Letters A Few Observations In the feature article “Revealing the Deep Past” (Spring 2014), the author refers to “Clovis people” or “Clovis culture” a number of times. Clovis is a lithic technology. It is a shortlived lithic tradition. It is not a people nor is it a culture. As for the article “A Boy’s Life,” DNA is a valuable datum, but a single datum does not make a population. It is all too easy to grab a new point source as a case for reinterpreting or substantiating controversial theories. I suspect it will generate a plethora of academic papers of questionable long-term value until a data population is recovered with statistical validity. Dr. Leland Gilsen State Archaeologist of Oregon, 1978 - 2002
Refuting the Solutrean Hypothesis DNA results of the Mal’ta boy in Siberia (“A Boy’s Life) and Anzick infant prove beyond a doubt they are directly related to contemporary Native Americans. I wonder how proponents of the Solutrean Hypothesis, who believe early Americans came from the Iberian Peninsula in Europe, will respond if their final card, the Kennewick Man, also turns out to be Native American. Dixie Dringman Rock Island, Washington
Sending Letters to American Archaeology American Archaeology welcomes your letters. Write to us at 1717 Girard Blvd. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87106, 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 Who were the first Americans? This is one of the great unanswered questions in New World archaeology. As experts ponder that question, they might also consider another: were the first Americans artists? David Whitley, an archaeologist and noted rock art researcher, believes that they were. He thinks Paleo-Indian scholars have largely ignored rock art, and in doing so they’ve deprived themselves of an important line of evidence. In our feature “Rock Art Revelations?” (see page 33),Whitley not only makes the case for Paleo-Indian—and even pre-Clovis— rock art, he also argues that the early Americans’ works serve as windows into their souls. Whitley notes the stylistic variations in petroglyphs and pictographs that are 10,000 years and older. From this he concludes that Paleo-Indian peoples possessed greater cultural diversity than stone tools, the primary line of evidence for most first American researchers, suggest. In a paper published last year in the Journal of Archaeology, he wrote that “by at least 10,000 to 11,000 years ago, substantial iconographic, stylistic, and technical differences existed in North and South American rock art.” However,“this diversity has been archaeologically masked by the geographically widespread occurrence of a few diagnostic projectile point types, and the fluting technology that they exhibit.” The problem with Whitley’s argument, in the eyes of his skeptics, is the problem of dating rock art, which Whitley himself admits is difficult. And if he and other researchers can’t “prove” that a rock art image is of Paleo-Indian age, his argument falls apart. But Whitley, and at least some other experts, are convinced that the sophisticated techniques they’re using are producing valid dates. And so, though he can’t say who the first Americans were, he is confident they were artists, and he thinks Paleo-Indian scholars should be mindful that “rock art promises to be an increasingly valuable line of evidence for studying the peopling of the Americas.”
3
