-ray diffraction (XRD) was conducted following Kohl et al. (1979), who first used the technique as a useful supplementary method to characterize soapstones. Strontium isotope
(87Sr/86Sr) data were also collected and used to identify the tectonic setting of the protolith as outlined by Bray (1994). Overall, these complementary sets of data served to distinguish between various Shetland sources, but not those in Crete. Most importantly, the combination of
INAA and ICP-MS provided secure determinations of all REE species concentrations, giving conclusions based on REE patterns validity.
A more traditional geologic approach was taken by Ige and Swanson (2008). Their study of Nigerian soapstones utilized mineral assemblages, textures, and mineral chemistry attained
! "#! through electron microprobe analysis (EMPA) to help distinguish between source locations that were previously indistinguishable based on bulk chemistry. Their effort was largely successful.
More importantly, it was recognized that mineral compositions, in contrast to bulk compostions, are relatively homogenous at the outcrop level.
SOAPSTONE AND SOUTHEASTERN PREHISTORY
Humans have inhabited the southeastern U.S. for at least the last 12,000 years (Anderson and Sassaman, 1996). The material record left behind evidences a series of prehistoric cultural transitions in technology, subsistence, and social organization that have been divided into four main cultural periods.
The Paleoindian Period (~12,000-10,000B.P.) is defined by cultural traits adapted to the conditions of the terminal Wisconsin glaciation in North America. The significantly different climate and ecology of the Southeast fostered highly mobile groups of hunter-gathers that exploited wild plants and game, including now-extinct Pliestocene megafaunal species
(Anderson and Sassaman, 1996). The limited artifact evidence from this period suggests that paleoindians selected high-grade lithic material for chipped stone tools, but did not utilize soapstone in any form (Caldwell, 1958).
The transition to the Archaic Period (10,000-3000B.P.) in the Southeast is marked by a change in subsistence strategy as reflected by changes in the artifact inventory. Although the climate was not yet like today’s, modern plants and animals were the basis of subsistence.
Populations increased from the earlier period, and regional specialization started to occur
(DePratter, 1975). The Archaic is divided into three subdivisions—Early (10,000-7,000B.P),
Middle (7,000-5000B.P.), and Late (3,000-1,000B.P.).
! "#! During the Middle Archaic the manufacture of ground stone items becomes more common than previously. It is during this time that archaeologists see the first evidence of soapstone use in the form of atlatl weights (DePratter, 1975).
In the Late Archaic the use of ground stone artifacts, and in particular soapstone, shows a marked increase throughout the period. The manufacture of perforated soapstone slabs, and, later, soapstone vessels begin in this period alongside early ceramic technology. The most intensive period of soapstone use in the Southeast occurs during the terminal Late Archaic
(DePratter, 1975; Sassaman, 1993).
The Woodland Period (3,000-1,100B.P.) is defined by the presence of ceramics, agriculture and sedentism, and the beginnings of mound construction (Caldwell, 1958). Some of these features are first observed during the terminal Late Archaic, however, they become widespread in the Woodland Period. Ritualism begins to clearly manifest itself in material culture, and soapstone is primarily used for ornaments and effigy pipes (Caldwell, 1958).
The culmination of these Woodland trends is witnessed in the Mississippian Period
(1,100B.P to European contact). Settled village life reliant on maize agriculture, pyramidal earthwork building, and ceremonialism, all with a distinctive Mesoamerican influence, define the period. The use of soapstone for pipes and ornaments is continued into this period (Caldwell,
1958).
Soapstone use has persisted into historic and modern times as well. Its use by indigenous peoples as a material for tobacco pipes was continued by the Cherokee into the 18th century. In the 19th and 20th centuries into modern times, soapstone has been used locally in tombstones, fireplaces, chimneys, door steps, foundations, wells, and furnace linings. Quality, often non- local sources have been used for laboratory tabletops and acid tanks, switchboards, flooring, and
! "#! panels in electrical stations, laundry tubs, griddles, stove linings, foot warmers, fireless cookers, and many other products (Hopkins, 1914). Currently, “artistic” soapstone and “architectural” soapstone may be purchased through online retailers for use in carving, countertops, and sinks
(Vermont Soapstone).
HISTORY OF SOAPSTONE RESEARCH
Academic interest in the prehistoric use of soapstone is first documented in the late 19th century. The increased industrial use of soapstone, outlined above, combined with the convenient proximity of some prehistoric quarries to major cities, such as Washington D.C., may have influenced this along with an increasing interest in North American prehistory. The eminent archaeologist William Henry Holmes made perhaps the most significant contributions to the early work on soapstone. His “Stone Implements of the Potomac-Chesapeake Tidewater
Province” (1897) summarized the collected work of the previous quarter century and examined in depth the quarrying of soapstone and the manufacture of soapstone vessels. Holmes noted the quality and specialization of the ground and chipped stone implements used in theses procedures, and observed the co-incidence of soapstone vessels with ceramics, as well as similarities in their context and form. He rather astutely concluded that the prehistoric soapstone industry was relatively “recent” at a time when the timeline of North American prehistory was hotly debated.
He also noted that quarrying and manufacturing technology was remarkably consistent from the
East to western examples from California. Eastern vessels, however, differed in form and lacked the decoration of their Californian counterparts. Although a few general forms for eastern vessels were recognized, the lack of stylistic and decorative attributes made chronologies through seriation impossible.
! "#! Perhaps due to the fact that seriation and chronological refinement wasn’t possible, published work on soapstone vessels significantly declined in the first half of the 20th century. It was not until the advent of radiocarbon dating in the 1950’s and 1960’s when the temporal context of soapstone vessels could be established. As dates came in it was recognized that soapstone vessels represented an archaeological horizon in the East—a short-lived, but widespread tradition that predated ceramics. Still, soapstone and other products of the terminal
Late Archaic were primarily used as a marker of a “transitional period” between earlier Archaic and Woodland cultures, and few efforts were yet made to understand their function and significance.
From the time of the earliest work through the mid-20th century it was assumed that soapstone bowls were used as functional cooking vessels due to their form and the presence of soot. This view has continued to predominate academic thought to the present. Starting in the
1960’s, an emphasis on the environmental and social context of functionality grew.
Environmental factors, like changes in ecology and the formation of estuaries, were proposed to have driven settlement and subsistence patterns, which, in turn, opened the door to new forms of social interaction, social status, and exchange during the Late Archaic. Soapstone vessel procurement and technology was then incorporated into this general model.
Terry Ferguson’s (1980) University of Tennessee Master’s research focused on soapstone procurement at the Pacolet Quarry near Spartanburg, SC. Although he focuses on outlining a reduction sequence model for quarrying, Ferguson speculates that soapstone vessel technology may be a response to the early appearance of domesticated plants in the Southeast. Custer
(1984) proposed that soapstone was exchanged in an effort to minimize group conflict in the new social landscape, and that the vessels were some unspecified adaptation to riverine environments
! "#! that also served as exchange corridors. Others placed more emphasis on changes in the ecological landscape. Funk and Rippeteau (1977) noted a decline in mast-producing tree species and reduced populations that corresponded with the appearance of soapstone vessels along the
Susquehanna River. Soapstone bowls, they claimed, were some adaptation to a reduced carrying capacity.
These lines of thought were, in part, based on the established chronology that placed soapstone vessels as a precursor to ceramic technology. While vessels of both materials have largely interchangeable functions, the cost of quarrying, manufacturing, and transporting heavy soapstone vessels greatly outweighs that of producing ceramic vessels from local clay sources.
As more radiometric dates were collected into the 1980’s and 1990’s, many examples of ceramics predating or coexisting with soapstone vessels were discovered, especially in the
Southeast (Sassaman, 2006). The earliest examples of ceramics in North America, in fact, are fiber-tempered Stallings Island wares form Georgia (Sassaman, 1993). If the vessel technologies were indeed contemporaneous, and groups chose to use soapstone, then simple cost-benefit dictates that soapstone bowls must have served some function beyond being practical in food preparation.
Using this updated chronology, and considering all of its implications, Sassaman (1993,
1997, 1999, 2006) has suggested that soapstone vessels played a key role beyond their use in cooking. He cites the distance over which soapstone must have traveled from source to site, as well as vessels found in caches and mortuary contexts, to say that soapstone had political and economic value. Soapstone vessels, Sassaman claims, were essential in group formation and alliance during the terminal Late Archaic. On the same basis, Klein (1997) views soapstone artifacts as valuable prestige goods with ritual uses.
! "#! The updated chronology is debated and resisted by Truncer (2006), who supports a modified and specialized version of past riverine-based theories. Truncer observed a coincidence in the spatial distribution of soapstone vessels, mast forests, and rivers. He hypothesizes that soapstone vessels were cooking utensils specialized to process nuts as part of a greater adaptation to the riverine environment, additionally citing evidence from food residues and microbotanicals. Hart et al. (2008) have tested Truncer’s hypothesis with their own microbotanical data and a reexamination of Truncer’s. They conclude that the microbotanical evidence does not support the mast processing theory.
The contrasting views of Sassaman and Truncer represent the current state of archaeological research on soapstone vessels in the eastern U.S. While dates and the temporal relationship of soapstone and ceramic vessels have been the focus of much petty bickering, other questions remain equally important. Most pertinent to this study are the questions concerning exchange and the distance that soapstone travels from source to site. The ability to reliably identify the source of soapstone artifacts would undoubtedly have great bearing on this debate, and potentially provide the data needed to advance it beyond its current stalemate.
STUDY QUARRIES
A soapstone quarry is simply a surface exposure of soapstone, typically a boulder or outcrop, that shows evidence of quarrying activities. Bowl scars (Fig. 4a), bowl blanks (Fig. 4b), unfinished vessels (Fig. 4c), worked soapstone debris, and quarrying tools are diagnostic of prehistoric quarries. The quarries selected for study are observed and documented to exhibit all of these features.
! "#! Pacolet River
The Pacolet River Soapstone Quarry (38Sp13, 38Sp12) is first identified in the literature by
Overton (1969), who found it to be the largest and most intact (38Sp12) of four quarries he identifies along a NE-SW line of HGMS soapstone outcrops in Spartanburg and Cherokee
Counties, SC (Figs. 1, 3, & 5). Overton suggests that 38Sp12 and 38Sp13 may be one site considering their proximity, and subsequent reviews by Lowman and Wheatley (1970) and Peck
(1981) seem to lump these two together as 38Sp13, the Pacolet River Site or Pacolet River
Figure 4a. Bowl blank at PA with the author for scale (photo by Sam Swanson).
Figure 4b. Bowl scar at PA (photo by Sam Swanson).
! "#!
