data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b7d08/b7d08367fd13229bbe9cd8f895948a9a0cb72687" alt="Open Access"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/14860/14860ac2bcace6ee748908af5749a268a5943cd4" alt="Restricted Access"
A Response to Hart and Lovis
Abstract
Hart and Lovis clearly hold different views than do I about how to view incongruities in age determinations on food residue as compared to those on context dates on other short-lived materials. I explain how I came to the conclusions I drew in my earlier study (Roper 2013a) and suggest that I am evaluating my results, and those of others, by looking for patterns in the incongruities, rather than individually explaining away incongruent dates. I also briefly review some work with a collaborator being undertaken to correct the obvious problem with age-offset dates on residue.
DOI: 10.2458/56.17831
Keywords
residue; North American Plains