Like any scientific technique, radiocarbon dating has limitations, and its results cannot be interpreted uncritically. The archaeological record of Childers, a Late Woodland site in eastern North America, and inferences concerning its occupational history are evaluated here against radiocarbon dates from the site. The record suggests a single, relatively brief, occupation, but radiocarbon-dating results suggest either a much longer continuous occupation or a long series of shorter ones. The apparent conflict between the archaeological record and radiocarbon results is resolved by considering context and integrity of radiocarbon samples, as well as the probabilistic character of the radiocarbon method itself. Considerable dispersion in dating results can occur even in relatively brief occupations, casting doubt on the uncritical interpretation of raw radiocarbon results. Childers's occupational history and chronological placement have important implications for regional culture process during the early Late Woodland interval, and suggest a time lag in the acceptance of cultural innovations.

In this study of an Anglo-American cemetery used between the 1830s and 1907, contemporary mortuary trends and cultural attitudes toward death provide the historical context necessary to interpret variation in mortuary display. Analysis of skeletal remains provides information on dental caries, dental care, and enamel hypoplasia and allows comparison of the relatively high-status Weir family"s health with that of other population samples. Analysis of artifacts reveals four styles of grave decoration attributed not to intrasite status variability but to the appearance, peak, and decline of Victorian era cultural expressions of the "beautification" of death. Within this wider cultural trend, intersite comparisons may be made of status display. The rise and decline of the nineteenth-century ideal of the beautification of death adds vital cultural content for understanding the material expression of an observed process that is a cycle of display.

Parasitological studies of archaeological sites can be used to interpret past behavior and living conditions. During the 1980s problem-oriented research into prehistoric- and historical-period parasitism developed and resulted in the field of archaeoparasitology. Archaeoparasitology attempts to integrate parasite data into archaeological theory and interpretation. Within the last decade, four major archaeoparasitological laboratories emerged. They developed interpretive frameworks that apply parasitological data to a remarkable variety of prehistoric behaviors. Parasite remains can be used to reconstruct aspects of diet, health, and other behaviors such as transhumance and trade. Finally, analysis of the distribution of parasite remains can be used to interpret aspects of site-formation processes.

In the last few years, conference programs and publications have begun to appear that reflect a growing interest, among North American archaeologists, in research initiatives that focus on women and gender as subjects of investigation. One of the central questions raised by these developments has to do with their "objectivity" and that of archaeology as a whole. To the extent that they are inspired by or aligned with explicitly political (feminist) commitments, the question arises of whether they do not themselves represent an inherently partial and interest-specific standpoint, and whether their acceptance does not undermine the commitment to value neutrality and empirical rigor associated with scientific approaches to archaeology. I will argue that, in fact, a feminist perspective, among other critical, explicitly political perspectives, may well enhance the conceptual integrity and empirical adequacy of archaeological knowledge claims, where this is centrally a matter of deploying evidential constraints.

In organizing a plenary session to mark the Quincentennial at the 1992 Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, our aim was not to provide a summary or review of archaeological research bearing on our understanding of "Columbian consequences." Rather, we sought speakers who could raise forward-looking questions about the sociopolitical entanglements and consequences of archaeology considered as, itself, part of the legacy of contact. The papers that follow, by Vine Deloria, Jalil Sued-Badillo, and Brackette F. Williams, all take up these issues and draw out implications for future practice; this introduction provides something of a rationale for the session that brought these authors together.

Ethnoarchaeological data indicate that various factors, including size of prey, influence both transport of animal parts and how animals are reduced to humanly usable or consumable portions. Remains of two taxa of pinnipeds of markedly different body size from two sites of similar age on the southern Northwest Coast of North America do not vary significantly in skeletal parts represented, which suggests similar transport histories. Butchering marks on bones of both taxa indicate that the butchery procedure was intertaxonomically similar for joint disarticulation and limb filleting. Bones of the larger taxon display significantly more butchery marks than bones of the smaller one, indicating the larger taxon was subjected to much more intensive butchery than the smaller one due to differences in body size.

The Garbage Project has excavated eight sanitary landfulls from California to Florida and analyzed 6.71 metric tons of refuse deposited between 1952 and 1988. While the ultimate goal of this continuing endeavor is to collect archaeological data on contemporary discards using a methodology that will link our society to the past, this initial report relates Garbage Project data to three issues of current public concern. This first applied archaeology of landfills has identified: (1) the contents of specific landfills and possible refinements for "national" estimates of U.S. landfill contents; (2) a link between moisture level and rate of refuse decomposition; and (3) part of the pathway of migration for heavy metals.