Figure 4c. Unfinished vessel at PA (photo by Sam Swanson).
Figure 5. Detail of PA (38Sp12) study area (modified from Ferguson, 1980).
Soapstone Quarry. Pacolet samples for this study (PA#) were collected by the author and Dr.
Sam Swanson from quarried outcrops and related soapstone debris at 38Sp12.
! "#! The most extensive archaeological investigation of HGMS soapstone quarries was carried out by Terry A. Ferguson (1980) for his Master’s thesis at the University of Tennessee. His survey of the NE-SW trending outcrops and their adjacent areas revealed 8 new quarry sites in addition to 10 that had been previously identified, including the Pacolet River Soapstone Quarry.
17 non-quarry artifact scatters were also discovered in the area. Finally, Ferguson conducted a controlled surface collection and excavated two test pits at 38Sp54, approximately 3km SW of
38Sp13.
Ferguson’s data combined with that collected by amateurs and reported by Peck suggest a few general conclusions about the Pacolet River quarry. First is the heterogeneity of the soapstone, even at the outcrop level. Differences in degree of alteration, foliation, color, texture, and mineralogy are noted by both authors (Ferguson 1980; Peck 1981). Vessels of all stages of production are present, and flat-bottomed and hemispherical forms dominate those sampled.
Associated quarrying artifacts are manufactured from local sources of quartzite, quartz, diabase, and granitic rocks (Ferguson 1980; Peck 1981). At 38Sp13 these quarry artifacts are typically modified cobbles from the adjacent Pacolet River. Numerous stone points collected by an amateur date from Early Archaic to Middle Woodland, however the vast majority are from the
Late Archaic to Early Woodland (Peck 1981). No radiocarbon dates have been obtained, however, the suggested age of Late Archaic to Early Woodland seems likely.
All of the quarries are located within the Broad River drainage basin, which eventually joins the Santee River and reaches the South Carolina coast (Fig. 6). A bottleneck in the Santee drainage provides short overland access to the Pee Dee and Edisto drainage basins as well, making the majority of the South Carolina Coastal Plain a reasonable destination for Pacolet vessels. Although exotic materials are not reported, it is still assumed that soapstone from the
! ""! Spartanburg/Cherokee quarries was exchanged, perhaps up to 175 miles away (Lowman and
Wheatley 1970; Peck 1981).
Live Oak
The Live Oak Quarry (9Da139) was initially reported by Dickens et al. (1979), and later surveyed and excavated by Garrow and Associates in 1986 as part of a recovery project contracted by Waste Management of North America, Inc. (Elliot, 1986). It is located on
Soapstone Ridge southeast of Atlanta, GA in DeKalb County near its triple junction with Fulton
Figure 6. Regional watersheds and sample locations.
! "#!
Figure 7. SSR showing LO (9Da139) and CW (9Da248) (modified from Elliot, 1986).
and Clayton Counties (Figs. 1, 7, & 8). A total of 350 undeveloped acres surrounding
9Da139 were surveyed, and 13 sites and 3 isolate finds were identified. The focus was on the
Live Oak Quarry itself, which was sub-divided into a soapstone bowl quarry site (Area A) and a workshop/habitation site (Area B) (Fig. 8). Excavations totaled 55.25 m2, with 11.25 m2 in area
A and 44 m2 in Area B. In addition, approximately 10,000 m2 of Area A surrounding the main quarry were raked free of leaves and debris, and a controlled surface collection was conducted and recorded in detail. Live Oak Quarry samples for this study (LO#) were taken from this Area
A surface collection and consist of bowl performs and bowl fragments (Fig. 9).
! "#!
Figure 8. LO (9Da139) and CW (9Da248) quarries (modified from Elliot, 1986).
! "#! Garrow and Associates concluded that Area A and Area B are contemporaneous and interrelated, probably dating to the Terminal Late Archaic/Early Woodland period (3,500 to
2,600 B.P.) (Elliot, 1986), although no radiocarbon dates were established. A number of vessel forms in various stages of manufacture are represented at the Live Oak Quarry. These are dominated by two distinct forms. Flat-bottomed bowls are the most common, and are generally smaller and lighter than the less-abundant hemispherical vessels. Despite a lack of radiocarbon evidence, it is speculated that flat-bottomed vessels postdate hemispherical ones based on stylistic similarities to well-dated ceramic vessel forms. Both forms overlap in their spatial distributions at the quarry with no apparent patterning.
The site falls within the headwaters of the Ocmulgee drainage basin, and also within 15 km of the Chattahoochee and Flint drainage basins, making water transport of vessels possible to both the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains of Georgia with relative ease (Fig. 6). The majority of quarrying and other stone tools recovered are manufactured from local quartz, diabase, and metapyroxenite, however, exotic cherts from Valley and Ridge as well as Coastal Plain sources are also present. These tools of foreign materials exhibit significant use-wear, and are exhausted and fragmentary, indicating a high value. Although the possibility exists that these materials were discarded by highly mobile groups, it is speculated that the cherts were part of a reciprocal exchange for local soapstone (Elliot, 1986).
Charlotte Woods
The Charlotte Woods Quarry (9Da248) was first discovered by Garrow and Associates during their 1986 survey of the area surrounding the Live Oak Quarry (Elliot, 1986). It is located on Soapstone Ridge southeast of Atlanta, GA in DeKalb County near its triple junction with Fulton and Clayton Counties—approximately 800m north of the Live Oak Quarry (Figs. 1
! "#!
Figure 9. Provenience of LO samples (modified form Elliot, 1986).
! "#! 6, & 8). The site was recognized as archaeologically important, and subsequently revisited by
Bloom, who conducted testing and delineated the site boundaries (Bloom et al. 1989). Garrow and Associates were then contracted by Waste Management of North America, Inc. to conduct archaeological data recovery at the site during the winter of 1989-1990. The site was sub- divided into a soapstone bowl quarry site (9Da248a) and a habitation site (9Da248b) that had been previously recognized by Bloom. Excavations totaled 100 m2, with 56 m2 in the quarry and
44 m2 in the habitation site. In addition, 1320 m2 of 9Da248b was subjected to a controlled surface collection and recorded in detail. Charlotte Woods samples for this study (CW#) were taken from isolated finds and test units within the quarry site (Fig. 10).
Garrow and Associates concluded that the two sites are not contemporaneous and are unrelated. The soapstone bowl quarry, like that at Live Oak, was assigned to the Terminal Late
Archaic/Early woodland period (3,500 to 2,600 B.P.), however, the habitation site was found to be of Middle Archaic (7,000 to 5,000 B.P.) age with a possible Early Archaic (10,000 to 7,000
B.P.) component. Radiocarbon ages were not established, and these dates are based on diagnostic stone tool assemblages. No evidence of soapstone quarrying was recovered at the habitation site, suggesting its location adjacent to the outcrop was coincidental. At the quarry site, a number of vessel forms in various stages of manufacture were recovered. Like Live Oak, the assemblage is dominated by flat-bottomed bowls and hemispherical vessels, but, unlike at Live Oak, the hemispherical form is most common. Again it is speculated that hemispherical vessels are older than flat-bottomed ones, and no spatial patterning exists in their distributions across the site
(Bloom, 1991).
The site falls within the headwaters of the Ocmulgee drainage basin, and also within 15 km of the Chattahoochee and Flint drainage basins, making water transport of vessels possible to
! "#!
Figure 10. CW quarry site (9Da248a) (modified from Bloom, 1991).
both the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains of Georgia with relative ease (Fig. 6). The majority of quarrying and other stone tools recovered are manufactured from local quartz, diabase, and metapyroxenite, however, a few exotic cherts from Valley and Ridge sources was also present.
It is not speculated as to whether or not these foreign materials may have been involved in a reciprocal exchange, although the authors do suggest that the material at Charlotte Woods was traded similarly to that at Live Oak (Bloom, 1991).
! "#!
CHAPTER 4
METHODS
SAMPLE SELECTION AND PREPARATION
Pacolet River
Pacolet River Soapstone Quarry samples (PA#) were collected by the author from quarried outcrops and related soapstone debris at 38Sp12 in the vicinity of Spartanburg, SC
(Figs. 1, 3, & 5). A total of 7 samples, arbitrarily numbered PA1-PA7, were selected in an effort to obtain a representative suite based on field observations of lithologic variability. One polished thin section of each sample was prepared by Vancouver Petrographics to be used for optical microscopy and EMPA.
After the preliminary optical microscopy was conducted, the thin section for PA6 was broken and excluded from further analyses. Observations to that point, however, indicated that
PA6 and PA1 were modally and texturally similar.
The initial thin section of PA2 was used to collect compositional data, but it proved too thin to provide accurate modal data through point counting. A second polished thin section was prepared by the same company, and using the original blank, in order to obtain modal data for the sample.
Live Oak
Live Oak Soapstone Quarry samples (LO#) were selected from a collection of soapstone artifacts recovered by Garrow and Associates at 9Da139A near Atlanta, GA (Figs. 1, 7, & 8).
The bowl performs and fragments were removed as part of a controlled surface collection, and
! "#! accurate proveniences were recorded. Samples for this study were selected based on their spatial distribution in an effort to sample evenly across the entire survey area (Fig. 9). A total of 7 samples were selected for study. Sample numbers (LO#) match the accession numbers (103.#) assigned by Garrow and Associates (ex. Garrow # 103.67 = LO67). One polished thin section of each sample was prepared by Vancouver Petrographics to be used for optical microscopy and
EMPA.
Charlotte Woods
Charlotte Woods Soapstone Quarry samples (CW#) were selected from previously prepared polished thin sections courtesy of Dr. Sam Swanson. These were prepared by
Vancouver Petrogrpahic from artifacts recovered by Garrow and Associates at 9Da248a near
Atlanta, GA (Figs. 1, 7, & 8), arbitrarily numbered CW1-CW19. Of these, 7 of the most representative samples were selected for study.
Although the Garrow and Associates accession numbers are known and provenience data was recorded, the two are not linked anywhere in the literature. It can be confidently extrapolated based on the accession number, however, that sample CW17 was recovered in the
“Central Quarry Area” from Garrow and Associates test unit 4 (TU4) (Fig. 10). Additionally,
CW6, CW13, CW15, and CW16 have “IF” accession numbers, suggesting that these samples were isolated finds within the quarry area (Fig. 10). Samples CW1 and CW3 were recovered at
9Da248a, but their exact locations are unknown.
