The Arizona Anthropologist is a competitive high-quality annual journal designed, reviewed and published by an editorial board of graduate students in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Arizona. The open access archives are made available as a collaboration between the Arizona Anthropologist and the University of Arizona Libraries.


Visit https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/arizanthro for more information about this journal, or contact the editors at arizonaanthropologist@gmail.com.

Recent Submissions

  • Atlatl Number 3, 1982

    University of Arizona, Department of Anthropology, 1982
  • Archaeological Investigations in the Soldiers' Barracks Complex of Mission San Antonio de Padua 1978-1981

    Williams, Jack S. (University of Arizona, Department of Anthropology, 1982)
  • The Tempo of Evolutionary Change in Primate Karyotypes: Speciation Mode and Phylogenetic Inference

    Marks, Jon (University of Arizona, Department of Anthropology, 1982)
    Evolutionary inferences made on the basis of cytogenetic data are of considerable value to biologists and anthropologists. Although a considerable amount of data has accumulated on the rates of cytogenetic change among lineages, there has been a general failure to appreciate the implications of these observations for the overall study of the evolutionary processes, and for the interpretation of other bodies of cytogenetic data. My goals in this paper are to discuss evolutionary rates; to focus on the factors influencing the rate of karyotypic change; and to show how phylogenetic influences may be made from karyotype data -- with special reference to the order Primates.
  • On-Site Computerization: A Case Study in Historic Archaeology

    Cohen, Anita G. (University of Arizona, Department of Anthropology, 1982)
  • The Birth and Death of Smallpox

    McCombie, Sue (University of Arizona, Department of Anthropology, 1982)
  • Date Collections in New World Archaeology

    Andresen, John M. (University of Arizona, Department of Anthropology, 1982)
    This paper has two goals. One is to examine how archaeologists have used large collections of archaeologically derived "dates" to illustrate general principles about how these collections should be interpreted. The other is to review the collection of archaeomagnetic dates now on record from Hohokam archaeological sites in southern Arizona, in light of the conclusions provided by the first part of the paper It seems that there is a significant pattern in the series of Hohokam hearth dates from Classic Period sites. This pattern may be the result of systematic changes in the prehistoric behavior underlying these dates, or it may be the result of systematic laboratory problems, In either case, attention is drawn to the uneven distribution of Hohokam hearth dates in order to pose research questions. The bar graph treatment of dates used here has precedent in similar treatment by archaeologists of other date collections, Some examples are reviewed below to provide background to this series analysis of an archaeomagnetic date collection.
  • Stone Tools in Secondary Refuse: Lithics from a Late Preclassic Chultun at Cuello, Belize

    McSwain, Rebecca (University of Arizona, Department of Anthropology, 1982)
    The primary purpose of this paper is to describe the lithic collection from the chultun in such a way as to provide information for interested lithic analysts and to make comparison with other collections possible. However, context can be an important element of description, and our understanding of context can influence conclusions drawn from the characteristics of the collection, In the examination of the chultun collection, therefore, each item or class of items is interpreted with a view to suggesting an explanation for its incorporation into the refuse. In general, the following alternative possibilities have been considered: 1) the item class consists of an unwanted byproduct of manufacture or resharpening; 2) the item was exhausted; 3) the item was broken, a) during use, or b) during manufacture; 2+) the item was abandoned unfinished. For some lithic items none of these possibilities seems very probable while for others several seem equally probable. Finally, the consequences and implications of the prehistoric selection of these items as refuse will be considered.