This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Each paragraph should end with at least one reference, as long as it is not trivial and common knowledge. References in the middle of a paragraph are usually not valid for the sentences afterwards in the same paragraph.
The chemical composition is only given as 70-75% (probably percent by weight?) SiO2 plus MgO, Fe3O4, and water. This should be refined.
The natural weathering process of obsidian is only very shortly described (transformation to perlite) and should be expanded. It is used in archeology for estimating the age of obsidian artifacts such as spear heads and knifes.
Obsidian use to view the sun and track its movements
Not sure why this is semi-protected for another year, but I see no mention of the Mesoamerican use of Obsidian to view the sun and track its movements as part of their astronomy research.
Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.136.51 (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obsidian
Glass says that in the US, "obsidian prevention is prohibited by law." Any further information? - Montréalais 08:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I believe it's only the taking of obsidian artifacts from national parks and archaeological sites that's actually illegal. SamEV08:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a large piece of Obsidian, I think its very unusal to find this type in the area that I live (Kitchener, Ontario Canada). If anyone out there has any information on Obsidian and where it is usually found I would be quite interested to hear.
I would guess that it was eroded out of its primary deposit and carried along with a glacier. Then when the glacier receded, it dropped out. Ask your local university about moraines in your area. Woland3718:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obsidian is rare, though sizable obsidian (even large boulders) are common at Newberry Volcanic monument in central Oregon. The reason it is rare is because it forms from high-silica lava, must cool quickly before crystals can form, and must be free of volatiles. Also keep in mind that just because a shield volcano may spew low-silica basaltic lava doesn't mean it never has (or ever will) spew high-silica rhyolitic lava, Newberry is an example. If you don't want to drill bore holes I would explore volcanic vents with recent lava flows (particularly short and jagged ones, but there are exceptions, Ring Creek lava flow is one) near glaciers. Mount Garibaldi in British Columbia is a good example having Holocene rhyodacitic lava flows and The Barrier which is a rock wall formed from the collision of lava and glacier. This MINFILE record inspired a few of us to go investigate the area last summer, but it's a good bet that any obsidian is either controlled in a park, owned by a resource company, or buried Exsuscito (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Nice start to an article, but very biased towards the US and MesoAmerica (probably because the writers know those areas best). There's nothing on the amazing Palaeolithic, Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic obsidian tools from the Middle East, especially Iraq? I saw some fantastic long obsidian blades and blade cores in Mosul Museum in Iraq in 1989, but suspect they have long since been bombed or smashed. The Maori used obsidian in New Zealand. There are lots of other locations and cultures where obsidian occurs and has been utilised - anyone with more information able to expand? 81.159.88.164 (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Evidence continues to build concurring that trade and use of obsidian appears to have been widespread across Oceania at least as far back as the 2nd millennium BCE with the Lapita people and possibly back tens of thousands of years with the Austronesian-speakers who came before them. This stands to reason, considering the highly volcanic geography of that entire portion of the globe. I'm only still learning myself, but here are some scholarly sources that might help:
Also The Sea and Civilization: A Maritime History of the World by Lincoln Paine, 2013 Knopf-Doubleday (audiobook: 2018 Tantor Audio) ISBN-13: 9781101970355
I'm sorry to just post a bunch of web addresses but I am limited in what I can do. I contribute rarely so I hope this isn't particularly bad form or anything; my intentions are sincere. I have only included scholarly articles and one book, no secondary sources or 'pedias.
I think this region of trade is suspected to have been broad enough to include Malaysia, Borneo, Siam, and maybe India, but like I said I'm still learning and can't provide any specifics on that. I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9400:75CC:C5F:D762:188B:8EB8 (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting you could post about minerals is how to cut and shape them. I have a friend who tried to cut obsidian on his own with a hammer and a chisel and ended up slicing himself something nasty. Knowing how to home shape a mineral or at least a warning not to could be useful to some. ~~Mr. Wonderful~~
Mr Wonderful:
Your friend is an idiot. Obsidian fractures with EXTREMELY sharp edges. Obsidian has been / is used by surgeons due to its potential for an extremely sharp edge. It is much sharper than man-made steel blades, and should not be worked except by those that understand the danger involved. If interested in working siliceous rock, do some research on flintknapping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.231.175 (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obsidian is a common material in many fictional settings, for example: minecraft and A Song of Ice and Fire, shouldn't this be mentioned in the article?
