In the July 1978 issue of American Antiquity, David Thomas examined the differences between the points of actual arrows and darts, and concluded that in many cases individual artifacts can be correctly identified as belonging to one or the other category on the basis of a certain combination of length, width, thickness, and neck width. His study involved a search for correlations between measurements of projectile points and measurements of the actual shafts found attached to them. In the end he was able to present a method that selects the correct propulsion mode 86 out of 100 times.

In his analysis Thomas correctly points out how very little projectile points can tell us about the total arrow or dart, adding that certain investigators, myself included, should realize this. He suggests that we may be trying to reconstruct entire weapons from arrowheads; but to that charge I must plead not guilty for I confess that in my study I was perpetrating an even greater heresy than might have been dreamed of in Thomas’ philosophy.

The major disagreements between Evans and me stem from our very different characterizations of the nature of the Aztec socioeconomic system. Against her picture of a politically controlled, uncommercialized, and fragmented economy I argue for a complex, open, highly commercialized, and integrated economic system. Markets and marketplace trade played a larger role in this system than Evans would allow. From this perspective the central place analysis is elaborated and defended.

In this reply the author attempts to answer criticisms and to clarify some points made in "What Can Systems Theory Do for Archaeology?" (Salmon 1978). Particular emphasis is placed on the distinction between philosophical models of explanation and empirical models of phenomena. Some confusion has arisen because the term "systems model" has been applied to both types.

National Science Foundation (NSF) funding for domestic archaeology in the United States is examined for the period 1958 through 1978. Funding levels are analyzed in terms of current- and constant-dollar expenditures, as well as funding intensity. It is concluded that NSF funding for domestic archaeological research has declined rapidly since the mid-1960s and that the funding for fiscal year 1978 represents the program's nadir (a mere 6% of the funding intensity for 1966 and about half the amount for 1958). It seems reasonable to suggest that NSF may soon cease to be a viable source of funds for scientific research in the area of domestic archaeology if recent trends continue.

It is argued that the citation analysis of changing aims in archaeology by Sterud (1978) may not reflect the only or the most significant developments over the period studied. There is still considerable disagreement on the aims of archaeology, and there remains a tendency for archaeologists to split into competing schools. The interactions of these schools provide much of the impetus to growth and change in the discipline and are themselves potentially susceptible to citation analysis.

There is an apparent discrepancy in the reported data from Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Radiocarbon dates from Stratum IIa appear to indicate a Wisconsinan full-glacial occupation by man in the shelter. The recovered fauna and flora are discordant with other local Wisconsinan-age fossils.

All of the presently available and processed data from Meadowcroft Rockshelter indicate that the radiocarbon dates for middle and lower Stratum IIa are not discordant with either the associated fauna, flora, and artifacts or with the known geological history of the Cross Creek drainage. Consequently, it is reiterated that the earliest occupations at this locality still represent the best evidence recovered to date for the presence of pre-Clovis or pre-fluted point populations in the New World. It is further suggested that a maintenance of the "Clovis primacy syndrome" is both anachronistic and futile.

Norman Yoffee's characterizations of the theory of biological evolution and the theory of cultural evolution are inaccurate, unsupported in his work and, further, unsupportable in the literature of evolutionary studies. Therefore, his conclusion that the analogy between biological and cultural evolution is inappropriate cannot be logically valid.