Artifacts
Artifact samples were selected from a collection held at South Georgia College courtesy of Dr. Frankie Snow. A total of 10 soapstone vessel sherds from 8 different archaeological sites located on the Georgia Coastal Plain were chosen. Samples A1 (Alligator Creek), A2 (9Tu12),
! "#! and A3 (Moses Lake) were recovered from the Oconee River basin, samples A4 (9Tf4), A5
(9Bh8), and A6-A8 (9Tf5, “Squeaking Tree”) from the Ocmulgee River basin, and samples A9
(9At31) and A10 (9Cf191) from the Satilla River basin (Fig. 6). One polished thin section of each sample was prepared by Vancouver Petrographics to be used for optical microscopy and
EMPA.
MODAL MINERALOGY
Modal data were collected through point counts on thin sections. A mechanical stage set at a 1.0 mm spacing on a Leica DM EP petrographic microscope was used to position the slide, and 300 points were counted on a single thin section for each sample. Talc, chlorite, amphibole, serpentine, oxide and sulfide phases were counted. No other minerals were observed through optical microscopy. Modal percentages are reported in Appendix A.1. Amphiboles are reported as total amphibole, as no effort was made to distinguish between species during point counting.
Similarly, oxide and sulfide phases are all counted together as opaque minerals.
ELECTRON MICROPROBE ANALYSIS (EMPA)
Mineral compositions for talc, chlorite, amphibole, and oxide phases were collected with an electron microprobe operating in a wavelength mode. Analyses were conducted at the
University of Georgia’s Department of Geology using a JEOL JXA-8600 Superprobe running
Geller Microanalytical Laboratory’s dQANT32 stage and spectrometer automation. Analyses were performed with an accelerating voltage of 15KV, 15nA beam current, approximately 1 µm beam diameter, and 10 second counting times. Natural and synthetic mineral standards were used, and analyses were calculated using Armstrong’s (1988) phi-rho-z matrix correction.
Analyses with totals below expected values were discarded, as were those that had obviously sampled multiple mineral grains.
! "#! Results are reported in Appendix B as oxide weight percentages. Representative minimum detection limits (MDL) are listed for each element analyzed. Weight percentage values below the MDL are identified with a strikethrough (ex. 1.234). Formula recalculations and oxygen totals were made on a species-specific basis as described below, and are reported in
Appendix B. Total Fe is reported as FeO unless otherwise noted.
Talc
Talc compositional data were collected for all quarry and artifact samples. All samples were analyzed for Si, Mg, and Fe. All PA, LO, and artifact samples were additionally analyzed for Ni. Two samples, CW3 and CW15, were analyzed for a broad spectrum of elements (Si, Ti,
Al, Mg, Fe, Ca, Mn, K, Na, Ba). Chemical formulas were calculated by stoichiometry using 22 oxygens and are reported along with oxide weight percentages in Appendix B.7.
Chlorite
Chlorite compositions were determined for all quarry and artifact samples. All samples were analyzed for Si, Al, Mg, Fe, Cr, and Ni. Two samples, CW3 and CW15, were analyzed for a broad spectrum of elements (Si, Ti, Al, Mg, Fe, Ca, Mn, K, Na, Ba). Chemical formulas were calculated by stoichiometry based on 28 oxygens and are reported along with oxide weight percentages in Appendix B.1. Chlorite nomenclature follows the classification systems of Hey
(1954) and Zane and Weiss (1998).
Amphibole
Compositions of amphiboles were collected for all quarry and artifact samples containing amphibole. All samples were analyzed for Si, Al, Mg, Fe, Ca, Mn, and Cr. Three samples,
CW3, CW13, and CW17, were additionally analyzed for Ti, K, and Na. Chemical formulas were initially calculated by stoichiometry based on 23 oxygens, then the resulting formulas were
! ""! recalculated to estimate Fe+2 and Fe+3 following the methodology outlined by Leake et al.
(1997). These finalized formulas are reported along with oxide weight percentages in
Appendices B.2 and B.3. Amphibole nomenclature follows the classification system of Leake et al. (1997).
Oxides
Oxide compositional data were collected for all quarry and artifact samples. All samples were analyzed for Si, Ti, Al, Mg, Fe, Ca, Mn, Cr, Ni, and Zn. Chemical formulas were initially calculated by stoichiometry based on 3 or 4 oxygens for spinel group minerals and ilmenite, respectively. The resulting formulas were recalculated to estimate Fe+2 and Fe+3 following the methodology outlined by Droop (1987). These finalized formulas are reported along with oxide weight percentages in Appendices B.4, B.5, and B.6.
X-RAY DIFFRACTION (XRD)
X-ray diffraction was carried out on 9 samples—CW1, CW6, CW16, PA2, PA3, PA7,
LO123, LO195, and LO272—3 mineralogically representative samples from each quarry. Chips remaining from the preparation of thin sections were ground by hand to <63µm, then further reduced in size to <10µm using a McCrone mill. A ZnO standard was mixed in with the resulting powders for CW samples only, and all powders were prepared as pressed powder mounts for analysis. Measurements were performed with a Bruker D8 Advance diffractometer using Co K! radiation (" = 1.7902) at 1.8kW. Data were collected from 5 to 70°2# at a scan speed of 5°2#/min. Data were referenced to the standard ZnO peaks when available to correct for sample displacement and d-spacings were assigned using the EVA 1.0 software. Peaks were then matched using an ICDD search manual to identify the mineral phases present. Results are reported in Appendix A.2, and all chlorite are reported as clinochlore.
! "#! An analysis of the heavy cation (Fe, Cr, Mn) content in chlorites was conducted by comparing the relative intensities (I) of basal (00l) reflections following the methodologies of
Brindley and Brown (1980). XRD data from chlorite in an Archaic soapstone net sinker recovered at Stalling’s Island, GA is reported by Kohl et al. (1979) as sample 61/MU01 and is included in these analyses for comparison.
Octahedral heavy cation distribution between the 2:1 layer sheet and the interlayer sheet was determined by plotting measured I(003)/I(001) values on a curve established by Brindley and Brown (1980) (Appendix A.3). Resulting values of D, where D equals the number of 2:1 layer octahedral sheet cations minus the number of interlayer octahedral sheet heavy cations, are reported in Appendix A.3.
Similarly, total heavy cation content of the 2:1 and interlayer octahedral sheets was determined by plotting I(002)+I(004)/I(001)+I(003) on a curve established by Brindley and
Brown (1980) (Appendix A.3). Resulting values of y, where y equals the total number of heavy cations per formula unit, are reported in Appendix A.3. Heavy cation content predicted by this method was then compared to measured values of Fetot and Cr content (in cations per formula unit) obtained through microprobe analyses (Appendix A.3).
In addition to the basal reflection intensity ratios determined for the above procedures, a number of other I(00l) values are compared (Appendix A.3). These ratios were found by Kohl et al. (1979) to be the most useful in distinguishing between groups of Southwest Asian chloritic soapstone vessels.
! "#!
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
MODAL MINERALOGY
Pacolet
Modal data show the suite of Pacolet samples to be relatively heterogeneous mineralogically (Figs. 11 & 12; Appendix A.1). Talc content varies from less than 10% to nearly 70%, typically at the expense of amphibole or serpentine. Some samples (PA1, PA5) contain no serpentine, while other have up to 30% (PA4). Similarly, some samples contain no amphibole (PA4), while others have up to 67% (PA5). Comparatively, chlorite and opaque phases are less abundant and show little variation, from 7%-18% and from 1%-11%, respectively.
Live Oak
Live Oak modal data show this quarry to be similarly heterogeneous (Figs. 11 & 12;
Appendix A.1). Talc varies from 22% to 83%, mostly at the expense of amphibole, which is not observed in some samples (LO195) while others have up to 54% (LO272). Once again, Chlorite and opaque phases are the least abundant, and show less variation than talc and amphibole.
Chlorite varies from 5%-28%, and opaque phases from 1% to16%. It is interesting to note that the two samples with distinctly higher opaque percentages (LO310 and LO279 at 12% and 16%, respectively), also have distinctly higher chlorite percentages (26% and 28%, respectively), although this correlation does not apply to the Live Oak suite as a whole. Serpentine was not observed in any Live Oak samples.
! "#!
Figure 11a. Ternary diagram of talc, chlorite, and amphibole modes.
Figure 11b. Quarry sample modal ranges represented by ellipses [PA (0), LO (0), and CW (0)].
! "#!
Figure 12a. Ternary diagram of talc, chlorite, and opaque phase modes.
Figure 12b. Quarry sample modal ranges represented by ellipses [PA (0), LO (0), and CW (0)].
! "#! Charlotte Woods
Charlotte Woods modal data show this quarry to be heterogeneous as well, although less so than the other quarries (Figs. 11 & 12; Appendix A.1). Talc percentages are generally lower and less variable than the other quarries, varying from 4%-45%. The difference is largely made up by higher, less variable chlorite percentages ranging from 17% to 32%. Amphibole content varies from 18%-60%, while opaque phases are more variable than at the other quarries, ranging from <1%-24%. CW6 and CW3 stand out as having the two lowest talc percentages (4% and
14%, respectively) as well as the two highest amphibole percentages (60% and 52%, respectively). No serpentine was observed in any Charlotte Woods samples.
Artifacts
Artifact sample modal data is heterogeneous also, however, some interesting trends do exist (Figs. 11 & 12; Appendix A.1). Talc percentages vary from 10%-65%, predominately at the expense of amphibole, which ranges from 0%-52%. The maximum and minimum modal percentages reported for talc and amphibole represent two artifacts (A9 and A10) that are the sole samples from the Satilla drainage. Chlorite percentages are, on average, much higher than most quarry samples, varying from 5%-48%. Without A5, which accounts for the 5%, the range is 22%-47%. Ocmulgee samples are particularly chlorite-rich (37%-47%) not considering A5, distinguishing them from the three quarries. There is notable overlap between quarry and other artifact chlorite percentages, however, particularly with the SSR quarries. Opaque minerals vary from 5%-18%, and serpentine was not observed in any artifact samples.
It must be noted that the ternary diagrams displaying this data only illustrate variation in the talc, chlorite, amphibole, and opaque mineral percentages of the samples. Serpentine is not considered because it is only present in 3 samples. It must, however, be accounted for before
! "#! any pair or group of samples can be considered modally similar. For example, CW 15 and PA7 appear to be modally similar based on the ternary diagrams, however, PA7 has 10% serpentine and CW15 has none.
MINERAL CHEMISTRY
Talc
Compositional data for talc identify a pure Mg end-member composition in all quarry and artifact samples Appendix B.7. Ni and other elements often reported as trace in talc were either below detection limits or were not determined. Due to the homogeneity of talc compositions observed between the samples, talc mineral chemistry is not considered a distinguishing factor, and will receive no further treatment.
