The dating of the Lake Mohave artifact assemblage relative to the fossil beaches on which the material was found has been in dispute since Malcolm Rogers (1939) published a monograph disagreeing with several findings given in the original report (Campbells, Antevs, Amsden and Bode, 1937). Mr. Rogers' critique was never answered by the original authors, and his findings have been accepted consequently by most authors who have attempted summaries of the material (Martin, Quimby and Collier 1947, p. 437 and Fig. 122; Wormington 1949, pp. 84-87; Roberts 1951, p. 126). Rogers agreed with the Campbells that the great majority of the artifacts found (Rogers, p. 42, puts it at 95 per cent) are restricted to the surfaces of the fossil beaches. Rogers questioned, however, the Campbells' conclusion that human occupation was contemporaneous with times when the lake stood at the overflow level, which is that of the beaches. Rogers' most crucial evidence was given as follows: “There is splendid evidence that this condition did not prevail, because of the presence of a large encampment on the 937'-940' bay bar which extends directly across the outlet channel. Man could not have camped in this section during any period of overflow.” (Rogers 1939, p. 43). This “beach bar site” was previously reported by the Campbells. Rogers' statement, in contrast to Bode's original determination (Campbells et al., p. 108), implies that the bar actually blocks the old outlet, and thus that it, and its occupational evidence, must postdate the period during which the lake overflowed.