The word “archaic” appears in the literature of New World archaeology with more than one usage. In 1910, the existence of three levels of human remains was demonstrated in the Valley of Mexico. The lowest level, in which well-developed ceramics were included, was characterized by hand-modeled human figurines in contrast to the mold made ones of Toltec and Aztec horizons. The civilization of the lowest level came to be called “the archaic type” (Boas 1915). Tozzer (1916: 466), in a paper presented at the Pan American Scientific Congress, Washington, 1915, noted that the terms “tipo de cerro” and “tipo de montaña” had also been used, and suggested that “Archaic” was a more fitting term.

Unraveling an archaeological problem has often been compared to the solution of a crime, differing from the latter in the coldness of the trail. The “whodunit” detective approaches omniscience; the archaeologist can only hope for a small degree of information about the material clues to his case. It might be more apt to compare the archaeologic process in the Northeast to an attempt to find out what went into the hash, for scraps of leftovers are all too frequently the only remains of many obliterated northeastern sites.

Archaeological sites to which the rather indefinite term Archaic has been applied have been known from various areas throughout the eastern United States for a good number of years. At the outset, these sites were defined as Archaic primarily by their lack of evidence for agricultural practices and pottery, although more positive traits were also used in such definitions. The term Archaic has now come to be used in two major ways: as a time period in a local sequence, and as a cultural stage in general preceding the development of agriculture and settled communities.

While the discussion and identification of complexes as “Archaic” is at present a common feature in a substantial number of archaeological reports, the actual excavation of Archaic sites has not kept abreast of the recognition of the importance of this stage in the culture sequences of North America. Much of its current importance as a widespread cultural manifestation is based upon the typological identification of surface materials through which period placement is inferred on the basis of resemblance to forms of known archaeological provenience or on the putative absence of traits of late origin such as ceramics.

The concept of a continent-wide Archaic cultural horizon in North America has been developing for over a decade. Recently, this concept has received considerable reinforcement in publications and in discussions at conferences. It now appears to have fairly general acceptance among American archaeologists who have concerned themselves with the problem. Basic to this concept is the identification of the southwestern Desert cultures as the cultural and temporal equivalent of the eastern Archaic, and the recognition of the Balcones phase of Texas as a cultural keystone uniting these western and eastern cultures into one continuous culture area on the same temporal level, forming the Archaic horizon in American prehistory.

Western archaeologists have almost unanimously shunned the term “Archaic” in describing their finds. In the few cases where the word has been used at all, it has generally been qualified by using quotation marks, a question mark, or some statement indicating the author’s belief that this is not a real Archaic culture. As a result, none of the described western cultures is conventionally labeled “Archaic.” Avoidance of the term has stemmed from two conditions: a) a desire to avoid confusing western cultures with those generally called Archaic in the East; and b) the temporal implications of the word “Archaic.”

Miller and Johnson's review of Pleistocene Man at San Diego seriously misrepresents the work in question. It is not the principal contention of the book that man lived in the San Diego area in the last interglacial, and that the age of the last interglacial is 100,000 years ago. By focussing on this, a most incomplete view is given of the archaeological section of the book.

A chronology program was launched in December, 1957, by the Missouri Basin Project of the Smithsonian Institution for the purpose of testing culture sequences in the Central and Northern Plains and contiguous regions. The Missouri Basin Chronology Program envisages (a) assembling all relevant chronological data in hand and (b) selecting materials for analysis by the various dating methods. The Missouri Basin Project acts as coordinator of the program; it has received enthusiastic response and is now cooperating with a dozen institutions in the area engaged in archaeological research.