The concept of middle-range theory, arising over three decades ago in sociology, is reviewed. The concept was proposed as an approach to theorizing, urging consolidation of high-order theories with low-order empirical studies. The critical elements in such hierarchies are theories of a middle-range of abstraction. However, most current conceptions of “middle-range theory” in archaeology are far more narrowly conceived. Derived primarily from Binford's work, they continue the New Archaeology's attempt to develop a materialist epistemology for archaeology. In this view, principles of site formation processes are nearly synonymous with “middle-range theory.” The dangers to theory-building of this approach are outlined. Examples of middle-range theory that expand our capacity for explanation of cultural behavior are presented.

The chronological placement of the Dalton horizon in the southeastern United States has traditionally been between 10,000 and 8,000 B.P. (8000–6000 B.C.). A review of previous dating approaches questions the basis for that assignment and casts serious doubts about the validity of alleged associations between Dalton remains and C-14 dates in caves and shelters. The significance of two Dalton-associated C-14 dates from the alluvial terrace of the Rodgers Shelter site is discussed in regard to their age and contexts. Excavations of Dalton open sites during the 1970s revealed pure Dalton assemblages with no side-notched and corner-notched points present. Radiocarbon dates spanning the period from 9,500 to 9,000 B.P. for side-notched and corner-notched points indicate that the Dalton point had ceased to be made by that time. It is argued that the interval from 10,500 to 9,900 B.P. (8500–7900 B.C.) is the correct temporal position of the Dalton horizon. The importance of correctly estimating the age and duration of the Dalton adaptation is emphasized, particularly for relating technological and settlement strategies to the paleoenvironmental changes of the early Holocene.

The recent research activity of contract archaeology is reviewed from the perspective of research design and its essential features. Some of the difficulties currently encountered in contract research are attributed to vague notions of research design, lack of general models and methods in the science of archaeology, and ineffective research organizations. It is argued that American contract research offers an unprecedented opportunity to test theories of human behavior, provided the profession can make the necessary organizational shifts in research orientation and structure. Some examples of various applied research designs are examined to indicate the kinds of successful adaptations being made in the contract sphere, as well as outright scientific contributions to the discipline. We conclude that contract archaeology has already provided at least three benefits to the profession (1) by forcing researchers to cope theoretically and methodologically with heretofore unexplored and unexplained archaeological remains, (2) by promoting a scientific merging of historical and prehistoric archaeology, and (3) by stimulating archaeologists to probe the resource base in new and explicit ways for all possible dimensions of significance.