In a recent article by John M. Goggin the Kissimmee region of Florida is said to be little known archaeologically and only a few sherds are mentioned. Although Goggin Has made his analysis primarily on the basis of pottery types, he does mention other artifacts in some instances, so that his silence on projectile points in the Kissimmee region may be indicative of meagre or non-existent data.

In this journal (Vol. X, No. 14, pp. 348–52, April, 1945), William H. Goldsmith contributes an article entitled “Trepanation and the Catlin Mark,” in which he confuses these openings. The trephining operation of prehistoric people and the anomalous openings in the vault of the skull, such as the Catlin Mark, differ widely both in location and nature.

Hace quince años dió a conocer el Dr. Max Uhle un vaso proveniente de la hacienda “Cusin,” situada a las orillas del lago San Pablo, parraquia de San Pablo, Cantón de Otavalo, Provincia de Imbabura, República del Ecuador, que calificó de figura legftímamente Maya, pero la comparó, desgraciadamente, con objetos y relieves que si con él tienen alguna afinidad no eran, por cierto, los más adecuados para convencer a los americanistas de la verdad de lo que el afirmaba. La publicación hecha por el Dr. Uhle ha pasado, por lo que sabemos, inadvertida; así hemos creído oportuno hacer una nueva descripción del vaso de “Cusín,” que hemos podido reexaminar, prolijamente, gracias a la gentileza de la Sra. Dña.María Lasso de Eatsman Cox.

Wedel and Trowbridge described a prehistoric rouletting tool from a Hopewellian site in Wyandotte County, Kansas. This rouletting tool of bone was circular with a notched stamping edge and an attached handle that served also as an axle for the stamping wheel. The discovery of this tool, according to the authors, substantiated rouletting on the principle of wheel-rolling, as originally deduced by Holmes in 1892.

In the collections of the Chicago Natural History Museum there is a Hopewell rouletting tool that may represent a borderline case of the principle of rouletting by wheel-rolling. This tool was excavated from Mound 25 of the Hopewell Group in Ross County, Ohio by Warren K. Moorehead in 1891-92 and until the present time remained unidentified in a miscellaneous collection of fragmentary Hopewell artifacts stored in the Museum.

A recent article in American Antiquity entitled “Symposium on River Valley Archaeology” summarizes the present status of one of our most important and urgent problems in American archaeology today. Additional information concerning this subject, particularly with reference to the progress made in the Colorado River Valley, should be mentioned at this time.

The National Park Service has been concerned with survey and salvage operations in proposed reservoir areas along the Colorado River and its tributaries for many years. Long before final construction work was completed on Hoover (formerly Boulder) Dam in 1935, several C.C.C. archaeological crews were at work under National Park Service direction in the areas to be inundated, particularly along the Virgin and Muddy rivers in southeastern Nevada.

In his “Note on the Maya Eclipse Table of the Dresden Codex” (American Antiquity, Vol. XIV, p. 61, July, 1948) Dr. Satterthwaite “submits that we ought to have a demonstration” of the range of moon phase lengths, also of the three-day named tzolkin periods within which Robert H. Merrill locates on the one hand possible eclipses, and on the other the average three-day length of moon disappearance “if such a double function of the three-day groups is a possibility to be reckoned with.”

On page 39 of American Antiquity for July, 1946, my Moon Chart (Fig. 7) was drawn with sufficient accuracy to show each lunation to scale in tenths of a day, for the arbitrary sample period 1900–33. This covers a like time span to that of the codex lunar table. To show in detail the simple calculations and the graphical accuracy, a sample work sheet is here appended (Fig. 62).

The excellent and exhaustive study by Drs. Kidder, Jennings, and Shook of the ceramics excavated at Kaminaljuyu contributes considerably to the understanding and interpretation of Teotihuacan symbolism. A group of stuccoed and painted tripods, excavated at Kaminaljuyu, includes seven vessels whose decorative style is Teotihuacanoid, whereas the other four are Mayoid in style. All these tripods are considered to have been made and decorated at the site mentioned.

On October 17, 1947,1 read a paper, “A Critique of Some Archaeological Field Methods,” before the Anthropology Section of the Indiana Academy of Science. The occasion was the annual meeting of the group at Ball State Teachers College, Muncie, Indiana. The paper in its entirety was accepted for publication in the Proceedings of the Academy. I later withdrew the paper because I did not believe this to be the proper medium for its dissemination. The Proceedings for 1947 has now been issued and since it contains an abstract of my paper1 I think it proper to proceed with its publication with some minor changes.

In this short paper the aim is to eliminate from consideration what seems to me a misleading lack of precise statement—if not an actual and important error in astronomical fact—in the recent writing of Robert H. Merrill. It seems proper first to make clear my conviction that laymen in astronomy have a proper place in the study of ancient Maya astronomy, even if mistakes are sometimes made which must seem naive to a professional astronomer. Merrill is by profession a civil engineer, and I am a garden-variety archaeologist. As a matter of fact, laymen are probably responsible for more sound progress in this field than are the all-too-few professional astronomers who have become interested. The names of Förstemann, Morley, Guthe, Teeple, and Thompson come to mind at once.