AT-0157

Pigati, Jeffrey S., et al. (2022). “Response to Comment…” _Science_ 375(6577). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm6987. Role: authors’ response; use beside, not instead of, the critique.

DOI · Critical / corrective research

verifiedRetraction / correction review1 usage record

Source record

This is one canonical bibliographic record with topic-scoped research-use entries. It does not reproduce the paper, book, text, dataset, image, or manuscript and does not imply that full text was reviewed.

Canonical source ID: AT-0157
Accepted usage IDs: AT-0157
Types: DOI
Roles: Critical / corrective research
Verification: verified
Archive state: unavailable-through-registered-public-or-tdm-routes
Access: unavailable-through-registered-public-or-tdm-routes
Rights: not identified; not cleared
Public reproduction: Not cleared; citation and link only.
Correction / retraction: no retraction flag in checked Crossref/OpenAlex metadata

Recorded research uses

AT-0157

White Sands Footprints

Why Ancient Inquiry uses this citation here

authors’ response; use beside, not instead of, the critique.

What this usage does not establish

Bibliographic verification does not by itself establish that the full text was read.

Open topic

Topics citing it and claims using it

Topic citing this source

White Sands Footprints

Open topic

Supporting citation for public claim

The 2021 age model placed key White Sands track-bearing layers at about 23,000–21,000 years ago; later radiocarbon and luminescence work supports an LGM-age sequence without directly dating every footprint.

Claim extracted from the installed dossier scorecard.

Open claim topic

Limiting / critical citation for public claim

The association of dated materials with individual track surfaces, site formation, and the narrowest defensible age range remain under technical debate.

The evidence does not automatically support broader causal, technological, transmission, or literalizing claims beyond the cited record.

Open claim topic

Access and actions

Pigati, Jeffrey S., et al. (2022). “Response to Comment…” _Science_ 375(6577). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm6987. Role: authors’ response; use beside, not instead of, the critique.

Open original

Pigati, Jeffrey S., et al. (2022). “Response to Comment…” _Science_ 375(6577). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm6987. Role: authors’ response; use beside, not instead of, the critique.

Source record

Recorded research uses

White Sands Footprints

Why Ancient Inquiry uses this citation here

What this usage does not establish

Topics citing it and claims using it

White Sands Footprints

The 2021 age model placed key White Sands track-bearing layers at about 23,000–21,000 years ago; later radiocarbon and luminescence work supports an LGM-age sequence without directly dating every footprint.

The association of dated materials with individual track surfaces, site formation, and the narrowest defensible age range remain under technical debate.

Access and actions

Search Ancient Inquiry

Ancient Inquiry menu

Visual theme

Prepare an issue report