Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T15:01:56.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of Iron Meteoritic Material From Ohio and Illinois Hopewellian Burial Mounds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Abstract

An iron-nickel bead from Mound 9 at Havana, Illinois is distinctly different from samples from the Hopewell and Turner Mounds in Ohio. Whereas the source of the Ohio material appears to have been the Brenham, Kansas meteorite, there is no known North American meteorite having a composition closely similar to that of the Havana bead.

Type
Reports
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Griffin, J. B. 1967 Eastern North American archaeology: a summary. Science 156:175-91.Google Scholar
Grogan, R. M. 1948 Beads of meteoric iron from an Indian mound near Havana, Illinois. American Antiquity 13:302-05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunz, G. F. 1890 On five new American meteorites. American Journal of Science 140:312-23.Google Scholar
Prufer, O. H. 1961 Prehistoric Hopewell meteorite collecting: context and implications. Ohio Journal of Science 61:341-52.Google Scholar
Scott, E. R. D., and Wasson, J. T. 1975 Classification and properties of iron meteorites. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics 13:52746.Google Scholar
Wasson, J. T., and Schaudy, R. 1971 The chemical classification of iron meteorities–V. Groups IIIC and HID and other irons with germaninium concentrations between 1 and 25 ppm. Icarus 14:59-70.Google Scholar
Wasson, J. T., and Sedwick, S. P. 1969 Possible sources of meteoritic material from Hopewell Indian burial mounds. Nature 222:22-24.Google Scholar