Chlorite
Mineral chemistry data for chlorite identify all species in the quarry and artifact samples to be magnesian Type I chlorite following the classification of Zane and Weiss (1998) (Fig. 13;
Appendix B.1). The chlorites plot in a continuous spectrum on a species diagram of
Mg/(Mg+Fetot) versus Si (Fig. 14), predominately falling within the range defining clinochlore
[Mg/(Mg+Fetot) > 0.8; 5.6 < Si(# of ions) < 6.2]. The range extends into the fields of two additional high-Mg chlorite species, pennine (6.2 < Si(# of ions) < 7.0) and sheridanite (5.0 < Si(# of ions) < 5.6), as well as two lower-Mg varieties [Mg/(Mg+Fetot) < 0.8], ripidolite (5.0 < Si(# of ions) < 5.6) and pycnochlorite (5.6 < Si(# of ions) < 6.2). It must be noted that the species encompassed by this range of chemistries are texturally indistinguishable within a given sample. Generally, analyses from one sample represent a continuum of compositions that may fall within multiple fields on the species diagram, but appear similar in thin section.
! "#!
Figure 13. Chlorite types after the classification of Zane and Weiss (1998).
! "#!
Figure 14. Chlorite species after the classification of Hey (1954).
! "#! In addition to Si and the relative abundances of Mg and Fe, the percentage of total Al in
Al + Mg + Fetot [Al/(Al+Mg+Fe), Fig. 15] and in Al + Cr [Al/(Al+Cr), Fig. 16] helps to further distinguish the quarries, samples, and artifacts. Ellipses defining quarry sample variation in these plots are drawn to define visually distinct groups of analyses from each quarry.
Alternatively, a single all-encompassing ellipse could be drawn to represent each quarry. In this case, nearly all artifact analyses would be grouped with the study quarries.
Pacolet
Pacolet Quarry chlorites can be divided into two groups based on Mg content. For samples PA1, PA3, PA4, and PA7, Mg/(Mg+Fe) > 0.88. These PA chlorites have more Cr relative to Al [Al/(Al+Cr) < 0.97), largely distinguishing them from CW, LO, artifact, and other
PA samples (Appendix B.1). Al relative to Mg and Fe in these analyses [0.25 < Al/(Al+Mg+Fe)
< 0.30] is similar to that of chlorites of like Mg content (Fig. 15; Appendix B.1). PA2 and PA5 chlorites have lower Mg [Mg/(Mg+Fe) < 0.85]. Like the other PA samples, PA5 has distinctly low Al/(Al+Cr) (> 0.96), but also low Al relative to Mg and Fe [0.25 < Al/(Al+Mg+Fe) < 0.28] compared to analyses showing similar Mg content (Appendix B.1). Conversely, PA2 has distinctly high Al relative to Mg and Fe [0.33 < Al/(Al+Mg+Fe) < 0.37] that separates it from most other samples (Appendix B.1).
Charlotte Woods
Chlorites from Charlotte Woods are predominately higher-Mg varieties [Mg/(Mg+Fe) >
0.88]. This includes chlorite from samples CW1, CW6, CW13, CW15, and CW17, which are also found to have variable Al/(Al+Mg+Fe) (from 0.24 to 0.30) and less Cr with respect to Al
[Al/(Al+Cr) > 0.96]. Generally, these chlorites are much more homogeneous than chlorites of similar Mg content from PA and LO (Appendix B.1).
! "#! CW16 chlorites also have greater Mg content [Mg/(Mg+Fe) > 0.88], but distinctly high
Al with respect to Mg and Fe [0.32 < Al/(Al+Mg+Fe) < 0.34] (Appendix B.1). Chlorites in
CW3 have distinctly low Mg [Mg/(Mg+Fe)< 0.81] that separates them from all other samples
(Appendix B.1).
Live Oak
Live Oak samples were found to have a high-Mg set of chlorites, LO279, LO303, and
LO310, that are compositionally similar to those at CW [Mg/(Mg+Fe) > 0.88; 0.24 <
Al/(Al+Mg+Fe) < 0.29; Al/(Al+Cr) > 0.97] (Appendix B.1). Chlorites in sample LO123 stand out as having distinctly high Mg [0.91 < Mg/(Mg+Fe) < 0.94] as well as more Cr with respect to
Al [0.92 < Al/(Al+Cr < 0.97] than nearly all other samples (Appendix B.1).
Figure 15. Variation of chlorite compositions based on total Al, Mg, and Fe. Quarry sample variation is represented by ellipses [PA (0), LO (0), and CW (0)].
! ""! Samples LO67 and LO195 have intermediate values of Mg/(Mg+Fe), falling between
0.84 and 0.87. These chlorites generally have Cr below detection limits such that Al/(Al+Cr) >
0.99, which is distinctly high compared to chlorites with similar Mg content (Appendix B.1).
One analysis form LO 272 also falls within this range, however, the remaining analyses from this sample are similar to PA2 and CW3 [Mg/(Mg+Fe) < 0.82; 0.32 < Al/(Al+Mg+Fe) < 0.34;
Al/(Al+Cr) > 0.98] (Appendix B.1).
Artifacts
Artifact sample chlorite is mostly distinct from quarry sample chlorite, although overlap does occur (Figs. 14, 15, & 16; Appendix B.1). Some chlorite analyses from A2, A4, A5, and
Figure 16. Cr content in chlorite. Quarry sample variation is represented by ellipses [PA (0), LO (0), and CW (0)].
! "#! A7, plus all analyses from A3 and A10 fall in the high-Mg range established by the quarry samples [Mg/(Mg+Fe) > 0.88] and have Al/(Al+Cr) and Al/(Al+Mg+Fe) values similar to LO and CW samples of similar Mg content [Al/(Al+Cr) > 0.97; 0.25 < Al/(Al+Mg+Fe) < 0.29]
(Figs. 16 & 15; Appendix B.1).
All chlorite in samples A6, A8, and A9, plus some analyses from A2, A4, and A5, show intermediate Mg content [0.85 < Mg/(Mg+Fe) < 0.88]. A8 and A5 chlorites belonging to this group are distinct in having chrome below detection limits (Al/(Al+Cr) > 0.99), while the remainder of the group has more Cr relative to Al than quarry samples of similar Mg content
[0.97 < Al/(Al+Cr) < 0.99] (Fig. 16; Appendix B.1). Chlorite in sample A9 also distinguishes itself with relatively low Al with respect to Mg and Fe [0.24 < Al/(Al+Mg+Fe) < 0.27] (Fig. 15;
Appendix B.1).
Sample A1 is distinct from all other artifact and quarry samples, having more Cr relative to Al [Al/(Al+Cr) < 0.96] than any other sample with such a low Mg content [0.82 <
Mg/(Mg+Fe) < 0.84] (Fig. 16; Appendix B.1).
Amphibole
Mineral chemistry data for amphiboles identify both calcic and non-calcic phases in quarry and artifact samples. Non-calcic amphiboles are shown to be cummingtonite/anthophyllite (Fig. 17), and Ca-rich amphiboles are tremolite and magnesiohornblende (Fig. 18). Mg/(Mg+Fe), Cr content, and the amount of Al relative to Si
[Al/(Al+Si)] in calcic amphiboles serve to best distinguish the quarries (Figs. 20 & 21; Appendix
B.2). Mn content in low-Ca phases helps to separate artifact samples (Fig. 22; Appendix B.3).
Multiple ellipses are used to define visually distinct groups of analyses from one quarry where appropriate.
! "#! Pacolet
Amphiboles from the Pacolet Quarry are tremolite and, compared to those at LO and
CW, are homogeneous (Appendix B.2). Tremolite at PA is more Mg-rich than the majority of other samples (Fig. 21; Appendix B.2), with Mg/(Mg+Fe) values between 0.90 and 0.97. The overlap with high-Mg samples from LO and CW is largely eliminated when considering Al and
Si, as well as Cr, in conjunction with Mg/(Mg+Fe) (Figs. 21 & 20; Appendix B.2). No amphibole is present in PA2 or PA4.
Cr is present above detection limits in amphibole analyses from PA1, PA5, and PA7.
Only PA samples have amphibole with both detectable Cr and Mg/(Mg+Fe) greater than 0.89
(Appendix B.2).
Figure 17. Low-Ca amphibole species after Leake et al. (1997).
! "#! PA amphiboles were also found to have more Al with respect to Si than LO and CW samples of similar Mg content (Fig. 21; Appendix B.2). Four analyses from PA1 are an exception to this, having significantly lower Al/(Al+Si) values than any other sample with
Mg/(Mg+Fe) greater than 0.80 (Appendix B.2). These amphiboles appear more elongate and euhedral in thin section than those found to have higher Al with respect to Si (Fig. 19).
Charlotte Woods
Charlotte Woods samples all contain tremolite, and all but CW16 contain cummingtonite/anthophyllite (Fig. 17 & 18; Appendix A.2). CW3, CW6, CW16, and CW17 contain two high-Ca phases, tremolite and magnesiohornblende (Fig. 18; Appendix A.2).
Figure 18. High-Ca amphibole species after Leake et al. (1997).
! "#! In CW cummingtonite/anthophyllite, Mg content is quite variable, with Mg/(Mg+Fe)
values from 0.69 to 0.86. Values below 0.74 are reported from CW3 only, distinguishing it from
other samples (Appendix B.3). Mn content is variable, but generally low (0.20 < MnO wt% <
1.0).
Ca-rich phases at CW also have significant compositional variability with Mg/(Mg+Fe)
from 0.75 to 0.93 and Al/(Al+Si) from below Al detection limits to 0.25. The low-Mg/high-Al
extreme of this range is accounted for by two samples, CW3 and CW16 (Appendix B.2). These
are also the only CW samples to have Cr above the detection limit (Cr2O3 wt% > 0.2) (Appendix
B.2).
!"#$%
!Figure 19. Acicular low-Al tremolite in PA1 [cross-polarized light, 4.8mm field of view (40x)].
! "#!
Figure 20. Cr content in high-Ca amphiboles. Quarry sample variation is represented by ellipses [PA (0), LO (0), and CW (0)] and the dashed line shows Cr2O3 detection limit.
Live Oak
Live Oak Quarry amphiboles have similar compositional ranges as those at CW (Figs. 20, 21, &
22; Appendices B.2 & B.3). Amphibole-bearing samples contain cummingtonite/anthophyllite, and all but LO67 have tremolite in addition (Figs. 17 & 18; Appendix A.2). Samples LO123,
LO272, and LO279 were found to have a second Ca amphibole, magnesiohornblende (Fig. 18;
Appendix A.2). LO195 contains no amphibole.
