Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T11:34:36.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Response to Hart and Lovis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2016

Donna C Roper*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology/Anthropology/Social Work, Kansas State University, 204 Waters Hall, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, USA. Email: droper@ksu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

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.

Information

Type
Comments and Replies
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona