The identification of mobility patterns is important to issues of demography and sociopolitical organization. The ethnoarchaeological model of mobility discussed here attempts to provide relevant indicators of mobility strategies applicable to prehistoric data. The model provides an understanding of site variability at different scales or levels of mobility. It is possible to infer anticipated and actual mobility patterns by applying knowledge of a combination of site size, presence and number of formal storage facilities or their absence, artifact inventories, and diameter of huts. The model is used to distinguish short seasonal occupations from contemporaneous year-round sedentary occupations among fivevar Mesa Verde Pueblo II sites located in the American Southwest. The ethnoarchaeological model provides an alternative approach for examining regional intersite variability.

Fine screening of archaeological materials is often too expensive or too time-consuming for large assemblages. Consequently, 1/4" has become a standard size of mesh used among North American archaeologists. Unfortunately, the effects of 1/4" screening on bone recovery and the biases in interpretations are poorly documented. One-quarter-inch screening biases faunal recovery towards "larger" bone specimens, but previous studies fail to document biases in the recovery of specific taxa or elements. To better understand these biases, screening tests were conducted on 26 modern, comparative specimens. Results of these tests indicate that recovery and loss of specific elements for each taxon can be predicted. Mammals with live weights of less than 140 g are almost completely lost by 1/4" screening. Specimens weighing from 71 to 340 g are poorly represented, while specimens weighing from 340 to 3,100 g are represented by most elements except foot bones. Taxa greater than 4,500 g are represented by most elements.

Early 14C dates from Meadowcroft Rockshelter have engendered debate on the antiquity of human occupation in North America. Although the investigators of this important site conclude that particulate and nonparticulate contamination have not affected the radiocarbon dates, several points of confusion remain in regard to the question of coal contamination. We clarify these issues, provide comparative data from other sites, and recommend specific tests that are necessary to negate or support the issue of "dead carbon" contamination of radiocarbon samples.

Eidt (1973, 1977, 1984a) suggested that the analysis of soil phosphate fractions (I-III) could be used to identify land-use areas on archaeological sites as well as serve as a relative-dating technique. He noted that the total inorganic phosphate value (I + II + III) reflects the type and intensity of land-use practice, and he hypothesized that the ratio of Fraction II/I correlates with the time elapsed since soil enrichment. A test of these propositions was carried out in conjunction with the excavations at the settlement of Agroal (Portugal), which was occupied during the Bronze Age (2000-1000 B.C.) and Middle Ages (A.D. 1300-1640). Samples were taken from all archaeological levels of the site as well from soils with known land-use histories in the area of Agroal. Results of this study support Eidt"s two principal hypotheses. First, there was a strong correspondence in the control soils between total phosphate values and the nature of land-use activities. Second, the ratio of Fraction II/I in the archaeological samples did, in fact, correlate with the relative age of the associated artifacts. A model of the site"s land-use history, based on the total inorganic phosphate and the Fraction II/I values, suggests a significant alteration and degradation of the soil landscape during the Bronze Age, as a consequence of agriculture, herding, and refuse disposal, followed by less-intensive use during the Middle Ages.

Punctured human long bones have been reported at numerous midwestern sites, but none have as large a concentration as Smith Mound Four (21KC3). This northern Minnesota mound was built by the people of the Laurel culture and dates to A.D. 565. Analysis of the bones suggests that they were perforated on the basis of inherited group affiliation for purposes that did not involve marrow extraction and may have related to ideas of spirit release.

A good deal of archaeology is conducted within the context of historic preservation, which means that many American archaeologists are faced with the issue of determining site significance. In this essay, we turn to critical theory as a way of complementing the positivist basis for determining site significance. Among the critical theorists, Jurgen Habermas offers a way of examining and understanding a connection between knowledge about the past and the interests of contemporary Americans.

A deposit of four fragmented individuals was excavated by Walter Hough in 1901 at Canyon Butte Ruin 3, northeastern Arizona. Hough thought the condition of the bones resulted from cannibalism and claimed it to be the first discovery of such in the American Southwest. Our examination of the skeletal remains identified much perimortem bone damage—cutting, anvil or hammerstone abrasions, smashing, burning, many missing vertebrae, and good bone preservation—the taphonomic signature of probable cannibalism. Facial mutilation suggests violence was associated with the multiple deaths. Hough should be credited as the first archaeologist to recognize that cannibalism likely existed in the prehistoric American Southwest.

