Fluctuating modes of thought concerning the origins of the American Indians are traced from the time of the Spanish Conquest to the present. Early Man studies are related to the broader aspects of archaeology in Europe as well as in North America. Six periods are presented, in each of which different conceptions of Indian origins were dominant: (1) 1520-1780, (2) 1780-1859, (3) 1859-1890, (4) 1890-1925, (5) 1925-1950, (6) 1950-present. It is shown that developments in other fields of inquiry influenced the conceptions that evolved in each of these periods.

Four years of intensive archaeological survey, supplemented by excavations in the Teotihuacán Valley, Mexico, have greatly clarified our picture of the transition from Preclassic to Classic. The definition of two new phases of culture history, Tezoyuca and Patlachique, that belong to the Terminal Preclassic (post Late Ticoman) strongly suggests a local development of the great Classic city of Teotihuacán. This runs counter to the hypothesis that a great migration, possibly from the Gulf Coast region, was responsible for the fully developed Classic Teotihuacán culture. Present evidence indicates that the Patlachique phase is intrusive and appears in the Teotihuacán Valley possibly as the result of migrations from the southern Valley of Mexico, perhaps precipitated by the eruption of the volcano Xitli. When peoples carrying this culture entered the Teotihuacán Valley, they encountered the Tezoyuca culture and gradually absorbed it. The fusion of these two groups eventually produced Tzacualli, which is the first recognizable phase of the Teotihuacán culture.

It is argued that the normative theory of culture, widely held among archaeologists, is inadequate for the generation of fruitful explanatory hypotheses of cultural process. One obvious shortcoming of this theoretical position has been the development of archaeological systematics that have obviated any possibility of measuring multivariate phenomena and permit only the measurement of unspecified “cultural differences and similarities,” as if these were univariate phenomena. As an alternative to this approach, it is proposed that culture be viewed as a system composed of subsystems, and it is suggested that differences and similarities between different classes of archaeological remains reflect different subsystems and hence may be expected to vary independently of each other in the normal operation of the system or during change in the system. A general discussion of ceramic classification and the classification of differences and similarities between assemblages is presented as an example of the multivariate approach to the study of cultural variability. It is suggested that a multivariate approach in systematics will encourage the study of cultural variability and its causes and thereby enhance the study of culture process.

There are multiple structural and stylistic differences between local Middle Woodland expressions in the Great Lakes-Riverine area. These reflect not only different cultural systems but also in some cases different levels of cultural complexity. At present these manifestations are grouped into a single Hopewellian culture on the basis of selected artifact commonalities. Variations within Great Lakes-Riverine Middle Woodland are of several kinds: (1) complexes that include diagnostic Hopewellian culture artifacts are concentrated in the major river valleys, while apparently contemporary manifestations in neighboring localities lack Hopewellian forms; (2) if we employ artifact classes other than those used as Hopewellian diagnostics, Middle Woodland regional traditions can be defined that have distributions sharply different from those of specifically Hopewellian complexes; (3) comparison of Hopewellian manifestations in Ohio, Illinois, and elsewhere indicates that these are not local expressions of a homogeneous culture but probably representatives of more than one cultural system; and (4) structural analysis of Middle Woodland mortuary and subsistence-settlement patterns in two regions, Illinois and Ohio, indicates contrasting cultural systems. It is argued that if ceramics of the Havana tradition are classified according to criteria developed in the central Illinois Valley, then potentially significant local style variations will go unrecognized. Tentative definition of four microstyle zones within the Havana tradition illustrates the utility of a system of analysis geared to recognition of small-scale style differences.

Major migrations into the West Indies emanated out of South America. For the most part, tropical forest traditions were transplanted, but it is obvious that these traditions were influenced by a markedly different environment. People who had previously known a river-tropical forest habitat now encountered the sea with its currents, winds, swells, and expansive transportation potential. Islands, sometimes with limited fresh-water conditions, also presented new problems as well as new opportunities for settlement. Recent work in the Virgin Islands points to the strong influence of environment on the settlement patterns of pre-Columbian peoples. With the advent of extensive archaeological research in the Antillean area, new and valued interpretations must be sought in the cultural-environmental complex.

The ceramic period of Venezuela began in the extreme west about 1860 B.C. with coarse-textured, grit-tempered bowls having modeled decoration, and it began in the east around 1050 B.C. with bichrome and modeled pottery in the Orinoco region. By 1000 B.C., pottery making and, by inference, agriculture had spread over most of Venezuela; and the later dual division between eastern manioc growers with a plastic ceramic tradition and western maize cultivators with a painted-pottery tradition was well started. Developments in both areas influenced the Antilles, with those in the east stronger in early times and those in the west stronger in later times. Relationships with the Antilles are not reducible to a simple formula that calls for movement from the northeastern coast of Venezuela out into the island chain.