It is not, by itself, notable that a real material exists in a fictional setting. (Consider how many settings feature leather and wood.) Moreover, while obsidian may relate to Minecraft, the question for this article is whether Minecraft relates to obsidian in a significant way. 144.118.165.17 (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do consider it significant. I didn't play Minecraft but in ASOIAF it's very important material. Some section e.g. Obsidian in art or something like that should be added. --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 16:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Obsidian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Obsidian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please rename the section Historical Use as Prehistoric Use.
Explanation: History by definition starts with the invention of writing after 3000BC. Whereas all the obsidian cultures listed in this section are much older, up to 1.5 million years old. So prehistoric, not historic. 31.4.130.55 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing "historical" with "ancient". "Historical" refers to history (Neanderthals for example were not historical, but pre-historic), whereas "ancient" refers to Antiquity (anything in the past, for example ancient Greeks in 600BC, or ancient forms of hominins such as Australopithecines 4 million years ago). You are partly right in that "history" can be used in a narrative sense (History of the Neanderthals, History of the World), identical with the shortened form "story". But that is not the case here: the Wikipedia article says "History" but does not offer a narrative, and instead comes up exclusively with deeply prehistoric items up to a million years old. It really looks embarrassingly illiterate, as if the author has never learned English or history in school. 31.4.128.80 (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just visited this article, because I read about obsidian regularly in various books and wanted to know what it actually is. To my surprise, this article contains a section "Literary references". Even though I personally don't think such a section is warranted at all in an article about a material, if it's there and there's consensus about its merits, it requires attention. Currently a single reference is made, while literature is rife with references to obsidian. Even though I can't find some of the references I'm sure of, there at least exists an obsidian trilogy and a series Obsidian mirror. There are definitely more sci-fi and fantasy links possible. And maybe the Aztec god Ītzpāpālōtl also deserves mention.
HSNie (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obsidian is such a common material, and its use by humans is so pervasive,that I think I agree that this section is not warranted. It would be like having a section on "Literary references" in the article on Water. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will remove the section with a reference to the Talk page. If anyone makes a good argument to keep the section, this can easily be reverted. HSNie (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the section Prehistoric and Historical Use/Middle East and Asia, this text appears: "
The use of obsidian tools was present in Japan near areas of volcanic activity.[46][47] Obsidian was mined during the Jōmon period."
The link on "Jōmon period" (and only those words) goes to the page "Hoshikuso Pass obsidian mine site", a specific example of obsidian mining in Japan during the Jōmon period. This structure makes it look like the link is to "Jōmon period"; to conform to MOS:LINKCLARITY, the link should be expanded, for example:
Broader questions about sentence structure, specificity, relevance, etc. may be relevant here but are outside the scope of this edit request. Greeengemini (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Obsidian is >70% SiO2 what is the other <30%?
There must be Laser or Mass spectrometry results that that can be averaged to better describe the undefined <30%.
Tim (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made some edits to this page without thinking much of it, but they were reverted by @FlightTime for a lack of consensus, which is fair enough: I indeed didn't ask around first, which is my bad.
So, I'd like to propose the edits I previously made there. To clarify, the edits do the following:
- I added the Obsidian scraper found at Spiro Mounds as an example of long distance obsidian trade in the Precolumbian Americas, since that was a topic which already comes up in the article (but lacks a demonstrative image) and it is a famous, notable example (being the furthest distance a Mesoamerican object has been known to have travelled), and as I have recently secured permissions to upload photos of the scraper here on Wikipedia.
- I moved the images around the page so they appear next to the body text they tie into. For example, in the prior/current version of the page, the image of Obsidian from Crete is towards the bottom of the page, wheras I have it placed next to the body text which mentions obsidian from Crete. A few images were adjusted in this way
- I removed two images, one of an obsidian arrowhead, the other the circular polished Snowflake obsidian image: I mainly did this just because I could not figure out the formatting to both place the images where they should ideally be without also messing up text readability, but also because the arrowhead really isn't contributing much to the article in my opinion, and the snowflake obsidian image is redundant compared to the polished sculpted pig made out of snowflake obsidian, which is the same style of obsidian which is also polished, but better ties into the "Modern use" section
- I tweaked the information on Macuahuitl and Tepoztopilli, as the current/prior wording referred to Tepoztopilli as a "variant" of Macuahuitl, something I've never seen asserted in sources on Mesoamerican weaponry, and also that line had no citations, so I modified and added a citation to back up the modified working.
If Flighttime or other users have objections, let me know, though the only tweak here I really think is questionable are the image removals: I think the Spiro/Pachuca obsidian scraper helps visualize something the article mentions, the image location tweaks helps the article be more readable with already present content, and the Tepoztopilli etc tweak fixes an error and provides a citation for a statement that currently lacks one.
I'm fine with having my edits re-done, just without the removal of the two images I took out, I'm just not sure how to format the page source in such a way to get the images where I want them to/they need to be without removing those two? Maybe somebody more experienced with Wikipedia formatting can assist?
Simply making edits without asking is perfectly normal and is encouraged. However you combined multiple changes in one edit. If you apply each logical edit one at a time it is much easier for other editors to understand and to discuss possible issues.
Since @FlightTime has not responded and you have reposted to the Geology group, you have done your part in my opinion. Apply your changes individually so we can sort out what if any issue remains.
However, I didn't replace the Talus file within my edit, but if it's erroneously labeled, then that should probably be done too. That said, I think it'd probably be for the best if you did the edit to the page and file to address the Talus file: I'm not informed enough on Geology to be confident I could address it properly.
As far as my edits, I will apply them one by one if nobody raises any objections within the next few days, then!
Also, are you aware of any guides which discuss image location formatting when editing page source? As I said I am fine with keeping the images I removed in my edits, I just couldn't figure out how to get things placed where I felt was best without removing them. If there's a guide which helps clarify things I can try to leave all the images in!
However, beware that there are important technical limitations with images. Because wikipedia renders for all kinds of browsers and a mobile web app, there is no set relationship between text and images. In addition, pages can change without consideration for the images. So I suggest you don't get to picky about image placement and aim for just good enough. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it actually didn't occur to me that the formatting would look very different on different devices... Honestly I am a lot more hesitant now about applying my image changes to the article, but I'll continue to experiment with that in previews and I went ahead and made the Macuahuitl/Tepoztopilli edit.
Is it "best practices" to favor a specific view (the new web view, the old web view, mobile devices, the app etc) when formatting pages? Or do people just do whatever?
Also, in the event that I don't wanna mess with the image placement but still want to mention the Spiro Mounds scraper in the article text, is it fine to just, have that text link to the file page on Wikimedia?
claims to show "Obsidian talus". I am not convinced. Most of the rocks visible have no apparent glassiness.
This source
Isom, S. L., Andrews, G. D., Kenderes, S., & Whittington, A. G. (2023). Making sense of brittle deformation in rhyolitic lavas: Insights from Obsidian Dome, California, USA. Geosphere, 19(2), 431-448.
fuels my doubt:
The seminal study of the Big and Little GlassMountain lavas (ca. 1.2 ka) at Medicine Lake vol-cano, California, USA, by Fink (1983) described three lithofacies (finely vesicular pumice, coarsely vesicular pumice, and avesicular obsidian) on the upper surfaces and at the distal margins. Furthermore, the extensive talus at the margins was inferred to obscure a laterally continuous layer of avesicular obsidian and coarsely vesicular pumice, underlain by a basal breccia. Scientific drilling atObsidian Dome (Eichelberger et al., 1984, 1985) and the ca. 130 ka Banco Bonito lava at Valles Caldera,New Mexico, USA, revealed the same general litho-stratigraphy (Fink and Manley, 1987; Manley andFink, 1987; Fig. 2)
Of course the degree of glassiness or "obsidian-ness" is highly variable in general but I don't think this image is a good choice for illustrating the article topic absent additional reliable information. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "glassiness" range for obsidian is large. It varies from very shiny to matt; see for example a sample of obsidian from Mexico "Golden-sheen obsidian (Mexico) 17.jpg" Golden-sheen obsidian (Mexico) 17.jpg - Matt obsidian from Mexico. The larger block immediately to the right of the person in the Obsidian Dome photo has enough of a glassy sheen for me to be comfortable with accepting it as obsidian. The flow banding visible in some of the blocks also looks more like obsidian than pumice. An alternative approach could be to hedge our bets and change the description to "Obsidian and pumice talus" similar to the description of an outcrop (probably the same outcrop?) at e.g. https://geodil.dperkins.org/h/560.html, or even better upload this geodil public domain image into Wikimedia Commons and use it as a replacement for the image about which you have doubts. I accept your point that the current photo is not a very good choice because of your doubts (and I can't prove it is definitely obsidian) and because it does not show obsidian features clearly, so removal without replacement also seems to be another reasonable course of action. GeoWriter (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2026
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Spanish sources describe these weapons as being [able kill] and inflicting terrible injuries.
Change “able kill” in the sentence to “able to kill”. ~2026-11870-4 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — IVORK Discuss 23:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Not done. Historical can also refer to the past generally, so the usage is correct. Whether or not its ideal, I'll leave to discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Partly done: The time periods described in the text of that section span a very wide time frame, easily including times generally considered both pre-history and historical. Changed per MOS:HEADINGS Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
_17.jpg)
Done --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 20:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)