A new hydration rate is presented for the Government Mountain-Sitgreaves Peak obsidian source in Arizona. It is based on an analysis of hydration measurements from a series of independently dated obsidian artifacts from that source. Since obsidian obtained from Government Mountain-Sitgreaves Peak was widely traded in the prehistoric Southwest, the new hydration rate should provide archaeologists working in many parts of the Southwest with a reliable and inexpensive absolute dating technique.

Clean, odor free vertebrate skeletons can easily be prepared in from two days to a week by using bacterial or enzyme maceration in conjunction with other techniques.

Plains archaeologists have usually devoted little attention to the bird remains that normally comprise a relatively minor portion of the yield from their excavations. Bird bones from several archaeological sites on the Missouri River are shown to have been purposefully and selectively modified by man. They exhibit a remarkable similarity to prepared bird skins and other ceremonial objects found in Omaha, Osage, Arikara, and other Plains Indian medicine bundles in various museum collections. The ethnographic specimens are believed to identify the archaeological remains as to function; conversely, the archaeological materials add important time perspectives to native use of the ritual items in museum collections and in the documentary record.

M. Coe and K. Flannery (1964) a decade ago presented an account of their brief reconnaissance of a portion of the massive El Chayal obsidian quarry and workshop near Guatemala City. Noting the lack of ceramic artifacts and obsidian prismatic blades, Coe and Flannery reasoned that the workshop materials likely predated the Formative, and concluded that a date in the Archaic was the most probable. Their reasoning evidently was based on two fallacious assumptions, which, considered in the light of new data from Chalchuapa, El Salvador, indicates that the majority of the El Chayal artifacts described and illustrated actually date to the end of the Late Classic and particularly to the Postclassic (ca. A.D. 800-1500). Comments on technological analysis and basic illustration standards are included.

It is often very difficult to distinguish organic paint from inorganic paint (iron oxides) on Black-on-white Anasazi pottery. However, the paints can be distinguished by testing for iron using potassium ferrocyanide in the presence of hydrochloric acid. If iron is present a dark blue precipitate forms immediately.

The use of factor analysis in archaeology has increased considerably in recent years as archaeologists have recognized the advantages of using a statistical technique that can elicit otherwise unrecognizable patterns in a set of data. But there are several questions relating to scaling transformations and reliability assessments that must be answered within the context of specific research designs before reliable results can be obtained. A re-analysis of pottery type distributions at Broken K Pueblo is used to illustrate these questions. The factor solutions produced by the re-analysis exhibit relatively low reliability levels, indicating that the ratio of specific and error variance to common variance in the data is somewhat high.

In 1964 M. Coe and K. Flannery reported on the existence of a major obsidian chipping station, El Chayal, in highland Guatemala some 15 km northeast of the large administrative and ceremonial center known as Kaminaljuyu. In that report they introduce arguments supporting their belief that the chipping station exhibited a preceramic industry, belonging either to the Archaic period or to the Paleo-Indian period, or to both. New evidence, resulting from obsidian dating, unequivocally contradicts their conclusions and thus calls into question their basic line of reasoning. Obsidian dating results suggest that the El Chayal chipping station probably dates to the Early Post Classic period IA.D. 1000-1200) and certainly no earlier than A.D. 900.

Neutron activation analysis of stylistically similar pottery sherds from the Capacha (Colima) and Opeño (Michoacán) phases gives no evidence for trade or interchange of vessels, either from Openo to Colima, or vice versa, or from a third source to both.

Semi-micro methods have been devised for the identification of the metallic components comprising the pigments used in mesoamerican mural paintings. These methods are based upon samples of 10-15 mgfor each of the colors to be studied and include the reds, greens, blues, blacks and browns. The analyses are performed on individual samples for each color, thereby eliminating the need for long and tedious analytical procedures which are difficult to apply to the small amounts of material often available.

Charlton (1973) argues that Parsons' (1969, 1970) explanation for the abandonment of the central Texcoco region, Mexico, during the Early Toltec period, is misleading because Parsons considered only “non-ecological” factors. Specifically, Parsons suggested that this zone was not occupied because it was the boundary between the political spheres of two competing regional centers, Tula and Cholula. Charlton argues instead, that the region was abandoned due to “ecological” factors. Namely, he argues, the Early Toltec period was a period of low population density, when only the most suitable agricultural land was occupied; thus the central Texcoco region was not utilized because it is agriculturally marginal. Charlton’s emphasis on the use of “ecological” factors to explain the distribution of Early Toltec settlements is misleading because it does not allow prediction of the locations of other known Early Toltec settlements in the Valley of Mexico. Abandonment of large portions of the Valley of Mexico was a general pattern during this period, due to “Balkanization” and competition between local centers.

