Interpretations of man's relationship to his environment are basic to the understanding of archaeological data. Such interpretations are made by almost all archaeologists in the course of presenting their findings, and there is a growing trend toward more precise delineation of human ecology in prehistoric times. Yet much archaeological writing of this sort tends to be sketchy and fragmentary, and techniques of value are often overlooked or ignored. More or less standardized procedures for interpreting prehistoric ecology are still in the process of being worked out, and even the physical techniques of collecting and sorting samples are experimental at present.

In a recent issue of this Journal a trio of Southwestern archaeologists proposed a new scheme of ceramic taxonomy that might, if widely followed, restore the possibility of intercommunication between specialists in North American archaeology (Wheat, Gifford, and Wasley 1958). I became interested in this scheme some time before its publication as a possible solution to certain typological difficulties in the Lower Mississippi Valley. One of the authors, James Gifford, encouraged my efforts to apply it to pottery so different from that for which it was devised, and, as an unforeseen result of numerous consultations with him, and with Stephen Williams, Gordon R. Willey, and Watson Smith, the present paper emerged.

The word “archaic” appears in the literature of New World archaeology with more than one usage. In 1910, the existence of three levels of human remains was demonstrated in the Valley of Mexico. The lowest level, in which well-developed ceramics were included, was characterized by hand-modeled human figurines in contrast to the mold made ones of Toltec and Aztec horizons. The civilization of the lowest level came to be called “the archaic type” (Boas 1915). Tozzer (1916: 466), in a paper presented at the Pan American Scientific Congress, Washington, 1915, noted that the terms “tipo de cerro” and “tipo de montaña” had also been used, and suggested that “Archaic” was a more fitting term.

Recent disagreement on the nature of Maya hieroglyphic writing calls for a reappraisal of the historical sources, and an examination of alternative methods of decipherment. Unfortunately, no one has both a thorough grasp of the subject and an unbiased attitude.

Three major factors have influenced the classification of stone artifacts in Australia. The first is the presence in the country of a contemporary stone-using people, the Australian aborigines. Early, relatively complete, and ethnologically valid studies of their life (Spencer and Gillen 1899), have given Australian artifact studies a functional flavor; so much so, that descriptive classifications have been proposed, whose major categories were in completely functional terms (Kenyon and Stirling 1900). Quite properly, Australian workers have sought functional comparisons between implements in current use and those whose function could not be discovered by ethnological enquiry, either because their makers had become culturally disintegrated, as in southeast Australia, or because their function was unknown to the living aborigines in the area concerned (see, for instance, the discussion of the mounted elouera in Setzler and McCarthy 1950).

The radiocarbon laboratory, operated by the Department of Physics and the University Museum at the University of Pennsylvania, is concentrating its analyses in four fields of archaeology: the Middle East, Middle America, South America, and the Arctic. It is the policy of the laboratory to publish radiocarbon dates only in groups from one specific field after checks and rechecks of related materials result in a certain measure of internal consistency (Ralph 1955: 149-51; Coon and Ralph 1955: 921-2).

Unraveling an archaeological problem has often been compared to the solution of a crime, differing from the latter in the coldness of the trail. The “whodunit” detective approaches omniscience; the archaeologist can only hope for a small degree of information about the material clues to his case. It might be more apt to compare the archaeologic process in the Northeast to an attempt to find out what went into the hash, for scraps of leftovers are all too frequently the only remains of many obliterated northeastern sites.

One of the most stimulating problems in present day Southwestern archaeology is that of relationships to the south — to the high cultures of Mexico. Evidence of such relationships is strongest in the Hohokam remains of southern Arizona. The broad outlines of Hohokam development have been fairly well established. The same is true for the cultures of central Mexico. The next step in solving the problem of Mexican-Southwest relationships would appear to be that of obtaining an understanding of culture history in the area between central Mexico and southern Arizona.

Archaeological sites to which the rather indefinite term Archaic has been applied have been known from various areas throughout the eastern United States for a good number of years. At the outset, these sites were defined as Archaic primarily by their lack of evidence for agricultural practices and pottery, although more positive traits were also used in such definitions. The term Archaic has now come to be used in two major ways: as a time period in a local sequence, and as a cultural stage in general preceding the development of agriculture and settled communities.

In a previous paper (Meighan and others 1958), we considered techniques whereby the archaeologist can derive conclusions concerning prehistoric man's relationship to his environment. We limited our study to hunting and gathering societies since we felt that these were most directly and intimately affected by environment. In the present discussion, we have attempted to expand our study to include archaeological communities marked by the presence of agriculture, domestic animals, or both. Our inquiry can be phrased thus: what physical remains associated with agricultural communities can be used as evidence for ecological inferences? The answers to this question are neither as numerous nor as obvious as we first supposed, yet such answers are basic to an understanding of culture history.

