29 research outputs found
¿Química o color?: comparación entre el uso de fluorescencia de rayos-X portátil y las técnicas visuales de clasificación de obsidiana de Tepeticpac. 50. Arqueología
No full textBibliografía
• Alva Ixtlilxochitl, F. de
1997. Historia de la nación chichimeca (2 vols.), en
Obras históricas, México, unam.
• Argote Espino, Denisse, Jesús Solé, Pedro López
García y Osvaldo Sterpone Canuto
2010. “Análisis composicional de seis yacimientos
de obsidiana del centro de México y su clasificación
con dbscan”, Arqueología, núm. 43, México, inah,
pp. 197-215.
• Anguiano, Marina y Matilde Chapa
1982. “Estratificación social en Tlaxcala durante el
siglo xvi,” en Pedro Carrasco y Johanna Broda, La
estratificación social en la Mesoamérica prehispánica,
México, inah, pp. 118-156.
• Angulo, Andrés
1965. “Informe sobre el Cerro Cuautzi,” en Ángel
García Cook y Beatriz Leonor Merino Carrión
(eds.), Antología de Tlaxcala, México, inah, vol. I,
pp. 123-130.
• Beristain, Francisco
2004. “Santiago Tepeticpac, Tlaxcala: importancia
arqueológica”, Arqueología, núm. 32, México, inah,
pp. 28-47.
• Brito, Baltazar
2011. “Huexotzingo en el siglo xvi: transformaciones
de un altépetl mesoamericano”, tesis de doctorado,
México, ffyl-unam.
• Carballo, David, Jennifer Carballo y Hector Neff
2007. “Formative and Classic Period Obsidian
Procurement in Central Mexico: A Compositional
Study Using Laser Ablation-Inductively Coupled
Plasma-Mass Spectrometry”, Latin American
Antiquity, núm. 18, pp. 23-43.
• Carrasco, D. y S. Sessions (eds.)
2007. Cave, City, and Eagle´s Nest: An Interpretive
Journey through the Mapa de Cuauhtinchan No. 2,
Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press.
• Clark, John E.
2003. “A Review of Twentieth-Century Mesoamerican
Studies”, en Kenneth G. Hirth (ed.), Mesoamerican
Lithic Technology: Experimentation and
Interpretation, Salt Lake City, University of Utah
Press, pp. 15-54.
• Cobean, R. H.
2002. Un mundo de obsidiana: minería y comercio
de un vidrio volcánico en el México antiguo,
México, inah /University of Pittsburgh.
• Contreras, Eduardo
2007. “Programa 2007 de mantenimiento mayor del
sitio arqueológico de Tepeticpac, Tlaxcala” (mecanuscrito),
Archivo Técnico, Sección de Arqueología,
Centro inah Tlaxcala.
• Chance, John K.
1996. “The Barrios of Colonial Tecali: Patronage,
Kinship, and Territorial Relations in a Central
Mexican Community”, Ethnology, núm. 35,
pp. 107-139.
2000. “The Noble House in Colonial Puebla,
Mexico: Descent, Inheritance, and the Nahua
Tradition”, American Anthropologist, New Series,
núm. 102, pp. 485-502.
• Charlton, Thomas H., Deborah L. Nichols y Cynthia
Otis Charlton
1991. “Aztec Craft Production and Specialization:
Archaeological Evidence from the City-State of
Otumba, Mexico”, World Archaeology, núm. 23,
pp. 98-114.
• Charlton, Thomas H. y Michael W. Spence
1982. “Obsidian Exploitation and Civilization in the
Basin of Mexico”, Anthropology, núm. 6, pp. 7-86.
• Durán, D.
2006 [1579]. Historia de las Indias de Nueva
España e Islas de la Tierra Firme, México, Porrúa.
• Dyckerhoff, Ursula y Hanns J. Prem
1982. “La estratificación social en Huexotzinco”, en
Pedro Carrasco y Johanna Broda (eds.), Estratificación social en la Mesoamérica prehispánica,
México, inah, pp. 157-180.
• Ebert, Claire, Mark Dennison, Kenneth G. Hirth,
Sarah B. McClure y Douglas J. Kennett
2014. “Formative Period Obsidian Exchange along
the Pacific Coast of Mesoamerica”, Archaeometry,
núm. DOI: 10.1111/arcm.12095.
• Escuela Nacional de Conservación, Restauración y
Museografía (encr y m)
2000. “Sitio Arqueológico de Tepeticpac. Acrópolis
del Cerro Cuauti, Tlaxcala”, reporte de la encrym
(mecanuscrito), Archivo Técnico del inah, México.
• Fargher, Lane F., Richard E. Blanton, Verenice Y.
Heredia, John Millhauser, Nezahualcoyotl Xiutecuhtli y
Lisa Overholtzer
2010. “Tlaxcallan: The Archaeology of an Ancient
Republic in the New World”, Antiquity, núm. 84,
pp. 1-15.
• García Cook, Ángel
1997. “Una secuencia cultural para Tlaxcala,” en
Ángel García Cook, Beatriz Leonor Merino Carrión
(eds.), Antología de Tlaxcala, México, inah (Antologías),
vol. II, , pp. 57-89.
• García Cook, Ángel y Beatriz Leonor Merino Carrión
1997. “Integración y consolidación de los Señoríos
Tlaxcala, siglos ix a xvi,” en Ángel García Cook y
Leonor Merino Carrión (eds.), Antología de Tlaxcala,
México, inah, vol. IV, pp. 231-249.
• García Cook, Ángel y Raciel Mora López
1974. “Tetepetla: un sitio fortificado del Clásico en
Tlaxcala”, Comunicaciones, núm. 10, pp. 23-30.
• Gibson, C.
1967. Tlaxcala in the Sixteenth Century, Stanford,
Stanford University Press.
• Guevara, Jorge y Héctor M. Robinson
1999. “Proyecto: excavaciones en unidades residenciales
y domésticas en Tepeticpac. Informe de la
segunda temporada de campo. Otoño de 1999”
(mecanuscrito), Archivo Técnico del inah,
México.
