On "Perpetuating Misinformation": A Reply to Reyman

Abstract

by ANNA SOFAER and ROLF M. SINCLAIR The Solstice Project, P. 0. Box 9619, Washington, D.C. 20016/National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. 20550, U.S.A. 7 v 86 Reyman (CA 27:155) accuses Marshack of perpetuating by referring (CA 26:537-39) to our archaeoastronomical studies of the three-slab site on Fajada Butte in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. At this prehistoric site three rock slabs form light-and-shadow patterns on two carved spirals. Distinctive patterns on the mark the solstices and equinoxes (Sofaer, Zinser, and Sinclair 1979) and lunar extremes (Sofaer, Sinclair, and Doggett 1982). On the same butte there are seven other markings of the solstices and equinoxes coupled with indications of midday (Sofaer and Sinclair 1984, n.d.). Reyman claims that studies ... have the originai of Sofaer and her colleagues. This is not borne out by the evidence he cites. Of his six references, two are his own earlier versions of the same accusations (Reyman 1980, 1985). The next two (Carlson 1983, 1984) are consecutive publications of a review of our general-interest film describing our work; although offering criticism, this review refutes specifically neither our theses nor our The next reference (Zeilik 1985) has been shown to contain serious errors, including miscalculations and misuse of references (Sofaer and Sinclair 1986). The authors of the last reference (Newman, Mark, and Vivian 1982) have since modified their to allow for the possibility of the of Sofaer et al. (Simon 1982). In addition, Reyman's comments and references ignore our subsequent discoveries (Sofaer and Sinclair 1984, n.d.) of further nearby sites that reinforce the reached in our earlier work. In summary, an inspection of Reyman's references shows that they have not disproved [our] original conclusions or dispute[d] many of the basic data. At most they have advanced alternative interpretations of only some of the As a further criticism of our work, Reyman states that spirals are not solar motifs per se. He does not mention that we have never claimed them to be such or that such an assumption is not central to our thesis. The ethnographic studies of the historic (post-A.D. 1900) Pueblo cultures he cites as evidence cannot be taken as exclusive guides to prehistoric (ca. A.D. 1000) Pueblo usages because of the well-documented isruptions that characterized the intervening millennium (see, for example, Berry 1982, Cordell 1984, Upham 1984). As far as the precision of the Fajada seasonal markings is concerned, we do not claim anything not self-evident in the data we reported. We have demonstrated the existence of seasonally varying light patterns on petroglyphs that emphasize the extremes and midpoints of basic solar and lunar cycles. We agree with Reyman that the particular carvings on Fajada Butte (like other rock art) cannot be dated absolutely; our assignment of these astronomically involved petroglyphs to one phase of the Chaco culture is perforce inferential, as we have already made clear in an earlier response (Sofaer, Zinser, and Sinclair 1980). This assignment, however, is based on strong analogies in the archaeological record of that time and place as well as with underlying themes of the historic tradition (Sofaer et al. 1979, Sofaer and Sinclair n.d.). In summary, Reyman's description of our work as misinformation is unsubstantiated and misrepresents our contributions to Chacoan prehistory.