Abstract
Unraveling an archaeological problem has often been compared to the solution of a crime, differing from the latter in the coldness of the trail. The “whodunit” detective approaches omniscience; the archaeologist can only hope for a small degree of information about the material clues to his case. It might be more apt to compare the archaeologic process in the Northeast to an attempt to find out what went into the hash, for scraps of leftovers are all too frequently the only remains of many obliterated northeastern sites.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: