Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:32:18.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reply to Dincauze

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Donald Chrisman
Affiliation:
Andover Foundation for Archaeological Research, Box 83, Andover, MA 01810
Richard S. MacNeish
Affiliation:
Andover Foundation for Archaeological Research, Box 83, Andover, MA 01810
Geoffrey Cunnar
Affiliation:
Western Cultural Resource Management, 1206 Murray Drive, Farmington, NM 87401

Abstract

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.

Este artículo corrige algunas suposiciones falsas hechas por Dincauze, entre ellas: (1) su área de trabajofue en la mitad sur de la unidad, no en el quadrante noreste intacto bajo el cual se encontraron las huellas digitales; (2) la posible actividad de roedores fue reportada en los dibujos de petfil (19) y en las notas y trazos de pisos de los excavadores (121 casos); (3) no se espero ni desed el apoyo de Dincauze: (4) las aserciones sobre el Paleoindio son válidas según los criterios de Griffin; (5) MacNeish ha mantenido por décadas altos estándares en sus reportes y continuará manteniéndolos.

Type
Comments
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1997

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.)