Cummintonite/anthophyllite in LO samples is similar in Mg content to CW samples, with
Mg/(Mg+Fe) values from 0.70 to 0.86 (Fig. 22; Appendix B.3). Mn is consistently low (0.20 <
MnO wt% < 0.75), except for LO279 and LO310 (1.0 < MnO wt% < 1.5) (Appendix B.3). The
! "#! high-Mn analyses represent trace, very fine-grained amphiboles, and the only low-Ca grains encountered in these LO279 and LO310.
Ca amphiboles in LO samples follow similar trends. Mg/(Mg+Fe) values are similar to
CW, ranging from 0.75 to 0.94, and Al/(Al+Si) is generally higher, from below
Al detection limits to 0.42 (Fig. 21; Appendix B.2). Once again, low-Mg and high-Al analyses occur in magnesiohornblende-bearing samples, LO123 and LO272, which also have detectable
Cr (Cr2O3 wt% > 0.2) (Appendix B.2).
Artifacts
Artifact amphiboles largely fall within the compositional range defined by the quarry samples (Figs. 20, 21, & 22; Appendices B.2 & B.3). All amphibole-bearing artifact samples are found to have both tremolite and cummingtonite/anthophyllite, and A1 and A3 also contain magnesiohornblende (Figs. 17 & 18; Appendix A.2). A7 was observed to have trace amphibole that was shown to be low-Ca based on microprobe spectrometer scans, but all grains encountered were too small to conduct reliable analyses on. Sample A9 has no amphibole.
Low-Ca amphiboles from artifact samples show a range of Mg content similar to those at
LO and CW [0.70 < Mg/(Mg+Fe) < 0.85] (Fig. 22; Appendix B.3). MnO wt% between 1.0 and
2.5 distinguishes the Ocmulgee samples A4, A6, A7 and A8, while the remainder of samples fall within the low-Mn range typical of quarry samples (0.2 < MnO wt% < 1.0) (Fig. 22; Appendix
B.3). One point from A3 is the only low-Ca amphibole encountered to have Mn below detection limits (Fig. 22; Appendix B.3), although nothing distinguishes the grain in thin section.
Artifact tremolite and magnesiohornblende are largely indistinguishable from the high-Ca amphiboles at LO and CW based on chemistry [0.82< Mg/(Mg+Fe) < 0.94; Al below detection limits < Al/(Al+Si) < 0.18] (Fig. 21; Appendix B.2). The magnesiohornblende in A1 is notable
! "#!
Figure 21. Al content in high-Ca amphiboles. Quarry sample variation is represented by ellipses [PA (0), LO (0), and CW (0)].
! "#!
Figure 22. Mn content in low-Ca amphiboles. Quarry sample variation is represented by ellipses [PA (0), LO (0), and CW (0)] and the dashed line shows MnO detection limit.
in having high Cr (0.75 < Cr2O3 wt% < 1.4) and Mg and Al contents very similar to CW3 (Fig.
20; Appendix B.2). A6 occupies an intermediate range of Mg/(Mg+Fe) and Al/(Al+Si), similar to some magnesiohornblende-bearing quarry samples, and also has detectable Cr (Figs. 21 & 20;
Appendix B.2).
Oxides
Mineral chemistry data for oxides identify magnetite, ilmenite, and rutile in quarry and artifact samples. Ilmenite is generally less abundant and finer-grained than magnetite (Fig. 23).
The ratio of ferrous (Fe+2) to ferric (Fe+3) Fe along with Cr content in magnetites and Mn/Mg content in ilmenites serve to best distinguish between samples (Figs. 24 Figs. 25; Appendices
B.4 & B.5).
! "#! Pacolet
Oxide phases in Pacolet Quarry samples were found to be magnetite and ilmenite. Every
PA sample contains magnetite, and all but PA4 and PA5 contain ilmenite (Appendix A.2).
Figure 23. Backscatter electron image showing ilmenite (Il, dk. gray) with magnetite (Mt, lt. gray). From CW-17.
PA magnetites show the greatest variability in Fe+2/(Fe+2+Fe+3) as well as in Cr content.
+2 +2 +3 Compositions range from all ferrous Fe [Fe /(Fe +Fe ) = 0.0; hematite] with 30.5 wt% Cr2O3
+2 +2 +3 to half ferrous Fe [Fe /(Fe +Fe ) = 0.5; magnetite] with Cr below detection limits (Cr2O3 wt%
! "#! < 0.13). This broad range of iron oxide compositions is greater than what is observed at LO and
CW (Fig. 24; Appendix B.4).
Ilmenite in PA samples has all ferric Fe [Fe+2/(Fe+2+Fe+3) = 1.0] as well as distinctly high
Mn (5.7 < MnO wt% < 14.4). No ilmenite in PA samples was found to have Mg above detection limits (Fig. 25; Appendix B.5).
Figure 24. Fe+3 versus Cr in iron oxides. Quarry sample variation is represented by ellipses [PA (0), LO (0), and CW (0)] and the dashed line shows Cr2O3 detection limit.
! ""! Charlotte Woods
Magnetite, ilmenite, and rutile were identified at Charlotte Woods. Both magnetite and ilmenite were found in all CW samples except for CW16. Samples CW1, CW3, and CW16 all contain rutile (Appendix A.2).
Magnetite in CW samples shows the least variability of any quarry with the exception of one analysis from CW3 identifying hematite [Fe+2/(Fe+2+Fe+3) = 0.0] (Appendix B.4). All other analyses show chromian magnetite with ferric/ferrous Fe ratios from 0.43 to 0.48 and Cr between
1.2 and 3.8 wt% Cr2O3.
CW ilmenites were also found to be relatively homogeneous with one major exception.
Ferric/Ferrous ratios for all analyses range from 0.96 to 1.0, and Mn content varies from 0.9 to
3.4 wt% MnO. Mg is below detection limits in nearly all samples except for two analyses of
CW6 ilmenite, which show distinctly high Mg (MgO wt% > 4.0) (Appendix B.5).
Live Oak
Live Oak Quarry oxides are magnetite, ilmenite, and rutile. All samples contain magnetite and ilmenite. LO123 and LO272 additionally contain rutile (Appendix A.2).
Compositional variability in LO magnetite is greater than at CW, but less than in PA samples (Fig. 24; Appendix B.4). Fe+2/(Fe+2+Fe+3) values fall between 0.4 and 0.5, and Cr ranges from below detection limits to 5.3 wt% Cr2O3, indicating the presence of magnetite and chromian magnetite.
Ilmenite at LO is distinct from that in PA and CW samples (Fig. 25; Appendix B.5).
Ferric/ferrous ratios are generally lower [Fe+2/(Fe+2+Fe+3) < 0.97], and Mn exhibits a broad range from 0.46 to 6.5 wt% MnO. Most distinct are the intermediate values of Mg (0.5 < MgO wt% <
! "#! 2.0) that increase with higher Mn content (Fig. 25; Appendix B.5). Select analyses from LO303 and LO310 are an exception to this, having Mn greater than 4 wt% MnO and no detectable Mg.
Figure 25. Mg versus Mn in ilmenite. Quarry sample variation is represented by ellipses [PA (0), LO (0), and CW (0)]and dashed lines show detection limits for MnO and MgO.
Artifacts
Artifact oxide analyses reveal all samples to have both magnetite and ilmenite, with the exception of A1 and A9, which have rutile only (Appendix A.2). No other samples were found to have rutile.
Magnetite in the artifact samples is similar to that at CW and LO (Fig. 24; Appendix
B.4). The Ocmulgee samples (except A5) and A2, show Fe+2/(Fe+2+Fe+3) between 0.43 and
! "#! +2 0.47, and have moderate Cr content (1.9 < Cr2O3 wt% < 3.4). A10 stands out as having less Fe
+2 +2 +3 [0.39 < Fe /(Fe +Fe ) < 0.42] and more Cr (3.8 < Cr2O3 wt% > 5.2) (Fig. 24; Appendix B.4).
+2 A3 analyses show the opposite trend with lower Cr and higher Fe [Cr2O3 wt% = 1.3;
+2 +2 +3 Fe /(Fe +Fe ) = 0.475]. Finally, A5 plots alongside low-Cr LO samples [Cr2O3 wt% < 0.6;
Fe+2/(Fe+2+Fe+3) > 0.475] (Fig. 24; Appendix B.4).
Ilmenite analyses best serve to distinguish artifact samples. The Oconee samples (A2 and
A3) both have moderate Mn content (2.9 < MnO wt% < 5.6) and Mg below detection limits.
Samples A5 and A10 plot together with low, detectable values for Mn (0.5 < MnO wt % < 1.5) and moderate Mg content (1.6 < MgO wt% < 2.8), but are distinct from one another (Fig. 25;
Appendix B.5). Ocmulgee samples other than A5 (A4, A6, A7, A8) show high Mn and moderate Mg (4.2 < MnO wt % < 9.1; 0.89 < MgO wt% < 1.9), and having more Mn per Mg than the LO samples defining the positive correlation between the two elements (Fig. 25;
Appendix B.5).
X-RAY DIFFRACTION (XRD)
Determination of sample mineralogy through XRD was found to be inconsistent compared to species identification based on optical microscopy and EMPA. Talc and chlorite are identified in all samples, and amphibole is identified only in those samples observed to contain amphibole in thin section (Appendix A.2).
Serpentine was difficult to identify due to the coincidence of its basal reflections (00l) with the even-ordered basal reflections of chlorite [(002), (004)] in 2! space. Asymmetry in the
3.56 Å peak [serpentine (002); chlorite (004)] was used to identify the lizardite variety of serpentine in samples PA3 and PA7 (Appendix A.3).
! "#! Amphibole speciation, however, was inconsistent with optical and compositional data.
Cummungtonite/anthophyllite was possibly identified in two PA samples (PA3, PA7), although no samples from the quarry were found to have any low-Ca amphibole based on EMPA data and optical observations (Appendix A.2). XRD could not confirm the presence of low-Ca amphibole previously observed in LO272 and CW6 or the presence of tremolite in CW1 (Appendix A.2).
Magnesiohornblende was not identified in any samples, however, it is likely that the peaks identified as tremolite could also represent magnesiohornblende.
Oxide and sulfide phases that comprise up to 16 modal percent of the quarry samples were not identified (Appendix A.2). The absence of oxides and sulfides may be the result of density separation. Ground samples were suspended in water and transferred between containers as part of the particle size reduction procedure, and heavy minerals may have fallen out of suspension and been unintentionally excluded from the final <10µm powders.