• Hammond, Norman
1972. “Obsidian Trade Routes in the Mayan Area”,
Science, núm. 178, pp. 1092-1093.
• Healan, Dan M.
1993. “Local versus Non-local Obsidian Exchange at
Tula and its Implications for Post-formative Mesoamerica”,
World Archaeology, núm. 24, pp. 449-466.
• Hicks, Frederic
2009. “Land and Succession in the Indigenous Noble
Houses of Sixteenth-Century Tlaxcala”, Ethnohistory,
núm. 56, pp. 569-588.
• Hirth, Kenneth G.
1998. “The Distributional Approach: A New Way to
Identify Marketplace Exchange in the Archaeological
Record”, Current Anthropology, núm. 39,
pp. 451-476.
2008. “The Economy of Supply: Modeling Obsidian
Procurement and Craft Provisioning at a Central
Mexican Urban Center”, Latin American Antiquity,
núm. 19, pp. 435-458.
• Kabata, Shigeru
2010. “La dinámica regional entre el valle de
Toluca y las áreas circundantes: intercambio antes y
después de la caída de Teotihuacan”, ponencia en el
Sexto Congreso Colombiano de Arqueología, Santa
Martha, Colombia.
• López, Aurelio y Kenneth G. Hirth
2012. “Terrazguero Smallholders and the Function
of Agricultural Tribute in Sixteenth-Century
Tepeaca, Mexico”, Mexican Studies / Estudios
Mexicanos, núm. 28, pp. 73-93.
• López, Aurelio y Ramón Santacruz
2013. “Proyecto Arqueológico Tepeticpac, Informe
de la Primera Temporada de Campo 2012” (mecanuscrito),
Archivo Técnico del inah, México.
• Martínez, H.
1984. Tepeaca en el siglo xvi: tenencia de la tierra y
organización de un señorío, México, ciesas (Ediciones
de la Casa Chata, 21).
1994. Codiciaban la tierra: el despojo agrario de
los señoríos de Tecamachalco y Quecholac (Puebla,
1520-1650), México, ciesas.
• Millhauser, John K., Enrique Rodríguez y M. D.
Glascock
2011. “Testing the Accuracy of Portable X-ray
Fluorescence to Study Aztec and Colonial Obsidian Supply at Xaltocan, Mexico”, Journal of Archaeological
Science, núm. 38, pp. 3141-3152.
• Moholy-Nagy, Hattula, Frank Asaro y Fred H. Stross
1984. “Tikal Obsidian: Sources and Typology”,
American Antiquity, núm. 49, pp. 104-117.
• Muñoz Camargo, D.
1998 [1580]. Historia de Tlaxcala (Ms. 210 de la
Biblioteca Nacional de París), Tlaxcala, Universidad
Autónoma de Tlaxcala.
• Olivera, M.
1978. Pillis y macehuales, las formaciones sociales
y los modos de producción de Tecali del siglo xii al
xvi, México, ciesas (Ediciones de la Casa Chata, 6).
• Pastrana, Alejandro
2002. “Variation at the Source: Obsidian Exploitation
at Sierra de las Navajas, Mexico”, en Kenneth
G. Hirth y Bradford W. Andrews (eds.), Pathways to
Prismatic Blades: A Study in Mesoamerican
Obsidian-Core Technology, Los Ángeles, The
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology-University of
California (Monograph 45).
2007. La distribución de la obsidiana de la Triple
Alianza en la cuenca de México, México, inah
(Científica, 517, Serie Arqueología).
• Perkins, Stephen M.
2007. “The House of Guzmán: An Indigenous
Cacicazgo in Early Colonial Central Mexico”,
Culture and Agriculture, núm. 29, pp. 25-42.
• Reyes, L.
1988. Cuauhtinchan del siglo xii al xvi: formación y
desarrollo histórico de un señorío prehispánico,
México, fce.
• Santacruz, Ramón y Aurelio López
2011. “Proyecto Arqueológico Tepeticpac, Tlaxcala”
(mecanuscrito), Archivo Técnico del inah, México.
• Santley, Robert S.
1984. “Obsidian Exchange, Economic Stratification,
and the Evolution of Complex Society in the Basin
of Mexico”, en Kenneth G. Hirth (ed.), Trade and
Exchange in Early Mesoamerica, Albuquerque,
University of New Mexico Press, pp. 43-86.
• Smith, Michael E., A. L. Burke, Timothy S. Hare y
Michael D. Glascock
2007. “Sources of Imported Obsidian at Postclassic
Sites in the Yautepec Valley, Morelos: A Characterization
Study Using XRF and inaa”, Latin American
Antiquity, núm. 18, pp. 429-450.
• Snow, Dean R.
1969. “Ceramic Sequence and Settlement Location
in Pre-Hispanic Tlaxcala”, American Antiquity,
núm. 34, pp. 131-145.
• Spence, Michael W.
1987. “The Scale and Structure of Obsidian Production
in Teotihuacan”, en Emily McClung de Tapia y
Evelyn Childs Rattray (eds.), Teotihuacán: nuevos
datos, nuevas síntesis, nuevos problemas, México,
iia-unam, pp. 429-450.
• Tschohl, P. y H. J. Nickel
1972. Catálogo arqueológico y etnohistórico de
Puebla-Tlaxcala (edición preliminar A-C), Colonia,
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Mexiko-Projekt.
• Yoneda, K.
1991. Los mapas de Cuauhtinchan y la historia
cartográfica prehispánica, México, ciesas.
• Zeitlin, Robert N.
