Trace Element Discrimination of Discrete Sources of Native Copper

Determining the Provenance of native copper artifacts from Northeastern North America: evidence from instrumental neutron activation analysis

“…All of the native copper samples in the University of Minnesota-Duluth database have been irradiated according to uniform delay and counting criteria. The spectra were analyzed by the NAA CALC program at the University of Wisconsin [89,92]. A total of 42 elements were measured by both short half-life and long half-life but after statistical, geochemical, and instrumental considerations 10 elements were included in statistical analyses for determining provenance.…”

“…If all or nearly all of the samples are returned to the known source, and are thus correctly reclassified, the fingerprint has a high level of uniqueness [89]. A tight fingerprint is defined as one where all analyses for each element fall into narrow concentration ranges.…”

Metallurgical analysis of copper artifacts from Cahokia

“…A section of artifact 8 was also analyzed with DCP-OES, and the only detectable trace elements were silver, at 140 ppm, and silicon, at 67 ppm by weight. All three of the detected trace elements (arsenic, silver, and silicon) are known to commonly occur in native copper (Broderick, 1929;Craddock, 1991;Hurst and Larson, 1958;Rapp et al, 1984Rapp et al, , 2000.…”

“…Mississippian copper objects were crafted from nuggets of naturally-occurring and often highly pure native copper that were likely procured through long distance exchange from both Southeastern and Great Lakes sources (Hurst and Larson, 1958;Goad, 1980;Rapp et al, 1984), although "float" copper, found in the glacial drift across much of the Midwest, may also have been used (Halsey, 2008). The production process typically involved deforming nuggets into sheet or foil, from which objects were then fashioned via molding, embossing, perforation, riveting, and other sophisticated techniques (Cushing, 1894;Watson, 1950;Leader, 1988;Cobb and Evans, 2009;Ehrhardt, 2009).…”

Portable x-ray fluorescence in sourcing prehistoric whelk shell artifacts

“…Such analyses have focused on galena (Walthall, 1981;Walthall et al, 1979Walthall et al, , 1980, copper (Cooper et al, 2008;Goad, 1979;Goad, 1980a;Goad, 1980b;Goad and Noakes, 1978;Hill et al, 2010;Levine, 1996;Rapp et al, 1984Rapp et al, , 1980Woolverton, 1974), silver (Spence and Fryer, 2005), obsidian (Glascock et al, 1994;Griffin et al, 1969;Hatch et al, 1990;Hughes and Fortier, 1997;Sheppard et al 2010), ceramics (Peacock et al, 2007;Steponaitis et al, 1996;Thompson et al, 2008), and both marine (Claassen and Sigmann, 1993;Miller, 1980) and freshwater shell (Peacock et al, 2007(Peacock et al, , 2010(Peacock et al, , 2012. This research has revealed the degree to which prehistoric groups, particularly those of the Woodland-period Adena and Hopewell cultures, and Mississippian peoples during the late prehistoric period, conducted long distance trade or travel to acquire a variety of materials and finished articles.…”