Survey and tests in Grenada indicate three major ceramic periods. The first, A.D. 0-700, is a typical Caribbean extension of the Saladoid-Barrancoid tradition of Venezuela. The second is represented by burnished, red-painted pottery with rim points and horns associated with black-and-red-painted cazuelas. A thick, crude ware which frequently exhibits deeply scratched surfaces characterizes the third. A late phase with finger-indented rims is associated with historic materials. These ceramic traditions are correlated with the pre-Arawak, Arawak, and Carib Indians.

Pottery types are demonstrably useful archaeological tools in the Lesser Antilles. The sequence of types established in selected excavations in St. Lucia and in Martinique confirms the sequence in Trinidad and northern South America. Several horizon markers are uniform in their distribution from St. Lucia to Guadeloupe. These are the early “types,” such as White-on-Red, Broad-Line Incised, Incised Polychrome, and Zoned Crosshatch. An additional type may be delineated based on conventionalized faces with coffee-bean eyes. A later type shows rim treatment wherein the lip area is regularly punctated with finger depressions. The seriation of these uniform and easily recognized types enables the reconstruction of a site-occupation sequence applicable to much of the Lesser Antilles.

Historical sources corroborated by archaeological research demonstrate that the Antillean area was inhabited by people of three cultural traditions. Puerto Rico, because of its intermediate position between the Greater and Lesser Antilles, is of great importance in determining the chronology and the distribution of West Indian aboriginal cultures. Recent radiocarbon dates demonstrate that Puerto Rico was first populated by a preceramic people who arrived before the Christian era. A relationship between these Indians and certain preceramic groups of Venezuela has been postulated, although neither the chronology of the sites nor their distribution correspond. Other radiocarbon dates from Puerto Rico establish a clear relationship between the different pottery styles of the island and those of the Lesser Antilles and Venezuela.

Recent investigations still yield no sign of preceramic or of Arawak occupation of Jamaica before early Period III in the Rouse chronology. Jamaican sites indicate a characteristically Arawakan culture, but they lack the ceremonial elaboration developed in Haiti. Jamaican pottery shows relatively little change through time and only minor local variation. Four distinct styles are present: (1) Little River from early Period III; (2) White Marl, the dominant style of the island; (3) Montego Bay, probably the latest in time; and (4) a little-known Red Ware whose chronological position is not clear. The closest stylistic affiliations are with Bani of Cuba and Meillac of Haiti. The late Carrier style of Haiti did not diffuse to Jamaica. Certain distinctive burial practices and features of village construction have been revealed by recent excavations at White Marl and other southern coast sites.

In proposing a pre-projectile point cultural stage for North and South America, Alex Krieger has cited certain lithic material from Taltal and other Chilean sites as supporting evidence. That this is an erroneous assumption can be shown by available data. As far as the Chilean record is concerned, Krieger and others have been misled by the low level of technology of certain specific artifacts for which false claims have been made. They have not recognized that these items are a very widespread feature of seemingly unrelated cultures ranging from the Peruvian and Chilean preceramic to the Inca of the 16th century.

Of the criticisms advanced by Bird on the article entitled “Early Man in the New World,” some are held to be pertinent to the purposes of this article, and suggestions are made for their clarification; others do not seem to be directly relevant and no modifications are attempted.

A fragile-pattern area is defined as any archaeological area in which man's material remains lie without depth upon an existing natural surface and thus comprise a pattern which is disturbed or broken by any form of selective artifact collecting. Such surfaces as desert pavements, degraded lake terraces, dunes, and trails are described, and it is shown why the first surveyor to visit a site should collect all available materials and information rather than sample them in the traditional manner. Suggestions are made for surveying areas that have already been damaged by collectors.

Davis has theorized that Paiute raids on the western peripheries of the Pueblo region caused withdrawals toward the central Anasazi areas, which in turn forced the Anasazi, who were also troubled by drought, to retreat eastward. Paiutes could have contributed to Puebloan migrations, but the evidence for movements toward the east is inconclusive. Contrary evidence, such as late Mesa Verde migrations to the south and west, the sequence of abandonments of Anasazi centers from east to west, and the probability that the Anasazi area was never populated to capacity argues against this theory.

In 1964, a conference of American and French prehistorians explored the techniques of manufacture of chipped-stone artifacts. The conference was held at Les Eyzies, France, and included sessions in which implements were manufactured and discussion sessions in which artifact collections were evaluated in terms of observable evidences of manufacturing technique.