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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American antiquity 1983-01, Vol.48 (1), p.128-131
Hauptverfasser: Reina, Ruben E., Hill, II, Robert M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
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