This paper discusses the Kennewick lawsuit as it relates to the intended purposes of Nagpra. It also reflects upon comments made by Swedlund and Anderson (1999) in a recent American Antiquity Forum, which conceptually linked two ancient skeletons, Gordon Creek Woman and Kennewick Man. Their assertions indicate the need for clarifying specific issues and events pertaining to the case. We comment on how times have changed with the passage of NAGPRA, how differently these two skeletons have been treated by the media and the scientists interested in them, and show how discussions of biological affiliation have relevance. There is still much to be learned from Kennewick Man and Gordon Creek Woman. But attempts to bring the concept of race or racial typing into the picture show misunderstanding regarding the use of morphological data in tracing population historical relationships, not to mention obfuscating the scientific issues they raise.

Following on the work of Dunnell, the evolutionary archaeology school has made a sharp distinction between functional and stylistic variation in archaeological artifacts. Variation is defined as functional if it is affected by selection processes and as stylistic if it is a result of processes of random drift. The argument has been further developed by Neiman (1995), who showed by simulation that processes of cultural mutation and drift could produce the kinds of "battleship curves" that generally characterize artifact-style frequency distributions through time, and also demonstrated that they could account for patterns of stylistic variation through time in Woodland-period ceramic assemblages from Illinois. In this paper we present a case study of change in the decoration of pottery from early Neolithic Central Europe. We show that the actual diachronic frequency distributions and those expected under the neutral model do not coincide and conclude that in this case the neutral model does not provide an adequate description of change in ceramic decoration. A model involving selection, in the form of a bias in favor of novelty in the later phases of the period studied, seems likely to be more appropriate, and we note the social interpretation of the original investigator of the data. In conclusion, it is suggested that neutral models provide an important heuristic tool but that there is not a radical break between functional and stylistic variation.

Analysis of over 27,000 fish bones from strata at Daisy Cave dated between about 11,500 and 8500 cal B.P. suggests that early Channel Islanders fished relatively intensively in a variety of habitats using a number of distinct technologies, including boats and the earliest evidence for hook-and-line fishing on the Pacific Coast of the Americas. The abundance of fish remains and fishing-related artifacts supports dietary reconstructions that suggest fish provided more than 50 percent of the edible meat represented in faunal samples from the early Holocene site strata. The abundance and economic importance of fish at Daisy Cave, unprecedented among early sites along the Pacific Coast of North America, suggest that early maritime capabilities on the Channel Islands were both more advanced and more variable than previously believed. When combined with a survey of fish remains from several other early Pacific Coast sites, these data suggest that early New World peoples effectively used watercraft, captured a diverse array of fish, and exploited a variety of marine habitats and resources.

The Schultz site (20SA2) is a benchmark site for understanding the Woodland adaptations of the Upper Great Lakes, although its older excavation data is not comparable with recent Eastern Woodlands research, which consistently uses fine-grained recovery techniques. The 1991 Schultz-site research collected supplementary and upgraded subsistence and environmental data to address questions about regional transformations from hunting and gathering to horticulture. In addition, questions regarding the role of aquatic and wetland resources, and how environmental change affected the availability and productivity of these alternative resources, were addressed. Results of faunal, floral, and geoarchaeological research reveal that Woodland economies in the Saginaw region of the Upper Great Lakes were keyed to environmental changes affecting wetland availability and productivity. The Early Woodland presence of cucurbits does not appear economically important until later when it is combined with more reliable supplementary food sources. Although chenopod is present during the Middle Woodland and early Late Woodland, wetland plant and animal resources act as surrogates for other starchy and oily seeded annuals common in other portions of the Midwest and in the Mid-South. Maize apparently does not achieve economic significance until the Late Woodland period. A model of this combined northern and southern strategy is developed.

Explaining prehistoric mound development requires both anthropological and geoarchaeological perspectives. Illinois Hopewell (Middle Woodland) mounds are remarkable for the range of earthen materials used in their construction. Adding to this variety we document the presence of upturned sod blocks in a mound at the Mound House site. There and at other Illinois sites the sods have dark, 3-10-cm-thick A horizons with minimal or no evidence of B horizon development. They required no more than a few decades to form and did so under a grass cover. Humans probably created the conditions that enabled sods to form, but the sod blocks were not cut from soils adjacent to the mounds (unless from another mound surface nearby) or from soils in habitation areas. In some respects, sod blocks would have been a superior earthen building material, appropriately chosen, for instance, to construct stable, near-vertical walls of above-ground tombs. Their selection and use, however, cannot be explained solely according to principles of sound and efficient mound construction. We argue that sod blocks and other kinds of earth for Illinois Hopewell mounds surely had important symbolic dimensions in addition to their structural properties.

Architecture both reflects and emphasizes the distinctions upon which social and political organization are based. In particular, an "architecture of power" has been recognized in a number of hierarchical, prehistoric cultural contexts, from the Chacoans to the Mississippians. In these cases, the specific architectural style of a central place is replicated at points in the surrounding area, either as an imitative response by local populations or as a tangible reflection of control exerted from the major political center. The latter situation seems the most likely in the area close around the primate center of Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, Mexico. Here, architectural data from the authors' recent survey and excavation projects are used to recognize a local architecture of power, to trace its distribution, and to postulate several different types of control nodes in the area lying around the primate center. These nodes vary in type and level of elaboration, and it is argued that this variation reflects the nodes" different roles in the organization of Casas Grandes" hinterland.

