Response to Miksicek, Elsesser, Wuebber, Bruhns, and Hammond
A recent statement by the five authors purports to demonstrate that the fruit we previously identified as ramón was really achiote. This response points out several weaknesses in the five authors' ethnohistorical methodology that makes their identification far less secure. The original aim of o...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American antiquity 1983-01, Vol.48 (1), p.128-131 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | A recent statement by the five authors purports to demonstrate that the fruit we previously identified as ramón was really achiote. This response points out several weaknesses in the five authors' ethnohistorical methodology that makes their identification far less secure. The original aim of our paper is restated to turn discussion away from the minor point of ramón versus achiote. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0002-7316 2325-5064 |
DOI: | 10.2307/279825 |