When archaeologists go into the field to excavate, they generally pass up excellent opportunities to contribute to ethnology, physical anthropology, linguistics, or some other branch of this ever-widening subject of anthropology. Before undertaking such extracurricular research, the archaeologist must familiarize himself with the general ethnography of his region. Such tools as the Outline of Cultural Materials (1950) and Notes and Queries on Anthropology, Sixth Edition (1951), can be used to obtain such ethnographic control.

By hiring workmen the archaeologist creates a unique research tool — an artificial small group within an already functioning society. This group is artificial in the sense that it does not arise from the society itself, and is likely to cease functioning after the departure of the diggers. The artificial small group consists of locally hired workmen, plus the archaeological party, and seldom numbers over 50. This artificially created group will become a “face to face” or “natural group” (Coon 1948: 563) as it meets from day to day.

Abasic Question that must be answered for any archaeological site is, how old is it? Although some archaeological sites can be dated on the basis of archaeological correlations alone and although dendrochronological (Giddings, 1952, pp. 105-110) and radiocarbon methods give absolute ages for other sites, many sites can be dated only by methods based on the geologists’ knowledge of geographic and climatic changes during the last few tens of thousands of years. The dates of these changes are established in part by radiocarbon and related methods. Study of archaeological sites accurately dated by radiocarbon methods will amplify the geologists’ understanding of late Quaternary events.

The well known techniques of dendrochronological and radiocarbon dating need no discussion. The interrelations of methods that depend ultimately on our knowledge of Quaternary climatic and geographic changes are not always well understood, however, by archaeologists. The present paper is intended to clarify some of these interrelations.

Every radiocarbon sample that an archaeologist turns in to a physicist for dating has its particular story to tell. The story is likely to be much longer and more devious than is easily expressed in a simple number. I am a little worried about our use of “lists” of radiocarbon dates in view of the recent treatment of some dates from Cape Denbigh.

During the field seasons of 1948, 1949, and 1950 we secured from the Denbigh Flint layer no more than a small pillbox full of charcoal. When this was submitted to Libby, at the University of Chicago laboratory, he regretfully notified us that the sample was not enough to coat a cylinder. Our 4th field trip to Cape Denbigh, in 1952, was made for the express purpose of scraping together enough organic matter for analysis of the oldest cultural layer.

This report outlines the discovery, in 1953, of ruins in the state of Chiapas, Mexico. In ground plan, architecture and construction these ruins, so far as I can determine, show no obvious relationship to old empire Maya ruins some 100 miles to the east. Neither do they exhibit easily identified similarities with the Valley of Mexico sites.

The ruin most thoroughly studied consists of a 200 by 680 foot integrated rock complex of very squat structures inclosed by a low wall or rampart. No structures exceed 15 feet in height. The commanding elevation of the complex was obtained by building in on top of a great, field-rock mound, which in turn was built on an elongated natural hill. At the base the mound is approximately 700 feet long, with a varying width between 300 and 400 feet. In one place, on the south side where the hill was indented, the mound is approximately 70 feet high. Its average height is probably about 25 feet.

The Maya area has yielded little in the way of Early Man, although certain discoveries, like that at Santa Isabel Iztapan (Aveleyra and Maldonado 1953), have unquestionably established hunters of now extinct fauna in the Valley of Mexico. In Guatemala only a peculiarly cut sloth bone suggests human co-existence with Upper Pleistocene fauna (Shook 1951: 93, 96). But, apart from these, one can only note two other finds, both made some years ago, one at Concepcion, Campeche, Mexico, the other in the Peten, Guatemala. These latter ‘discoveries have been treated in a few important studies as containing either sure or probable remnants of a fundamental, early Mesoamerican horizon. I strongly feel that before these particular finds achieve widespread acceptance, in print or otherwise, as except tionally ancient, they should be re-examined especially from the comparative standpoint.

The Concepción artifacts and those from the Peten were, for the most part, percussion-flaked flint implements, bifaced, usually with one end rounded, the other relatively pointed, and with unretouched edges, not unlike the Acheulian hand ax of Europe.

In a recent issue of American Antiquity (Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 101-11, 1954) Thomas Lee states that several geologists reject wave action as the cause of the worn condition of some of the blades found at the Sheguiandah site in Ontario, Canada. This fosters doubt in his mind that I am right in assigning wave action as the cause of the worn condition of artifacts from George Lake 1, 25 miles to the east. This is a matter of crucial importance for the site because it involves the only method of establishing the contemporaneity of cultural material with construction of the beach by waves at an elevation of 297 feet above the present level of Lake Huron.

