Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. American Antiquity
  4. Volume 16
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

Volume 16 - July 1950

Contents

Page 4 of 6

Book Reviews

Facts and Comments

  • Snaketown IV vs. The Facts

  • Albert H. Schroeder
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    25 January 2017, pp. 263-265

  • In 1937 Gila Pueblo reported on its excavations at Snaketown, a large Hohokam site in southern Arizona, in which a time range from 300 B.C. to 1100 A.D. was assigned (Gladwin, et al, 1937). Gladwin (1942) then presented a revision, based on his own comparative treering research, in which he raised the beginning date for the site up to 600 A.D. In his latest publication Gladwin (1948) brings a second revision in which additional time and cultural alterations are offered. These are again based on his own dendrochronological studies. These results he correlates in turn, on a broad scale, with the Mogollon development.

Book Reviews

Book Notices

Facts and Comments

  • Stephenson's “Culture Chronology in Texas”*

  • Alex D. Krieger
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    25 January 2017, pp. 265-267

  • When a synthesis such as Stephenson's appears, those concerned with it had better speak up, lest silence be mistaken for approval. Synthesis can only be helpful to the rest of the profession if done as accurately as available information permits. “Culture Chronology in Texas” is not entirely accurate. A line-for-line criticism of this article would require a good deal of explanation and documentation; hence I will confine my remarks to what seem to me the principal faults – those which may mislead those not well acquainted with Texas archaeology.

Book Notices

Book Reviews

Other

Meeting Report

Book Notices

Book Reviews

Book Notices

Other

Book Reviews

Page 4 of 6