You are on page 1of 3

1- [incorrect summary of the published literature] p.

456 Red Linear is one of four presently defined prehistoric rock art styles in the Lower Pecos *There are five styles defined in the literature. Lower Pecos Serpentine (Turpin 1997) is forgotten in Boyd, Castaneda, and Koenig's paper. 2-[radiocarbon date range for Pecos River Style pictographs not accurately reported] p.458 Twenty five radiocarbon assays have been obtained and range from approximately 4,200 to 2,750 years ago (Rowe 2009). p. 459 Two experiential radiocarbon assays have been used to suggest Red Linear was produced approximately 1,300 years ago, almost 1,500 years after the youngest date for Pecos River Style * Boyd, Castaneda, and Koenig do not take into account all published radiocarbon dates for Pecos river Style Paintings. Three younger dates are reported in Rowe (2004) including a date of 1960 +/- 220 years for the White Shaman Site. Two younger dates are reported for the San Vicente Shelter 1930 +/- 170 and 2500 +/- 255 years. 3- [inaccurate statement] p.457 (Anthropomorphs) range in size between 1 and 5 m, some are monumental, towering over 8 m tall in height, while others are less than 10 cm tall *There are many more small anthropomorphs in Pecos River Style art than this statement reflects. The average height of a Pecos River Style anthropomorph is considerably less than 1 meter. Boyd, Castaneda, and Koenig's statement does not take into account the numerous diminutive anthropomorphs found in association with the larger focus point anthropomorphs. 4-[problem with the chronology and culture history] p. 459 She (incorrectly) proposed that Red Linear style resulted from a Late Archaic intrusion of bison hunters into the Lower Pecos. *Turpin's argument, as it is presented in Boyd, Castaneda, and Koenig, does not indicate a cultural gap of over a millennium as they suggest, but instead that interaction took place between two cultures. This would argue for the potential for over-painting between the two styles. By Turpin's hypothesis both styles could have been produced concurrently in the Lower Pecos, leading to some cases where Pecos River Style paintings superimpose Red Linear. 5-[confused use of terminology] p. 461Rock art panels are both archaeological feat ures and palimpsests It falls to the archaeologist then to sort out these palimpsests...the stratigraphic relationship between artifacts.

*Rock art panels are sites not features. Rock art panels are only features if all the art was painted at the same time. Palimpsests classically refer to manuscripts on which earlier writings were erased, but are still partially visible; thus, diachronic text features overlapping on a two dimensional surface. Archaeologists use the term palimpsest to refer to deflated sites, those where accumulated diachronic occupations are present on the ground surface, for example. Stratified sites are not palimpsests. Rock art panels are only palimpsests if they consist of multiple, over-painted diachronic features. 6-[circular reasoning] p. 472 Turpin's identification of 41VV201 as the type site for Red Linear was supported by this analysis. Based on our examination of 444 Red Linear figures from 12 sites throughout the Lower Pecos Canyonlands, we determined that 41VV201 is generally representative. *Boyd, Castaneda, and Koenig used the imagery from 41VV201 (the type site) in their analysis to define what is Red Linear Style, so of course the selected imagery will be representative of this site. 7-[inaccurate Harris Matrix sequence] p. 474 A large black atlatl loaded with a a red dart is also super-imposed by the enigmatic U-shape, as is the black wrist adornment attached to the arm of the Pecos River Style anthropomorph wielding the atlatl see also Figure 8.b, a schematic of the painting sequence. *As can be seen in Photo 1 the Harris Matrix reported in figure 8.b is apparently incorrect. The black atlatl over-paints the yellow U symbol, not the other way around. 8-[problematic identification] p.477 One of the superimposed figures is a curvilinear anthropomorph *This figure does not look like an anthropomorph. See photo 2. It looks like the intersection of two discontinuous curved line and one straight line not an intentional figure from either Pecos River Style or Red Linear canon and cannot be placed in any stylistic classification. This element cannot be definitively identified as a Red Linear figure. 9-[lack of diagnostic classification] p. 478 Rather, the Red Linear style is best described as a matrix of attributes, not as a single color, size, or body shape. *By straying from the original definition of the style presented in the cited references in her paper and in Turpin (1984) it is hard to ascertain if Boyd, Castaneda, and Koenig are discussing the same imagery as the earlier scholars. In order to separate Red Linear from Pecos River Style imagery they must look to mutually exclusive traits, those that are truly diagnostic, only found in one style or the other. Some of the attributes of

figures at the Red Linear type can also be used to describe figures that fit well within the range of variability of Pecos River Style and other pictographs. Thus some of Boyd, Castaneda, and Koenig's stylistic identifications as Red Linear Style may be false positives.

References cited: Rowe, Marvin W. 2004 Radiocarbon Dating of Ancient Pictographs with Accelerator Mass Spectrometry. Rock Art Research 21(2). Turpin, Solvieg A. 1984 The Red Linear Style Pictographs of the Lower Pecos River Region, Texas. Plains Anthropologist 35(105):181-198. 1997 Archaeology and the Lewis Canyon Petroglyphs. In The Lewis Canyon Petroglyphs. Rock Art Foundation, Special Publication 2. San Antonio Texas.