The most secure support of wave action at George Lake is the abrasion of the artifacts to the same degree and in the same manner as the cobbles of the beach itself. Both are in the condition described by sedimentologists as subangular. It is also important that the aretes of the implements are in most cases much smoother than the surfaces of the flake scars. Other facts are consistent with this interpretation.

The usually accepted earliest date for metal objects in Mesoamerica is the 8th century A.D. (Copan and Tazumal). There are, however, two occurrences reported in the literature which seem to have been ignored despite apparent ages much before this.

One is reported found by Cummings at Cuicuilco in 1924-25. In part his account reads, “… resting upon the top of the horseshoe-shaped walls were the fragments of a copper wand that had been made of thin copper plate hammered around a wooden core and held together by copper nails. Some of the charred remains of the wooden core still clung to the copper plate.” The stratigraphy is somewhat difficult to follow in the account, but it appears that the find dates between the last stone construction and the volcanic action which partly covered the site. The spot was overlain by a uniform layer of yellow sand and clay and above this, “surface loam with traces of ashes and carbonized material at the bottom,” a total of at least 7 feet of soil. Cummings speaks of the copper as “crude.” It is uncertain whether the term was used in a metallurgical sense. If the object can now be located, a metallographic examination should be made.

One is forced to admire Quimby's enterprise (1954, American Antiquity, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 317-31) in attempting not only a characterization but a mapping of the paleogeography of North America at 7 stages between 8500 B.C. and 500 B.C. Among other things it shows a healthful awareness that the physical environment cannot be considered a constant even in the relatively short time span generally accepted for the New World archaeological record. Fruitful investigations can be pursued through coordinating the geological, climatological, paleoecological, and archaeological evidence over extensive regions, and this tentative essay may provide a needed impetus.

On the other hand, certain of the hypotheses presented in this paper seem to me to demand immediate examination before they become established dogma to burden subsequent investigations. I shall not question the eclectic use of 2 main chronological frameworks, those provided by Antevs and by radiocarbon dating, though the former, at least, is hardly established fact (Burma 1950).

In a recent issue of American Antiquity Douglas S. Byers, in “Bull Brook — a Fluted Point Site in Ipswich, Massachusetts ” (Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 343-51), pointedly raises the question of how the stone artifacts at this site have become buried rather deeply in the soil. To quote Mr. Byers: “Not the least of the problems is that having to do with the means by which the implements became buried. The surface of the land shows differences in elevation that could not have amounted to more than 5 feet over the entire area. There is no sign of an old land surface at the depth at which the fluted point complex occurs. Neither slope wash, wind action, nor frost action seem to offer satisfactory media for burying the objects. The matter remains a puzzle until further study may uncover new evidence.”

This particular dilemma, is one that I am sure will be encountered in the study of any old site, such as the fluted point sites.

I read Aschmann's comments with great interest, welcome the opportunity to reply to them, and wish also to add some comments I have received by letter from others.

I used the terminology of Antevs, but not his chronological framework, which is quite different from that presented tentatively by me. In fact, I feel certain that Antevs would be much rougher in his assessment than Aschmann.

My grievous remark on climate stems from ignorance and my impression that the cool periods followed the glacial advances. Among the implications of such an idea are that somehow additional precipitation in high latitudes caused the glacier to grow and this in turn somehow produces in varying degrees a cool climate locally, probably somewhat dependent upon the magnitude of the icecap. I suppose that such factors as prevailing wind direction, tracks of high and low pressure areas and positions of large bodies of water are among the variables that would have to be considered.

It is time to consider some recent trends in thought on the paleo-Indian and certain inferences which may be derived from trait evidence so. far discovered. Recently, some specialists on the problem have begun to realize that, although a good number of flaked blade types from the “early man” horizon have been found scattered over North America, there are also certain associated artifacts which bear significant similarities over a continental area. Thus, the idea is taking shape that the paleo-Indian here was not represented by many culturally diverse groups, but was, on the other hand, living perforce in a relatively culturally homogeneous manner since he existed on much the same economic base for several thousand years. Although different techniques and fashions of artifact manufacture were developed, these changes did not necessarily indicate change in a mode of living.

In discussing the western area with reference to Danger Cave, Jennings (1953) proposes that many of these “early man” manifestations could be lumped together as the Desert culture.

Due to the kind invitation of William C. Eldridge and the Vaccaro brothers, discoverers of the site, I have had opportunities to visit and excavate in this flutedpoint site during the current spring. In part of the work I was accompanied by Theodore L. Stoddard.

