cleansed sections appear splashy, ready tornbe seen from a distance.rnIs this still Michelangelo? That is arnhard question to answer. Art critic AlexanderrnEliot, mural painter Frank Mason,rnProf. James Beck of Columbia, art dealerrnRoland F’eldman, plus the 15 most prominentrnAmerican painters who signed arnletter of protest to the Vatican, agree thatrnthe present restoration is guilt)’ of what Irnwould call “puritanism,” the earlier-mentionedrnimpulse to erase time. To whichrnthe chief theoretician of the Sistinernrestoration, Fabrizio Mancinelli, answeredrnthat Michelangelo, a Florenhne,rnwas trained in the rapid work that the frescornpainting demands. Since the frescorndried in one day {“giomata”), the artistrncould mo’e on to the next. The answerrnto this argument is that Michelangelornwas working in Rome (he even rejectedrnadvice b’ his fellow Florentines who hadrncome to visit him) in whose damp andrnmarsln air he knew he had to use anotherrntechnique and paint slowly, repeatedly,rndevotedly, expressing his real vision arnsecco. . . . The fresco was only a workingrnoutline, the struggle of genius was superadded.rnThere is proof, even outsidernVasari’s description, that the masterrnworked slowly, with a light attached tornhis hat, “his loins penetrating to hisrnpaunch” —these are his own words—”hisrnrump a crupper as a counterweight.” Hernpainted oer and over, reworked, and inrnthe process he renewed Renaissancernpainhng. How are we to conclude thatrnthis daring man would have been contentrnvith bare sketches, that he wouldrnhae refrained from his titanic strugglernwith angels, saints, sibyls, and prophets?rnLet us repeat that the times are notrnpropihous for large-scale restorahon exceptrnw hen mere technical know-howrnis inoled, as in the protection of thernParthenon, And our times are not propitiousrnfor restoration because they are notrncreatie times. Our contemporaries believernin nothing—how coidd they thinkrnalong the lines of great creators, whosernart, no matter how perfected, was in theirrnminds onl’ a reflection of the divine?rnThere is something h’pical and symbolic,rncertainh’ not incongruous, in the fact thatrnthe restoration is partly paid for by thernNippon Television Network Corporationrn(three million dollars), in exchange forrnrights to film the process. Commercialismrndoes not just mix here with beautyrnand spirituality; it obscenely interferesrnwith both, while strengthening the Restorers”rnFaction. Let’s face it, the latterrnhave the support of an international pressurerngroup of museum directors heavilyrnengaged in restorations (the art mustrnshine to attract visitors and donors, mustn’trnit?), art critics, professors, publishers.. .,rnA compromise? Perhaps; slow work,rnfrequent interruptions in order to sur’eyrnthe effects before they became irreversible.rnOne illustration: Restoration onrnLeonardo’s Last Supper in Milan isrnplanned to take 12 years; the much vasterrnSistine Chapel is supposed to be completedrnin the same amount of time.rnThere is an evident rush. Yet why shouldrnthe domain of beauty not also be subjectrnto moral prudence? Moral prudencerncombined with aesthetic reverencernwould reassure those who want not onlyrnto restore, but also to preserve.rnThomas Molnar is a professor ofrnFrench at Brooklyn College.rnThis article first appeared inrnthejvly ]()H7 issue.rnHISTORYrnLies, Damned Lies,rnand Fossilsrnby Philip JenkinsrnNot for the first time in recent years,rnAmerican history is the subject of arnferocious political controversy, which ultimatelyrngrows out of the national obsessionrnwith race. What is new about thisrnparticular battle is the chronological setting:rnWe are not dealing here with thernNew Deal, Reconstruction, or the slaverntrade, but with a period inconceivabhrndistant, before there was a United States;rnindeed, long before human beings hadrndreamed of building pyramids or ziggurats.rnRecent archaeological discoveriesrnhave thrown doubt upon everything wernthought we knew about human origins inrnthe New World, blowing large holes inrnthe scientific orthodoxy of the last fewrndecades. It is not surprising to find thernnew facts challenged by a rear guard ofrntraditionally minded scholars, whosernwhole careers were invested in an olderrnmodel, but what is alarming is that thernfederal government and even its ArmedrnP’orccs have become utterly committedrnto yesterday’s orthodoxy, to the extent ofrnresorting to cliicanen’ and intimidation:rnIn short, the Clinton administration hasrndecided to declare war on American archaeology.rnEven more repugnant, it isrndoing so in pursuit of doctrines of racialrnpurity. How exactly did we get into suchrna moral and intellectual quagmire?rnTo understand this mess, we need tornappreciate the traditional view of howrnhuman beings reached the Americas,rnFrom the 1920’s, the standard view wasrnthat the New World had no human pop>-rnulation before about 15,000 years ago,rnwhen hunters following big gamerntrekked across the land bridge whichrnthen united Siberia and Alaska, ,, , Theyrnrapidh’ spread across the continent, leavingrnas traces stone spearheads of the sortrnfirst discovered at Clovis, New Mexico,rnOther population waves came in over thernfollowing millennia, but always over thernland bridge, so that all Indian populationsrnin the Americas, north and south,rnultimately derived from these Siberianrnmigrants.rnThe Clovis theory of New World settlementrnworked magnificentiy so long asrnthe amount of contrary evidence wasrnsmall enough to be controlled and, abovernall, no material evidence of earlier settlementrnappeared. Partly, this was achievedrnby an unconscious conspiracy: Archaeologistsrnnow freely admit that when theyrnreached Clovis levels at a particular site,rnthey simply stopped digging, becausernthey knew in their hearts that nothingrnelse could be there. Unfortunately, therernalmost certainly was older materialrnwhich was simply ignored. In the lastrndecade or two, an intellectual revolutionrnhas ensued that indicates, first, that peoplernhave been in the Americas for muchrnlonger than we had hitherto thought:rnprobably for 30,000 or 40,000 years, andrnpossibly for 50,000 or 60,000, Second,rnthe remains of these ancient people are,rnfrankly, in the wrong places. If they werernall Siberian newcomers, it is odd thatrntheir ancient remains should be turningrnup more in South America than in thernnorth, as much in the eastern half of thernUnited States as in the west.rnTrying to explain these inconvenientrnfacts, scholars are now proposing an arrayrnof theories which, had they been proposedrn20 years ago, would have been asrnrespectable as the idea that our ancestorsrnall landed in UFOs as part of a highschoolrnscience project on .Alpha Centauri.rnIf we find people here before 15,000rnyears ago, we can no longer assume arnland-bridge route and must entertain thernidea that the first Americans came byrnboat, probably cruising along the coasts.rnJULY 2001/41rnrnrn