Sourcing Olive Jars Using U‐Pb Ages of Detrital Zircons: A Study of 16th Century Olive Jars Recovered from the Solomon Islands

Abstract

We present U‐Pb ages of zircons extracted from olive jars recovered from two sites associated with Alvaro de Mendaña y Neyra's colonising expedition to the Solomon Islands, c. 1595–1596 A.D. The olive jars were previously associated with Panamanian and Peruvian origins based on petrological and geochemical studies. To further define provenance, 143 zircons were extracted from five olive jar sherds, analyzed and dated. The resultant U‐Pb ages range from the Archaean to the Cenozoic (2977.2 ± 29.0–3.2 ± 4.0 Ma), but the dominance of Cretaceous and Palaeogene ages (∼ 90% of the total age population is between ∼ 145 and 23 Ma) supports a Peruvian origin based on comparative geology, with the Coastal Batholith of Peru a prime candidate area of ceramic production. These results are significant for the characterization of 16th Century Peruvian‐made pottery and our understanding of its production and trade.

Sherds on the Edge: Characterization of 16th Century Colonial Spanish Pottery Recovered from the Solomon Islands

“…Through the comparison of typological and petrological data with the published literature (Dickinson and Green ; Green ; Kelloway et al ; Kelloway ), U–Pb dating of detrital zircons (Kelloway et al ) and the chemical data presented in this paper, we suggest that many of the ceramics within the Solomon Islands artefact assemblages were made variously within Peru, Spain, Panama, China and Thailand. Many of the various types are Peruvian made, and the other non‐Peruvian‐made ceramics would have been readily obtained within Peru.…”

“…Chemically similar olive jars have been reported by Olin et al (), Rovira et al () and Jamieson and Hancock () from Panama and Ecuador. A recent study by Kelloway et al () suggested that ceramics with this chemical signature were produced in Peru, based on U–Pb dating of detrital zircons extracted from Red Earthenware from the Solomon Islands and the comparative geologic histories of both Panama and Peru. The composition of Group 2 and its association with a Peruvian manufacture also indicates that Green‐glazed Ware and Fine Tanware were produced in Peru.…”

“…Most Red Earthenware sherds analysed petrologically and geochemically were similar and associated with SI chemical group 2. SI group 2 has been shown to be Peruvian in origin, based on a U–Pb zircon dating study (Kelloway et al ). The association of PAZC group 3 sherds most probably produced in Peru supports a Peruvian origin.…”

“…This is in keeping with historical records that indicate provisioning along Peru's north coast. With respect to the Red Earthenware sherds associated with manufacture in the area of the Coastal Batholith of Peru (Kelloway et al ), areas near Trujillo and Lima are possible source areas based on the historical record, but areas of manufacture outside of their associated valleys in other areas of the Coastal Batholith are also possible source regions, which might have supplied ports that are otherwise geologically not a match. How far the production zones were from the areas of consumption/ports is unclear.…”

“…The fragmentary nature of the ceramic assemblage means that whole vessels were not able to be reconstructed and some wares were unable to be associated with vessel forms at all; however, fabric and surface treatment distinctions resulted in a range of wares that could be probed for provenance. Petrological and geochemical (INAA, this paper) studies were conducted to further characterize and provenance sherds, the latter also including U–Pb dating of detrital zircons (Kelloway et al , ).…”