Explicit methodological statements on the needs for and goals of an “ecological” study of man’s past first appeared in the 1950’s. Since this time it has become fashionable to operate archaeological projects with symbiotic teams from diverse disciplinary backgrounds. Although government agencies and private foundations have shown a measure of sympathy toward the support of “non-anthropologists” engaged in archaeological projects, there has been little reflection on how successful such ventures have been.

In recent discussions by archaeologists who are committed to the scientific nature of archaeology, philosophic commitment to an excessively narrow view of “the scientific method” is common. These narrow conceptions can be broadened, clarified, and made more adequate without diminishing a commitment to scientific archaeology.

The hypothetico-deductive method of confirmation is an oversimplified account of scientific reasoning. There are severe limitations for its application, particularly in archaeology. The deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation likewise has serious drawbacks for explaining the sorts of phenomena which interest archaeologists. Understanding of the problems with this model is hampered by trying to force systems models of explanation into the deductive-nomological mold. Worse still, the separate issues of confirmation and explanation are not kept distinct.

The “new archaeology,” a philosophy of archaeological research based on deductive logic, has both resolved and created problems. It has rightly stressed that the empirical content of a theory determines its acceptability; no longer must an assessment of its theoretical status be based on an appraisal of the person advancing the theory. However, a deductivist account is not satisfactory either logically or as a description of scientific processes. The basis of the problem is demonstrated by the concern of many archaeologists with ascertaining the degree to which a theory is confirmed; factual reconstruction, although of interest, is not, and should not be, fundamental to scientific work. By reexamining the basic purpose of science, I hope to demonstrate that what is required is an assessment of theoretical status based on relative empirical content.

Blanton ’s use of a hypothesis of warfare among Early Post- Teotihuacan sociocultural entities of the Basin of Mexico to account for selective reoccupation following the end of Teotihuacan is based ultimately on a conceptualization of a dichotomy between a peaceful Classic period and a warlike Postclassic period. Except for unoccupied areas between local concentrations of Early Toltec sites there are no data to support the warfare hypothesis. Through a presentation of available Early Toltec settlement pattern data from the Basin of Mexico and a consideration of the sociocultural connections between Teotihuacan and the Early Toltec epi-Teotihuacan states, I support my earlier model which utilizes a tightly reasoned cultural ecological (sociocultural factors pais environmental features) framework to account for and predict the locations of concentrations of Early Toltec period sites. Continuity between Teotihuacan and the Early Toltec period sites is stressed.

Warfare is seen as an adaptive ecological choice under conditions of population growth and resource limitation. Its major significance in the formation of the state lay in its ability to negate evolutionary constraints inherent in ranked societies. The evolutionary significance of warfare is discussed in terms of processes of cultural change which are largely internal.

The data contained in the paper by Munson, Parmalee, and Yamell (1971) concerning the Scovill site in Illinois have been employed for the purpose of examining the demographic and dietary status of the inhabitants. It is calculated from the meat residues found by the authors that this source of food would have supplied 181,800 g of animal protein, and from the residues of nuts that this type of plant supplied 1,588,000 Calories. The nutritional requirement in these substances for the probable population of the site was very much greater than the residues found. Hence the residues do not approach the probable consumption. On the other hand it is shown that the environment could provide much more meat and nuts than are represented by the human consumption.

The intent of this paper is to criticize contemporary methodology in prehistoric demography and to suggest several new types of archaeological evidence which may be indicative of population growth and population pressure. Standard methodologies have tended to underestimate population growth in pre-agricultural societies and to underestimate the role of population pressure in causing economic change. It is argued that with increased sensitivity to additional sources of evidence, it becomes clear that population growth and population pressure are essentially ubiquitous in the archaeological record and can readily be perceived as leading to economic and technological growth culminating in the origins of agriculture.

Numerous reports of trace element analyses contain defects which severely limit their utility. These defects are, on the whole, inexcusable and serve only to hamper the comparison and replication of such studies by other researchers.

The erroneous identification of a fluted projectile point associated with the earliest radiocarbon date at Fort Rock Cave is noted. Contrary to what has been stated in the literature, no fluted or Folsom-like projectile points have been found associated with early radiocarbon dates at Fort Rock Cave.