Reply to Dincauze
Dados Bibliográficos
| AUTOR(ES) | |
|---|---|
| ANO | 1997 |
| TIPO | Artigo |
| PERIÓDICO | American Antiquity |
| ISSN | 0002-7316 |
| E-ISSN | 2325-5064 |
| EDITORA | Cambridge University Press |
| DOI | 10.2307/282172 |
| ADICIONADO EM | 2025-08-18 |
| MD5 |
0618b602b3c1346c10afbd7a5cb69bf0
|
Resumo
This paper corrects a number of false assumptions made by Dincauze, among them the following: (1) her work area was in the southern half of the unit, not the undisturbed northeast quadrant below which imprints were found; (2) possible rodent activity was reported on profile drawings (19) and in excavators' notes and floor plots (121 instances); (3) no endorsement from Dincauze was expected or desired; (4) the Paleoindian claims are valid by Griffin's criteria; (5) MacNeish has followed high standards of reporting for decades and will continue to do so.