1982. “Toward a More Comprehensive Model of
Interregional Commodity Distribution: Political
Variables and Prehistoric Obsidian Procurement in
Mesoamerica”, American Antiquity, núm. 47,
pp. 260-275
Companion crop performance in the absence and presence of agronomic manipulation
No full text© CSIRO 2007A field experiment located in southern New South Wales compared the component yields of cereal–lucerne companion crops (cereals sown into established lucerne) with the yields of cereal and lucerne monocultures. In-crop lucerne herbicide suppression, cereal crop types (wheat and barley), and top-dressed nitrogen (N) were evaluated for the potential to improve cereal production in the presence of lucerne. Plant populations and biomass, cereal grain yields, and grain quality (protein, screenings, and contamination) were measured. Over the 3-year study, cereals sown into established lucerne (4 years of age at the commencement of the experiment) yielded 17% less (P < 0.05) grain than the cereal monoculture. Companion cropping also resulted in a 71% reduction (P < 0.05) in lucerne biomass over the growing season compared with the lucerne monoculture, but a 3-fold (P < 0.05) increase in total (cereal and lucerne) biomass production. There were no differences between wheat and barley crops in the presence of lucerne, although extensive lodging in the 2003-barley monoculture did result in a significant main treatment (+/0 lucerne and +/0 in-crop lucerne suppression) × crop type (wheat and barley) interaction in grain yield, but not cereal biomass. N top-dressed after tillering onto cereal–lucerne companion crops did not increase grain yield, although it did increase cereal biomass in 2003. Whilst in-crop lucerne suppression did not increase cereal grain yields, it did increase (P < 0.05) cereal biomass and reduced lucerne biomass at cereal maturity and contamination (lucerne pods and flowers) of the cereal grain. However, this practice reduced (P < 0.05) lucerne populations, and therefore potentially threatens the longer term viability of lucerne stands so more research is recommended to develop less detrimental strategies for achieving effective in-crop lucerne suppression. This study combined with results from others, suggests that rainfall was a major factor determining cereal responses in the presence of lucerne, and although there were responses in cereal biomass to additional N and herbicide suppression, these strategies appear to only have potential under favourable growing-season conditions.R. H. Harris, J. R. Hirth, M. C. Crawford, W. D. Bellotti, M. B. Peoples and S. Norn
BR96-doxorubicin conjugate (BMS-182248) versus doxorubicin: a comparative toxicity assessment in rats
No full textThe toxicity of BMS-182248, an immunoglobulin (cBR96)-cytotoxic drug (doxorubicin) conjugate, was investigated in Sprague-Dawley rats at single intravenous doses of 508, 1,200, and 2,550 mg/m(2) (conjugated doxorubicin doses of 14.7, 34.8, and 74 mg/m(2), respectively) and compared to that obtained from administration of free doxorubicin at single doses of 33.6 and 72 mg/m(2) (approximately equivalent to that contained in the 1,200- and 2,550-mg/m(2) doses of BMS-182248, respectively). Necropsies were conducted on day 8, upon death/moribund sacrifice, or after an approximate 3-mo observation period following completion of treatment. Death/moribundity of all rats that received 72 mg/m(2) and of 9 of 20 rats given 33.6 mg/m(2) free doxorubicin were attributed primarily to delayed cardiotoxicity and glomerulonephropathy. With BMS-182248, death from glomerulonephropathy and cardiotoxicity occurred in only 4 of 20 rats given 2,550 mg/m(2) (74 mg/m(2) doxorubicin equivalent). No deaths or cardiotoxicity occurred in rats given 508 or 1,200 mg/m(2) BMS-182248. Additional effects noted with either drug included testicular atrophy, axonal degeneration of sciatic nerve and nerve tracts of brain and spinal cord, teeth (incisor) abnormalities, thymic atrophy, bone marrow hypocellularity, splenic lymphoid and red-pulp depletion, and increased extramedullary hematopoiesis in the spleen and liver. Also noted were altered chief cells in the stomach, vacuolation of adrenal gland and corpora lutea in the ovary, uterine and seminal vesicle atrophy, ulceration and myocyte regeneration/degeneration in the tongue, increased osteoclasts and osteoblasts in bone, and lymphoid hyperplasia of mandibular lymph node. In general, these effects were more severe in doxorubicin-treated rats. All changes observed with EMS-182248 were considered primarily due to the effects of doxorubicin and were substantially less severe (most notably cardiotoxicity) compared to those produced by an equivalent amount of doxorubicin.PT: J; NR: 0; TC: 10; J9: TOXICOL PATHOL; PG: 16; GA: PX206Source type: Electronic(1
Constraints on the Depth, Thickness, and Strength of the G Discontinuity in the Central Pacific From S Receiver Functions
No full textAuthor Posting. © American Geophysical Union, 2021. This article is posted here by permission of American Geophysical Union for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 126(4), (2021): e2019JB019256, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB019256.The relative motion of the lithosphere with respect to the asthenosphere implies the existence of a boundary zone that accommodates shear between the rigid plates and flowing mantle. This shear zone is typically referred to as the lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary (LAB). The width of this zone and the mechanisms accommodating shear across it have important implications for coupling between mantle convection and surface plate motion. Seismic observations have provided evidence for several physical mechanisms that might help enable relative plate motion, but how these mechanisms each contribute to the overall accommodation of shear remains unclear. Here we present receiver function constraints on the discontinuity structure of the oceanic upper mantle at the NoMelt site in the central Pacific, where local constraints on shear velocity, anisotropy, conductivity, and attenuation down to ∼300 km depth provide a comprehensive picture of upper mantle structure. We image a seismic discontinuity with a Vsv decrease of 4.5% or more over a 0–20 km thick gradient layer centered at a depth of ∼65 km. We associate this feature with the Gutenberg discontinuity (G), and interpret our observation of G as resulting from strain localization across a dehydration boundary based on the good agreement between the discontinuity depth and that of the dry solidus. Transitions in Vsv, azimuthal anisotropy, conductivity, and attenuation observed at roughly similar depths suggest that the G discontinuity represents a region of localized strain within a broader zone accommodating shear between the lithosphere and asthenosphere.This work was supported by NSF grant OCE-0928663 to D. Lizarralde, J. Collins, and R. Evans, NSF grant OCE-0927172 to G. Hirth, NSF grant OCE-0928270 to J. Gaherty, NSF grant EAR-1624109 to M. Behn, and an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship to H. Mark
Azimuthal seismic anisotropy of 70-ma Pacific-plate upper mantle.
