On the origin, history, means of implementation and weaknesses of archaeological cross dating

Mexico's southern state of Quintana Roo is often perceived by archaeologists as a blank spot on the map of the Maya world, a region generally assumed to hold little of interest thanks to its relative isolation from the rest of Mexico. But salvage archaeology required by recent development along the ?Maya Riviera, along with a suite of other ongoing and recent research projects, have shown that the region was critical in connecting coastal and inland zones, and it is now viewed as an important area in its own right from Preclassic through post-contact times. The first volume devoted to the archaeology of Quintana Roo, this book reveals a long tradition of exploration and discovery in the region and an increasingly rich recent history of study. Covering a time span from the Formative period through the early twentieth century, it offers a sampling of recent and ongoing research by Mexican, North American, and European archaeologists. Each of the chapters helps to integrate sites within and beyond the borders of the modern state, inviting readers to consider Quintana Roo as part of an interacting Maya world whose boundaries were entirely different from today's. In taking in the range of the region, the authors consider studies in the northern part of the state resulting from modern development around Cancun; the mid-state sites of Muyil and Yookop, both of which witnessed continual occupations from the Middle Preclassic through the Postclassic; and new data from such southern sites as Cerros, Lagartera, and Chichmuul. The contributions consider such subjects as ceramic controversies, settlement shifts, site planning strategies, epigraphic and iconographic materials, the impact of recent coastal development, and the interplay between ancient, historic, and modern use of the region. Many of the chapters confirm the region as a cultural corridor between Coba and the southern lowland centers and address demographic shifts of the Terminal Classic through Postclassic periods, while others help elucidate some of Peter Harrison's Uaymil Survey work of the 1970s. Quintana Roo Archaeology unfolds a rich archaeological record spanning 2,500 years, depicting the depth and breadth of modern archaeological studies within the state. It is an important touchstone for Maya and Mesoamerican archaeologists, demonstrating the shifting web of connections between Quintanarooense sites and their neighbors, and confirming the need to integrate this region into a broader understanding of the ancient Maya.

