SOUTHWESTEKN ARCHEOLOGY — ROBERTS 529 



The progression of stages infers a certain degree of contemporane- 

 ity between sites of the same horizon, but it does not necessarily mean 

 that they will fall within identical chronological dates. A specific 

 stage in the development of the Pueblo pattern did not cut hori- 

 zontally, from the standpoint of actual chronology, across the pla- 

 teau. There may have been — no doubt, there frequently was — a 

 difference in the precise years in which similar objects were in vogue 

 in different districts. Also, it should not be expected that in every 

 district each group passed through all of the stages. In some sec- 

 tions Pueblo I survived until it was supplanted by Pueblo III, the 

 intervening II being omitted. Again, in other parts of the province 

 Basket Maker III continued until it was replaced by Pueblo II. This 

 explains statements in some recent publications that there is no 

 Pueblo I and in others that there is no Pueblo II. Similar condi- 

 tions were also pointed out for the Hohokam, where certain stages 

 are missing in some sections. 



There are numerous problems and many ramifications in the 

 Southwest which cannot be included in the present article. Atten- 

 tion has been called to them by Kidder in the Pecos reports, by 

 Kroeber,^'' by the Medallion papers, the bulletins of the Museum of 

 Northern Arizona, and in this survey as originally published in the 

 Anthropologist. 



On the whole it may be said that archeological investigations in 

 the Southwest have been producing good results. Despite the criti- 

 cism directed toward them, both the Pecos and Globe classifications 

 have functioned well when used with discretion and when allow- 

 ances have been made for local variations. They have kept a broad 

 view of the subject constantly before the investigator. Moreover, 

 they have assisted students in other branches of anthropology and 

 interested laymen in discerning what the archeologists are trying to 

 do and what their progress has been. 



In conclusion the writer may offer one suggestion with respect to 

 what appears to be one of the " burning issues ", the Pecos classi- 

 fication. Since the chronological implications of the sequence appear 

 to be the cause of so much dissatisfaction and difficulty, a slight 

 revision of the terminology may be proposed. Because the terms 

 " early " and " late ", as well as numerals, inherently indicate chronol- 

 ogy, they may be omitted. With these factors in mind, the follow- 

 ing nomenclature is offered for consideration. 



Basket Maker: To designate the stage at present indicated by the 

 titles Basket Maker II or Classic Basket Maker. This name was 

 given as an optional term in the original Pecos list. Since there is 

 no evidence for an antecedent stage, it is omitted. 



soKroeber, 1928. 



