Letters CANADA’S FIRST BANN BRITIS ER
HBANN COLON ERY BANN RESTOERRING BANN AN IMPO ERRTAN BANN T HAWA ER BANN IIAN SITE ER MARY BANNLAND ER BANN ’S OLDES ER T STRUCTURES
american archaeology •
•
••
Don’t Forget Fort St. George
SPRING 2012
a quarterly public
Jeffrey Phipps Brain Archaeologist, Peabody Essex Museum Salem, Massachusetts
Conservancy
Vol. 16 No.1
Kachina Tradition’s Influence THE
$3.95
I enjoyed the article “Colonizing Canada” (Spring 2012) describing the project at Cupids Cove on Newfoundland. But I am surprised by the statement attributed to archaeologist Bill Gilbert that “the only earlier fortification [than Cupids] is Jamestown in Virginia” which overlooks Fort St. George on the Kennebec River in Maine (“Discovering An Archaeological Time Capsule,” Winter 2000-2001). Fort St. George was built by the Popham Colonists in 1607. The Popham Colony was the sister colony of Jamestown, the other half of the two-pronged attempt by England to secure all of the North American coast between Spanish Florida and French Canada.The Popham Colony failed after only a year, but not before they had constructed a substantial fortification three years before the Newfoundlanders. Of course, both the French and Spanish, who were on the scene much earlier, also built fortifications.
ation of The Archa eological
Spring 2012 mag
c.indd 1
Katsina, Not Kachina
2/23/12 7:23:04 PM
Please note that the spelling “kachina,” which was used in “The Power Of The Kachina Tradition” (Spring 2012), is outdated and disrespectful of contemporary Southwestern Pueblo people who make and utilize the figures, and who have asked that the proper spelling be used (i.e., katsina). Nor are they “dolls.” To say they are dolls is in league with saying a crucifix is a doll. It is a blasphemy. Claire R. Farrer, Ph.D. Emerita Professor of Anthropology California State University, Chico
Sending Letters to American Archaeology American Archaeology welcomes your letters. Write to us at 5301 Central Avenue NE, Suite 902, Albuquerque, NM 87108-1517, or send us e-mail at tacmag@nm.net. We reserve the right to edit and publish letters in the magazine’s Letters department as space permits. Please include your name, address, and telephone number with all correspondence, including e-mail messages. american archaeology
Editor’s Corner For years Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley have argued that, some 20,000 years ago, long before the Clovis period, some brave souls set out from Europe’s Iberian Peninsula, crossed the Atlantic Ocean, and landed in the New World (see “Iberia, Not Siberia?” Page 38). Recently, there have been a number of important discoveries and provocative claims in first American studies, and this is certainly one of the more provocative and potentially important ones. Not long ago there were first American scholars who complained about a “Clovis police” that patrolled the halls of academe, rigidly enforcing the Clovis First doctrine and suppressing crazy notions to the contrary. But times, and hypotheses, are changing. It appears there are fewer and fewer Clovis police working that beat, and perhaps that’s why these provocative ideas, some of which now seem entirely plausible, are circulating at conferences and being published in journals and books. As Mike Waters said recently, “It’s an exciting time to be in first American studies.” Waters is the director of the Center For First American Studies at Texas A&M University and the principal investigator at the Friedkin site in central Texas, where he’s uncovered thousands of pre-Clovis artifacts. Friedkin is one of the more convincing of the numerous pre-Clovis sites that have been reported. Another of those sites, Paisley Caves in Oregon, has yielded pre-Clovis human DNA as well as artifacts. Stanford and Bradley appear to have a good many skeptics, but they are unfazed by their opposition. And their skeptics are opposing, not suppressing, their argument. Goodbye Clovis police, and good riddance.
3
