•  
  •  
 

Agency

Caddo Archeology Journal

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 (Canton Incised, Sanders Engraved, Maxey Noded Redware, Monksto\vn Fingernail Impressed, and Sanders Plain) reported from the list of "sites with probable Sanders phase components" recently proffered by Bruseth, Wilson, and Perttula.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Share

 
COinS

Tell us how this article helped you.

 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.