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Chronology of the Athapaskan LanguagesHarry HoijerHarry Hoijer Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by International Journal of American Linguistics Volume 22, Number 4Oct., 1956 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/464374 Views: 23Total views on this site Citations: 29Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Peter Sutton, Ken Hale Linguistic Organisation and Native Title: The Wik Case, Australia, 22 (Sep 2021).https://doi.org/10.22459/LONT.2021Magdalena Lewandowska Athapaskan migration to the North American Sout, Contributions in New World Archaeology 12 (Dec 2019): 139–164.https://doi.org/10.33547/cnwa.12.05Lukas Denk Ordering towards disorder, Studies in Language 43, no.44 (Jan 2020): 800–849.https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19030.denJudith Kaplan From Lexicostatistics to Lexomics: Basic Vocabulary and the Study of Language Prehistory, Osiris 32, no.11 (Oct 2017): 202–223.https://doi.org/10.1086/694093Willem J. de Reuse Chapter?14. Loanwords in Apachean from indigenous languages of the Southwest, (Jun 2017): 301–318.https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.185.14derTheodore G. Schurr, Matthew C. Dulik, Amanda C. Owings, Sergey I. Zhadanov, Jill B. Gaieski, Miguel G. Vilar, Judy Ramos, Mary Beth Moss, Francis Natkong, Clan, language, and migration history has shaped genetic diversity in Haida and Tlingit populations from Southeast Alaska, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 148, no.33 (May 2012): 422–435.https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22068Kerry F. Thompson The Navajo Nation, Diné Archaeologists, Diné Archaeology, and Diné Communities, Archaeologies 7, no.33 (Dec 2011): 502–517.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-011-9183-7Ripan Singh Malhi, Angelica Gonzalez-Oliver, Kari Britt Schroeder, Brian M. Kemp, Jonathan A. Greenberg, Solomon Z. Dobrowski, David Glenn Smith, Andres Resendez, Tatiana Karafet, Michael Hammer, Stephen Zegura, Tatiana Brovko Distribution of Y chromosomes among native North Americans: A study of Athapaskan population history, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 137, no.44 (Dec 2008): 412–424.https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20883 Anthony K. Webster A Note on Plains Apache Warpath Vocabulary MacKay and Trechsel, International Journal of American Linguistics 74, no.22 (Jul 2015): 257–261.https://doi.org/10.1086/587706Anthony K. Webster Reading William Bittle and Charles Brant: On Ethnographic Representations of “Contemporary” Plains Apache, Plains Anthropologist 52, no.203203 (Feb 2014): 301–315.https://doi.org/10.1179/pan.2007.020Ripan S. Malhi, Holly M. Mortensen, Jason A. Eshleman, Brian M. Kemp, Joseph G. Lorenz, Frederika A. Kaestle, John R. Johnson, Clara Gorodezky, David Glenn Smith Native American mtDNA prehistory in the American Southwest, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 120, no.22 (Jan 2003): 108–124.https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10138Jay W. Palmer A Basketmaker II Massacre Revisited, North American Archaeologist 22, no.22 (Aug 2016): 117–141.https://doi.org/10.2190/N2PN-JKDL-BV03-V61WJay W. Palmer The Prehistoric Migrations of the Cherokee, North American Archaeologist 15, no.11 (Jan 1995): 31–52.https://doi.org/10.2190/5V04-FAKU-G22R-DNA0Jay W. Palmer Migrations of the Apachean Dineh, North American Archaeologist 13, no.33 (Nov 2016): 195–218.https://doi.org/10.2190/YW43-21MY-XFPM-HGB9Lawrence M. Schell, Baruch S. Blumberg Alloalbuminemia and the migrations of native Americans, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 31, no.S9S9 (Jan 1988): 1–13.https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330310503John M. McCullough Estimation of minimal selection pressure in a recessive trait from migration across climatic clines, Journal of Human Evolution 14, no.66 (Sep 1985): 579–586.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2484(85)80083-XRobert C. Williams, Arthur G. Steinberg, Henry Gershowitz, Peter H. Bennett, William C. Knowler, David J. Pettitt, William Butler, Robert Baird, Laidler Dowda-Rea, Thomas A. Burch, Harold G. Morse, Charline G. Smith GM allotypes in Native Americans: Evidence for three distinct migrations across the Bering land bridge, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 66, no.11 (Jan 1985): 1–19.https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330660102 References, (Jan 1984): 597–704.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-506182-7.50025-2RICHARD J. PERRY Proto-Athapaskan culture: the use of ethnographic reconstruction, American Ethnologist 10, no.44 (Oct 2009): 715–733.https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1983.10.4.02a00060Joseph L. Chartkoff A Rock Feature Complex from Northwestern California, American Antiquity 48, no.44 (Jan 2017): 745–760.https://doi.org/10.2307/279774Lawrence M. Schell, Shyam S. Agarwal, Baruch S. Blumberg, Howard Levy, Peter H. Bennett, William S. Laughlin, John P. Martin Distribution of albumin variants Naskapi and Mexico among Aleuts, Frobisher Bay Eskimos, and Micmac, Naskapi, Mohawk, Omaha and Apache Indians, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 49, no.11 (Jul 1978): 111–117.https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330490117LAWRENCE M. SCHELL, BARUCH S. BLUMBERG THE GENETICS OF HUMAN SERUM ALBUMIN††This work was supported by USPHS Grants CA-06551, RR-05539 and CA-06927 from the National Institutes of Health, and by an appropriation from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania., (Jan 1977): 113–141.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-019603-9.50012-0C. Melvin Aikens Fremont Culture: Restatement of Some Problems, American Antiquity 37, no.11 (Jan 2017): 61–66.https://doi.org/10.2307/278885C. Melvin Aikens Plains Relationships of the Fremont Culture: A Hypothesis, American Antiquity 32, no.22 (Jan 2017): 198–209.https://doi.org/10.2307/277904Thomas F. Kehoe The Small Side-Notched Point System of the Northern Plains, American Antiquity 31, no.66 (Jan 2017): 827–841.https://doi.org/10.2307/2694456Nicholas A. Hopkins Great Basin Prehistory and Uto-Aztecan, American Antiquity 31, no.11 (Jan 2017): 48–60.https://doi.org/10.2307/2694021Stephen C. Jett Reply to Ellis’ “Comment” on “Pueblo Indian Migrations”, American Antiquity 31, no.11 (Jan 2017): 116–118.https://doi.org/10.2307/2694034Stephen C. Jett Pueblo Indian Migrations: An Evaluation of the Possible Physical and Cultural Determinants, American Antiquity 29, no.33 (Jan 2017): 281–300.https://doi.org/10.2307/277867Frederick S. Hulse Ripples on a gene-pool: The shifting frequencies of blood-type alleles among the Indians of the Hupa reservation, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 18, no.22 (Jun 1960): 141–152.https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330180211

