Hunter-gatherer adaptations to long-term fluctuations in regional resource structure require mechanisms to cope with periodic subsistence stresses. Among documented groups, a common response to such stress is temporary movement into adjacent occupied areas-moving in with "relatives" when things go wrong. However, in the case of early (ca. 12,000-10,000 B.P.) Paleoindian groups in the Americas, the availability of neighboring groups with a detailed knowledge of local resource geography could not be relied upon. Post-Pleistocene environmental changes and the low initial population of the New World are important factors conditioning a lifeway characterized by a dependence on hunting (though not exclusively of megafauna), and by high residential, logistical, and range (territorial) mobility. Early Paleoindian groups had to adopt a subsistence technology that could be employed regardless of the specific resource microstructure. In some regards, Paleoindians seem to have behaved like tropical foragers while in others like arctic collectors. Use of high quality lithic raw materials from large quarry sources, reliance on a bifacial technology, limited use of caves and rockshelters, and a low level of processing of food products for storage all may be indicative of such a subsistence technology, which would have been unlike that of any modern hunter-gatherers.

Archaeologists interpreting the patterns of prehistory in the American Southwest have been influenced dramatically by the obtrusiveness of certain kinds of archaeological remains and by the remarkable record of continuity they suggest. Low-visibility archaeological remains and discontinuous developmental sequences have been accorded only minor significance in southwestern prehistory, in spite of the fact that occupational "discontinuities" are evident in the archaeological record of many regions. In this paper, two examples are presented to show how low-visibility archaeological remains support a discontinuous model of cultural development on the Colorado Plateaus.

This paper argues: (1) that there is no meaningful philosophical and practical distinction between history and prehistory until sometime in the Lower Paleolithic; and (2) because history as we practice it is a human invention (usually attributed to Herodotus), perhaps prehistory should be reserved as a term to describe how humans dealt with the past prior to the fifth century B.C. Philosophical underpinnings for the argument are taken from Collingwood; practical examples are drawn from personal experiences in the archaeology and history of Greater Mesopotamia.

Surveys and excavations conducted within the Savannah River watershed in recent years have yielded a wealth of information about organization and adaptive strategies of Early Archaic populations, both within the drainage and across the region. Specifically, excavations at Rucker's Bottom (9EB91) and the G. S. Lewis site (38AK228) have yielded large, complementary assemblages indicating watershed-extensive adaptation employing a mixed collector-forager strategy. Comparative analyses with assemblages from the surrounding region document an extensive use of expedient technologies, instead of the more formalized technologies thought to characterize the period. Analyses of local and regional resource structure, theoretical arguments about biocultural needs of hunter-gatherer populations, and evidence from the archaeological record, suggest that large drainage systems served subsistence/resource needs, while biocultural interaction (i.e., information and mating networks) operated both along and across watershed boundaries. A model of Early Archaic settlement is proposed, based on band/macroband mobility and interaction, that is thought to partially account for the variation from this period found on the South Atlantic Slope.

Contradictory programmatic statements have increased uncertainty about the nature and roles of theory in archaeology. However, a framework can be constructed that ties together diverse kinds of theory that archaeologists use-and often create. Three overarching realms of theory can be recognized, each consisting of one or more functionally defined domains: social theory, reconstruction theory (the domains are material-culture dynamics and cultural and noncultural formation processes of the archaeological record), and methodological theory (the domains are recovery, analysis, and inference). Within each domain are high-level, mid-level, and low-level theories. Previous investigators often have overlooked the richness and complexity of archaeological theory, sometimes generalizing from a very narrow perspective.

After nearly four decades, Taylor's discussion of the relation between history and anthropology remain remarkably fresh and are used throughout this presentation. History and anthropology have similar concerns for understanding the human experience and process; the primary concern of anthropology, however, is culture. By examining the semantic domain of both fields, their relation is clarified. The primary data base of historiography, ethnography, and archaeology consists of documents, ethnography, and material remains, respectively. Historiography, ethnography, and archaeology are methods, and no more. Theoretical considerations reside at the higher level of ethnology-the comparative study of culture.

The animal body-part utility indices developed by Lewis Binford have been used to interpret faunal assemblages ranging from Plio-Pleistocene sites in East Africa to a late prehistoric bison kill in the High Plains of North America. Little attention, however, has been placed on refining or further developing these scales of economic utility. We examine Binford's derivation of the modified general utility index (MGUI) and demonstrate that it is needlessly complex. A nearly identical index, the food utility index (FUI), is presented. It simply scales variation in the amount of meat, marrow, and bone grease associated with different caribou body parts. We then use the insights provided by this simple scale to explore relations among economic utility, differential body-part representation, and human decision making.

Identification of the artifacts and features used in ceramic manufacture has become a crucial aspect of Southwestern archaeology as the organization of pottery production has assumed a pivotal role in current models of Southwestern prehistory. Regrettably, pottery-making and pottery-firing areas seldom are reported, and reliable criteria for inferring their presence at archaeological sites have not been developed. A review of pertinent ethnoarchaeological and experimental literature provides some correlates for identifying artifacts and features that may have been involved in ceramic production. Presently, it appears that only two Southwestern sites, Snaketown on the Gila River and AZ I:1:17(ASM) south of Grand Canyon National Park, have disclosed convincing evidence of on-site pottery-making and pottery-firing areas. Some recommendations are developed for increasing the likelihood of recovering strong evidence of ceramic production at Southwestern sites.

In the light of the recent excavations of the Templo Mayor in downtown Mexico City, we explore the problem of the role of astronomy, calendar, and the landscape in the design and orientation of the building and of the city in general. We employ ethnohistoric data relating to the foundation myth of Tenochtitlan as a means of generating hypotheses concerning astronomical orientation that can be tested by reference to the archaeological record. We find that eastward-looking observations (implied in dismantling and reconstructing the myth) that took place around the time of the equinox may have been related to an attempt to transform a true east orientation from the natural environment into the architecture via a line that passed through the center of the Temple of Huitzilopochtli (the more southerly temple of the pair constituting the top of the Templo Mayor). It also is possible that the notch between the twin temples served a calendrical/orientational function. Evidence is presented to support the view that the mountain cult of Tlaloc, represented in the environment on the periphery of the Valley of Mexico by Mount Tlaloc, also may have directly influenced the orientation of the building and that it was part of a scheme for marking out days of the calendar by reference to the position of the rising sun at intervals of 20 days from the spring equinox. In this regard, we discuss the connection between the Templo Mayor and an enclosure containing offertory chambers atop Mount Tlaloc, which is located on a line extended to the visible horizon 44 km east of the ceremonial center. The ethnohistoric record implies that this place had been used for sacrifices to the rain god after whom the other of the twin temples of the Templo Mayor was named.

This article briefly reviews methodological issues relevant to subsurface testing and advances a general method for objectively assessing the reliability of an archaeological survey program based on subsurface survey methods such as the excavation of shovel tests or the use of auger holes. The proposed technique employs simulation to model subsurface testing strategies using simple principles of probability and assumptions that are explicit and realistic. An arbitrary layout of test units can be evaluated to yield an estimate of the proportions of sites of different sizes and artifact densities that will be found (or missed) by the testing program.