No full textAuthor Posting. © American Geophysical Union, 2019. This article is posted here by permission of American Geophysical Union for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth 124(2), (2019):1889-1909, doi:10.1029/2018JB016451.Plate formation and evolution processes are predicted to generate upper mantle seismic anisotropy and negative vertical velocity gradients in oceanic lithosphere. However, predictions for upper mantle seismic velocity structure do not fully agree with the results of seismic experiments. The strength of anisotropy observed in the upper mantle varies widely. Further, many refraction studies observe a fast direction of anisotropy rotated several degrees with respect to the paleospreading direction, suggesting that upper mantle anisotropy records processes other than 2‐D corner flow and plate‐driven shear near mid‐ocean ridges. We measure 6.0 ± 0.3% anisotropy at the Moho in 70‐Ma lithosphere in the central Pacific with a fast direction parallel to paleospreading, consistent with mineral alignment by 2‐D mantle flow near a mid‐ocean ridge. We also find an increase in the strength of anisotropy with depth, with vertical velocity gradients estimated at 0.02 km/s/km in the fast direction and 0 km/s/km in the slow direction. The increase in anisotropy with depth can be explained by mechanisms for producing anisotropy other than intrinsic effects from mineral fabric, such as aligned cracks or other structures. This measurement of seismic anisotropy and gradients reflects the effects of both plate formation and evolution processes on seismic velocity structure in mature oceanic lithosphere, and can serve as a reference for future studies to investigate the processes involved in lithospheric formation and evolution.We thank the Captain and crew of the R/V Marcus G. Langseth and the engineers and technicians from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who provided the instruments through the National Science Foundation's Ocean Bottom Seismograph Instrument Pool (OBSIP). The professionalism and expertise of these individuals were key to the success of this experiment. We also thank Donna Blackman, Tom Brocher, Philip Skemer, and an anonymous reviewer for their thoughtful comments which greatly improved this paper. The OBS data described here are archived at the IRIS Data Management Center (http://www.iris.edu) under network code ZA 2011–2013. The travel time picks are archived in the Marine‐Geo Digital Library (http://www.marine‐geo.org/library/) with the DOI 10.1594/IEDA/324643. This work was supported by NSF grant OCE‐0928663 to D. Lizarralde, J. Collins, and R. Evans; NSF grant OCE‐0927172 to G. Hirth; NSF grant OCE‐0928270 to J. Gaherty; and an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship to H. Mark.2019-07-2
High-resolution constraints on pacific upper mantle petrofabric inferred from surface-wave anisotropy.
No full textAuthor Posting. © American Geophysical Union, 2019. This article is posted here by permission of American Geophysical Union for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth 124(1), (2019): 631-657, doi:10.1029/2018JB016598.Lithospheric seismic anisotropy illuminates mid‐ocean ridge dynamics and the thermal evolution of oceanic plates. We utilize short‐period (5–7.5 s) ambient‐noise surface waves and 15‐ to 150‐s Rayleigh waves measured across the NoMelt ocean‐bottom array to invert for the complete radial and azimuthal anisotropy in the upper ∼35 km of ∼70‐Ma Pacific lithospheric mantle, and azimuthal anisotropy through the underlying asthenosphere. Strong azimuthal variations in Rayleigh‐ and Love‐wave velocity are observed, including the first clearly measured Love‐wave 2θ and 4θ variations. Inversion of averaged dispersion requires radial anisotropy in the shallow mantle (2‐3%) and the lower crust (4‐5%), with horizontal velocities (VSH) faster than vertical velocities (VSV). Azimuthal anisotropy is strong in the mantle, with 4.5–6% 2θ variation in VSV with fast propagation parallel to the fossil‐spreading direction (FSD), and 2–2.5% 4θ variation in VSH with a fast direction 45° from FSD. The relative behavior of 2θ, 4θ, and radial anisotropy in the mantle are consistent with ophiolite petrofabrics, linking outcrop and surface‐wave length scales. VSV remains fast parallel to FSD to ∼80 km depth where the direction changes, suggesting spreading‐dominated deformation at the ridge. The transition at ∼80 km perhaps marks the dehydration boundary and base of the lithosphere. Azimuthal anisotropy strength increases from the Moho to ∼30 km depth, consistent with flow models of passive upwelling at the ridge. Strong azimuthal anisotropy suggests extremely coherent olivine fabric. Weaker radial anisotropy implies slightly nonhorizontal fabric or the presence of alternative (so‐called E‐type) peridotite fabric. Presence of radial anisotropy in the crust suggests subhorizontal layering and/or shearing during crustal accretion.We thank the captain, crew, and engineers of the R/V Marcus G. Langseth for making the data collection possible. OBS were provided by Scripps Institution of Oceanography via the Ocean Bottom Seismograph Instrument Pool (http://www.obsip.org), which is funded by the National Science Foundation. All waveform data used in this study are archived at the IRIS Data Management Center (http://www.iris.edu) with network code ZA for 2011–2013, and all OBS orientations are included in Table S1. The 1‐D transversely isotropic and azimuthally anisotropic models and their uncertainties from this study can be found in the supporting information. This work was supported by NSF grants OCE‐0928270 and OCE‐1538229 (J. B. Gaherty), EAR‐1361487 (G. Hirth), and OCE‐0938663 (D. Lizarralde, J. A. Collins, and R. L. Evans), and an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship DGE‐16‐44869 to J. B. Russell. The authors thank the editor as well as reviewers Donald Forsyth, Hitoshi Kawakatsu, and Thorsten Becker for their constructive comments, which significantly improved this manuscript. J. B. Russell thanks Natalie J. Accardo for kindly sharing codes and expertise that contributed greatly to the analysis.2019-06-2
Diapirs as the source of the sediment signature in arc lavas
No full textAuthor Posting. © The Author(s), 2011. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Nature Publishing Group for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Nature Geoscience 4 (2011): 641-646, doi:10.1038/ngeo1214Many arc lavas show evidence for the involvement of subducted sediment in the melting process. There is debate whether this “sediment melt” signature forms at relatively low temperature near the fluid-saturated solidus or at higher temperature beyond the breakdown of trace-element-rich accessory minerals. We present new geochemical data from high- to ultrahigh-pressure rocks that underwent subduction and show no significant depletion of key trace elements in the sediment melt component until peak metamorphic temperatures exceeded ~1050ºC from 2.7 to 5 GPa. These temperatures are higher than for the top of the subducting plate at similar pressures based on thermal models. To address this discrepancy, we use instability calculations for a non-Newtonian buoyant layer in a viscous half-space to show that, in typical subduction zones, solid-state sediment diapirs initiate at temperatures between 500–850ºC. Based on these calculations, we propose that the sediment melt component in arc magmas is produced by high degrees of dehydration melting in buoyant diapirs of metasediment that detach from the slab and rise into the hot mantle wedge. Efficient recycling of sediments into the wedge by this mechanism will alter volatile fluxes into the deep mantle compared to estimates based solely on devolatilization of the slab.Funding for this work was provided by NSF and WHOI’s Deep Ocean Exploration Institute
Implications of grain size evolution on the seismic structure of the oceanic upper mantle
No full textAuthor Posting. © Elsevier B.V., 2009. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Elsevier B.V. for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters 282 (2009): 178-189, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.03.014.We construct a 1-D steady-state channel flow model for grain size evolution in the
oceanic upper mantle using a composite diffusion-dislocation creep rheology. Grain size
evolution is calculated assuming that grain size is controlled by a competition between dynamic
recrystallization and grain growth. Applying this grain size evolution model to the oceanic upper
mantle we calculate grain size as a function of depth, seafloor age, and mantle water content.
