Green et al.’s (1998) recent contention that the Buhl Paleoindian craniofacial attributes are similar to other North American Indians and East Asian populations is tested here through a principal components analysis based on 16 cranial measurements. The analysis involved the comparison of the cranial morphology of the Buhl specimen with 26 Howells’ modern populations. We also added to the analysis the craniometric data regarding a firmly established South American Paleoindian skull (Lapa Vermelha IV, Hominid I), that shows craniofacial similarities to Africans and Australians. The results corroborate the ideas presented by Green et al.(1998) and Neves et al.(1998a). They suggest that the Americas were colonized in early times by two different populations, one of generalized sapiens, and another of classic Mongoloids, with a short interval of time between the migratory events.

Glassow discusses several "problems" with the use of minimum number of individuals (MNI) in archaeological shellfish analysis, including the difficulty of identifying non-repetitive elements (NRE) to species level for several taxa. However, these problems, especially fragmentation, are more critical for the weight method than for MNI estimates. We have successfully identified thousands of NRE for all species common in southern California coastal archaeological sites. We also suggest that a measure, such as MNI, that provides estimates of numbers of individuals is a more reliable and valid measure with which to address most research questions. The weight method only provides a measure of the weight of some of the fragments from the shells of those individuals.

Archaeological data indicates that socially and politically complex hunter-gatherer societies had become well established on the southern California coast by A.D. 1300. Major developmental changes in sociopolitical complexity are generally considered to have taken place rapidly between AD 1150 and 1300. Recently, two hypotheses have been proposed to account for this rapid cultural evolution, both invoking stressful climatic conditions as an important trigger for cultural change. One suggests that the sociopolitical development was stimulated, in part, by multiple marine and terrestrial subsistence stresses, particularly low marine productivity resulting from regional warming. The other suggests that these developments were largely driven by decreases in terrestrial productivity and water availability linked to drought. Resolution of this debate has been hampered by insufficient paleoclimatic and archaeological data. We present a well-dated, relatively high resolution (25-year intervals) oxygen isotopic marine climate record and new archaeological data from the Northern Channel Islands for the last 3,000 years. These data strongly suggest that changes in human behavior associated with increasing cultural complexity: 1) accelerated after A.D. 500 and became dominant by A.D. 1300, 2) occurred during one of the coldest and most unstable marine climatic intervals of the Holocene (A.D. 450-1300), and 3) coincided with cool, dry terrestrial conditions. Incipient cultural complexity emerged during an interval marked by inferred high marine productivity, reduced terrestrial food and water availability, and large, unpredictable variations in terrestrial resource availability. Our records suggest a strong relationship during this time between climatically induced changes in environmental conditions and social, political, and economic responses, including the emergence of more intensified fishing, and increased sedentism, violence, and trade.

The original authors of Billman et al. (2000) are joined by three other analysts from the Cowboy Wash research team to respond to the critique of this article by Dongoske et al. (2000). Dongoske and his coauthors state that Billman et al. (2000) failed to test alternative hypotheses or to consider alternative explanations for the findings at 5MT10010 and similar sites. The original authors point out that alternative hypotheses were examined and rejected, leaving a violent episode of cannibalism as the most plausible explanation for the remains found at 5MT10010. Dongoske et al. also question many aspects of the osteological, archaeological, coprolite, and biochemical analyses that were presented in the 5MT10010 study. Our response addresses issues of data collection, procedure, and interpretation, and attempts to clarify some points that were not fully developed in the original text due to length restrictions.

Mason et al. (1998) argue in a recent article that weight as a form of data quantification in the analysis of shellfish remains should be replaced with estimates of the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) based on identification of “nonrepetitive” elements (NRE) such as the hinge of a bivalve. Their comparisons of the two forms of shell data quantification lack relevance, and they fail to recognize difficulties in identifying nonrepetitive elements on many kinds of shells. Although weight of shells has its shortcomings, it is still the most appropriate form of quantification in many contexts. A more fruitful viewpoint would be to consider ways in which weight and MNI (or NRE) might complement each other in addressing research questions.

Mason et al. recently revived a debate as to the suitability of shell weights or shell MNI, with several interesting points. Among the points they raised are two with which I take exception: that MNI is always better than weight, and that relative percentages are the analytical tool of choice.