During the past 20 years, the number of named pottery types in the Southwest has increased at such a rate that it is now virtually impossible for an archaeologist to know and be familiar with more than a small percentage of them. Some of these types are totally new, but a surprisingly large number represent refinements in terminology or segregations from more inclusive categories, resulting from further study and increasingly complex technological analyses. This proliferation of named types has alarmed many archaeologists. There can, however, be no legitimate doubt that if the intricate ceramic history of the Southwest and other areas of the New World is to be understood, research analysts must be free to break down their material to as fine a point as necessary in order to localize in time and space the infinitesimal variants of pottery which constitute, with other aspects of material culture, the documents of regional prehistory.

Arecurring question posed to the physical anthropologist by his archaeological associates concerns the problem of properly classifying new skeletal finds within the framework of a known local prehistory. An analysis may result which is initially purely quantitative. However, problems demanding interpretation often develop. For example, when the physical characteristics of prehistoric populations have been metrically described, their industrial accomplishments outlined, and their place in time fairly well established, the problem of spatial distribution becomes a primary interest. The discovery of skeletal material, peripheral to the known area of occupation, must be explained either as an addition to the known biological pattern or as representing a foreign element.

Fine orange pottery is one of the most distinctive wares in Mesoamerica. In an area where pottery generally is tempered it has no temper; it stands apart in having an especially homogeneous, fine-textured orange paste. Several types are recognized, including, in chronological order, Z, Y, X, V, U, and the problematical Isla de Sacrificios material. It is possible that there are other fine oranges but there is not now sufficient evidence to establish additional types. The letters used to identify the varieties are temporary designations which should be replaced with appropriate names when more complete data have been amassed.

While the discussion and identification of complexes as “Archaic” is at present a common feature in a substantial number of archaeological reports, the actual excavation of Archaic sites has not kept abreast of the recognition of the importance of this stage in the culture sequences of North America. Much of its current importance as a widespread cultural manifestation is based upon the typological identification of surface materials through which period placement is inferred on the basis of resemblance to forms of known archaeological provenience or on the putative absence of traits of late origin such as ceramics.

Recently I published a paper, together with Warren Caldwell and Robert Crabtree, disagreeing with an old theory that the development of most of Northwest Coast culture was due to movement of inland groups down the rivers to the seacoast where they proliferated physically and culturally (Osborne, Caldwell, and Crabtree 1956). We indicated (p. 117) that we did not propose to discard an old concept but suggested, rather, further evaluation and examination of alternate hypotheses, for we felt the reconstruction of Northwest Coast prehistory was only in the hypothesis stage.

The islands off southern California have attracted archaeological attention since the 1880's, yet actual site reports on island archaeology are virtually nonexistent. This report presents data on excavations at Little Harbor, Catalina Island. It is the first published site report for Catalina Island and the first complete description of a site excavation for the Channel islands as a group. Chronologically, the radiocarbon dating of the site provides a key reference point for time placement of several southern California complexes.

In the summer of 1930, Earl H. Morris accompanied the Bernheimer Expedition in its exploration of the archaeological remains on the slopes of Carrizo Mountain and the north end of the Lukachukai range in northeastern Arizona. Three weeks were spent in the Prayer Rock district on the east side of these mountains (Bernheimer 1930). Morris was intrigued by the possibility of collecting Basketmaker materials from an area so rich in early cave sites; he returned to the Prayer Rock district in 1931 under the auspices of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. A portion of the materials recovered in this season has been described (Morris 1936,1951;Morris and Burgh 1941) and a series of reports is in preparation on the remainder of the specimens.

This is a preliminary report on a stratified site in the Vantage region of the Columbia Plateau (Fig. 1). The earliest occupation dates from 10,000 years or more ago, and the sequence terminates with historic aboriginal habitations. The geology has been treated elsewhere (Swanson 1956), and the Early Man remains are being prepared for publication. This report concerns the last inhabitants of the site, who lived at various times in a small village on the surface of the floodplain terrace (Fig. 2).

The concept of a continent-wide Archaic cultural horizon in North America has been developing for over a decade. Recently, this concept has received considerable reinforcement in publications and in discussions at conferences. It now appears to have fairly general acceptance among American archaeologists who have concerned themselves with the problem. Basic to this concept is the identification of the southwestern Desert cultures as the cultural and temporal equivalent of the eastern Archaic, and the recognition of the Balcones phase of Texas as a cultural keystone uniting these western and eastern cultures into one continuous culture area on the same temporal level, forming the Archaic horizon in American prehistory.

Two magnificent works of art, in the form of carved human bones, have recently been discovered in archaeological excavations in southernmost Mexico. The sculptures are noteworthy for several reasons.

First, they are in themselves masterful works of craftsmanship. Few bone carvings approaching these in composition or technique have ever been found in Middle America. Second, works of art of such quality have not until now been reported from this region of central Chiapas in southern Mexico, an area just beginning to be known archaeologically.