After expressing general agreement with the major conclusions reached by Emery and Edwards, the author comments on two points. 1. He takes issue with the oft repeated assertion that Archaic peoples of the Northeast coast did not “learn to eat marine mollusks,” and suggests, instead, an environmental explanation for the absence of shellfish debris from some Archaic sites. 2. He adds to the list of archaeological sites now under water, points out that, at some of these, artifactual materials seem to have been protected from scattering by the development of peat layers over the occupation areas, and he suggests that this fact may hold out hope for the future discovery of relatively undisturbed drowned sites in the waters off the Atlantic Coast.

An undated specimen, which consists of yarns prepared for being fixed to a loom and comes from the south coast of Peru, is reported. The unusual features of the specimen are its length of 107 ft. and some supplementary yarns which are interpreted as heddles in preparation, for which the possible steps are reconstructed.

The validity of the reasons adduced by a group of excavators for the willful destruction of a temple pyramid at Tikal is questioned and a greater sense of responsibility among archaeologists is urged.

An illustration of the Huarmey Valley in Joris van Speilbergen's journal from the year 1615 shows a “ruined castle, occupied by our men.” In an archaeological survey conducted by the author, a site was located which is very likely to be the one occupied by van Speilbergen. The site appears to be Chimu or Inca in date on the basis of the plan, the construction of tapia adobe, and the high percentage of reduced-fired ceramics. Despite the small size and relative unimportance of the Huarmey Valley, the site, to judge by the illustration and the existing ruins, was a large and impressive structure of some importance to the Chimu and/or the Inca Empire.

A listing of archive locations for photographs of early work in the Southwest is given below.

Facts and opinions are given that contest Berlin’s specific condemnation of a single excavation at Tikal, Guatemala, and his general censure of the Tikal Project.