In April we went to examine a possible hearth area where concentrations of charcoal had been reported in association with fragments of artifacts and chips of the stone used by the paleo-Indian occupants of the site. The surface which was exposed lay about 12 inches below ground level and well within the horizon of yellow-brown sand. Concentrations of charcoal were irregular in outline and density, and as one trowelled downwards they appeared to separate into fingers suggesting roots. Associated with some of the better preserved charcoal were bits of carbonized bark. We therefore concluded that the charcoal represented the remains of stumps which had burned out in rather recent woods fires, and that association of charcoal and fragments of paleo-Indian artifacts was purely fortuitous.

I have read Irving Rouse's recent article on the Southwestern co-tradition (“On the Use of the Concept of Area Co-Tradition,” American Antiquity, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 221-5, 1954) and I must say that it fills me with mild astonishment. I fear that Rouse's strictures may have generated confusion in the minds of some students and may have given rise to the suspicion that any general formulation of Southwestern culture history is invalid or at least premature. In order to dispel these doubts I wish to discuss our underlying philosophy in this matter.

My general reaction to Rouse's article is to ask whether Bennett really intended the co-tradition concept to apply only to Peru? Has Rouse correctly codified Bennett's idea of a co-tradition and is Rouse's strict interpretation a proper one? If an affirmative is the response to these queries, then I must admit that in the narrowest and most literal terms the area co-tradition cannot be applied to the Southwestern area of the United States. At best, it would apply only to a few spots in the world in which the highest cultures have developed.

Prior to 1950 Fort Massapeag was a well preserved earthwork covered by a dense growth of trees, bushes and trailing vines. In August 1953 I learned that the site had been virtually obliterated by the action of bulldozers making way for the extension of Harbor Green, a real estate development adjacent to the village of Massapequa, Long Island. George Peters of the De Department of Public Works, Nassau County, showed me a map on which traces of the earthwork had been plotted before the bulldozers had scraped and furrowed the area, but after the north wall and ditch had been dug away. A visit to the site was unrewarding. A heavy growth of weeds along with a pile of uprooted trees completely masked the area where the fort had stood. At this writing negotiations are in progress for the acquisition of the site by Nassau County in order to preserve what remains. Figure 28 is based on maps made in 1937 and 1938.

In January, 1927, soon after my return from an exploring expedition in Peru under the Chicago (then Field) Natural History Museum, I arranged with Dean Frank H. Probert of the University of California College of Mining for quantitative analysis of samples from 17 specimens of ancient Peruvian metal objects selected by me from the Max Uhle collections in the University's Museum of Anthropology. Professor Walter S. Morley kindly undertook to make the analyses in person. On February 26, the last of the specimens were returned to the Museum, and soon after that Professor Morley turned over to me a typewritten sheet giving the proportions, to a hundredth of a per cent, of copper, tin, antimony, arsenic, zinc, lead, gold, silver, and silica or insoluble materials determined.

I filed the sheet, but when next I went to use it, it could not be found. Neither Morley nor Probert any longer possessed a copy by then, and both of them have since died.

The evidence for locating the find of sheet copper, reported by R. E. Smith (1944) and commented on by John L. Sorenson in American Antiquity (1954), has proved thoroughly unreliable.

Since the publication of the above find, which included 11 pottery vessels and other artifacts, I have learned that the pottery most probably did not come from San Miguel Ixtahuacan at all. Nothing even vaguely similar has been unearthed from that vicinity. It is much more closely related to material from the Salcaja-Momostenango region, as I pointed out in the article. Therefore, if the informant and original owner of the collection gave inaccurate information as to the provenience of the collection, he ma'y also have been in error as to copper being found in one of the above pre-Classic vessels.

This material was published in order to preserve the lot as a whole for students, because without regard to its provenience the pottery appeared to be a homogeneous collection, presumably found in a single grave or various graves of the same ceramic period.

From November 15, 1950, to April 7, 1951, an archaeological survey was conducted by the Smithsonian River Basin Surveys, in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Corps of Army Engineers, of the area to be flooded by the dam at Buford, Georgia. On the upper Chattahoochee River we came across an aboriginal cooking pit containing quantities of pottery which could be unhesitatingly identified as historic Cherokee. While a certain amount of confusion as to just what might constitute Cherokee ceramics was dispelled some years ago by the publication of Hiwassee Island, it does seem advisable to present the Buford material as an areal and temporal variant. It differs in some particulars from the Overhill pottery described by Lewis and Kneberg from the Little Tennessee; there are other differences from recently identified Cherokee pottery from the middle Etowah River in northwest Georgia; and again, it is unlike some ceramic assemblages from Lower Cherokee towns in northeast Georgia and western South Carolina.