Documentation, analysis, and explanation of culture change have long been goals of archaeology. The earliest archaeological spindle graphs appeared in the 1880s and 1890s, but had no influence on subsequent archaeologists. Line graphs showing change in frequencies of specimens in each of several artifact types were used in the 1910s and 1920s. Seriograms or straight-sided spindles diagraming interpretations of culture change were published in the 1930s, but were seldom subsequently mimicked. Spindle graphs of centered and stacked columns of bars, each column representing a distinct artifact type, each bar the empirically documented relative frequency of specimens in an assemblage, were developed in the 1940s, became popular in the 1950s and 1960s, and are often used to illustrate culture change in textbooks published during the twentieth century. Graphs facilitate visual thinking, different graph types suggest different ontologies and theories of change, and particular techniques of parsing temporally continuous morphological variation of artifacts into types influence graph form. Line graphs, bar graphs, spindle diagrams, and phylogenetic trees of artifacts and cultures indicate archaeologists often mixed elements of Darwinian variational evolutionary change with elements of Midas-touch-like transformational change. Today there is minimal discussion of graph theory or graph grammar in both introductory archaeology textbooks and advanced texts, and elements of the two theories of evolution are often mixed. Culture has changed, and despite archaeology’s unique access to the totality of humankind’s cultural past, there is minimal discussion on graph theory, construction, and decipherment in the archaeological literature.

The anthropological research of Ephraim George Squier, a nineteenth century scholar, diplomat, journalist, and entrepreneur, has come under scrutiny in several articles in recent years (Barnhart 1983, Mould de Pease 1986, Olien 1985). Squier became famous, in the 1840s, for his publications on North American archaeology. During the 1850s, he published extensively on Central America, as a result of having been appointed U.S. charge d'affaires to Central America from 1849 to 1850. Later he published a book and a number of articles on Peru, based on his experiences while serving as U.S. Commissioner to Peru in 1863-4. This article will focus on Squier's work in the 1850s, when his publications were concerned with Central America. In Squier's writings on Central America, political motives often dominated over scholarly research and virtually all of his publications include political propaganda. In particular, data that applied to the Miskito Indians of Nicaragua and Honduras, and their kings, were distorted (Olien 1985: 117125). One type of distortion, or misrepresentation, involved his consistent portrayal of the Miskito Indians as blacks. One of the Squier's Central American writings was the novel Waikna; or, adventures on the Mosquito Shore , that he published in 1855 under the pseudonym Samuel A. Bard. Although Waikna was published under a fictitious name, it was known at least as early as 1856 that Squier was the author (Olien 1985: 117). After 130 years, this novel remains an enigmatic work for Central American scholars. On the one hand, it is obvious that parts of it were written to discredit the Miskito Indians (Stansifer 1959: 149); on the other hand, sections of the novel appear to be legitimate and valuable descriptions of the Mosquito coast and its peoples.1 This article will attempt to identify the ethnographic sources that Squier

