Settlement Archaeology is defined as the study of societal relationships using archaeological data. A separate approach is required because of the inadequacy of the concept of “phase” or “culture” for the investigation of this sort of problem. An examination of the history of Iroquoian warfare in the light of archaeological and ethnological data suggests that while the archaeologist’s ability to interpret prehistoric social phenomena remains severely limited, the questions raised by this sort of approach are important and, among other results, will stimulate a desire to pay still greater attention to traditional problems of cultural archaeology.

The storage, retrieval, and analysis of archaeological data on electronic computers requires that artifacts be described in the framework of models which are: (a) sufficiently analogous to the “real world” of the data to be meaningful; (b) sufficiently expandable or open-ended to be usable in situations as yet undefined; and (c) sufficiently specific to be convertible into machine language. A model which meets these criteria is described, and samples of an artifact inventory prepared on an IBM 1440 computer are shown to illustrate the use of this descriptive system.

The confusing terminology surrounding the San Dieguito complex is reviewed, and a critical evaluation of the content of this complex is undertaken. The San Dieguito complex is redefined and includes Lake Mohave, Death Valley I, and Playa I and II complexes. An age of greater than 6000 B.C. is shown for at least one component of the complex and a date of 7000 to 8000 B.C. is suggested for the complex as a whole.

The hypothesis is developed that the San Dieguito complex is distinct from the Desert culture and represents a generalized hunting tradition which moved into the area along a north-south belt in the western Great Basin.

Recent excavations in south-central British Columbia have revealed a 7,500 year sequence which indicates cultural relationships with the subarctic and the Canadian Prairie Provinces, but few similarities with Columbia River sites until after A.D. 1000. South-central British Columbia and the Columbia Plateau are considered to have participated in different cultural traditions until the damming of the Columbia River about A.D. 1250 allowed the upriver passage of salmon. The similarities noted between British Columbia and Columbia River sites in late prehistoric times may be attributable to the sudden increase in the resource potential of the Columbia River.

Data from recent excavations in central, northern, and northeastern Utah, and in the southwestern Wyoming Basin, have prompted a reevaluation of current concepts of the ethnic and cultural origins of the Fremont culture centered in Utah, of its relationships to the Promontory culture of northern Utah, and of the relationship of both these cultures to protohistoric Central Plains culture.

The long-standing interpretation of the Fremont as a northern “peripheral” variant of the Southwestern Anasazi culture is discarded, and a hypothesis of a Northwestern Plains (probably Athabaskan) population partially acculturated to the Anasazi Pueblo pattern is proposed. Additionally, identity of the so-called Promontory culture with the northern Utah variant of the Fremont culture is postulated on evidence from sites in northern Utah. It is suggested that the Fremont culture drifted back onto the Central Plains around approximately A.D. 1400-1600, under pressure from the Shoshonean expansion out of the Great Basin, to become the forerunner of the Dismal River culture, which has been attributed to the Athabaskan Plains Apache.

During the summer of 1964, a field party from Wichita State University conducted a survey in the vicinity of May Lake, 50 air mi. northwest of Anaktuvuk Pass. A large number of heavily patinated artifacts was discovered on and beneath the present ground surface in the flood plain of a small stream not registered on U.S. Geological Survey maps and named Sedna Creek. The artifact assemblage consists of flakes and flake tools, all of which belong to one single tradition. A comparison with Far North assemblages indicates that Sedna Creek is the fourth site of the British Mountain complex. Of Old World sites, Ust-Kanskaia, Tuin-Gol, the Mal’ta-Buret complex, Sannyi Mys, and Chastinskaya appear closely related.

The identification of pottery artifacts modeled after Cucurbita species from the Mochica culture of Peru is discussed. The evidence strongly suggests these artifacts were modeled after cultivars of C. moschata, not C. pepo as reported from time to time in botanical literature.

The suggestion is made that some of the earthenware vessels perforated by drilled holes and described as colanders may have been used, not as colanders, but as cages to contain small rodents or other captives.

Evidence is presented for the delineation of a Paleo-Indian site in Wisconsin. Surface finds from the Kouba site in Dane County include an assemblage of fluted points, gravers, and scrapers of similar types to those from Paleo-Indian sites in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.

A broken obsidian projectile point embedded in a human second lumbar vertebra has been found near Yauli in the central highlands of Peru. The point resembles those used on the south coast of Peru during the later part of the Early Intermediate period and probably dates to this time. The victim indubitably died immediately from this wound as a result of hemorrhaging.

This article calls attention to the lack of cooperation among osteologists in sharing with archaeologists their information concerning bone identification by way of field manuals.

The change from a boreal to a temperate mammal fauna in central Pennsylvania is believed bracketed by radiocarbon dates associated with two cave faunas at from ca. 9300 to 7290 B.C.

Owen’s (1964) brief comments on the Glen Annie Canyon site include some comments and criticisms that are in error, and the validity of his interpretation of the archaeology and archaeologists of the Southern California Coast may be challenged. Owen uses the term “Early horizon” where he should use “Milling Stone horizon”; his criticisms of Wallace’s 1955 paper are unjustified; what he claims to be the archaeologists’ description of the Oak Grove culture is inaccurate. His argument for a nomadic population during the Milling Stone horizon is based on a weak analogy, and his notion that the interpretation of a “more or less sedentary” settlement pattern for the Milling Stone horizon is a “convenient fiction agreed upon by some southern California archaeologists to facilitate the construction of artifact typologies” is in error. Data are presented to support the interpretation that the population of the Milling Stone horizon was a Central-Based Wandering people.

C. N. Warren makes six criticisms of a paper by Owen (Owen 1964), each of which can easily be rejected. The six comments, accompanied briefly by the grounds for their rebuttal, are: 1) that “Early horizon” cannot be used to label the period, when in reality “Early horizon” is as appropriate as any other term, and more so than many that are in use; 2) that a negligent comment is directed at a paper by W. J. Wallace, which though unimportant, is temperate and accurate in the estimation of the author; 3) that a reference to a paper by Warren and True is groundless and misleading when it indeed is pertinent and direct; 4) that an analogy used is weak, although the argument does not proceed by analogy; 5) that suggestions regarding the utility of radiocarbon are optimistic when in fact insight in the use of radiocarbon dates can provide information on duration of habitation on any site; 6) that comparisons between the probable settlement pattern of Early horizon California coastal populations and some of the Fuegian Canoe Indians are inappropriate, an opinion which indicates that Warren’s knowledge of the basis of the comparison is faulty. It is suggested that despite Warren’s criticism, the Glen Annie Canyon site report and the associated paper may stand unamended and lead to a better understanding of the settlement patterns of early Southern California coastal populations during the so-called Milling Stone horizon.

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.

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.