Intertaxonomic differences in skeletal element representation in archaeological faunas may reflect preferences in the procurement, processing, transport, and/or consumption of these species by prehistoric foragers. However, the possibility that they also may result from preservational bias must be addressed before behavioral attributes of human hunters may be inferred. For example, at many archaeological sites, the remains of equids exhibit a different pattern of skeletal element representation than those of bovids and cervids. To evaluate the significance of such differences, this study examines intertaxonomic variability in patterns of bone density, the attribute most commonly employed as a proxy measure of resistance to destructive processes. Density data derived for a bovid (Connachaetes taurinus), a cervid (Rangifer tarandus), and two species of equid (Equus burchelli and E. przewalskii) exhibited very similar patterns, suggesting that values for one species may be used to interpret the survival patterns for other species of generally similar morphology. The differences in skeletal element representation between bovid, cervid, and equid species observed in archaeological faunas do not correspond with bone density and thus likely indicate selective treatment by human or other biotic agents.

To promote a dialogue between competing but potentially compatible approaches in American archaeology, Schiffer (1996) examined the relationships between two distinct research programs: "behavioral" archaeology and evolutionary archaeology. An approach grounded in evolutionary ecology was not included in that analysis. In this paper, we reply to Schiffer's call for dialogue by outlining the relationships, as we see them, between evolutionary ecology, selectionist archaeology, and behavioral archaeology. We conclude that evolutionary ecology holds the greatest promise as a scientific approach for the investigation of important problems in human behavioral evolution.

Skeletal remains recovered and analyzed from Archaic and Paleoindian periods demonstrate less pronounced Asiatic/Sinodont features that distinguish them from present day Amerindians. This paper describes the metric and nonmetric traits that link a Middle Plains Archaic male (radiocarbon dated to 2220-2500 B. C.), found near Sidney, Nebraska, to Sinodonts, Sundadonts, and Paleoindians. Metrically, the Sidney male differs from Late Prehistoric and Historic Mandan and Arikara males (1500 to 1830 A.D.) from the same region in cranial vault height (auricular height p ≤ .02 basion-porion height p ≤ .07). His cranium is longer and higher (acrocranic Cranial Breadth-Height Index) than that of the more highly derived Mandan and Arikara males. Several of the Sidney male’s cranial and femoral traits show a blend of Amerindian and earlier protomongoloid traits, distinguishable from recent Amerindian populations. These traits suggest affiliation to a common Eurasian progenitor for Sinodonts, Sundadonts, and Paleoindians, and support the hypothesis that Plains Amerindians descended from the earliest wave of Paleoindians who crossed the Bering Straits. Tracing microevolutionary changes across time is a challenging, incremental process, not yet resolved by the limited Paleoindian and Archaic skeletal remains discovered to date. However, the intermediate skeletal characteristics of the Sidney male indicate gradual adaptation and suggest that natural selection most strongly influenced the adaptation of Plains peoples. Information presented here increases the database needed for future investigations of microevolution, gene flow patterns and the cultural history that may someday link early Archaic populations and Paleoindians to specific tribes among the modern Plains Amerindians.

In their comment on Schiffer (1996), Broughton and O’Connell perpetuate several common misconceptions about behavioral archaeology. This brief reply clarifies the character and goals of behavioral archaeology and indicates that this vigorous program is now beginning to produce "social" theory beyond the explanation of variability in artifact designs.

Patterson (1994) offers a history of the development of Social Archaeology and five points that, according to him, constitute its theoretical ground. Oyuela-Caycedo et al. (1997) provide significant new evidence that questions the actual importance of the intellectual current and theory described by Patterson. While the former gives an inflated perspective of Social Archaeology, the latter leads the reader into a post-Social Archaeology limbo. Providing facts ignored by both Patterson and Oyuela-Caycedo et al., I elaborate a third argument, centered in Peru, which recognizes National Archaeology as a response to the failures of Social Archaeology. Taking into account the century-long search for identity—key to any understanding of twentieth-century Peru—the concept of National Archaeology, as developed in four national institutions, laid the ideological and political ground for the end of the terrorism in Peru.

In their review of the Flote-Tech machine-assisted flotation system, Hunter and Gassner (1998) depict the machine as nearly perfect and present it as a technical marvel. I attempt to present a more balanced view of the Flote-Tech machine, based on four years of direct experience. Rather than being a perfected machine for flotation recovery of archaeological plant remains, the Flote-Tech is a prototype with important design and use problems. It can only be recommended with major caveats and system modifications.