Theory in North American archaeology is characterized in terms of foci and approaches manifested in research issues, rather than in explicit or oppositional theoretical positions. While there are some clear-cut theoretical perspectives—evolutionary ecology, behavioral archaeology, and Darwinian archaeology—a large majority of North American archaeology fits a broad category here called “processual-plus.” Among the major themes that crosscut many or all of the approaches are interests in gender, agency/practice, symbols and meaning, material culture, and native perspectives. Gender archaeology is paradigmatic of processual-plus archaeology, in that it draws on a diversity of theoretical approaches to address a common issue. Emphasis on agency and practice is an important development, though conceptions of agency are too often linked to Western ideas of individuals and motivation. The vast majority of North American archaeology, including postprocessual approaches, is modern, not postmodern, in orientation. The relative dearth of theoretical argument positively contributes to diversity and dialogue, but it also may cause North American theory to receive inadequate attention and unfortunate misunderstandings of postmodernism.

The Weights of Chipped Stone Points: A Clue to Their Functions

Graphs of quantitative data are analytical tools that facilitate visual thinking. In many disciplines, the use of graphs was preceded by tables summarizing quantitative data. Graphs known by North American archaeologists as “battleship curves” are temporal frequency distributions of relative abundances of specimens in each of several artifact types. They are unimodal frequency distributions known as spindle graphs. In the early 1950s, it was suggested that the idea of spindle graphs was borrowed by archaeologists from paleontology. Archaeologists occasionally used bar graphs and line graphs to diagram change in artifact inventories in the early twentieth century. The questions addressed in this volume are: (i) did North American archaeologists borrow the idea of spindle graphs from paleontology, and (ii) what was the frequency of use by North American archaeologists of each of the various graph types to diagram culture change during the early and middle twentieth century?

Reviewed by: Plainview: The Enigmatic Paleoindian Artifact Style of the Great Plains ed. by Vance T. Holliday Sara Anderson Plainview: The Enigmatic Paleoindian Artifact Style of the Great Plains. Edited by Vance T. Holliday, Eileen Johnson, and Ruthann Knudson. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2017. ix + 264 pp. Figures, tables, references, index. $70.00 cloth. Plainview: The Enigmatic Paleoindian Artifact Style of the Great Plains is an important collection of work for the archaeological community, including students and advocationalists. It may not be best suited for the general audience but certainly is a useful resource for anyone interested in the late Paleoindian period, specifically of the Great Plains. Holliday, Johnson, and Knudson are some of the principal authorities in this field and have done a great job of gathering experts to collaborate on this collection of work. By detailing the nature of the Plainview view site near Plainview, Texas, the authors are able to illustrate the complex and difficult nature of archaeological excavations through time, site preservation and management, and artifact analysis. As time and technologies have progressed and improved, the field of archaeology has been able to reexamine early classifications of sites, artifact types, and chronologies; this book does that very thing and provides a clarification of this Paleoindian point type that for so long has been a catch-all for morphologically similar lancelet points. Although the book focuses on archaeological sites in the Great Plains, chapters 7 through 10 discuss sites and their point assemblages from the Southwest and the Great Basin. Therefore, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the earliest peoples of North America in general. Specifically, the chapter “The Plainview [End Page 224] Assemblage in Context,” by Ruthann Knudson, is a useful comparison of Plainview versus other point assemblages. The chapters as independent articles or the book as a whole would be useful and beneficial in collegiate course work, such as Plains Archaeology, North American Archaeology, and Lithic Technologies. The editors have amassed, in one book, archaeological investigations that will be informative and educationally necessary for future researchers for some time. Not only does this work clearly demonstrate point type delineations and morphological specifications of Plainview against other Paleoindian points, but also features analyses and discussions focused on the fauna assemblage of Plainview. Clear photographs of the early excavations and artifact images, beautifully illustrated point type morphologies, and an array of tables, maps, and figures are integrated throughout and visually contribute to the shared knowledge. The authors of this book provide new in-depth analyses and elaborate on earlier understandings of this “enigmatic” point type. The Plainview site is a critical archaeological site of the Great Plains and has much to offer our current understandings of Paleoindians of the region. However, the authors clearly demonstrate the difficulty of reinvestigating this site as the preservation and accessibility is poor. The book stresses the significance the Plainview site and how the point type offers a greater understanding of some of the first peoples of the Great Plains and the North American continent. Sara Anderson Anthropology Department University of Nebraska–Lincoln Copyright © 2018 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln

The designation pot-hunter, as used by American archaeologists, is examined with respect to both its provenience in England and its relatively recent reinterpretation in the New World. Rather than being coined in American archaeology to designate “a hunter of pots,” this appellation, with its explicit derogatory connotation, clearly has its roots in various sporting events of 16th-century England. The essence of its meaning, then, does not relate to pots or vessels, per se, but to non-scientific attitudes and behavior toward antiquities. Pot-hunter has been reinterpreted in North America to signify the archaeological vandal or spoiler and, although specific definitions of the term often lack precision, there is a remarkable consensus among North American archaeologists as to its import. The functional utility of pot-hunter, in categorizing a segment of individuals interested in antiquities, is clearly demonstrated by its tenacious persistence in North American archaeology.

North American archaeologists working with Native American or First Nations communities, whose culture often forms the basis of the archaeological record, are becoming increasingly aware that they face a differing set of concerns and issues than those archaeologists who work with non-Native communities. Although their work is not as widely reported in the literature, North American archaeologists who have been fortunate enough to conduct research with Indigenous communities in other parts of the world are often overwhelmed by the variety of issues that may crop up. They often find that their experiences highlight the challenges but also the fulfillment involved in working with Indigenous groups. In the following paper, I offer suggestions based on practices that helped to alleviate issues I faced when working internationally. By broadening the discourse concerning working with Indigenous groups, I hope that these suggestions may also prove relevant to improving the practice of archaeology in North America as well.

The It's About Time volume, which focuses upon the issues of historiography and chronology in North American archaeology, is the publication of the papers from a 1997 Society for American Archaeology symposium. The papers are for the most part on the development of various daring techniques (such as archaeomagnetism, dendrochronology, radiocarbon, or thermoluminescence) from an archaeological perspective, but there is one extremely thought-provoking critique by a social philosopher on how archaeologists "do" the history of archaeology, that for many readers may be the single most important paper in the volume.

