Abstract
Hockett's (2005) examination of the faunal deposition rates at three sites in the Great Basin contains two fundamental errors. The rates are calculated using uncalibrated radiocarbon determinations, and ignores the fact that atmospheric radiocarbon has fluctuated through the millennia. Second, despite pronouncements on significant differences, no formal significance tests were done. This comment re-analyzes two of the sites discussed by Hockett using calibrated radiocarbon determinations and formal statistical significance tests.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Museology,Archeology,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),History