Geochemistry and Provenance of Chert Stone Tools, Coshocton County, Ohio
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GEOCHEMISTRY AND PROVENANCE OF CHERT STONE TOOLS, COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO A thesis submitted To Kent State University in partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science by Diana Simone December 2019 © Copyright All rights reserved Thesis written by Diana Simone B.S., Kent State University, 2017 M.S. Kent State University, 2019 Approved by , Advisor Jeremy C. Williams , Chair, Department of Geology Daniel K. Holm , Dean, College of Arts and Sciences James L. Blank Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS--------------------------------------------------------------------------iii LIST OF FIGURES---------------------------------------------------------------------------------iv LIST OF TABLES----------------------------------------------------------------------------------vi AKNOWLEDGMENTS---------------------------------------------------------------------------vii CHAPTERS 1. PROPOSAL OF RESEARCH-------------------------------------------------------------1 1.1 INTRODUCTION----------------------------------------------------------------------1 1.2 SAMPLES-------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 1.2.1 Site-------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 1.2.2 Collection-----------------------------------------------------------------------6 1.3 METHODS------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 1.4 PREPARATION FOR XRF-----------------------------------------------------------7 1.4.1 Pulverizing----------------------------------------------------------------------7 1.4.2 Loss on Ignition----------------------------------------------------------------7 1.4.3 Beading--------------------------------------------------------------------------9 1.5 X-RAY FLUORESCENCE-----------------------------------------------------------9 1.6 VISUAL DERIVATIVE SPECTROSCOPY--------------------------------------10 1.7 REFERENCES -----------------------------------------------------------------------13 2. GEOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS----------------------------------------------------------15 2.1 INTRODUCTION--------------------------------------------------------------------15 2.2 METHODS-----------------------------------------------------------------------------20 iii 2.3 PREPARATION FOR XRF---------------------------------------------------------20 2.3.1 Pulverizing--------------------------------------------------------------------20 2.3.2 Loss on Ignition--------------------------------------------------------------20 2.3.3 Beading------------------------------------------------------------------------21 2.4 RESULTS------------------------------------------------------------------------------22 2.4.1 Na2O---------------------------------------------------------------------------22 2.4.2 TiO2----------------------------------------------------------------------------23 2.4.3 CaO-----------------------------------------------------------------------------24 2.5 TERNARY DIAGRAMS------------------------------------------------------------25 2.6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS--------------------------------------------------------27 2.6.1 All Three Sample Sets: The Artifacts, The UM, and the Other N.A. Outcrops-----------------------------------------------27 2.6.2 The Artifacts versus the Upper Mercer------------------------------------29 2.6.3 The Artifacts versus the Other North American Outcrops--------------30 2.7 PROVENANCE-----------------------------------------------------------------------31 2.7.1 Silica Content.----------------------------------------------------------------31 2.7.2 Statistical Analysis-----------------------------------------------------------32 2.7.3 Conclusions-------------------------------------------------------------------33 2.7.4 Future Work-------------------------------------------------------------------34 2.8 CONCLUSIONS----------------------------------------------------------------------35 2.9 REFERENCES CITED---------------------------------------------------------------36 3. SPECTROSCOPY ANALYSIS---------------------------------------------------------37 3.1 INTRODUCTION TO SPECTROSCOPY----------------------------------------37 iv 3.2 METHODS-----------------------------------------------------------------------------39 3.2.1 Spectroscopy------------------------------------------------------------------39 3.2.2 Verimax Principal Component Analysis----------------------------------39 3.3 RESULTS------------------------------------------------------------------------------40 3.3.1 Spectroscopy------------------------------------------------------------------40 3.3.2 Verimax Principal Component Analysis----------------------------------43 3.3.3 Statistical Analysis-----------------------------------------------------------47 3.4 DISCUSSION-------------------------------------------------------------------------49 3.4.1 Spectroscopy------------------------------------------------------------------49 3.4.2 VPCA and Statistical Analysis---------------------------------------------49 3.5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK----------------------------------------51 3.6 REFERENCES CITED---------------------------------------------------------------52 REFERENCES-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------53 APPENDIX---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------56 I. Data---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------56 II. SPSS Kruskal-Wallis Results---------------------------------------------------------------------61 III. Geochemical Standard Operating Procedure----------------------------------------------------74 IV. Visual Derivative Spectroscopy on SPSS Standard Operating Procedure-----------------115 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Conchoidal Fracture on a Stone Tool Artifact-----------------------------------------------1 Figure 1.2: Flow Chart for Formation of Chert Possibilities--------------------------------------------3 Figure 1.3: Google Map of Welling Archaeological Site------------------------------------------------5 Figure 1.4: Map Coshocton County in Ohio---------------------------------------------------------------5 Figure 1.5: Picture of a Konica Minolta Spectrophotometer and Set Up----------------------------11 Figure 2.1: Welling Site Artifact--------------------------------------------------------------------------15 Figure 2.2: Upper Mercer Chert Color Variation--------------------------------------------------------16 Figure 2.3: Polished Flint from Alibates Flint Quarries------------------------------------------------17 Figure 2.4: Map of Welling Archaeological Site in Ohio----------------------------------------------19 Figure 2.5: Na2O Scatter Plot------------------------------------------------------------------------------23 Figure 2.6: TiO2 Scatter Plot-------------------------------------------------------------------------------24 Figure 2.7: CaO Scatter Plot-------------------------------------------------------------------------------25 Figure 2.8: Ternary Diagram-------------------------------------------------------------------------------26 Figure 2.9: SiO2 Box and Whisker Plot-------------------------------------------------------------------28 Figure 2.10: CaO Box and Whisker Plot-----------------------------------------------------------------29 Figure 3.1: Spectral Data Before and After Taking the 1st Derivative--------------------------------38 Figure 3.2: Spectral Wavelengths of the Artifacts------------------------------------------------------41 Figure 3.3: Spectral Wavelengths of the Upper Mercer------------------------------------------------42 Figure 3.4: Spectral Wavelengths of the Other North American Artifacts---------------------------42 Figure 3.5: General Reference of Graph Quadrants-----------------------------------------------------43 Figure 3.6: Artifacts and Upper Mercer, VPCA1 versus VPCA2 ------------------------------------44 Figure 3.7: Artifacts and Upper Mercer, VPCA2 versus VPCA3-------------------------------------45 Figure 3.8: Artifacts and the Other NA Outcrops, VPCA1 versus VPCA2--------------------------46 Figure 3.9: Artifacts and the Other NA Outcrops, VPCA2 versus VPCA3--------------------------47 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Kruskal-Wallis Hypothesis Chart for All Three Sets of Samples------------------------27 Table 2.2: Kruskal-Wallis Hypothesis Chart for Artifacts versus UM-------------------------------30 Table 2.3: Kruskal-Wallis Hypothesis Chart for Artifacts versus Other NA Outcrops------------30 Table 3.1: Comparison of the Means ---------------------------------------------------------------------48 Table 3.2: Comparison of the Standard Deviations-----------------------------------------------------48 vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to take time to thank the many that have helped me through the process of getting my masters in geology. First and foremost, I want to recognize all of you at Kent State that were there for support, extra knowledge, or just someone to talk to. To Dr. Jeremy Williams, you gave me the opportunity to continue my education and taught me indispensable knowledge. To Dr. Palmer, you were always there to answer my numerous questions and lead me in the right direction to become a good scientist. To Dr. Metin, you walked me through the archaeological portion of my research and showed me how fun it can be. To Dr. Ortiz, you taught me how interesting