Within recent years it has become increasingly clear that the antiquity of man in America can be pushed back to respectably remote periods of time. The evidence for this is now beyond reasonable question. The original Folsom find, as well as the more recent Lindenmeier excavations, among others, have established the general status of the Folsom culture complex involved. The work at Gypsum Cave has added to the picture of early man in America, and that at Sandia Cave also shows clear-cut evidence that cannot be ignored.

One of the greatest concentrations of the Hohokam in the desert of southern Arizona was in the region of Phoenix where the westerly flowing Salt River was tapped to supply the arable lands with water.

Many theories have been woven about these prehistoric canals which lined the valley and were plainly visible to the first settlers in 1866. As is only natural, the early pioneers noted, followed, and reused many of the Hohokam canals. Through such close association, the farmer and hydraulic engineer became curious as to the story behind them.

It seems apparent from Julian Steward's latest statement on The Direct Historical Approach to Archaeology that he still conceives of a basic conflict, or at least an inherent competition, between the direct historical and midwestern taxonomic methods, in spite of his initial statement to the contrary. He manifests a conviction that the latter is being overemphasized at the expense of the former. If his fears are well founded (and there are instances of malpractice which might be cited in support of his position), I should be among the first to join his crusade in defense of the direct historical “approach.” However, in that case, his criticism should be directed against the culprits who are misusing methods rather than against any given method itself. Instead, Steward adopts the tone of one who sets out to compare the respective values of two conflicting methods, to the glorification of one and the general degradation of the other.

Upper Blanco and Largo Canyons in Rio Arriba and Sandoval Counties, northern New Mexico (Fig. 5), are in an area known to modern Navaho Indians as dinetah, “Navaho country,” “Navaho homeland place,” and is recognized by them as the homeland of their ancestors. A number of Spanish records also refer to it as Navaho country. Anthropologists have, therefore, turned to the region as a source for data on the early Navahos. Surveys and some excavations of sites have been made.

Ever since the general acceptance of the theory that Bering Strait served as the entrance of man into North America, Alaska has been suggested as the most likely area for additional discoveries adding to our knowledge of Early Man. In spite of the fact that the bulk of these discoveries has occurred in the Southwest or in the far west of the United States proper, increasing attention has been paid to northern regions. The Folsom and also the Yuma problem (or problems as the case might be) have been traced into the northern Plains regions of Saskatchewan, Canada.

Circular or sub-rectangular stone structures, often with dry-laid masonry walls and characteristically built in prominent locations, have been reported from sites ranging from the Plains across New Mexico and Arizona as far as California. West of the Rocky Mountains they have been reported from the Paradox Valley east of the La Sal Mountains, and several writers have noted comparable structures in northeastern Utah, sometimes standing alone and sometimes in supposed association with Puebloid remains.

Recent survey by the Colorado Museum of Natural History has shown the occurrence of hogan-like structures falling in this same classification, in the Rockies from the San Luis Valley on the south, where one site already had been reported but classed with tipi rings, across the Gunnison and Colorado drainages as far north as the headwaters of the White River.

Consistent and concentrated efforts for archaeological research within the region of Florida have long been a needed factor in the development of North America's pre-history.

Here lies one of the key spots for cultural contact between the northern continent and the chain of islands that extends southward. The geographical significance of such a location can not be too highly emphasized. What work has been undertaken in the state unfortunately has not been followed by careful laboratory consideration and, as a result, prehistory in this area has suffered from mere spontaneous spurts of effort.

In the last issue of the Minnesota Archaeologist(Vol. 8, No. 2, April, 1942) Mr. B. W. Thayer has contributed four articles on art analysis of the erstwhile Arapaho and Cheyenne of the Minnesota prairie-woodland area and the still resident Ojibwa and Red River Cree, which bid fair to challenge attention of those who were impressed, favorably or unfavorably, with some points brought out in Dr. Steward's recent article in this journal on the historical approach to archaeology. It has for some time been an open question in the opinions of students of design in the northern sweep, from the Great Lakes to the Rockies, in how far certain distinctive traits of Plains Algonkian culture might have been carried over from older woodland residence. Mr. Thayer deals with some characteristics, interpretable by him as signs of the same, present in the moccasin structure and designing of figures in historic beadwork.

Archaeological reconnaissance during the summer of 1941 at Canyon de Chelly National Monument disclosed the location of two groups of Navaho hogans built in 1758, 1766, and 1770. The significance of these dwellings lies in the fact that they definitely establish Navaho occupation of the area west of the Chuska Mountains in the middle of the eighteenth century. In addition to the early dates and the architectural details, the sites produced a large series of Navaho painted sherds and several glass trade beads.

Canyon de Chelly is located in the approximate center of the Navaho Reservation, on the West side of the Defiance Plateau, in northeastern Arizona. The first group of hogans, the Spider Rock hogans, lay at a distance of 2.7 miles from the Chinle-Defiance road, along the small spur going to the Spider Rock Overlook; the second group was situated further along this by-road at a distance of 3.3 miles from the road.

