Those of us who have at one time or the other had the occasion to cast arrowheads or flints are aware of the disappointing lack of realism that plaster presents. Translucence is never present and too frequently the crisp retouch flake marks are lost under a coat of paint. More often, a successful reproduction is quickly ruined by careless handling.

After many trials that resulted in nothing more convincing than arrowpoints looking like painted plaster, the properties of various plastics were tested. Failure with liquid plastics led to experiments with powdered dental acrylic. This material, I found, had all of the properties required for faithful reproductions of stone flake work. The acrylic can be colored with pigments. It is strong, transparent, and can be molded to any desired shape with excellent detail without too much difficulty.

A stone face about 2 m. high was observed and photographed on Floriana (Charles) Island in the Galapagos by Philip H. Lord while on a cruise in February, 1949. The face was reported as being at an elevation of between 300 and 400 meters at which altitude potable water occurs. Within 100 meters is a small cave containing marine shells, whether naturally occurring or transported not being determined. The face is covered with lichen which may provide a further clue to its antiquity.

The dating of the Lake Mohave artifact assemblage relative to the fossil beaches on which the material was found has been in dispute since Malcolm Rogers (1939) published a monograph disagreeing with several findings given in the original report (Campbells, Antevs, Amsden and Bode, 1937). Mr. Rogers' critique was never answered by the original authors, and his findings have been accepted consequently by most authors who have attempted summaries of the material (Martin, Quimby and Collier 1947, p. 437 and Fig. 122; Wormington 1949, pp. 84-87; Roberts 1951, p. 126). Rogers agreed with the Campbells that the great majority of the artifacts found (Rogers, p. 42, puts it at 95 per cent) are restricted to the surfaces of the fossil beaches. Rogers questioned, however, the Campbells' conclusion that human occupation was contemporaneous with times when the lake stood at the overflow level, which is that of the beaches. Rogers' most crucial evidence was given as follows: “There is splendid evidence that this condition did not prevail, because of the presence of a large encampment on the 937'-940' bay bar which extends directly across the outlet channel. Man could not have camped in this section during any period of overflow.” (Rogers 1939, p. 43). This “beach bar site” was previously reported by the Campbells. Rogers' statement, in contrast to Bode's original determination (Campbells et al., p. 108), implies that the bar actually blocks the old outlet, and thus that it, and its occupational evidence, must postdate the period during which the lake overflowed.

In designating archaeological sites it has become customary to use one or the other of two general methods. The first, such as the system used by the River Basin Surveys, makes use of numbers and letter abbreviations which together give ready reference to state, county, and site number. A second method has been to name a site after some cultural or geological manifestation associated with the site. Discussions regarding the relative merits of the two methods have for the most part focused upon the degree to which either system lends itself to the efficient manipulation of areal data.

With considerable interest I have read Daifuku's “The Pit House in the Old World and in Native North America” (American Antiquity, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-7, 1952). Although he did not refer to South America except in passing, citing only the finds of Bird in northern Peru, it is of interest to point out that there are numerous ethnographic references to the use of the pit house in the southern half of this continent, and that these references are confirmed by archaeological finds.

Metraux (1929) in his study of the Huarpe, primitive inhabitants of the Cuyo region of Argentina, gave a summary of the definite references to the use of the pit house in South America and attached a distribution map. He listed, in addition to the Huarpe, the Kaupe, Tsirakua, Matsikui, Kitsua de Cojata, Obacoatiara, Guaranaguacu, Piraguayguaquig, and Wayana. The first three are found in Paraguay; the remaining four are in eastern Brazil. For some of the tribes mentioned the references in question are very clear; for others, such as the Tsirakua and Wayana, they are doubtful.

The renewed activity in Plains Archaeology as a result of the salvage program of the River Basin Surveys of the Smithsonian Institution and cooperating agencies has reemphasized some very striking differences in the types of animals used for food by prehistoric peoples. Some groups, such as the Woodland and Upper Republican, set an extremely varied “table” while others appear to have subsisted almost entirely on one species of food animal. With those groups which subsisted on a variety of game, the question naturally poses itself: “What percentage does each species contribute to the diet of the people?” Although complete data on the “dressedout” weights of the various food animals found in archaeological sites is not available, calculations based on the data and procedure outlined here should provide a means of arriving at a reasonably reliable answer to the above question.