Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Dillehay and Collins (1991) and Gruhn and Bryan (1991) claim that my review (Lynch 1990) was impaired by errors and misrepresentations, yet they identify only one significant error–the too-early date attributed to Toca do Sitio do Meio. Inspection of the sources shows that my article contained no misrepresentations of the public record available to me at the time of writing. Selective use of sources is necessary in a review of this scale. A careful reading of the primary sources, as well as the other papers cited, will show that I have not misquoted, misconstrued, or taken statements out of context. We are dealing with differences of interpretation and emphasis. There is no such thing as an “obsolete publication,” at least until the information in it has been retracted formally. Understandably, Gruhn and Bryan have been zealots for their pre-Paleoindian cause. Hardly neutral or dispassionate, they have over-reacted to my bringing the other side forward.
Dillehay y Collins (1991) y Gruhn y Bryan (1991) mantienen que mi artículo (Lynch 1990) contiene errores y tergiversaciones. Sin embargo, ellos identifican solamente un error significativo: la fecha excesivamente temprana atribuída a Toca do Sitio do Meio. La inspectión de las fuentes demuestra que mi artículo no tergiversa los anales públicos disponibles al momento de su redacción. El uso selectivo de fuentes primarias, así como de los artículos citados, demonstrará que yo no he citado o interpretado éstos incorrectamente, ni que los he utilizado fuera de contexto; se trata simplemente de diferencias en interpretatión y énfasis. Una publicatión no es obsoleta en tanto la informatión incluída en ella no haya sido retractada formalmente. Es comprehensible que Gruhn y Bryan sean celosos de su causa paleoindia. Dificilmente neutrales o desapasionados, ellos han reaccionado exageradamente al presentar yo una visiín alternativa.