Determining heavy cation content in chlorite from basal reflection intensity ratios proved to be inaccurate and imprecise based on measured microprobe values (Appendix A.3). Typically a correction factor is applied to I(001) and I(003) if asymmetry exists between the two octahedral sheets (Brindley and Brown, 1980). D values for the study samples range from -0.27 to 0.42, but this was considered negligible, and no correction factor was applied to determine total heavy cation content. This could potentially account for inconsistencies with EMPA data.
Comparisons of I(00l) ratios following Kohl et al. (1979) were unable to distinguish between quarries (Appendix A.3). Inter- and intra-quarry variability, as shown by coefficients of varience (CV) in Appendix A.3, is too significant to make distinctions between sample quarries based on these criteria. These ratios were able to distinguish the Stalling’s Island net sinker
(61/MU01) reported by Kohl et al. (1979) from the sample quarries, however (Appendix A.3).
! "#! Overall, the utility of XRD techniques in characterizing and distinguishing sources of soapstone in the Southeastern Piedmont is limited based on these preliminary investigations.
Mineralogy could not be comprehensively determined in comparison with optical and EMPA identification (Appendix A.2), heavy cation content could not be accurately predicted (Appendix
A.3), and I(00l) ratios were unable to distinguish quarries (Appendix A.3).
! "#!
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
The data show that the quarries and artifacts may be distinguished or grouped based on a number of mineralogic criteria. Based on the modal and compositional data, artifact samples can variably be grouped with each other and/or quarry samples, or can essentially stand alone.
Given the variation observed at the study quarries, artifacts that are modally or compositionally dissimilar could in fact be from the same source. Conversely, two very similar artifacts may be from different sources, as significant overlap is observed between quarries. Because of this, and considering the abundance of unsampled ultramafic bodies in the region (Fig. 1), definite determinations of artifact provenance cannot be made. Perhaps most reliable are assertions that a given artifact is unlikely to have come from one of the three study quarries. Still, this rests on the assumption that the quarry samples are representative of all variation that exists in those quarries.
QUARRIES
Pacolet
The presence or absence of minerals, particularly amphibole species, largely sets apart the Pacolet Quarry from both the Live Oak and Charlotte Woods quarries. PA samples were found to have tremolite only, compared to the other quarry samples, which contain low-Ca amphibole or magnesiohornblende in addition to (or instead of) tremolite (Appendix A.2). PA samples are also the only quarry samples to contain serpentine or sulfides (Appendix A.2). The only PA sample to lack amphibole, PA4, contains significant serpentine (30% modal) as well as
! "#! a sulfide phase, distinguishing it from other samples that lack amphibole. Though certain distinctions based on mineral chemistry data can also be made, modal mineralogy alone is sufficient to distinguish PA from LO and CW.
Live Oak and Charlotte Woods (SSR)
The two soapstone ridge quarries are more difficult to distinguish. Mineralogy at the quarries is very similar (Appendix A.2), although modally CW samples contain more chlorite on average (Figs. 11 & 12; Appendix A.1). Amphibole compositions are also similar (Figs. 20, 21, and 22; Appendices B.2 & B.3), however, chlorite and oxide data show important distinctions.
CW chlorites are essentially bimodal with respect to Mg content. The majority of samples have Mg/(Mg+Fe) values from 0.88 to 0.93 and a minority have values less than 0.81.
LO67, LO195, and LO272 contain chlorites with intermediate Mg content [0.81 < Mg/(Mg+Fe)
< 0.88], and some LO123 chlorites have values greater than 0.93 (Appendix B.1). In all, LO shows a more continuous range of chlorite compositions with respect to Mg than does CW (Fig.
14; Appendix B.1).
Ilmenite compositions prove to be the best distinguishing factor between the SSR quarries. All LO samples were found to contain ilmenite, as were the majority of CW samples
(Appendix A.2). At CW, ilmenites have low Mg (below detection limits, MgO wt% < 0.5), except for CW6, which has high-Mg ilmenite (MgO wt% > 4.0). The majority of LO ilmenites have intermediate Mg contents from 0.5 to 2.0 wt%. The exceptions (LO303, LO310) have Mg below detection limits, but also high Mn (MnO wt% > 4.0) compared to CW (MnO wt% < 3.5)
(Appendix B.5).
! "#! ARTIFACTS
All artifacts contain low-Ca amphibole except for A9, which contains no amphibole and is very distinct (see below). Based on this, it is very unlikely that PA is the source for any artifacts analyzed unless low-Ca amphiboles are present at PA and were not sampled or identified.
Oconee
Artifacts from the Oconee drainage (A1, A2, A3) are divided, with A2 and A3 having similar mineralogy and mineral chemistry, and A1 essentially standing alone.
A2 and A3 are modally similar (Figs 10 & 12; Appendix A.1), and are compositionally similar for most phases. One exception to this is in cummingtonite/anthophyllite chemistry. A2 low-Ca amphiboles have MnO above 0.5% as well as relatively low Mg [Mg/(Mg+Fe) < 0.80], while A3 has less Mn (MnO wt% < 0.3) and more Mg [Mg/(Mg+Fe) > 0.82] (Fig. 22). A3 also has less Mn than A2 in ilmenite, and less Cr in Magnetite (Figs. 24 Figs. 25). Aside from these differences, there is much overlap in mineral compositions between the samples (Figs. 14-21;
Appendix B), and it is very possible that they are from the same source.
A2 and A3 are also similar to SSR quarry samples based on modal mineralogy and mineral compositions. While nothing totally conclusive can be said based on the available data, enough compositional overlap is present to suggest CW or LO may be potential sources (Figs.
14-24; Appendix B). Ilmenite chemistry for A2 and A3 spans the low-Mg fields defined for the two SSR quarries, and it is difficult to say whether LO or CW is the more likely source (Fig. 25).
Still, SSR is the proposed source for A2 and A3.
A1 is distinct from all other samples. It is the only sample that has low- and high-Ca amphiboles plus rutile as the sole oxide phase (Appendix A.2). Modally, A1 is chlorite-poor
! "#! (Figs. 11 & 12; Appendix A.1), and compositionally it has distinctly elevated Cr content in high-
Ca amphiboles and chlorites (Figs. 20 & 16; Appendices B.2 & B.1). It is unlikely that A1 was quarried at PA, CW, LO.
Ocmulgee
Ocmulgee artifact samples are mineralogically similar, with each sample having both high- and low-Ca amphibole (except A7), ilmenite and magnetite, in addition to talc and chlorite
(Appendix A.2). They can be subdivided into two groups when considering the modal and compositional data. Squeaking Tree samples (A6, A7, A8), along with A4, are one group of similar mineral chemistries and abundances. A5 is different from the remainder of the Ocmulgee samples and stands alone.
The larger group is chlorite-rich compared to all other samples (Figs. 11 & 12; Appendix
A.1). Compositionally, these chlorites are more Mg- and Si-poor than most of CW and PA samples, and falling between high-Mg and intermediate-Mg LO chlorites [0.85 < Mg/(Mg+Fe) <
0.90] (Fig. 14; Appendix B.1). A6 stands out as having the least Mg [Mg/(Mg+Fe) < 0.87], and
A8 has significantly less Cr than others in the group (Fig. 16, Appendix B.1).
High Mn content in low-Ca amphiboles also serves to distinguish this group. MnO wt% ranges from 0.9 to 2.5, largely separating these samples from all others (Fig. 22). Sample A7 was observed to contain low-Ca amphibole, but the grain size was too small to produce reliable microprobe analyses. Those analyses that were conducted and discarded due to low totals showed similarly high Mn content.
High Mn content is also distinctive in ilmenite for this group, ranging from 4.2 to 9.0
MnO wt%. When also considering the limited range in Mg content (0.9 < MgO wt% < 1.9), these Ocmulgee samples are very distinct from all other quarry and artifact samples (Fig. 25).
! "#! Generally, the data from these samples suggest that they may share a common source, and that it is unlikely to be one of the sampled quarries.
A5 stands alone among the Ocmulgee samples, but does show some similarities to LO quarry samples. Modally, A5 is chlorite poor (Figs. 11 & 12; Appendix 1). Compositionally, the chlorites are similar to those at SSR quarries, although A5 is somewhat distinct in having less
Cr than SSR samples (Fig. 16).
Amphibole chemistry of A5 is also similar to SSR quarry samples. Low Mn content
(MnO wt% < 0.5) in low-Ca amphiboles helps to distinguish A5 from the other Ocmulgee samples (Fig. 22, Appendix B.3).
A5 also has lower Mn in ilmenite (0.95 < MnO wt% < 1.5) than other Ocmulgee samples.
These Mn values, plus moderate Mg content (1.6 < MgO wt% < 2.8) distinguish A5 from all other samples (Fig. 25, Appendix B.5). A5 magnetite has similar Cr content as some LO samples
(Fig. 24, Appendix B.4). Based on the data, it seems unlikely that A5 and the other Ocmulgee samples have the same source. Ilmenite chemistry distinguishes the artifact from all quarries
(Fig. 25, Appendix B.5), although compositional data for other minerals and modal data suggest
LO as a potential source (Appendices B & A.1).
Satilla
The Satilla artifact samples (A9, A10) are very different from each other. Sample A9 contains talc, chlorite, and rutile only, distinguishing it from all other quarry and artifact samples
(Appendix A.2). Sample A10 is modally and compositionally similar to the SSR quarry samples, and to some extent the Oconee artifact group of A2 and A3 (Figs. 11-25; Appendix B).
Cr content in magnetite is higher in A10 than in Oconee or CW samples, and similar to high-Cr
LO samples (Fig. 24; Appendix B.4). A10 is distinguished from both SSR and Oconee samples
! "#! when considering Mn and Mg in ilmenite (Fig. 25; Appendix B.5). Based on ilmenite chemistry it is unlikely that A10 has the same source as the Oconee samples or that its source is SSR, although compositional data for other species and modal data indicate LO as a possible source
(Appendix B).
! ""!
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study show that modal mineralogy and mineral chemistry can be useful in distinguishing sources of soapstone, as well as in artifact provenancing. X-ray diffraction techniques were found to be less useful. More comprehensive sampling, supplementary analytical techniques, and a rigorous statistical treatment of the data could all improve the utility and accuracy of these methods.
Although soapstone is a relatively rare, numerous bodies have been identified throughout the crystalline provinces of the Southeast (Fig. 1), and many more undocumented occurrences are likely to exist. Ideally, all of these bodies that also show evidence of prehistoric quarrying should be sampled. Inter-source variability in modal mineralogy and mineral chemistry would then determine the usefulness of this methodology on a regional scale. It is promising, however, that this study has been able to distinguish two major Piedmont occurrences of soapstone, SSR and HGMS. In addition, these methods have largely distinguished between two proximal quarries in the SSR body, LO and CW.