The resulting grain size structure is used to predict shear wave velocity (VS) and seismic quality
factor (Q). For a plate age of 60 Myr and an olivine water content of 1000 H/106Si, we find that
grain size reaches a minimum of ~15 mm at ~150 km depth and then increases to ~20–30 mm at
a depth of 400 km. This grain size structure produces a good fit to the low seismic shear wave
velocity zone (LVZ) in oceanic upper mantle observed by surface wave studies assuming that the
influence of hydrogen on anelastic behavior is similar to that observed for steady state creep.
Further it predicts a viscosity of ~1019 Pa s at 150 km depth and dislocation creep to be the
dominant deformation mechanism throughout the oceanic upper mantle, consistent with
geophysical observations. We predict larger grain sizes than proposed in recent studies, in which
the LVZ was explained by a dry mantle and a minimum grain size of 1 mm. However, we show
that for a 1 mm grain size, diffusion creep is the dominant deformation mechanism above 100–
200 km depth, inconsistent with abundant observations of seismic anisotropy from surface wave
studies. We therefore conclude that a combination of grain size evolution and a hydrated upper
mantle is the most likely explanation for both the isotropic and anisotropic seismic structure of
the oceanic upper mantle. Our results also suggest that melt extraction from the mantle will be
significantly more efficient than predicted in previous modeling studies that assumed grain sizes
of ~1 mm.Funding for this research was
provided by NSF Grants EAR-06-52707 and EAR-07-38880
Comercio durante el Posclásico de la cerámica decorada: Malinalco, Toluca, Guerrero y Morelos. 29. Arqueología
No full textAnaya Rodríguez, Edgar, “La industria de la sal de tierra
en el Valle de México: Un método
prehispánico a punto de desaparecer”, en: Juan Carlos Reyes G. (ed.), La sal en
México, Colima, Universidad de Colima, 1995, pp. 223-248.Angulo Villaseñor, Jorge, “Teopanzolco y Cuauhnahuac,
Morelos”, en: Román Piña Chán (ed.), Los señoríos y estados militaristas, México, INAH, 1976, pp. 183-208.Angulo Villaseñor, Jorge y Raúl M. Arana Álvarez, “La cerámica de los tlahuica”, en: Mari Carmen Serra Puche y Carlos Navarrete Cáceres (eds.), Ensayos de
alfarería prehispánica e histórica de Mesoamérica: homenaje a Eduardo Noguera Auza, México, IIA/UNAM, 1988, pp. 343-385.Appadurai, Arjun, “Introduction: Commodities
and the Politics of Value”, en: Arjun Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things:
Commodities in Cultural Perspective, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1986,
pp. 3-63.Arana Álvarez, Raúl M, Trabajos efectuados en Coatetelco, 1976.____, “El juego de pelota en Coatetelco, Morelos”, en: Investigaciones recientes en el área maya, XVII Mesa Redonda, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, vol. 4, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, 1984, pp. 191-204____, Proyecto Coatlán, área Tonatico-
Pilcaya, México, INAH, 1990, (Científica, núm. 200).Barlow, Robert H., “Tres complejos de cerámica del
norte del Río Balsas”, en: El Occidente de México. IV Mesa Redonda, Sociedad
Mexicana de Antropología, Sociedad
Mexicana de Antropología, 1948, pp. 91-93.Berdan, Frances F., et al., Aztec imperial strategies, Washington,
DC, Dumbarton Oaks, 1996.Cabrera Castro, Rubén
1996. “Cerámica suntuaria de
Tzintzuntzan, Michoacán”, en Ana
María Crespo y Carlos Viramontes
(eds.), Tiempo y territorio en la arqueología:
El centro norte de México, México, INAH
(Científica, núm. 323), pp. 37-58.Carrasco, Pedro, Estructura político-territorial
del imperio tenochca: La triple alianza de Tenochtitlan, Tetzcoco y Tlacopan, México,
FCE/Colmex, 1996.Castillo Tejero, Noemí, “La cerámica policroma Matlatzinca del viejo museo de Toluca”,
en Homenaje a Julio César Olivé Negrete,
México, UNAM, 1991, pp. 297-324.Chacón Guerrero, Josefina del Carmen, et al., s.f. “La cerámica en el suroeste del
estado de México durante el postclásico
(900-1521 d.n.e.)”, en: B. Leonor Merino Carrión y Angel García
Cook(eds.), La producción alfarera en el México antiguo, México, INAH,
en prensa.Cobean, Robert H., La cerámica de Tula, Hidalgo,
México, INAH, 1990, (Científica, núm. 215).Dietler, Michael y Brian Hayden (eds.), Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics,
and Power, Washington, DC,
Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001.Douglas, Mary y Baron Isherwood, The World of Goods: Toward an
Anthropology of Consumption, New York,
Basic Books, 1979.Drennan, Robert D., “Long-Distance Movement of
Goods in the Mesoamerican Formative
and Classic”, American Antiquity, núm. 49, 1984,
pp. 27-43.Durán, fray Diego, Historia de las Indias de Nueva
España e Islas de Tierra Firme, Ángel M. Garibay K. (traduc.),
2 vols., México, Porrúa, 1967.Emberling, Geoff, “Ethnicity in Complex Societies:
Archaeological Perspectives”, en: Journal of
Archaeological Research, núm. 5, 1997,
pp. 295-344.Galván Villegas, Luis Javier, “La arqueología del Valle
de Malinalco”, tesis de licenciatura en
Arqueología, México, ENAH, 1975.
