Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T14:25:41.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reply to Richard T. Smith

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gregory Knapp*
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706

Abstract

The distinction between embanked and sunken fields is not merely semantic. There is good evidence for frequent flooding at Chilca. Archaeostratigraphy provides neither privileged nor unambiguous evidence for original field function. The full range of environmental, archaeological, ethnohistoric, and ethnographic evidence is more consistent with the embanked-field theory than with Smith’s alternative.

Information

Type
Comments
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1983

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable