Letters Too Little of Little Bighorn As a member of the Conservancy, I enjoy all the issues of American Archaeology, but the Summer issue was really fantastic. One of the reasons I joined was because of my fascination with and concern for Southwestern prehistoric sites. The article “Driving into Prehistory” was especially wonderful. However, it is Anita Stratos's article “Archaeology Goes to War” that is the subject of this request. The Little Bighorn story is another of my main interests. Stratos did a wonderful job within the confines of the magazine, but I would love to see more and read more from the two archaeologists in her story. Unfortunately, the map at the top of page 20 is so small as to be indistinct.The location of artifacts shown is vital to the story and to understanding who did what, where, and when. Thank you for your dedication and mission. It makes life not only more enjoyable, but more rewarding to know of your vital work. (Jared) Adam Lynch Monroeville, Pennsylvania
No Shortage of Spencers In the article “Archaeology Goes to War,” the author states that Spencer rifle/carbine ammunition hadn’t been manufactured for at least eight years prior to the Red River War of 1875. In fact, several companies of the 9th and 10th cavalry were still armed with Spencers as late as 1874. The U.S. Army bought over 15,000 Spencer rifles between 1861 and 1865 and outfitted 10 regiments of cavalry with Spencer carbines between 1866 and 1871. While a new Winchester ’66 or ’73 cost about $30
american archaeology
to $35 retail west of the Mississippi, a Spencer, complete with 100 rounds of ammunition, could be bought for about $7 in the same area. The presence of Spencer cartridges on the Indian side of the battle in 1875 should surprise no one, and it is certainly not evidence of Indians hoarding Spencer ammunition, which remained plentiful for at least another quarter of a century. C. F. Eckhardt Seguin, Texas
Piecing the Puzzle Together Seeing the rock foundation of a Hohokam building on page 40 of the Summer issue was simply amazing. Archaeologists are like detectives; they can take pieces of the puzzle and put them together and tell you what the ruins mean. In this case, they determined it was an agricultural building. A tip of the proverbial hat to Del Webb for recognizing that this site needs to be preserved and being generous enough to donate it. Robert Charles Mitchell II Sacramento, California
Sending Letters to
American Archaeology American Archaeology welcomes your letters. Write to us at 5301 Central Avenue NE, Suite 402, Albuquerque, NM 87108-1517, or send us e-mail at archcons@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.
Editor’s Corner Two of the feature articles in this issue— “The First Americans” and “Challenging the Clovis Paradigm”—touch upon one of the most interesting debates in American archaeology: Who were the first people to inhabit the New World? In the former article, archaeologist Brian Fagan makes the case for the Clovis being first; in the latter piece, archaeologist Michael Collins expresses a contrary view. Not so long ago, as Fagan says, “Clovis first” was a truism. But over the last few decades, a number of researchers have questioned this “fact.” Sites that claim to offer evidence of preClovis occupation, such as Monte Verde, Cactus Hill, Meadowcroft, and Topper (see the News article on page 10) fuel the debate. Some archaeologists speak of a “Clovis police” that refuses to consider the possibility of a pre-Clovis people. Fagan, clearly, is not a member of this force. He makes his case for Clovis with reluctance. I have spoken to several archaeologists about this debate and the majority of them believe the Clovis were the first Americans. But, with one exception, they were anything but dogmatic in their reasoning or dismissive of the work done at pre-Clovis sites. Let the debate continue unconstrained by ideology and closed-mindedness. Without the free exchange of ideas, there is no debate.
Michael Bawaya Editor
3
