Alan Watchman
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Alan Watchman has a total of 2 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Peter Hiscock
School of Archaeology and Anthropology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
1 shared publication Philip Hughes
School of Archaeology and Anthropology, College of Arts and Social Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia; Huonbrook Environment & Heritage Pty Ltd, PO Box 97, Moruya, NSW, 2537, Australia
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 1 June 2011
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Australian Archaeology
- Vol. 72 (1) , 45-46
Terminological Debate in the Upper Hunter Valley: Indurated Mudstone versus Tuff
Archaeologists have variously used the terms ‘indurated mudstone’ and ‘tuff’ as a description for the fine-textured, very hard, yellowish, orange, reddish-brown or grey rocks from the upper Hunter Valley from which many of the stone artefacts there were made. The desire of archaeologists working in the region to offer a precise and accurate geological description of this material has fuelled debate about whether ‘tuff’ or ‘mudstone’ is the most appropriate label. Some of the samples of these problematic rocks that we have examined petrograhically are definitely not tuff. Until much more is known about the range of lithologies represented in this group of rocks, and ways are developed to distinguish between them, the term ‘IMT’ (‘indurated mudstone/tuff’) is an acceptable alternative to the term ‘mudstone’ as a description for these fine-grained rocks.
- 1 June 2011
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Australian Archaeology
- Vol. 72 (1) , 45-46
Terminological Debate in the Upper Hunter Valley: Indurated Mudstone versus Tuff
Archaeologists have variously used the terms ‘indurated mudstone’ and ‘tuff’ as a description for the fine-textured, very hard, yellowish, orange, reddish-brown or grey rocks from the upper Hunter Valley from which many of the stone artefacts there were made. The desire of archaeologists working in the region to offer a precise and accurate geological description of this material has fuelled debate about whether ‘tuff’ or ‘mudstone’ is the most appropriate label. Some of the samples of these problematic rocks that we have examined petrograhically are definitely not tuff. Until much more is known about the range of lithologies represented in this group of rocks, and ways are developed to distinguish between them, the term ‘IMT’ (‘indurated mudstone/tuff’) is an acceptable alternative to the term ‘mudstone’ as a description for these fine-grained rocks.