In science, understanding the relationship between data and problems is crucial to successful research. When problems are imposed on the data and its organization-instead of addressing the empirical subject matter of the discipline-a major epistemological difficulty arises. What domains of knowledge can reliably inform about the imposed problem? I suggest that the many claims that all data are "theory dependent" are primarily accurate in those instances when a problem is imposed on a body of data. This is the approach of humanities. When a problem is recognized in the context of pattern recognition studies that are focused on data generated from the study of one"s subject matter, a different relationship exists between data and theory and fruitful theory building becomes possible. The latter is the approach of science. Central to this contrast is the issue of where problems come from.

In the preceding paper, Binford distinguishes between scholars who derive theory from within archaeological datasets and do science, and those who borrow theory from elsewhere and engage in the humanities. I agree that archaeological datasets constitute one fruitful area for the origin of research questions but not the only one, and suggest other ways that he could have considered the matter. I provide concrete examples of Binford"s preferred research strategy and mine, and discern significant differences between the two. What Binford considered the importation of theory was really the formulation of models that were ultimately tested on archaeological datasets.

Positive results were obtained from protein residue analysis on three Clovis points from Wally's Beach, southwestern Alberta. Two tested positive for Equus, the third for a bovid, probably Bison or Bootherium. All genera are present in the site remains. This finding clearly demonstrates use of Equus by Clovis hunters. Four 14C dates indicate that the site was in use between 11,000 and 11,300 B.P.

The potential interconnections between human settlement systems, subsistence practices, and rapid, high-magnitude transformation of the physical landscape (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and landslides) is an important issue of discussion in archaeology. This paper critically examines the argument that prehistoric abandonment of Classic Lillooet pithouse villages of south-central British Columbia, Canada, at approximately 1200-1000 B.P., was linked to one or more catastrophic landslides at Texas Creek that blocked the Fraser River, destroyed salmon resources, and caused the abandonment of this area. Examination of the location and depositional condition of several excavated archaeological sites within the Fraser Valley, as well as reflection on the expected environmental and cultural responses to a catastrophic landslide, challenge previous interpretations of the existence, location, and magnitude of such a landslide event, and indicate that archaeologists need to reconsider deterministic environmental explanations for the abandonment of pithouse villages in the interior of British Columbia.

Evolutionary theory, in consort with Marxism and processualism, provides new insights into the interpretation of grave-good variation. Processual interpretations of burial sites in the American Southwest cite age, sex, or social rank as the main determinants of burial-good variation. Marxist theorists suggest that mortuary ritual mediates social tension between an egalitarian mindset and an existing social inequality. Evolutionary theory provides a supplementary explanatory framework. Recent studies guided by kin-selection theory suggest that humans grieve more for individuals of high reproductive value and genetic relatedness. Ethnographic examples also show that individuals mourn more intensively and, thus, place more social emphasis on burials of individuals of highest reproductive value (young adults). Analysis of grave goods from La Ciudad, a Hohokam site in the American Southwest, supports the hypothesis that labor value, reproductive value, and grief contributed to grave-good differentiation. At La Ciudad, individuals between the ages of 10 and 20 possessed more and higher-quality grave goods on average than any other age group. Grief at the loss of a young adult of high reproductive and labor value may facilitate explanation of mortuary variation at La Ciudad, as well as other sites in the greater Southwest and beyond.

Three approaches that have been used to investigate assemblage diversity in the archaeological literature-two established and one new-are studied, with a particular emphasis on assemblage richness. It is argued that the established regression and simulation approaches, as often used, are only strictly valid if they assume what they are supposed to test-namely that assemblages are sampled from populations with the same richness or structure. Rarefaction methodology provides an alternative to the simulation approach and suggests that even if the latter is used, sampling without rather than with replacement is preferable. Some potential limitations of a recently proposed approach using jackknife methods are noted, and it is suggested that bootstrapping may be a more natural resampling method to use.

Loney's (2000) recent paper in American Antiquity contains a critique of evolutionary archaeology that is based on fundamental misconceptions. Perhaps most seriously, she confounds the evolutionary archaeologist's conception of culture as an inheritance system based on social learning with an extreme claim about genetic control over cultural traits.

Loney's (2000) recent paper claims that American archaeologists have paid scant attention to the study of technological, especially ceramic, change. We argue that, in fact, interest in such change processes has grown greatly in recent decades and that Loney has overlooked much relevant literature. We support our general argument with a catalog of recent behavioral research on technological change.

This reply seeks to answer the comments by Neff and Schiffer et al. by stating the following: 1) evolutionary theory in archaeology is limited by the overextension of biological attributes to nonbiological artifacts, such as pottery; 2) evolutionary theory when applied to technological studies has an underlying technological determinist implication, and hence is inappropriate for use in the study of ancient technologies; 3) the subfields and disciplines of ceramic studies in archaeology are becoming increasingly isolated from each other and from the mainstream of interpretation, as evidenced by exclusionary bibliographies, language and study groups; and 4) ceramic studies are best approached on a contextual, case-by-case basis.

Ortman's comments concerning the evolutionary archaeology model of style in his study of the textile metaphor in Mesa Verde pottery designs are based upon a misunderstanding of the assumptions of the neutral model of style. We clarify these assumptions and explain why Ortman's study is not a test of the model.

My comments on evolutionary archaeology (EA) were not intended to address assumptions of the neutral model of style, but rather the readiness of evolutionary archaeologists to conclude that decorative variation is selectively neutral. In light of this misunderstanding, I welcome the opportunity to clarify my position on implications of my research for EA, as there was insufficient space in the original article to do more than hint at the issues raised by Hurt and her coauthors.