In this reply the author attempts to answer criticisms and to clarify some points made in "What Can Systems Theory Do for Archaeology?" (Salmon 1978). Particular emphasis is placed on the distinction between philosophical models of explanation and empirical models of phenomena. Some confusion has arisen because the term "systems model" has been applied to both types.

There is an apparent discrepancy in the reported data from Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Radiocarbon dates from Stratum IIa appear to indicate a Wisconsinan full-glacial occupation by man in the shelter. The recovered fauna and flora are discordant with other local Wisconsinan-age fossils.

All of the presently available and processed data from Meadowcroft Rockshelter indicate that the radiocarbon dates for middle and lower Stratum IIa are not discordant with either the associated fauna, flora, and artifacts or with the known geological history of the Cross Creek drainage. Consequently, it is reiterated that the earliest occupations at this locality still represent the best evidence recovered to date for the presence of pre-Clovis or pre-fluted point populations in the New World. It is further suggested that a maintenance of the "Clovis primacy syndrome" is both anachronistic and futile.

Norman Yoffee's characterizations of the theory of biological evolution and the theory of cultural evolution are inaccurate, unsupported in his work and, further, unsupportable in the literature of evolutionary studies. Therefore, his conclusion that the analogy between biological and cultural evolution is inappropriate cannot be logically valid.

Discussion of various models of sociocultural evolution and their applicability to the explanation of archaeological data is certainly in order in reference to my recent article on the subject. Intemperate and unproductive remarks that miss the point of the article, however, deserve less attention. Here I shall simply respond to specific charges raised by Peters and then use the remainder of this reply to place my argument within the scope of some recent and larger considerations of archaeological model building.

Norman Yoffee raises some interesting issues in a consideration of the cyclical nature of Near Eastern civilizations. The main thrust of his discussion is a critique of evolutionary frameworks for explaining these processes. He also asserts the value of contemporary historical documents as a source of important data. While acknowledging the value of some of his insights, we find his basic arguments unconvincing. Aside from substantive disagreements, we attempt to show that there are basic theoretical flaws in his main arguments that are common to many archaeological approaches.

Having previously responded to one anguished claim that societal evolutionism is so a subset of biological evolution, it is interesting now to consider the position that societal evolutionism owes nothing to the natural sciences. Dunnell and Wenke's schoolmasterly comment, while properly underscoring the independent idea of evolution as part of social philosophy, curiously adumbrates a number of biological issues that by their own standards are not wholly relevant to the matter at hand. Their slight understanding of the content of ancient documents—the nature of these documents as archaeological artifacts and their value in explaining the past-betrays an unfortunate tendency toward archaeological solipsism.