The petrographic identification of ceramic tempers has long been known to be a fruitful line of inquiry for investigating intersite and interregional cultural interaction. By applying point-counting procedures to the recording of natural as well as humanly added mineral inclusions in ceramic thin sections, considerable power can be added to this traditionally qualitative technique. The effectiveness of this more quantitative approach in discriminating local from nonlocal vessels is demonstrated through a comparative analysis of two Middle Mississippian-contact sites in the upper Mississippi Valley region-Hartley Fort in northeast Iowa and the Fred Edwards site in southwest Wisconsin.

Magnetic surveys and electromagnetic conductivity surveys were conducted at several sites during the course of field work at the Richland/Chambers Reservoir in north-central Texas between 1982 and 1985. Much of this work was conducted at the Bird Point Island site (41FT201), which was used as a proving ground to test the effectiveness of various remote-sensing techniques. Two devices, a Geometrics proton precession magnetometer and a Geonics Limited EM-38 electromagnetic conductivity sensor were tested. The data produced by the EM-38, although initially successful for locating large archaeological features, were less useful for site interpretation than those yielded by the magnetometer.

Replicative experiments were conducted to test hypotheses related to feature function and to identify the sources of magnetism present in features. After an experimental hearth and a pit were created on an off-site area, a magnetic survey was conducted and the results were compared with the magnetic responses obtained from archaeological features. Remarkably similar magnetic responses were observed between the experimental features and certain classes of prehistoric archaeological features. Five-cracked rock, consisting of small fragments of iron-enriched sandstone and ironstone, was identified as the primary source of magnetism.

In addition to identifying locations of features, the magnetic data also provided information regarding whether or not features had been subjected to multiple episodes of disturbance and reuse. Episodes of recurrent use were indicated by irregular symmetry and unusual magnetic polarity. Several large pit features, which archaeological evidence indicated had been reused, exhibited anomalies with multiple peaks of strong magnetic highs surrounded in several directions by peaks of weak to moderate magnetic lows. In contrast, hearths and pits lacking archaeological evidence of major disturbance or reuse were associated with anomalies that exhibited the normal dipolar signature associated with cultural features—a strong magnetic high with a strong magnetic low immediately to the north. The results of this study demonstrate that the magnetometer has a great potential for aiding in the interpretation of archaeological features in addition to its traditional use as a tool for identifying feature locations.

This comment corrects statements attributed to me by MacKinnon and Kepecs (1989). What I said was that the rise of the Maya state could not be explained by a massive need for salt imported from great distances, not because salt was archaeologically invisible, but because I was skeptical about any monocausal explanation; furthermore, I did not see that such a massive salt need even existed during the period of state formation.

Dillehay and Collins (1991) and Gruhn and Bryan (1991) claim that my review (Lynch 1990) was impaired by errors and misrepresentations, yet they identify only one significant error–the too-early date attributed to Toca do Sitio do Meio. Inspection of the sources shows that my article contained no misrepresentations of the public record available to me at the time of writing. Selective use of sources is necessary in a review of this scale. A careful reading of the primary sources, as well as the other papers cited, will show that I have not misquoted, misconstrued, or taken statements out of context. We are dealing with differences of interpretation and emphasis. There is no such thing as an “obsolete publication,” at least until the information in it has been retracted formally. Understandably, Gruhn and Bryan have been zealots for their pre-Paleoindian cause. Hardly neutral or dispassionate, they have over-reacted to my bringing the other side forward.

In response to the comments on our 1989 paper “Prehispanic Saltmaking in Belize: New Evidence,” we agree with Valdez and Mock that it is possible that some Prehispanic saltmaking sites in Belize may have been oriented toward the preservation of animal-protein resources, but caution against extending the interpretation of their NRL site to the status of generalization. While we may have misinterpreted Marcus, we wish to clarify that we never implied that salt production was a causal factor in Maya state formation.

Throughout the world, public agencies, professional societies, and individual archaeologists have recognized the need for more and better public education about archaeology. We are challenged to act on this recognition by providing opportunities for the public to learn about, and even participate in, archaeological interpretations and investigations. The audiences for these efforts include the general public, students and teachers, legislators, public administrators, and Native Americans. Archaeology has been a subject of interest to the public for centuries, and the archaeological record has fascinated people for even longer. Contemporary archaeologists must reach out to the public by providing them with understandable interpretations and explanations. We must do this if appreciation for archaeology and for the importance of archaeological preservation is to grow in America.

Stein (1986) presents a very timely contribution on the history and utility of archaeological site coring that has major implications for the detection and retrieval of subsurface archaeological data. My purpose in this comment is threefold. First, I would extend her history of coring to include three periods instead of two. More importantly, in so doing, I would stress the need to modify Stein's observations to cultural-resource-management (CRM) settings. This would expand the applications of subsurface probing to broader sets of sedimentary environments and site contexts, specifically those where preservation conditions are less than ideal. Finally, I propose a versatile coring strategy that is amenable to both research and applied cultural-resource-management (CRM) situations in a cost-efficient manner.

Corers and augers have become increasingly useful in archaeological investigations, but more in cultural-resource management (CRM) than in research archaeology. Although this increase is evident, coring and augering were used in the earliest CRM projects in the 1970s and merely have gained in popularity in the last five years. Schuldenrein (1991) points out that of all the coring and augering equipment described, the manual bucket auger with a large-diameter barrel is of special value. However, one major disadvantage is that sediment is disturbed during extraction, making observations about soil structure and stratification difficult. The disadvantages have to be balanced against the fact that bucket augers are more versatile than corers and penetrate many more types of substrate. Because of these differences between augers and corers, the terms should not be used interchangeably.