Abstract

Archaeologists have long disagreed about when and how humans first migrated into the Americas; a point particularly in contention is whether there is any convincing evidence of human occupation earlier than about 12,000 years ago. This article ex amines some recent publications on the controversy, selected especially from review articles and from a recent series, written by professional archaeologists, that appeared in a popular magazine, Natural History. The sample texts are analyzed from a rhetorical perspective with emphasis on textual features such as word choice, hedging, arrange ment, self-reference, argumentative topic, and figure. Such features are taken to be signs of the writer's accommodation to audience and situation as determined in part by the place of publication. The analysis reveals some of the rich variety of persuasive techniques employed in popular and review publications by scientists who find themselves in a disciplinary stalemate, for example, the attempt of each side to depict itself as in the minority. The well-crafied popular pieces also use explicit appeals left only im plicit in the review articles; for example, the popular pieces describe the writer's status based on years of experience and support conclusions by narrating the long process of inquiry followed before a verdict was reached.