Home > Research Projects and Centers > Center for Regional Heritage Research > Index of Texas Archaeology > Vol.
Agency
Caddo Archeology Journal
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21112/.ita.1999.1.19
Abstract
Perttula is correct in pointing out that there are numerical errors in a recently published table of mine. A revised version is presented here as Table 1. Although several of these errors are numerically large and might have caused problems had they gone uncorrected, Perttula is not correct in suggesting that they are "serious" in the sense that they have affected the conclusions I "reached based on the table," the insinuation being that they weaken my Sanders entrepot hypothesis. They do not. That hypothesis is part of the reinterpretation of the archeology and bioanthropology of the Arkansas Valley and the Red River Valley which I have been developing for more than eight years. It could hardly be weakened by errors in this table which is simply a compilation of the pottery of the five so-called Sanders focus/phase types reported from the list of "sites with probable Sanders phase components" recently proffered by Bruseth, Wilson, and Perttula.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Included in
American Material Culture Commons, Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, Other American Studies Commons, Other Arts and Humanities Commons, Other History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons, United States History Commons
Tell us how this article helped you.
