{"title":"关于Hopewell流动粘土人形雕像的新证据——对Bebber及其同事的答复","authors":"T. Everhart, S. Biehl","doi":"10.1080/01461109.2020.1743548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Additional information has been identified concerning a fired-clay human figurine analyzed and reported by Bebber and colleagues (2018). Despite this figurine having been discovered within a box labeled “Hopewell Figurine—Hopeton Earthworks,” they argue against a Hopewellian affiliation based on Thermoluminescence (TL) dating, a comparative study, and the inability to firmly establish the specimen’s provenience. A rediscovered letter from Olaf Prufer offers a new site of origin and a more complete chain of custody, which is partially corroborated by photographs curated at the Ohio History Connection and a 1925 Boston Evening Transcript article. With this new information, we dispute Bebber and colleagues’ (2018) interpretation of the figurine’s acquisition, its alleged site of origin, and the conclusions of their comparative analysis. This case study does not support their call for more rigorous authentication of collector-acquired objects; rather, it documents the difficulty in reestablishing the provenience of objects once they have become disassociated.","PeriodicalId":43225,"journal":{"name":"Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01461109.2020.1743548","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New Evidence Pertaining to an Alleged Hopewell Mobiliary Clay Human Figurine: A Reply to Bebber and Colleagues\",\"authors\":\"T. Everhart, S. Biehl\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01461109.2020.1743548\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Additional information has been identified concerning a fired-clay human figurine analyzed and reported by Bebber and colleagues (2018). Despite this figurine having been discovered within a box labeled “Hopewell Figurine—Hopeton Earthworks,” they argue against a Hopewellian affiliation based on Thermoluminescence (TL) dating, a comparative study, and the inability to firmly establish the specimen’s provenience. A rediscovered letter from Olaf Prufer offers a new site of origin and a more complete chain of custody, which is partially corroborated by photographs curated at the Ohio History Connection and a 1925 Boston Evening Transcript article. With this new information, we dispute Bebber and colleagues’ (2018) interpretation of the figurine’s acquisition, its alleged site of origin, and the conclusions of their comparative analysis. This case study does not support their call for more rigorous authentication of collector-acquired objects; rather, it documents the difficulty in reestablishing the provenience of objects once they have become disassociated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43225,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01461109.2020.1743548\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01461109.2020.1743548\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01461109.2020.1743548","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
摘要:Bebber及其同事(2018)分析并报告了一个烧制的泥人雕像的其他信息。尽管这尊雕像是在一个标有“Hopewell雕像——Hopeton土方工程”的盒子里发现的,但他们反对基于热致发光(TL)测年、比较研究的Hopewell归属,也反对无法确定标本的来源。奥拉夫·普鲁弗(Olaf Prufer)的一封重新发现的信件提供了一个新的来源地和一个更完整的监管链,俄亥俄州历史连线(Ohio History Connection)策划的照片和1925年《波士顿晚报》(Boston Evening Transcript)的一篇文章部分证实了这一点。有了这些新信息,我们对Bebber及其同事(2018)对雕像获得、据称的起源地的解释以及他们的比较分析结论提出了质疑。本案例研究不支持他们对收集器获取的对象进行更严格的身份验证的呼吁;相反,它记录了一旦物体脱离联系,重建其来源的困难。
New Evidence Pertaining to an Alleged Hopewell Mobiliary Clay Human Figurine: A Reply to Bebber and Colleagues
ABSTRACT Additional information has been identified concerning a fired-clay human figurine analyzed and reported by Bebber and colleagues (2018). Despite this figurine having been discovered within a box labeled “Hopewell Figurine—Hopeton Earthworks,” they argue against a Hopewellian affiliation based on Thermoluminescence (TL) dating, a comparative study, and the inability to firmly establish the specimen’s provenience. A rediscovered letter from Olaf Prufer offers a new site of origin and a more complete chain of custody, which is partially corroborated by photographs curated at the Ohio History Connection and a 1925 Boston Evening Transcript article. With this new information, we dispute Bebber and colleagues’ (2018) interpretation of the figurine’s acquisition, its alleged site of origin, and the conclusions of their comparative analysis. This case study does not support their call for more rigorous authentication of collector-acquired objects; rather, it documents the difficulty in reestablishing the provenience of objects once they have become disassociated.