Combining the study methodology with established analytical techniques would further improve provenancing efforts. Modal mineralogy and mineral chemistry data would be valuable supplements to the most current suite of analytical methods being employed to geochemically characterize soapstone (by Jones et al. (2007)). Not only would these provide additional criteria with which to distinguish or group samples, but they could also be used to help better understand the compositional variability observed when using bulk geochemical techniques.
! "#! Finally, a more extensive and comprehensive study would require a statistical treatment of the data in order to establish confidence limits and lend provenance assignments quantitative credibility. Following Kohl et al. (1979) and Truncer (1998), discriminant function analysis is proposed as the most appropriate method to treat a variety of geochemical and mineralogical data with the intention of distinguishing quarries and sourcing artifacts.
This study has been successful in recognizing inter- and intra-occurrence variability in modal mineralogy and mineral chemistry of Southeastern Piedmont soapstones. Modal mineralogy alone was able to distinguish PA quarry samples, artifacts A1 and A9 (Appendix
A.1). Mineral chemistry data, in particular ilmenite and low-Ca amphibole compositions (Figs.
25 & 22; Appendices B.5 & B.3), were able to separate sample groups from one another. The studied prehistoric soapstone quarries, PA, LO, and CW, were successfully distinguished based on these criteria, and it was determined that the majority of artifact samples most likely do not source to any of the study quarries. Two artifacts from the Oconee drainage, A2 and A3, may have originated at a SSR quarry. These results indicate that the study methodology is useful in characterizing sources of soapstone and determining artifact provenance.
! "#!
REFERENCES CITED
Allen, R.O., A.H. Luckenbach, and C.G. Holland. 1975. The application of instrumental neutron activation analysis to a study of prehistoric steatite artifacts and source materials. Archaeometry 17(1): 69-83.
Allen, Ralph, Hany Hamroush, Christopher Nagle, and William Fitzhugh. 1984. Use of Rare Earth Element analysis to study the utilization and procurement of soapstone along the Labrador Coast. Archaeological Chemistry III, pp. 3-18. Advances in Chemistry Series, 205. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.
Allen, Ralph O. and S. Edith Pennell. 1978. Rare Earth Element distribution patterns to characterize soapstone artifacts. Archaeological Chemistry II, pp. 230-257. Advances in Chemistry Series, 171. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.
Anderson, David G. and Kenneth E. Sassaman, eds. 1996. The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 526 pp.
Armstrong, J.T. 1988. Quantitative analysis of silicate and oxide minerals: comparison of Monte Carlo, ZAF and phi-rho-z procedures. Microbeam Analysis, pp. 239-256. San Francisco Press, San Francisco.
Blake, Rolland L. 1982. Amphiboles in Soapstone Ridge, Ga. US Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 8627. 17 pp.
Bloom, Jonathan A. 1991. Archaeological Data Recovery at the Charlotte Woods Soapstone Quarry (9Da248), DeKalb County, Georgia. Garrow and Associates, Inc., Atlanta. Submitted to Waste Management of Georgia, Inc., Marietta, Georgia.
Bloom, Jonathan A., Daniel T. Elliot, and Patrick H. Garrow. 1989. Archaeological Survey and Testing Within the Proposed Live Oak Landfill Expansion, Dekalb and Fulton Counties, Georgia. Garrow and Associates, Inc., Atlanta. Submitted to Waste Management of Georgia, Inc., Marietta, Georgia. 125 pp.
Bray, I.S.J. 1994. Geochemical Methods for Provenance Studies of Steatite. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.
Brindley, G.W. and G. Brown, eds. 1980. Crystal Structures of Clay Minerals and their X-ray Identification. Mineralogical Society Monograph No. 5, London. 495 pp.
! "#! Butler, J. Robert. 1989. Review and classification of ultramafic bodies in the Piedmont of the Carolinas. Ultramafic Rocks of the Appalachian Piedmont, pp. 19-31. Geological Society of America Special Paper 231, Boulder, Colorado.
Caldwell, Joseph R. 1958. Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. American Anthropological Association. 88 pp.
Coleman, Robert G. 1977. Ophiolites: Ancient Oceanic Lithosphere?. Springer-Verlag, New York. 229 pp.
Custer, J. F. 1984. The Paleoecology of the Late Archaic: Exchange and Adaptation. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 54: 32-47.
DePratter, Chester B. 1975. The Archaic in Georgia. Early Georgia 3: 1-16.
Dickens, Roy S., Jr., Linda Carnes, and Steven W. Grable. 1979. Archaeological and Historical Survey Proposed Browning-Ferris Industries Landfill Site DeKalb County, Georgia. Manuscript on file, Garrow and Associates, Atlanta.
Droop, G.T.R. 1987. A general equation for estimating Fe 3+ concentrations in ferromagnesian silicates and oxides from microprobe analyses using stoichiometric criteria. Mineralogical Magazine 51(3): 431-435.
Elliot, Daniel. 1986. The Live Oak Soapstone Quarry, DeKalb County, Georgia. Garrow and Associates, Inc., Atlanta. Submitted to Waste Management of Georgia, Inc., Marietta, Georgia. 124 pp.
Ferguson, Terry A. 1980. Prehistoric Soapstone Procurement in Northwestern South Carolina. Unpublished MS thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 131 pp.
Frey, Frederick A. 1984. Rare Earth Element abundances in upper mantle rocks. Rare Earth Element Geochemistry, pp. 153-204. Developments in Geochemistry 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Funk, R.E. and B.E. Rippeteau. 1977. Adaptation, Community, and Change in Upper Susquehannah Prehistory. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology 3. Man in the Northeast, Inc., George’s Mill.
Garrison, Ervan G. 2003. Techniques in Archaeological Geology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 304 pp.
Hart, John P., Eleanora A. Reber, Robert G. Thompson, and Robert Lusteck. 2008. Taking variation seriously: testing the steatite mast-processing hypothesis with microbotanical data from the Hunter’s Home Site, New York. American Antiquity 73(4): 729-741.
! "#! Hess, H.H. 1955. Serpentines, orogeny, and epiorogeny. Crust of the Earth- a Symposium, pp. 392-407. Geological Society of America Special Paper 62.
Hey, M.H. 1954. A new review of the chlorites. Mineralogical Magazine 30: 277-292.
Higgins, Michael W., Robert L. Atkins, Thomas J. Crawford, Ralph F. Crawford, III, Rebekah Brooks, and Robert B. Cook. 1988. The Structure, Stratigraphy, Tectonostratigraphy, and Evolution of the Southernmost Part of the Appalachian Orogen. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1475. 173pp.
Holmes, William H. 1897. Stone implements of the Potomac-Chesapeake Tidewater Province, pp. 13-152. Fifteenth Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology. Washington.
Hopkins, Oliver B. 1914. A Report on the Asbestos, Talc, and Soapstone Deposits of Georgia. Geological Survey of Georgia Bulletin 29. 319 pp.
Ige, O.A. and Samuel E. Swanson. 2008. Provenance studies of Esie sculptural soapstone from southwestern Nigeria. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 1553-1565.
Jones, R.E., V. Kilikoglou, V. Olive, Y. Bassiakos, R. Ellam, I.S.J Bray, and D.C.W. Sanderson. 2007. A new protocol for the chemical characterization of steatite – two case studies in Europe: the Shetland Islands and Crete. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 626-641.
Klein, M.J. 1997. The transition from soapstone bowls to Marcey Creek ceramics in the Middle Atlantic region: a consideration of vessel technology, ethnographic data, and regional exchange. Archaeology of Eastern North America 25: 143-158.
Kohl, P.L., G. Harbottle, and E.V. Sayre. 1979. Physical and chemical analyses of soft stone vessels from Southwest Asia. Archaeometry 21(2): 131-159.
Leake, Bernard E., et al. 1997. Nomenclature of amphiboles: report of the subcommittee on amphibole of the International Mineralogical Association Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names. The Canadian Mineralogist 35: 219-256.
Lowman, D.W. and S.L Wheatley. 1970. Archaic soapstone quarries in Upper South Carolina. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Notebook 2(6/7): 6-12.
Luckenbach, A.H., C.G. Holland, and R.O. Allen. 1975. Soapstone artifacts: tracing prehistoric trade patterns in Virginia. Science 187: 57-58.
Misra, K.C. and F.B. Keller. 1978. Ultramafic bodies in the southern Appalachians: a review. American Journal of Science 278: 389-418.
Mittwede, Steven K. 1988. Ultramafites, melanges, and stitching granites as suture markers in the central Piedmont of the southern Appalachians. Journal of Geology 96: 693-708.
! "#!
Mittwede, Steven K. 1989. The Hammet Grove Meta-igneous Suite: a possible ophiolite in the northwestern South Carolina Piedmont. Ultramafic Rocks of the Appalachian Piedmont, pp. 45-62. Geological Society of America Special Paper 231, Boulder, Colorado.
Mittwede, Steven K., Magne Ødegård, and W.E. Sharp. 1987. Major chemical characteristics of the Hammet Grove Meta-igneous Suite, northwestern South Carolina. Southeastern Geology 28(1): 49-63. Moffat, D. and S.J. Butler. 1986. Rare Earth Element distribution patterns in Shetland steatite – consequences for artifact provenancing studies. Archaeometry 28(1): 101-115.
Naldrett, A.J. 1966. Talc-carbonate alteration of some serpentinized ultramafic rocks south of Timmins, Ontario. Journal of Petrology 7(3): 489-499.
Overton, James M. 1969. A survey of soapstone quarry sites. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Notebook 1(4).
Peck, Rodney M. 1981. The Pacolet River Site: a South Carolina soapstone quarry. The Chesopian 19(1/2): 39-43.
Pickering, Sam M., Jr., and Frederick J. Schneeberger, III. 1972. General geology of the Soapstone Ridge mafic intrusive area. Georgia Academy of Science 30(2): 78-79.
Raymond, Loren A. 2002. Petrology: The Study of Igneous, Sedimentary, and Metamorphic Rocks. McGraw-Hill, 2002. 720 pp.
Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1993. Early Pottery in the Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 285 pp.
Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1997. Refining soapstone vessel chronology in the Southeast. Early Georgia 25: 1-20.
Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1999. A Southeastern perspective on soapstone vessel technology in the Northeast, pp. 76-95. The Archaeological Northeast. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, CT.
Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2006. Dating and explaining soapstone vessels: a comment on Truncer. American Antiquity 71: 141-156.
Sloane, Earle. 1908. A Catalogue of the Mineral Localities of South Carolina. South Carolina Geological Survey, Series IV, Bulletin 2. Gonzales and Bryan, Columbia, SC.