This pipe was found in a field east of the old Hoccanum Road in Hadley, Massachusetts, by William Lamb of South Hadley Falls, after the spring freshet of 1936.

It is a most unusual type even for New England territory. It seemingly is of Iroquoian- Mohawk production and bears the decorative motifs used by them in their Champlain Valley home district near the mouth of the Winooski River in Vermont. It might well be considered that it was produced within the territory where it was found, for the clay and graphite mixture of which the pipe is made, the implements used in making this pipe, as well as the stylus markings are characteristic of the work of the Indians of the Connecticut Valley.

The term “Woodland,” as employed in the American archaeological field, has come to be used by local students to serve a variety of dissimilar cultural purposes, and to lack clear definition to general students and instructors. To the regional specialist “Woodland” may be interpreted in terms of his own local manifestations; to the ceramic analyst, in terms of a variety of pottery; and to the ethno-historian, in terms of tribes or migratory bands. There is little wonder that the uninitiated general student, in utter bewilderment, has demanded a definition for “Woodland,” or has refused to recognize it as a useful, valid term.

In the summer of 1940, a site with an industry new to the region of the western Great Lakes was discovered near Killarney, Ontario, in the course of a survey of the Manitoulin District by the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan. Brief notices of this work have appeared in the press and in professional publications, and some of the readers of this paper have already seen the material. A mpre complete report than is possible in the present paper is in press.

The recovery of skeletal material for museum display quite often presents an engineering problem that is not appreciated by the archaeologist until after damage has been done. In too many cases, the archaeologist upon finding such a burial will immediately attempt to remove it, using whatever equipment happens to be at hand, without considering the cohesive properties of the matrix in which the skeleton lies or the stresses that the method about to be applied will exert. No matter how hard or solid the matrix may seem, its tensile strength will almost certainly be extremely low. Consequently, in under cutting any part, provisions must be made for its support. The method about to be described provides for this support and at the same time requires only a small amount of equipment usually obtainable at very little cost.

In early publications on the archaeology of central and western New York, references may be found to “dolls” and “effigies carved to represent the human figure.” The presence of these small, human effigies carved from bone and antler, in the graves of infants from early contact Cayuga and Seneca interments, excited the curiosity of early writers. It is not surprising, therefore, to find almost as many diverse and sundry opinions concerning their probable use and significance as there were figurines or writers. Unfortunately, but few figurines were excavated in a scientific manner, and only scattered records are left with which to work. Several amateur archaeologists, however, did keep accurate notes, and combining these with notes recorded on museum excavations, a small amount of data has been compiled from which conclusions may be drawn. In all, nearly a hundred figurines were located by my search in museums and private collections, and possibly many more exist.

About eight years ago there was discovered in the valley of the Little Colorado River between Hoi brook and Cameron in northern Arizona, evidence of an ancient alluvial terrace. Sand and waterworn pebbles largely derived from the Triassic Shinarump Conglomerate that once covered the area, form the deposit. The terrace which was formed by the gravels is now much dissected and remains only as the isolated flat tops of hills and ridges, the surfaces of which are covered with a desert pavement of waterworn pebbles. There are remnants also of later and lower alluvial deposits containing angular fragments of rock, of which a large proportion is made up of basaltic rocks from the San Francisco Peaks (Fig. 22).

The archaeology of the Puebloan or Anasazi people of the Southwest has been the subject of many investigations, to the neglect of partly contemporaneous peoples of different cultural background. However, the existence of a non-agricultural people as predecessors and contemporaries of the Puebloans has been postulated on general, theoretical grounds. It comes, therefore, with something of an expected surprise to realize that in the heart of the Puebloan area of central New Mexico at least one non-ceramic cultural complex existed. The present investigation gives only faint clues to the antiquity of this complex and to possible relations of the people represented by these artifacts with the Puebloans. A later and derivative Lobo complex is associated with Pueblo I and Pueblo II pottery and represents a close association or perhaps a fusion of a hunting people with the Puebloans. The present paper deals with the location of the sites, the artifacts found in them, and the general archaeology. The following paper, by Bryan and McCann, describes the local geology and makes a geological and archaeological correlation with other areas in the Southwest. The two papers should be regarded as a mere introduction to a field of archaeological research that has heretofore been much neglected.

Relief from several years of pain came to Vladimir J. Fewkes in the University Hospital, Philadelphia, December 11, 1941. His outstanding personality is missed by his colleagues and associates who, however, rejoice that his sufferings are over. He is survived by his widow, Berenice B. Fewkes of Philadelphia.

Dr. Fewkes was born in Nymburk, Czechoslovakia, March 23, 1901. His family was old and prominent in Bohemia; his father was a member of the first Senate of the Czech republic and a close friend of Masaryk. After four years of service in the first World War, Dr. Fewkes came, as a practically penniless immigrant, speaking no English, in 1921, to Philadelphia. His great adaptability is evidenced by the fact that those who met him first a few years later seldom suspected his foreign birth; he had no trace of an accent and was in all respects typically American.