The ceque system of Cuzco was composed of at least 328 shrines (huacas) organized along 42 hypothetical lines (ceques) that radiated out of the city of Cuzco, the capital of the Inca. Ethnohistoric research indicates that the system was conceptually linked to, and essentially reproduced, the fundamental social, political, spatial, and temporal divisions of the Cuzco region and Inca society. As such the ceque system is one of the most complex, indigenous Prehispanic ritual systems known in the Americas. This article summarizes the basic organizational features of the ceque system according to ethnohistorians and reviews the current literature. Archaeological data document the likely positions of 85 shrines and the probable courses of nine ceques in Collasuyu, the southeast quarter of the Cuzco Valley. The courses of the nine Collasuyu ceques are then compared with predicted courses set forth in current models of the system. The findings suggest that numerous internal inconsistencies, if not errors, exist in the seventeenth-century documentary source that describes the ceque system and that the courses of the ceques may have varied far more than is suggested in the literature.

The Cupisnique (ca. 1000-200 B. C.) and the Moche (ca. 100 B. C.-A. D. 800) inhabited much of the same territory of Peru's north coast in Precolumbian times, and both are noted for their extraordinary and distinct artistry. Despite the distinctiveness of the two art styles, various similarities between them have been noted. One investigation concluded that archaistic copying was the explanation for the similarities (Rowe 1971). In contrast, the present study arrives at the opposite interpretation: that the Moche knew the symbolic content of the earlier images and retained it. Decapitation is a concept that is essentially pan-Andean and, therefore, it is not surprising that both the Cupisnique and the Moche subscribed to it. What is surprising, particularly in view of the universality of the idea, is that both groups employed virtually the same cast of characters. This paper demonstrates a continuity of belief between Cupisnique and Moche societies through an investigation of the Decapitator theme.

Neutron activation and statistical analyses establish source ascriptions for 201 obsidian artifacts representing Preclassic, Classic, and Postclassic period contexts in the Gulf Coast region of Mexico. Zaragoza-Oyameles, Puebla, and Pico de Orizaba, Veracruz, are the most common sources, but procurement patterns and technology shifted during the archaeological sequence. Comparative information is discussed for all periods, but especially the distribution of Zaragoza-Oyameles obsidian in the Classic period is examined. The distribution network for this obsidian served several regions. The importance of long-distance obsidian distribution for Teotihuacán is called into question.

Moholy-Nagy"s (1990) discussion of the confusion of lithic-reduction sites (workshops) and workshop refuse dumps included criticism of a statement by Healan et al. (1983) as an example of such confusion. In reality no confusion is implied in the statement. Instead, Moholy-Nagy's criticism and the manner in which she defines her basic units reflect an overly narrow and simplistic conception of workshop and workshop dump.

Moholy-Nagy (1990) has argued that concentrations of chipped-stone debitage from mesoamerican sites, including Colhá, Belize, represent dumps and not workshops as we have suggested (Shafer and Hester 1983, 1986). She emphasizes microdebitage as the most reliable indicator of workshop location. Her argument is supported by the use of ethnoarchaeological accounts of debitage deposition from stone- and glass-artifact manufacture. Our alternative view is that microdebitage is only one of several criteria for identifying the loci of intensive stone-tool making. The Colhá data are also used to demonstrate variability in behaviors related to the formation of debitage deposits and the visibility of workshop activity. We contend that identifying precise manufacturing loci is less important than assessing the overall scale of production at a site and that site"s role in regional settlement systems.

Here I can only briefly address some of the issues raised by Healan (1992) and by Hester and Shafer (1992). I conclude that although ethnoarchaeology can provide generally valid analogies to lithic production and discard in the past, experimental archaeology will be needed to understand specific details of site formation.

Debitage disposal is affected, among other factors, by site size, settlement density, and length of occupation. The investigation of intersite variability in waste management will give us important insights into the organization of lithic industries in Prehispanic Mesoamerica.