Swanson, Samuel E. 2001. Ultramafic rocks of the Spruce Pine area, western North Carolina: a sensitive guide to fluid migration and metamorphism. Southeastern Geology 40: 163- 182.
! "#! Truncer, J., M.D. Glascock, and H. Neff. 1998. Steatite source characterization in eastern North America: new results using instrumental neutron activation analysis. Archaeometry 40(1): 23-44.
Truncer, James. 2006. Taking variation seriously: the case of steatite vessel manufacture. American Antiquity 71(1): 157-163.
Turner, Aleta V., Samuel E. Swanson, and Michael F. Roden. 1998. Mineralogical control on archaeological soapstone bowl manufacture. GSA Abstracts with Programs, Southeastern Section: 63-64.
Vermont Soapstone Company. 2008. http://www.vermontsoapstone.com/.
Vincent, Harold R., Keith I. McConnell, and Philip C. Perley. 1990. Geology of Selected Mafic and Ultramafic Rocks of Georgia: A Review. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Information Circular 82. Atlanta.
Warner, Richard D., Villard S. Griffin, Jefferey C. Steiner, Roman A. Schmitt, and J. Gregory Bryan. 1989. Ultramafic chlorite-tremolite-olivine schists: three bodies from the Inner Piedmont Belt, South Carolina. Ultramafic Rocks of the Appalachian Piedmont, pp. 63- 74. Geological Society of America Special Paper 231, Boulder, Colorado.
Zane, A. and Z. Weiss. 1998. A procedure for classifying rock-forming chlorites based on microprobe data. Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei 9(9): 51-56.
! "#!
APPENDICES
! "#!
APPENDIX A
MINERALOGY AND X-RAY DIFFRACTION (XRD)
! "#! A.1 - MODAL MINERALOGY Modes based on 300 points/sample
PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PA5 PA7
Talc 69.0% 74.0% 8.0% 42.7% 23.7% 51.7% Chlorite 15.3% 11.7% 18.0% 16.7% 7.0% 12.3% Amphibole 9.3% 9.3% 56.7% - 67.0% 20.3% Serpentine - - 16.3% 29.7% - 9.7% Opaque 6.3% 6.3% 1.0% 11.0% 2.3% 6.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
LO67 LO123 LO195 LO272 LO279 LO303 LO310
Talc 43.3% 51.3% 83.3% 32.3% 47.7% 60.3% 21.7% Chlorite 14.0% 14.7% 11.7% 12.3% 28.0% 5.3% 26.0% Amphibole 40.3% 33.0% - 53.7% 8.3% 25.0% 40.3% Serpentine ------Opaque 2.3% 1.0% 5.0% 1.7% 16.3% 9.3% 12.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.3% 100.0% 100.0%
CW1 CW3 CW6 CW13 CW15 CW16 CW17
Talc 45.0% 14.0% 4.0% 35.7% 35.8% 23.0% 28.0% Chlorite 30.3% 32.3% 20.0% 30.7% 17.3% 30.3% 22.0% Amphibole 17.7% 51.7% 60.3% 27.3% 24.0% 46.3% 44.0% Serpentine ------Opaque 7.0% 2.3% 15.7% 6.3% 23.0% 0.3% 6.0% Total 100.0% 100.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10
Talc 71.3% 20.0% 28.7% 26.3% 53.7% 39.3% 47.0% 24.0% 65.3% 9.7% Chlorite 4.7% 31.7% 31.7% 37.3% 5.0% 46.7% 47.7% 40.3% 28.3% 22.0% Amphibole 23.0% 39.0% 29.3% 26.7% 23.7% 9.3% - 28.0% - 51.7% Serpentine ------Opaque 1.0% 9.7% 10.3% 9.7% 17.7% 4.7% 5.3% 7.7% 6.3% 16.7% Total 100.0% 100.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
76 A.2 - MINERALOGY x - observed in this section or EMPA + - observed in XRD spectra ? - presence inconclusive absed on XRD
PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PA5 PA7
Talc x x+ x+ x x x+
Chlorite Clinochlore x x+ x+ x x x+ Penninite x x Sheridanite x Ripidolite Pycnochlorite
Amphibole Tremolite x x+ x x+ Magnesiohornblende Cummingtonite/Anthophyllite ? ?
Serpentine x x x
Oxides Magnetite x x x x x x Illmenite x x x x Rutile
Sulfides x x x
77 A.2 - MINERALOGY x - observed in this section or EMPA + - observed in XRD spectra ? - presence inconclusive absed on XRD
LO67 LO123 LO195 LO272 LO279 LO303 LO310
Talc x x+ x+ x+ x x x
Chlorite Clinochlore x x+ x+ x+ x x x Penninite x x Sheridanite x x Ripidolite Pycnochlorite
Amphibole Tremolite x+ x+ x x x Magnesiohornblende x x x Cummingtonite/Anthophyllite x x+ x x x x
Serpentine
Oxides Magnetite x x x x x x x Illmenite x x x x x x x Rutile x x
Sulfides
78 A.2 - MINERALOGY x - observed in this section or EMPA + - observed in XRD spectra ? - presence inconclusive absed on XRD
CW1 CW3 CW6 CW13 CW15 CW16 CW17
Talc x+ x x+ x x x+ x
Chlorite Clinochlore x+ x x+ x x + x Penninite x x x x x x Sheridanite x Ripidolite x Pycnochlorite x x
Amphibole Tremolite x? x x+ x x x+ x Magnesiohornblende x x x x Cummingtonite/Anthophyllite x+ x x? x x x
Serpentine
Oxides Magnetite x x x x x x Illmenite x x x x x x Rutile x x x
Sulfides
79 A.2 - MINERALOGY x - observed in this section or EMPA + - observed in XRD spectra ? - presence inconclusive absed on XRD
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10
Talc x x x x x x x x x x
Chlorite Clinochlore x x x x x x x x x x Penninite x x x Sheridanite x Ripidolite Pycnochlorite
Amphibole Tremolite x x x x x x x x Magnesiohornblende x x Cummingtonite/Anthophyllite x x x x x x x x x
Serpentine
Oxides Magnetite x x x x x x x x Illmenite x x x x x x x x Rutile x x
Sulfides
80 A.3 - X-RAY DIFFRACTION (XRD)
Relative intensities of basal reflections Average heavy cation content from EMPA
OO1 OO2 OO3 OO4 OO5 Fe+Cr (# of atoms)
CW1 27.3 31.6 18.9 16.5 4.0 CW1 1.141 CW6 72.1 100.0 53.8 39.6 7.9 CW6 0.927 CW16 28.0 50.9 22.5 28.6 6.3 CW16 2.110 PA2 6.6 5.8 5.2 4.9 1.3 PA2 1.744 PA3 63.7 100.0 62.9 63.2 13.6 PA3 1.172 PA7 12.7 23.1 13.0 16.5 3.6 PA7 1.162 LO123 17.9 31.8 16.8 20.5 4.5 LO123 0.946 LO195 5.4 5.6 3.8 4.1 1.1 LO195 1.564 LO272 7.5 14.7 8.3 6.4 1.7 LO272 1.833
Kohl et. al. (1979) 61/MU01 2.950 7.600 6.550 9.050 1.800
Intensity ratios to determine distribution of heavy cations Intensity ratios to determine total heavy cation content
D OO3/OO1 OO3/OO5 y (OO2+OO4)/(OO1+OO3) (OO2+OO4)/OO3
CW1 0.27 0.69 4.73 -0.08 1.04 2.54 CW6 0.16 0.75 6.81 0.39 1.11 2.59 CW16 0.05 0.80 3.57 3.00 1.57 3.53 PA2 0.08 0.79 4.00 -1.11 0.91 2.06 PA3 -0.25 0.99 4.63 1.51 1.29 2.59 PA7 -0.31 1.02 3.61 2.84 1.54 3.05 LO123 -0.18 0.94 3.73 2.68 1.51 3.11 LO195 0.25 0.70 3.45 0.02 1.05 2.55 LO272 -0.42 1.11 4.88 1.78 1.34 2.54
Kohl et. al. (1979) 61/MU01 -1.46 2.22 3.64 3.80 1.75 2.54
Brindley & Brown (1980) Brindley & Brown (1980) 2 0.24 2.05 0 1.02 2.35 1 0.41 2.84 2 1.40 3.29 0 0.75 3.90 4 1.86 4.35 -1 1.50 5.37 6 2.39 5.60 -2 3.64 7.44 8 2.98 6.98
81 A.3 - X-RAY DIFFRACTION (XRD)
Basal reflection intensity ratios
OO1/OO4 OO2/OO4 OO3/OO4 OO5/OO4 OO1/OO2 OO3/OO2 OO5/OO3 OO3/OO1 (OO2+OO4)/(OO1+OO3)
CW1 1.65 1.92 1.15 0.24 0.86 0.60 0.21 0.69 1.04 CW6 1.82 2.53 1.36 0.20 0.72 0.54 0.15 0.75 1.11 CW16 0.98 1.78 0.79 0.22 0.55 0.44 0.28 0.80 1.57 PA2 1.35 1.18 1.06 0.27 1.14 0.90 0.25 0.79 0.91 PA3 1.01 1.58 1.00 0.22 0.64 0.63 0.22 0.99 1.29 PA7 0.77 1.40 0.79 0.22 0.55 0.56 0.28 1.02 1.54 LO123 0.87 1.55 0.82 0.22 0.56 0.53 0.27 0.94 1.51 LO195 1.32 1.37 0.93 0.27 0.96 0.68 0.29 0.70 1.05 LO272 1.17 2.30 1.30 0.27 0.51 0.56 0.20 1.11 1.34
Kohl et. al. (1979) 61/MU01 0.33 0.84 0.72 0.20 0.39 0.86 0.27 2.22 1.75
CW cv 0.30 0.19 0.26 0.10 0.22 0.15 0.31 0.07 0.23 PA cv 0.28 0.14 0.15 0.12 0.41 0.25 0.12 0.14 0.26 LO cv 0.20 0.28 0.25 0.11 0.37 0.13 0.17 0.22 0.18 Total cv 0.29 0.26 0.21 0.11 0.31 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.19
82 A.3 - X-RAY DIFFRACTION (XRD)
F<6==0-26&.E&)*(&+,-./01234&3;1&+7@&+,-./01234&43602&70386&93:.;<& 0"
'" 345678(!"9" 34:;6"<1/&$=>" )$%*+', !"#"$%&''( " ?:"@A" -."#"$%/&/0/" *1BCD$1" <@:E8"(F%"G8%>" 1/+/=" 2"
!"##$%&'&!"##(%& ?H"
IJ"
1"
KL"