____, Aspectos generales de la arqueología de
Malinalco, estado de México, México, INAH, 1984, (Científica, núm. 137).García Castro, René, Indios, territorio y poder en la
provincia matlatzinca: la negociación del espacio político de los pueblos otomianos,
siglos XV-XVII, México, CIESAS/INAH/El Colegio Mexiquense, 1999.____, “Los grupos indígenas del valle
de Toluca”, en: Arqueología Mexicana, 8(43), 2000,
pp. 50-55.García Chávez, Raúl, et al., “La cerámica prehispánica de
Tenochtitlan”, en: Eduardo Matos Moctezuma (ed.), Excavaciones en la
Catedral y el Sagrario Metropolitanos: programa de arqueología urbana, México,
INAH, 1999, pp. 69-85.García Payón, José, “La cerámica del Valle de Toluca”, Revista Mexicana de Estudios
Antropológicos, núm. 5, 1941a, pp. 209-238.____, “Manera de disponer de los
muertos entre los matlatzincas del Valle
de Toluca”, en: Revista Mexicana de Estudios
Antropológicos, núm. 5, 1941b, pp. 64-78.____, “Los monumentos arqueológicos
de Malinalco”, en: Revista Mexicana de
Estudios Antropológicos, 8(1), 1947, pp. 5-63.____, La zona arqueológica de Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca y los matlatzincas: etnología y
arqueología (textos de la segunda parte) en:
Wanda Tommasi de Magrelli y Leonardo Manrique Castañeda (eds.),
Estado de México, Gobierno del Estado de México, 1979,
(Biblioteca Enciclopédica del Estado de México 31).____, La zona arqueológica de Tecaxic- Calixtlahuaca y los matlatzincas: etnología y arqueología (tablas, planos e ilustraciones
de la segunda parte), en: Wanda Tommasi de
Magrelli y Leonardo Manrique Castañeda (eds.), Estado de México,
Gobierno del Estado de México, 1981, (Biblioteca
Enciclopédica del Estado de México 31).González Rul, Francisco, La cerámica en Tlatelolco, México,
INAH, 1988, (Científica, núm. 172).Hare, Timothy S. y Michael E. Smith, “A New Postclassic Chronology for
Yautepec, Morelos”, Ancient Mesoamerica,
núm. 7, 1996, pp. 281-297.Healan, Dan M. y Christine E. Hernández, “Asentamiento prehispánico y cronología cerámica en el noreste de
Michoacán”, en: Eduardo Williams y Phil C. Weigand (eds.), Arqueología y Etnohistoria: La Región del Lerma,
México, El Colegio de Michoacán, 1999,
pp. 133-156.Hernández, Christine E., “A History of Prehispanic Ceramics, Interaction, and Frontier
Development in the Ucareo-Zinapecuaro Obsidian Source Area,
Michoacan, Mexico”, tesis doctoral,
Dpto. of Anthropology, Tulane University, 2000.Hernández Reyes, Carlos, “El preclásico superior en Hidalgo y una hipótesis sobre la cerámica otomí
temprana y la coyotlatelco”, en: E. Fernando Nava L. (eds.), Otopames:
memoria del primer coloquio, Querétaro, 1995, México, UNAM/IIA, 2002, pp. 155-166.Hernández Rivero, José, “Materiales cerámicos en frontera: cerámica tarasca y cerámica aztecochontal”,
en Ana María Crespo y Carlos Viramontes (ed.), Tiempo y territorio
en arqueología: el centro norte de México, México, INAH, 1996,
pp. 59-76, (Científica, núm. 323).____, Ideología y práctica militar mexica:
el cuauhcalli de Malinalco, México, Publicación particular, 1997.____, “Trabajos de salvamento
arqueológico en: ‘La Peña’, Valle de Bravo, México: resultados preliminares”,
Ponencia presentada en el Segundo Coloquio de Antropología del Estado
de México (Valle de Bravo), 1998, mecanoescrito, 1998.Herrejón Peredo, Carlos, “La pugna entre mexicas y
tarascos”, en: Cuadernos de Historia (Toluca),
núm. 1, 1978, pp. 11-47.Hirth, Kenneth G., “The Distributional Approach:
A New Way to Identify Marketplace Exchange in the Archaeological
Record”, en: Current Anthropology, núm. 39, 1998, pp. 451-476.____, Archaeological Research at Xochicalco,
Volume 1, Ancient Urbanism at Xochicalco: The Evolution and Organization of a Pre-
Hispanic Society. Volume 2, The Xochicalco
Mapping Project, Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 2000.Hirth, Kenneth G. y Ann Cyphers Guillén, Tiempo y asentamiento en Xochicalco,
México, IIA/UNAM, 1988.Jaramillo Luque, Ricardo y Rubén Nieto Hernández, “Valle de Malinalco”, en: Yoko
Sugiura Yamamoto (ed.), Historia general del Estado de México, vol. 1: geografía
y arqueología, México, Gobierno del Estado de México/El Colegio
Mexiquense, 1998, pp. 95-117.Jones, Siân, The Archaeology of Ethnicity:
Constructing Identities in the Past and
Present, New York, Routledge, 1997.Lister, Robert H., “An Archaeological Survey of the
Regional About Teloloapan, Guerrero”, en: El Occidente de México. IV Mesa
Redonda, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologìa, México, Sociedad
Mexicana de Antropología, 1947, pp. 107-122.Marcus, Joyce, “The Genetic Model and the Linguistic Divergence of the
Otomangueans”, en: Kent V. Flannery y Joyce Marcus (eds.), The Cloud People:
Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, New York, Academic
Press, 1983, pp. 4-9Moore, John H., “Ethnogenetic Theory”, en: National
Geographic Research and Exploration,
núm. 10, 1994, pp. 10-23.Nichols, Deborah L. y Thomas H. Charlton, “The Postclassic Occupation at
