The authors express regret that Rowe's article tends to perpetuate emotional aspects of diffusion-independent invention controversy. They feel that Rowe places too narrow limits on kind of evidence he will consider that he is either unaware of or ignores published works pertaining to this controversy. It is pointed out that, contrary to Rowe's contention, much evidence exists proving possibility of early oceanic voyaging that, in view of this evidence, large numbers of shared traits argue for diffusion. Rowe's contention that general presentations of diffusionist principles are lacking is refuted by citations of such presentations, it is argued that diffusionism's threat to comparative studies is exaggerated is irrelevant to its validity as an explanation. Rowe seeks to show bias on part of by suggesting that they ignore Mediterranean-American similarities while emphasizing circumpacific but authors cite examples of studies suggesting transatlantic contacts. WE MUST express our regret that an article (Rowe 1966) in a scholarly journal should be filled with such imputations directed at professional colleagues as strident claims, fantasies, evasion, selection, nonsense, 16th-century thinking, so forth. We must agree with Rowe's (1966: 334) statement that the general public tends to assume, with a touching innocence, that scholar with a Ph.D. can be trusted to present evidence fairly; we feel that Rowe's article amply proves this lack of fairness (though doubtless in a different fashion that Rowe intended) by perpetuating same lack of objectivity which he decries in diffusionists, by which he apparently means those suggesting cultural diffusion (especially within or to New World) over long distances, particularly by ocean voyaging. His allusions to Ecuador Japan, etc., demonstrate that he includes among diffusionists even such careful cautious workers as Meggers, Evans, Estrada (1965). We agree with Rowe's (1966: 337) statement, What is needed is an impartial general inquiry into significance of cultural parallels, but we feel that remainder of his article belies this professed attitude of objectivity. The diffusionism-independent invention controversy has for too long been a conflict in which, as Hamblin (1964: 70), describing another controversy, has put it, scholars have put forward one doctrinaire type of explanation or another, and then (have) sat back with cocked typewriters in a sort of literary High Noont, ready to fire at other typewriter that moved. We agree that many fanciful diffusionist theories have been put forth (as well as many imagination-straining claims of independent invention), but we feel that there has been too much reflex reaction to new ideas which threaten entrenched ones. Attachment to ideas of one's teachers, of one's colleagues, or of one's own has too often led to an unreasoned resistance to innovation. Rowe seems afraid that young archaeologists in United States are being seduced from traditional isolationist viewpoint by biased presentations of diffusionist theories warns (1966: 337) that any innocent archaeologist who comes away . . . convinced that transpacific contacts are wave of future is sadly deluded; we disagree that these presentations are particularly biased would warn equally against antidiffusionist indoctrination, or, indeed, against indoctrination of stripe. We believe in letting facts speak for themselves; we believe that doctrinaire diffusion doctrinaire anti-diffusion should both be obsolete. There will doubtless be many cases in which a definitive conclusion will be impossible, in which some will prefer diffusion as an explanation, others independent invention. But honest opinions of scholars should be respected no matter how divergent they may be from