在蛇丘时代

IF 0.4 Q1 Arts and Humanities
B. Lepper
{"title":"在蛇丘时代","authors":"B. Lepper","doi":"10.2307/26599968","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Radiocarbon dates reported by Romain and colleagues (2017) suggesting that Serpent Mound (33AD1) is an Adena effigy mound are problematic because they cannot be linked reliably to cultural activities associated with the original construction of the effigy mound. Additional arguments offered by Romain and colleagues (2017) in support of an Early Woodland age for Serpent Mound also are unconvincing. A Late Prehistoric age for Serpent Mound is supported by the radiocarbon dates reported previously, new radiocarbon dates, the relative abundance of serpent imagery in the Fort Ancient culture and the contemporaneous Mississippian Tradition, the virtual absence of serpent imagery in the Adena culture, and the fact that, whereas effigy-mound building is otherwise unknown in the Early Woodland period, it is well documented, if rare, for the Fort Ancient culture and in the not-so-terribly-far-away upper Midwest it is so common that it defines the broadly contemporaneous Effigy Mound culture.","PeriodicalId":43225,"journal":{"name":"Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Age of Serpent Mound\",\"authors\":\"B. Lepper\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/26599968\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Radiocarbon dates reported by Romain and colleagues (2017) suggesting that Serpent Mound (33AD1) is an Adena effigy mound are problematic because they cannot be linked reliably to cultural activities associated with the original construction of the effigy mound. Additional arguments offered by Romain and colleagues (2017) in support of an Early Woodland age for Serpent Mound also are unconvincing. A Late Prehistoric age for Serpent Mound is supported by the radiocarbon dates reported previously, new radiocarbon dates, the relative abundance of serpent imagery in the Fort Ancient culture and the contemporaneous Mississippian Tradition, the virtual absence of serpent imagery in the Adena culture, and the fact that, whereas effigy-mound building is otherwise unknown in the Early Woodland period, it is well documented, if rare, for the Fort Ancient culture and in the not-so-terribly-far-away upper Midwest it is so common that it defines the broadly contemporaneous Effigy Mound culture.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43225,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/26599968\",\"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/10.2307/26599968","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: 0

摘要

罗曼及其同事(2017)报告的放射性碳测年表明,蛇丘(33AD1)是一个阿黛纳雕像丘,这是有问题的,因为它们不能可靠地与与雕像丘原始建筑相关的文化活动联系起来。Romain及其同事(2017)提出的支持蛇丘早期林地时代的其他论据也没有说服力。先前报告的放射性碳年代、新的放射性碳年代、堡古文化和同时期的密西西比传统中相对丰富的蛇图像、Adena文化中几乎没有蛇图像,以及尽管早期林地时期的雕像丘建筑是未知的,但它被很好地记录下来,如果罕见的话。在古堡文化和不那么遥远的中西部北部,它是如此普遍,以至于它定义了大致同时代的雕像丘文化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On the Age of Serpent Mound
Radiocarbon dates reported by Romain and colleagues (2017) suggesting that Serpent Mound (33AD1) is an Adena effigy mound are problematic because they cannot be linked reliably to cultural activities associated with the original construction of the effigy mound. Additional arguments offered by Romain and colleagues (2017) in support of an Early Woodland age for Serpent Mound also are unconvincing. A Late Prehistoric age for Serpent Mound is supported by the radiocarbon dates reported previously, new radiocarbon dates, the relative abundance of serpent imagery in the Fort Ancient culture and the contemporaneous Mississippian Tradition, the virtual absence of serpent imagery in the Adena culture, and the fact that, whereas effigy-mound building is otherwise unknown in the Early Woodland period, it is well documented, if rare, for the Fort Ancient culture and in the not-so-terribly-far-away upper Midwest it is so common that it defines the broadly contemporaneous Effigy Mound culture.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信