William H Pickard
Biographic Data
| ID | 6182930 |
|---|---|
| NAME | William H Pickard |
| GIVEN NAMES | William H |
| FAMILY NAME | Pickard |
| SIGNATURE | PICKARD W H |
| AFFILIATIONS | Ohio History Connection, Columbus, OH, USA |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 4 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 9 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 4 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2014 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2019 |
| H-INDEX | 2 |
Debating the Age of Serpent Mound
The debate over the age of Serpent Mound (33AD01) is important because without a cultural context it is impossible to make meaningful statements about what this monumental effigy mound might have meant to its builders. In this response to Romain and Herrmann’s rejoinder, we clarify the provenience of the samples, which yielded the radiocarbon dates that contribute to our argument for a post–Late Woodland age for the effigy. In addition, we extend…
Analyses of organic residue from a conical pipe from the Niles-Wolford Mound (33Pi3), Pickaway County, Ohio
Debating the Age of Serpent Mound: A Reply to Romain and Herrmann’s Rejoinder to Lepper Concerning Serpent Mound
The debate over the age of Serpent Mound (33AD01) is important because without a cultural context it is impossible to make meaningful statements about what this monumental effigy mound might have meant to its builders. In this response to Romain and Herrmann’s rejoinder, we clarify the provenience of the samples, which yielded the radiocarbon dates that contribute to our argument for a post–Late Woodland age for the effigy. In addition, we extend…
Radiocarbon Dates on Textile and Bark Samples from the Central Grave of the Adena Mound (33RO1), Chillicothe, Ohio
The Adena Mound (33RO1) is the type site of the Adena culture, yet there have been no radiocarbon dates to place it reliably within a temporal framework. Fortunately, the artifact collection, curated by the Ohio Historical Society, includes objects that are highly suitable for radiocarbon dating, including fragments of textiles and tree bark associated with the central burial. We selected a textile fragment and two bark fragments for radiocarbon …
Radiocarbon Dates on Textile and Bark Samples from the Central Grave of the Adena Mound (33RO1), Chillicothe, Ohio
The Adena Mound (33RO1) is the type site of the Adena culture, yet there have been no radiocarbon dates to place it reliably within a temporal framework. Fortunately, the artifact collection, curated by the Ohio Historical Society, includes objects that are highly suitable for radiocarbon dating, including fragments of textiles and tree bark associated with the central burial. We selected a textile fragment and two bark fragments for radiocarbon …
Debating the Age of Serpent Mound: A Reply to Romain and Herrmann’s Rejoinder to Lepper Concerning Serpent Mound
The debate over the age of Serpent Mound (33AD01) is important because without a cultural context it is impossible to make meaningful statements about what this monumental effigy mound might have meant to its builders. In this response to Romain and Herrmann’s rejoinder, we clarify the provenience of the samples, which yielded the radiocarbon dates that contribute to our argument for a post–Late Woodland age for the effigy. In addition, we extend…
Analyses of organic residue from a conical pipe from the Niles-Wolford Mound (33Pi3), Pickaway County, Ohio
Radiocarbon Dates on Textile and Bark Samples from the Central Grave of the Adena Mound (33RO1), Chillicothe, Ohio
The Adena Mound (33RO1) is the type site of the Adena culture, yet there have been no radiocarbon dates to place it reliably within a temporal framework. Fortunately, the artifact collection, curated by the Ohio Historical Society, includes objects that are highly suitable for radiocarbon dating, including fragments of textiles and tree bark associated with the central burial. We selected a textile fragment and two bark fragments for radiocarbon …
Analyses of organic residue from a conical pipe from the Niles-Wolford Mound (33Pi3), Pickaway County, Ohio
Debating the Age of Serpent Mound: A Reply to Romain and Herrmann’s Rejoinder to Lepper Concerning Serpent Mound
The debate over the age of Serpent Mound (33AD01) is important because without a cultural context it is impossible to make meaningful statements about what this monumental effigy mound might have meant to its builders. In this response to Romain and Herrmann’s rejoinder, we clarify the provenience of the samples, which yielded the radiocarbon dates that contribute to our argument for a post–Late Woodland age for the effigy. In addition, we extend…
Debating the Age of Serpent Mound
The debate over the age of Serpent Mound (33AD01) is important because without a cultural context it is impossible to make meaningful statements about what this monumental effigy mound might have meant to its builders. In this response to Romain and Herrmann’s rejoinder, we clarify the provenience of the samples, which yielded the radiocarbon dates that contribute to our argument for a post–Late Woodland age for the effigy. In addition, we extend…
Archaeology (4 works) · Archaeology and ancient environmental studies (3 works) · Radiocarbon dating (3 works) · Geography (2 works) · Geology (2 works) · History (2 works) · History (2 works) · Serpent (symbolism (2 works) · Ancient history (1 works) · Ancient Mediterranean Archaeology and History (1 works)