Otumba: A Chronological Assessment”, en:
Ancient Mesoamerica, núm. 7, 1996, pp. 231-244.Nieto Hernández, Rubén
y Alejandro Tovalín Ahumada, “Historia prehispánica del sur del Estado de México”, en: Yoko Sugiura
Yamamoto (ed.), Historia general del Estado de México, vol. 1: geografía y
arqueología, México, Gobierno del
Estado de México/El Colegio Mexiquense, 1998, pp. 119-144.Noguera, Eduardo, “La cerámica de Tenayuca
y las excavaciones estratigráficas”, en:
Eduardo Noguera (ed.), Tenayuca: estudio
arqueológico de la pirámide de este lugar,
Museo Nacional de Arqueología,
Historia, y Etnografía, 1935, pp. 141-201.____, La cerámica arqueológica de Mesoamérica, 2a ed, México, INAH, 1975.Parsons, Jeffrey R., “Late Postclassic Salt Production
and Consumption in the Valley of Mexico: Some Insights from
Nexquipayac”, en: Mary G. Hodge y Michael E. Smith (eds.), Economies and
Polities in the Aztec Realm, Albany, Institute for Mesoamerican Studies,
1994, pp. 257-290.Parsons, Jeffrey R., et al., “Developmental Implications
of Earlier Dates for Early Aztec in the
Basin of Mexico”, en: Ancient Mesoamerica,
núm. 7, 1996, pp. 217-230.Piña Chán, Román (ed.), Teotenango, el antiguo lugar de la
muralla: Memoria de las excavaciones
arqueológicas, 2 vols., México, Gobierno
del Estado de México/Dirección de Turismo, 1975.____, Investigaciones sobre Huamango
y región vecina (Memoria del Proyecto),
2 vols., México, Dirección de Turismo
del Gobierno del Estado de México, 1981.Pollard, Helen P., et al., “Las elites, el intercambio de
bienes y el surgimiento del área nuclear
tarasca: Análisis de la cerámica de la cuenca de Pátzcuaro”, en: Eduardo
Williams y Phil C. Weigand (eds.), Estudios cerámicos en el occidente y norte
de México, México, El Colegio de Michoacán/Instituto Michoacano de Cultura, 2001, pp. 289-309.Quezada Ramírez, María Noemí, Las matlatzincas: época prehispánica
y época colonial hasta 1650, México, INAH, 1972, (Investigaciones, núm. 22).____, “Movimientos de población
en el área matlatzinca durante la época
prehispánica”, Estudios de Cultura
Otopame, núm. 1, 1998, pp. 165-186.Quiñones Keber, Eloise, Codex Telleriano-Remensis: Ritual,
Divination, and History in a Pictorial Aztec
Manuscript, Texas, AustinUniversity of Texas Press, 1995.Reinhold, Manfred, Arqueología de Valle de Bravo, México,
Estado de México, Gobierno del Estado, 1981,
(Biblioteca Enciclopédica del Estado
de México).Renfrew, Colin, “Archaeology, Genetics, and
Linguistic Diversity”, Man, núm. 27, 1992, pp. 445-478.Rodríguez G., Norma L. y María Soledad García S., “La Cerámica de San Miguel
Ixtapan”, en: Expresión Antropológica, núms. 1-2, 1996, pp. 45-54.Rojas, José Luis de, “El transporte de larga distancia
en Mesoamérica: comentarios a R. D.
Drennan”, en: Revista Española de Antropología Americana, núm. 16,
1986, pp. 9-18.____, La moneda indígena y sus usos en la
Nueva España en el siglo XVI, México, Centro de Investigaciones
y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, 1998.Sanders, William T., et al., The Basin of Mexico: Ecological
Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization,
New York, Academic Press, 1979.Sanders, William T. y Robert S. Santley, “A Tale of Three Cities:
Energetics and Urbanization in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico”, en: Evon
Z. Vogt y Richard Leventhal (eds.), Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays in
Honor of Gordon R . Willey, Albuquerque,
University of New Mexico Press, 1983, pp. 243-291.Séjourné, Laurette, Arqueología del Valle de México, I:
Culhuacan, México, INAH, 1970.
____, Arqueología e historia del Valle
de México: de Xochimilco a Amecameca,
México, Siglo XXI, 1983.Seler, Eduard, “The Wall Sculptures
in the Temple of the Pulque God at Tepoztlan”, en: Collected Works in
Mesoamerican Linguistics and Archaeology, Culver City, vol. 4, Labyrinthos, 1998,
pp. 266-280.Smith, Michael E., “Postclassic Culture Change in
Western Morelos, Mexico: The Development and Correlation of
Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Chronologies”, tesis de doctorado, Departamento de Antropología,
University of Illinois, 1983.____, “The Aztlan Migrations of the
Nahuatl Chronicles: Myth or History?”,
Ethnohistory, núm. 31, 1984, pp. 153-186.____, “The Expansion of the Aztec
Empire: A Case Study in the
Correlation of Diachronic Archaeological and Ethnohistorical
Data”, en: American Antiquity, núm. 52,
1987a, pp. 37-54.1987b. “Household Possessions and
Wealth in Agrarian States: Implications
for Archaeology”, Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology, núm. 6,
pp. 297-335.1992. Archaeological Research at Aztec-
Period Rural Sites in Morelos, Mexico.
Volume 1, Excavations and Architecture /
Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Sitios
Rurales de la Época Azteca en Morelos, Tomo
1, Excavaciones y Arquitectura, Pittsburgh
University of Pittsburgh Memoirs in
Latin American Archaeology 4,
University of Pittsburgh.1996. The Aztecs, Oxford, Blackwell
Publishers.
