STEWARD AND SETZLER) ARCHAEOLOGY 5 different kinds of problems, all archaeology deals with relatively tangible and concrete objects and their significant associations. Each object is a culture element. It is first treated individually, being named and assigned to a broad class of objects, such as pottery, projectile points, and the like. This kind of taxonomy is similar to that in biology. But culture elements rarely occur in isolation. Instead, certain of them are usually found together again and again in greater than chance association. They are usually part of complexes. Another task common to all archaeology, therefore, appears to be the identification and naming of complexes. Such complexes are similar to the biologist's floristic and faunistic assemblages. Archaeology is also concerned with the historical arrangement of culture elements. Without reference to time and space, mere classifica- tion of elements and complexes has little meaning. Moreover, it is one of the striking characteristics of culture complexes that their con- tents usually do not remain unaltered in all places and in all periods. A description of the changes which they undergo is history in the nar- row sense or, we.may say, the raw materials of history. To many persons history is so much a part of archaeology that it may seem absurd to underline its importance. But there are some who believe differently. When complexes have been identified and history in the narrow sense reconstructed, what task remains for archaeology? Some day world culture history will be known as far as archaeological materials and human intelligence permit. Every possible element of culture will , have been placed in time and space. The invention, diffusion, mutation, and association of elements will have been determined. When taxon- omy and history are thus complete, shall we cease our labors and hope that the future Darwin of Anthropology will interpret the great historical scheme that will have been erected? There has been a marked tendency to avoid these questions on the assumption that they are unimportant at present. It is held that the urgent need of the moment is to record data which are rapidly vanishing, provided it is done with proper techniques. We believe that it is unfortunate for several reasons that attempts to state broad objectives which are basic to all cultural anthropology and to interpret data in terms of them should be relegated to a future time of greater leisure and fullness of data. First, although technological advancement is of the utmost importance, techniques alone neither state nor solve problems. Techniques are tools. It is difficult to believe that any tool can be developed to perfection without a definite concep-