Skousen and Aiuvalasit critique our article on the post-Mississippian occupation of the Horseshoe Lake watershed (White et al. 2020) along two lines: (1) that our findings are not supported due to a lack of archaeological evidence, and (2) that we do not consider alternative hypotheses in explaining the lake's fecal stanol record. We first respond to the matter of fecal stanol deposition in Horseshoe Lake and then address the larger issue, the primacy of archaeological data in interpreting the past.

中文翻译：

---

回复 Skousen 和 Aiuvalasit：论考古数据的首要地位

Skousen 和 Aiuvalasit 批评了我们关于马蹄湖流域后密西西比州占领的文章（White 等人，2020 年）：(1) 由于缺乏考古证据，我们的发现没有得到支持，以及 (2)在解释该湖的粪便甾烷醇记录时，我们不考虑其他假设。我们首先回应马蹄湖中粪便甾烷醇沉积的问题，然后解决更大的问题，即考古数据在解释过去时的首要地位。