Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology

Eugene Ruyle and Keith Dixon, long-time advocates of Puvunga-related issues and members of the Anthropology Department at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), are active stakeholders in the current debate. Since Ruyle and Dixon also offer the most critical reviews of our article, we turn our attention to their comments first. Although Ruyle and Dixon emphasize somewhat different issues, they reflect quite similar lines of commentary. The reader will notice, for instance, that Ruyle and Dixon essentially ignore the major points made by our article. Instead, both commentators adopt a strategy favored by trial lawyers: If you cannot refute your opponent's arguments directly, distract the jury with confusing side issues and character assassination. These diversionary tactics are designed to destroy the credibility of our article on three grounds: it leaves out vital information; we are guilty of sloppy scholarship; and we are "hired guns," somehow enticed by the administration of CSULB to propagate ideas inimical to Native Americans and historic preservation. Let us look at these charges more closely.