Terminological debate in the upper Hunter Valley: Indurated mudstone versus tuff

Philip Hughes, Peter Hiscock, Alan Watchman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 e 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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)45-46
Number of pages2
JournalAustralian Archaeology
Volume72
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Terminological debate in the upper Hunter Valley: Indurated mudstone versus tuff'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this