Talk:Serpent Mound

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

I've done some major expanding on this page. If you could clean it up or wikify it more, it would be greatly appreciated. Last Pantagruelist 03:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The first image is dead...anyone know why? Alex 03:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

deleted? I just noticed the same thing. Annoying. +sj + 18:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice article - one quibble regarding Serpent Mound and cryptoexplosion structure

"Though the meaning is grounds for debate, the mound's placement on such an area is almost undoubtedly not by coincidence"

I would argue that it is likely coincidence and they they simply chose a local topographic high. The structure is several km across and the mound is not in the center but rather at the rim uplift. The word "undoubtedly" seems strong.

Otherwise it suggests that the mound builders knew that the local geology was slightly anomalous (at least by Ohio standards). I would argue that while the builders were undoubtedly keen observers and may have noted some differences, the change in bedrock geology definitely not obvious, especially prior to roadcuts, quarries, and the like. It is clear that the meteor or possibly volcanic explosion occurred tens of millions of years before humans existed.

There are a few minerals (flourite, etc) that are rare in this part of Ohio that occur in the Serpent Mound disturbance and maybe those were noticed but otherwise it takes systematic mapping of faults, strikes, and dips to identify it.

Contents

[edit] Footnotes

Does anyone know why the footnotes were removed from the bottom of the article? The footnote superscripts are still in the body of the article 205.133.190.7 01:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)dkc

Got me.. looking at the history it seems that it must have been some time ago. I added a reference section with the reflist template, so there are footnotes again. Also renamed "Bibliography" to the more common WP "Further reading", and moved "External links" below that, following regular WP section ordering. Pfly 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HEAD

The article should be titled, IMO, "Great Serpent Mound" vice "Serpent Mound"--there are other serpent mounds such as the serpent mound in Ross County Ohio! Thoughts? Doc Rock 16:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual interpretation

The 1848 map illustration suggests an obvious sperm/vagina interpretation, but the article does not seem to mention any sexual possibilities. -69.87.200.153 22:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I suppose I see what you mean, it is unlikely prehistoric Native Americans had ever seen sperm, which are microscopic. TriNotch 05:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad introduction

The present introduction contains a detailed description of the snake figure which does not belong in the introductory paragraph at all. Other stuff belongs in the introduction however that aren't there. __meco (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

-- Style -- This article has very poor style for an encyclopedia article. Asides about 'archaeological interests' and problems with terminology are written in an opinionated style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.104.116 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)