1999. Comment on Hirth’s
“Distribution Approach”, Current
Anthropology, núm. 40,
pp. 528-530.2000. “Postclassic Developments at
Xochicalco”, en Kenneth G. Hirth (ed.),
The Xochicalco Mapping Project,
Archaeological Research at Xochicalco,
vol. 2, Salt Lake City, University of
Utah Press, pp. 167-183.2001. “Postclassic Ceramics from the
Toluca Valley in US Museums: The
Bauer and Blake Collections”, Mexicon,
núm. 23, pp. 141-146.2003a. Excavación de casas postclásicas
en la zona urbana de Yautepec, Morelos,
Report for submission to the INAH,
Albany.2003b. Tlahuica Ceramics: The Aztec-Period
Ceramics of Morelos, Mexico, Albany, IMS
Monographs 13, Institute
for Mesoamerican Studies.
s.f. “La cerámica postclásica de
Morelos”, en B. Leonor Merino Carrión
y Ángel García Cook (eds.),
La producción alfarera en el México antiguo,
México, INAH, en prensa.Smith, Michael E.
y Frances F. Berdan (eds.)
2002. The Postclassic Mesoamerican World,
Salt Lake City, University
of Utah Press.Smith, Michael E. y John F. Doershuk
1991. “Late Postclassic Chronology in
Western Morelos, Mexico”, Latin
American Antiquity, núm. 2,
pp. 291-310.Smith, Michael E., et al., “Excavations of Aztec Urban
Houses at Yautepec, Mexico”, en:Latin
American Antiquity, núm. 10, 1999, pp. 133-150.Smith, Michael E., et al., s.f. “Las ofrendas de Calixtlahuaca”, manuscrito entregado a la revista
Expresión Antropológica, en prensa.Smith, Michael E., et al., s.f. “Aztec Feasts, Rituals, and Markets:
Political Uses of Ceramic Vessels in a Commercial Economy”, en: Tamara Bray
(ed.), Pots as Political Tools: The Culinary
Equipment of Early Imperial States in
Comparative Perspective, Washington, DC,
Smithsonian Institution Press,
en prensa.Sodi Miranda, Federica, “La cerámica matlatzinca”,
Arqueología Mexicana, 8 (43), México,
Raíces, 2000, pp. 44-46.Sodi Miranda, Federica
y Hugo Herrera Torres, Estudio de los Objetos Arqueológicos
de la Cultura Matlatzinca, México, INAH, 1991.Sugiura Yamamoto, Yoko, “En torno a los problemas étnicos
en la arqueología regional: la cuenca del alto Lerma en el postclásico (parte I:
consideraciones teóricas)”, en: Anales de Antropología, núm. 28,
1991, pp. 241-270.____, “Desarrollo histórico en el Valle
de Toluca antes de la conquista
española: Proceso de conformación
pluriétnica”, en: Estudios de Cultura Otopame,
núm. 1, UNAM/IIA, 1998a, pp. 99-122.____, “El Valle de Toluca después del
ocaso del estado Teotihuacano: el
Epiclásico y el Posclásico”, en: Yoko
Sugiura Yamamoto (ed.), Historia general del Estado de México, vol. 1: geografía
y arqueología, México, Gobierno
del Estado de México/El Colegio
Mexiquense, 1998b, pp. 199-259.Sugiura Yamamoto, Yoko, et al.,
“The Otomi in the Toluca Valley During the Postclassic”, Ponencia
presentada en la 66th Annual Meeting,
Society for American Archaeology,
New Orleans, 2001, mecanuscrito.Terrell, John E., “Ethnolinguistic Groups,
Language Boundaries, and Culture
History: A Sociolinguistic Model”, en:
John E. Terrell, Archaeology, Language, and History: Essays on Culture and Ethnicity, Westport, CT, Bergin and
Garvey, 2001, pp. 199-221.Tommasi de Magrelli, Wanda, La cerámica funeraria de Teotenango,
Estado de México, 1978, (Biblioteca
Enciclopédica del Estado de México, 61).Vaillant, George C. y Suzannah B. Vaillant,
Excavations at Gualupita. Anthropological Papers 35, núm. 1,
New York, American Museum
of Natural History, 1934.Vargas Pacheco, Ernesto, “La cerámica”, en Román Piña
Chán (ed.), Teotenango: el antiguo lugar
de la muralla, vol. 1, México, Gobierno
del Estado de México, 1975, pp. 189-264.Vega Sosa, Constanza, Forma y decoración en vasijas
de tradición Azteca, México, INAH, 1975,
(Científica, núm. 23).____, “The Genetic Model and Maya
Cultural Development”, en: Evon Z.
Vogt y Alberto Ruz L. (eds.), Desarrollo
cultural de los Mayas, 1964, pp. 9-48.Wells, Peter S., Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians:
Archaeology and Identity in Iron Age Europe,
London, Duckworth, 2001
Sensitivity of Winter-Active Lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) to Different Grazing Regimes
No full textLucerne (alfalfa; Medicago sativa L.) is the key forage for grazing in dryland temperate regions around the world. While rotational grazing of lucerne is recommended, in southern Australia the intervals between grazing events are often chosen in an opportunistic manner, to meet livestock production targets and utilise excessive spring and summer growth. To assess whether the persistence of lucerne is sensitive to variations in rotational grazing management practice, we report on an experiment with four sheep grazing treatments that was conducted for 2.5 years, including three summers, in southern New South Wales. The grazing management treatments were a crash-grazing control, frequent grazing, feed-based rotational grazing and time-based rotational grazing, replicated four times. The number of grazing events, percentage of time under grazing, lucerne top dry matter (DM) at the beginning and end of grazing periods and plant density were measured. The results relating to number of grazing events, percentage of time grazing and DM removed during grazing indicated that four grazing practices had been achieved. The treatments all had significant periods of rest for at least 73% of time and were empirically different in their approach but resulted in similar grazing pressures, in terms of overall pasture removed during grazing. Nevertheless, there was little difference in lucerne densities between grazing treatments over the life of the experiment. We conclude that there is flexibility in the rotational management of grazed lucerne provided adequate rest periods are part of the management program
