Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:37:35.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What, Really, Were Gorgets?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Orville H. Peets
Orville H. Peets*
Affiliation:
Indian River Hundred R. D., Millsboro, Delaware
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The most unsatisfactory artifact names are those which imply some definite but essentially imaginary function. Those who use such names may confess that they have no proof of this function, but they often defend their position by citing the belief-excusable even when unfounded - that a name of such importance would not have been accepted without sufficient investigation. It is suggested that the term gorget was ultimately derived from the name applied to a metal military ornament used in the 18th century.

Type
Facts and Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , July 1965 , pp. 113 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1965

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

Déchelette, Joseph 1910 Manuel d’Archéologie, Tome II. Auguste Picard, Editeur. Paris.Google Scholar
Fowke, Gerard 1896 Stone Art. Thirteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, pp. 47–178. Washington.Google Scholar
Robertson, R. S. 1878 Gorgets, or What? American Antiquarian, Vol. 11, p. 100. New York.Google Scholar
Shepard, Anna O. 1957 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington.Google Scholar
Woodward, Arthur, 1926 Indian Use of the Silver Gorget. Indian Notes, Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 232–49. New York.Google Scholar