Previous articleNext article No AccessNotes and ReviewsA Note on Athapaskan GlottochronologyD. H. HymesD. H. Hymes Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by International Journal of American Linguistics Volume 23, Number 4Oct., 1957 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/464422 Views: 7Total views on this site Citations: 16Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Magdalena Lewandowska Athapaskan migration to the North American Sout, Contributions in New World Archaeology 12 (Dec 2019): 139–164.https://doi.org/10.33547/cnwa.12.05Ripan Singh Malhi, Angelica Gonzalez-Oliver, Kari Britt Schroeder, Brian M. Kemp, Jonathan A. Greenberg, Solomon Z. Dobrowski, David Glenn Smith, Andres Resendez, Tatiana Karafet, Michael Hammer, Stephen Zegura, Tatiana Brovko Distribution of Y chromosomes among native North Americans: A study of Athapaskan population history, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 137, no.44 (Dec 2008): 412–424.https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20883Jay W. Palmer A Basketmaker II Massacre Revisited, North American Archaeologist 22, no.22 (Aug 2016): 117–141.https://doi.org/10.2190/N2PN-JKDL-BV03-V61WStuart J. Fiedel Middle Woodland Algonquian Expansion: A Refined Model, North American Archaeologist 11, no.33 (Nov 2016): 209–230.https://doi.org/10.2190/U241-WB50-PJT6-0HE4Lawrence M. Schell, Baruch S. Blumberg Alloalbuminemia and the migrations of native Americans, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 31, no.S9S9 (Jan 1988): 1–13.https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330310503John M. McCullough Estimation of minimal selection pressure in a recessive trait from migration across climatic clines, Journal of Human Evolution 14, no.66 (Sep 1985): 579–586.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2484(85)80083-X References, (Jan 1984): 597–704.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-506182-7.50025-2E.J.E. Szathmary Dogrib Indians of the Northwest Territories, Canada: genetic diversity and genetic relationship among subarctic indians, Annals of Human Biology 10, no.22 (Jul 2009): 147–162.https://doi.org/10.1080/03014468300006291Lawrence M. Schell, Shyam S. Agarwal, Baruch S. Blumberg, Howard Levy, Peter H. Bennett, William S. Laughlin, John P. Martin Distribution of albumin variants Naskapi and Mexico among Aleuts, Frobisher Bay Eskimos, and Micmac, Naskapi, Mohawk, Omaha and Apache Indians, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 49, no.11 (Jul 1978): 111–117.https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330490117LAWRENCE M. SCHELL, BARUCH S. BLUMBERG THE GENETICS OF HUMAN SERUM ALBUMIN††This work was supported by USPHS Grants CA-06551, RR-05539 and CA-06927 from the National Institutes of Health, and by an appropriation from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania., (Jan 1977): 113–141.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-019603-9.50012-0Mary R. Haas American Indian Linguistic Prehistory, (Jan 1976): 23–58.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-1559-0_2Kenneth L. Beals Head form and climatic stress, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 37, no.11 (Jul 1972): 85–92.https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330370111C. Melvin Aikens Fremont Culture: Restatement of Some Problems, American Antiquity 37, no.11 (Jan 2017): 61–66.https://doi.org/10.2307/278885C. Melvin Aikens Plains Relationships of the Fremont Culture: A Hypothesis, American Antiquity 32, no.22 (Jan 2017): 198–209.https://doi.org/10.2307/277904Stephen C. Jett Reply to Ellis’ “Comment” on “Pueblo Indian Migrations”, American Antiquity 31, no.11 (Jan 2017): 116–118.https://doi.org/10.2307/2694034Frederick S. Hulse Ripples on a gene-pool: The shifting frequencies of blood-type alleles among the Indians of the Hupa reservation, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 18, no.22 (Jun 1960): 141–152.https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330180211

