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.

Latin American archaeology has been influenced by the world theoretical context, from which it has developed original approaches. Currently, a culture-history conceptual foundation still predominates in the region, with some modern variants that have emphasized environmental aspects and approached specific problems. Processual archaeology, especially the North American varieties, remains minor in the region despite many Latin American archaeologists' belief that their work falls within this camp. Post-processual trends are even less well represented, although a growing number of researchers focus in an eclectic fashion on subject matter that corresponds to the post-processual agenda (e.g., identity, multivocality, etc.). Researchers in certain areas within the region are producing original research linked to political economy and its relation to ideology, and others are focusing on symbolic and cognitive aspects (in some cases within a structuralist framework). In Latin America several interesting methodological developments are emerging, among which ethnoarchaeology and vertebrate taphonomy stand out. In recent years historical archaeology has been one of the disciplines that has grown the most and achieved the greatest popularity. Despite the still-limited nature of Latin American archaeology's contributions in the field of theory and methodology, there is nonetheless sustained growth in this direction, fundamentally in the generation of models for the interpretation of regional processes. However, these contributions are not visible at the level of international debate and are generally ignored by archaeologists from the central countries. The multiple causes of this phenomenon are analyzed.

In North America, American Indians and First Nations have often been at odds with archaeologists over the status of their relationships, about who should have control over research designs and research questions, the interpretation of information about past cultures, and the ways past cultures are represented in the present. While the influence of the voice of Indigenous Nations in the discipline has risen, in many ways their voices are as stifled now as they were in the 1960s. This paper gives an American Indian perspective on the current practice of archaeology in North America and offers suggestions for improving relationships.

Exchange of preciosities is often considered an integral factor in the emergence of Mississippian chiefdoms, and the rise of Cahokia has been linked to such long-distance trade. We know that Cahokia was the center of production for large flint clay figurines and effigy pipes (Emerson and Hughes 2000). Similar Cahokia-style figures have been found in the Trans-Mississippi South and the Southeast. We investigated the material used.to make these figures using a newly developed nondestructive PIMA SP™ spectroscopic technology to identify the stone and to determine their source location. These analyses proved that the figures were made of Missouri flint clay from quarries near St. Louis. We submit that Cahokia was the twelfth-century source for the production of these Cahokia-style figures. Outside of Cahokia the flint clay figures were primarily found in Caddoan mortuaries, reinforcing earlier evidence of a strong Cahokia-Caddoan connection. The available chronological and contextual information indicates the flint clay figures left Cahokia after it began to decline in the late thirteenth-century, through various mechanisms of extra-local exchange rather than as part of any systematic prestige-goods network. The association of these highly symbolic figures with Cahokia allows us to reevaluate the indigenous iconography and propose that many of the themes (e.g., fertility and warfare) that later appear in Eastern Woodlands native cosmology such as the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex were first codified here in the twelfth-century.

Casas Grandes (or Paquimé), in northwestern Chihuahua, Mexico, is the largest and possibly the most complex community in the prehistoric Pueblo world. The literature is, and always has been, dominated by models that attribute the origin of this center to impulses coming from outside of the region. These arguments rest on the assumptions that the Casas Grandes area was underpopulated before the development of the center, and that there was little cultural continuity between Casas Grandes and its local predecessors. We use old and new data to argue against both of these ideas and in favor of in situ development of the center of Casas Grandes.

Traditionally, hunter-gatherers of the Clovis period have been characterized as specialized hunters of large terrestrial mammals. Recent critiques have attempted to upend this position both empirically and theoretically, alternatively favoring a more generalized foraging economy. In this paper, the distinction between subsistence specialists and generalists is framed in terms of forager selectivity with regards to hunted prey, following a behavioral ecological framework. Faunal data are compiled from 33 Clovis sites and used to test the two alternative diet-breadth hypotheses. The data support the older “Clovis as specialist” model, although some use of small game is apparent. Furthermore, data from modern hunter-gatherers are marshaled to support the theoretical plausibility of specialized large-mammal hunting across North America during the Late Pleistocene.

Radiocarbon dating of charcoal samples and a re-examination of the artifacts from the Volcanic Debris layer in Ventana Cave were conducted in 1992-1994. The goal of this research was to better understand the chronological position and cultural affinities of the Ventana Complex, the name applied to the assemblage recovered from the Volcanic Debris. Ten new Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) 14C ages suggest that the Volcanic Debris accumulated between approximately 8800 B.P. and 10,500 B.P., and the lack of stratigraphic ordering of the dates indicates that the Volcanic Debris was subjected to considerable turbation as it accumulated. This turbation may have led to the incorporation of bones of extinct fauna from an underlying conglomerate deposit rich in horse remains, creating the impression of their association with artifacts. The artifacts are probably the product of episodic, special-purpose occupations spanning centuries or millennia. Technological and morphological studies of the stone tools indicate few similarities with classic Paleoindian industries, and greater similarities to early Holocene Archaic occupations in the Great Basin and Southwest. Correlations of the Ventana Cave stratigraphy with that of southeastern Arizona and with the late Pleistocene and Holocene record of Northern Hemisphere climate are explored.

Great Basin ethnography contains little information concerning rock art, suggesting that much of it is pre-Numic. The presence of historic rock art, however, should permit differences between pre-Numic and Numic populations to be identified. Anthropological theory suggests pioneer groups use ritual to socialize the landscape. Rock art may also be associated with colonizing groups to secure access to new resources. Numic populations seem to have responded to pre-Numic rock art through modification of the art. Once the landscape had been re-socialized rock art was generally avoided. This explains why rock art production became sporadic, and memory of it lost.

The suggestion by Jones et al. (2002) that a terminal Pleistocene-early Holocene California site contains evidence for a separate coastal migration into the New World is challenged. The authors ignore the fact that some 100 or more generations passed since the initial New World colonization event(s) and the occupation of their site (Cross Creek), during which time many cultural changes could be expected, including post-big-game-hunting coastal adaptations throughout the Americas. Moreover, the amount of food refuse is so minuscule that inferring the exact nature of the initial Cross Creek economy is doubtful at best. The recovered chipped stone artifacts have no diagnostic value for economic function or ecological correlation, and the grinding stones suggest more seed than sea exploitation. Lastly, what is known about the biological origins, variation, and microevolution of Native Americans does not support a direct coastal migration from Siberia to California.

As stated in our original paper (Jones et al. 2002), the Cross Creek site is not of sufficient antiquity to challenge Clovis for temporal priority in western North America, but it pushes the age of the California Milling Stone culture back 2,000 years earlier than previous estimates. The Milling Stone culture and coastal adaptations on the southern California islands are so profoundly different from Clovis that they beg consideration of alternative colonization scenarios. Relying on old arguments and ignoring recently published findings, Turner (this issue) argues that there is insufficient evidence for a maritime culture on the central coast of California at the end of the Pleistocene. In our response, we further discuss implications of the findings from Cross Creek and other studies that support a coastal migration model.

A regional episode of erosion between A.D. 1020 and 1160 coincides with social, political, economic, and demographic changes in the Hohokam culture. This regional erosional event was of such magnitude that it accelerated cultural changes that were already underway. The Ensor et al. (2003) commentary and attempt to layer a number of hypotheses on our original interpretations are fraught with problems.