Tankersley and Munson (1992) reiterate that the early and, perhaps, some of the later Meadowcroft Rockshelter radiocarbon dates may be contaminated by anthropogenically derived coal or dissolved coal by-products. Their allegations are assessed in light of available data and rejected. Presently, there is no evidence whatsoever for particulate or nonparticulate contamination of any part of the Meadowcroft Rockshelter radiocarbon chronology.

Hatch et al. (1990) recently presented the results of research on the sources and ages of obsidian artifacts from four Hopewell sites in Illinois and Ohio. The present comment identifies ambiguities in artifact-to-source attributions that compromise the subsequent source-specific obsidian-hydration objectives of the study. Examination of obsidian-hydration rim-measurement resolution and associated error estimates, disagreements about the validity of laboratory-induced obsidian-hydration rates used in the study, and contradictions between rim measurements on the same specimens lend no support to the authors' conclusion that obsidian was conveyed into these sites throughout the entire temporal duration of Hopewell mound construction.

Fossorial rodents are often considered intrusive into archaeological deposits because of their burrowing behavior. However, ethnographic, ethnohistoric, and archaeological studies document the consumption of rodents historically and prehistorically. Several methods were developed to differentiate cultural specimens from noncultural specimens. These methods were applied to a sample from the NAN Ruin in southwestern New Mexico. Results of these comparisons indicate that gophers were procured by the human population at the site.

A section of worked mammoth tusk reported to have been recovered but unrecognized as an artifact in January 1964 was actually discovered in November 1963 and recognized by several people at that time. The provenience for the tusk segment is given as unit B, which is declared to be pre-Clovis in age and more than 12,000 years old. The postulated translocation of the tusk, as well as other faunal remains and Clovis artifacts, is attributed to the influence of spring discharge and saturation of sediments. My salvage excavations in December 1963 and January 1964 are outlined, and my conclusions are not compatible with the concept of large-scale intrusion of artifacts and bones. The stratum designated as unit B in the north bank is entirely of Clovis age, and the mammoth-tusk artifact was coeval with its enclosing sediments.

Archaeological site testing has traditionally been accomplished through manual techniques such as test pitting and coring, or with large-scale mechanical devices such as a back hoe. An intermediate strategy, one involving a pipe-trenching device known as a Ditch Witch, is introduced here. For situations in which the site has already been discovered and its extent is generally known, small-scale mechanical trenching can provide useful information on site type and structure in a fairly brief amount of time. It deserves to be seriously considered as an evaluative strategy, particularly for large sites with internal structure that exist within the top 70 cm of deposit.

F. E. Green has corrected errors regarding the provenience and prior determination of the artifactual nature of the ivory semifabricate reported by Saunders et al. (1990) and has brought forth new information regarding the spring deposits of the north bank of the gravel pit at the Clovis site. This statement addresses the contemporaneity of Clovis occupation with deposition of the gray sand and the relation of the gray sand to spring deposits. We offer it in expectation that a better understanding of north-bank stratigraphy and geochronology might result regardless of which of two views of the archaeology of the gray sand eventually prevails.

Hughes (1992) raises two points in his evaluation of our paper on Hopewell obsidian studies (Hatch et al. 1990): (a) Why did we not attempt to identify the several possible western United States sources from which our Hopewell specimens were derived, and (b) was it legitimate to report hydration-rim measurements with a.1 μm or less level of accuracy? These issues are addressed within the context of our initial research goals and through reference to the literature on optical microscopy.

Destruction of archaeological collections through the demands for reburial presents a serious conflict between religion and science. Archaeologists should not deal with these matters by "compromise" alone, but must sustain their rights and duties as scholars.

Despite the much briefer period of research and many fewer archaeologists involved, there is now clear and incontrovertible evidence of human occupation in Australia at a period significantly earlier than can be documented with comparable evidence from the New World. An explanation of the differences in the present record between these two regions that relies on an insufficient study of situations favorable to the preservation of earlier material in the New World seems inadequate in light of the total accumulated evidence.