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Study of Social and Religious Systems in North American ArchaeologyWilliam H. SearsWilliam H. Sears Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Current Anthropology Volume 2, Number 3Jun., 1961 Sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/200189 Views: 12Total views on this site Citations: 13Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1961 Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological ResearchPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:W. C. Schaffer, R. S. Carr, J. S. Day, M. P. Pateman Lucayan-Taíno burials from Preacher's cave, Eleuthera, Bahamas, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 22, no.11 (Jul 2010): 45–69.https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.1180Susan D Gillespie Personhood, Agency, and Mortuary Ritual: A Case Study from the Ancient Maya, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20, no.11 (Mar 2001): 73–112.https://doi.org/10.1006/jaar.2000.0369David G. Saile ‘Architecture’ in prehispanic Pueblo archaeology; examples from Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, World Archaeology 9, no.22 (Jul 2010): 157–173.https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1977.9979693 William Petersen , Robert J. Braidwood , Henry F. Dobyns , Wolfram Eberhard , Robert E. Kennedy, Jr. , Gottfried Kurth , Christopher Meiklejohn , Yoshio Onuki , Kenneth M. Weiss , and Paul F. Wilkinson A Demographer's View of Prehistoric Demography [and Comments and Replies], Current Anthropology 16, no.22 (Oct 2015): 227–245.https://doi.org/10.1086/201542Rebecca A. Lane, Audrey J. Sublett Osteology of Social Organization: Residence Pattern, American Antiquity 37, no.22 (Jan 2017): 186–201.https://doi.org/10.2307/278205Nicholas David The Fulani compound and the archaeologist, World Archaeology 3, no.22 (Oct 1971): 111–131.https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1969.9979497Bruce Trigger Archaeology and ecology, World Archaeology 2, no.33 (Feb 1971): 321–336.https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1971.9979483William L. Allen, James B. Richardson The Reconstruction of Kinship from Archaeological Data: The Concepts, the Methods, and the Feasibility, American Antiquity 36, no.11 (Jan 2017): 41–53.https://doi.org/10.2307/278021R. E. Taylor The Shaft Tombs of Western Mexico: Problems in the Interpretation of Religious Function in Nonhistoric Archaeological Contexts, American Antiquity 35, no.22 (Jan 2017): 160–169.https://doi.org/10.2307/278145Michael West Community Settlement Patterns at Chan Chan, Peru, American Antiquity 35, no.11 (Jan 2017): 74–86.https://doi.org/10.2307/278179 Åke Hultkrantz North American Indian Religion in the History of Research: A General Survey. Part IV, History of Religions 7, no.22 (Oct 2015): 112–148.https://doi.org/10.1086/462558Edward P. Dozier Southwestern Social Units and Archaeology, American Antiquity 31, no.11 (Jan 2017): 38–47.https://doi.org/10.2307/2694020William J. Mayer-Oakes Complex Society Archaeology, American Antiquity 29, no.0101 (Jan 2017): 57–60.https://doi.org/10.2307/278631

Author(s): J. M. Lindly, G. A. Clark, O. Bar-Yosef, D. Lieberman, J. Shea, Harold L. Dibble, Phillip G. Chase, Clive Gamble, Robert H. Gargett, Ken Jacobs, Paul Mellars, Anne Pike-Tay, Yuri Smirnov, Lawrence Guy Straus, C. B. Stringer, Erik Trinkaus and Randall White Reviewed work(s): Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Jun., 1990), pp. 233-261 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2743625 . Accessed: 15/09/2012 00:27

The purpose of this work is to analyze the events in scientific life that preceded and followed the first Soviet-American archaeological expedition to the Aleutian Islands 50 years ago (1974) and the excavations of the Anangula Site, the materials of which date back to ca. 9,000 years ago. The used sources include various publications by Rus-sian and foreign authors, highlighting the key episodes of international dialogue and the stages of the formation of American studies in the Kunstkamera (St. Petersburg), the Institute of Ethnography (Moscow), and the Institute of History, Philology and Philosophy (Novosibirsk), as well as the information on the participation of Russian scientists, with reports, at major international forums, periodicals, and scientific chronicles, freely available archival data, and also records from family collections. The dynamics and forms of academic cooperation between Russian and North American archaeologists and ethnographers (exchanges of visits, conferences, exhibitions, joint projects, publications) are traced during different stages — in the 1900s–1930s, 1950s–1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s. The initial period featured the interest of the American side in the study of materials from Siberia and Northeast Asia in the person of such specialists as A. Hrdlicka, F. Rainey, and W. Laughlin, and the late 1960s period — the institutional, structural, and thematic development of American studies in several scientific centers in Russia. The specifics of changes in the structure of financing, and the role of the grant system (Russian and foreign scientific foundations) since the 1990s are noted. As a result, a number of conclusions have been drawn about the regularity of the ap-pearance and implementation of the project on the Aleutian Islands, the role of Siberian researchers (A.P. Okladnikov, A.P. Derevianko, R.S. Vasilievsky) in the development of such areas as American studies and Pacific archaeology in science and education, the long-term effect of the “Anangula legacy” for the next generations of Russian and North American archaeologists, as well as about the current state of the research in the area.