The 1981 Americanist literature is, in terms of content, not radically different from its predecessors. Cultural Resource Management, in spite of the economic downturn, is still an important force in Americanist archaeology and still remains largely unintegrated with it. Some numerically important fields, such as lithic studies, seem to have run their innovative course, at least for the time being, and to have settled into a more routine state. Other fields, such as ethnoarchaeology, remain in the forefront of change. Ecological and evolutionary interpretive models continue to dominate the field and some progress is being made in operationalizing these approaches for the archaeological record. Although what Americanist archaeologists say remains much the same, the way they talk is different from that of the past. In large measure this change seems to have been initiated by basic research into the nature of the archaeological record, site formation processes and taphonomy, and by a certain sophistication about the goals and questions posed of that record. Consequently, although criticism of assumption, concept and method remains at a high level, it is losing some of its negative tone. Old problems are now being seen as new opportunities for information. Exemplifying this trend is an exceptional contribution, L.R. Binford's Bones. The importance of Bones is not limited to its technical and substantive contributions, but rather lies in the unambiguous identification of many of the key philosophical and theoretical issues that have plagued the field since the 1960s. Americanist archaeology has been highly fragmented, with various groups pursuing specialized areas of research without concern for the work of colleagues in other areas. This narrowness seems to be changing. Stimulated by the new sophistication about the archaeological record new consensus may be emerging. If the 1981 literature is a sample, the decade of the 1980s may see real change and progress in Americanist archaeology. 1981 has not been a good year for academia.' Although financial problems have not yet stemmed the increase in volume or diversity of Americanist literature, they have begun to affect the structure and accessibility of published material. Ezra Zubrow, as the retiring book review editor for American Antiquity, has commented on this condition2 and his insights are valuable, especially insofar as they have implications for reviews such as this. Americanist archaeology is published in a wide variety of places, ranging from major commercial academic publishers and major university presses through small commercial presses only occasionally publishing in archaeology to university departmental series. An unknown, but undoubtedly large fraction of the literature is comprised of Cultural Resource Management (CRM) studies which enjoy only limited distribution at best and sometimes have circulation which is only internal to the funding agency. As one might expect, and this is one of Zubrow's themes, the kinds of studies published are not randomly distributed over publishers nor is the bias simply one of "quality." Theoretical, methodological a d to a lesser extent synthetic works are strongly concentrated in a small number of journals and publications by major commercial and university presses. Zubrow goes on to assert, quite accurately in my experience, that there is considerable overlap among the individuals selected for peer review of manuscripts submitted to the major publishers. To the extent that this is the case, it has undoubtedly served to suppress at least some variability in the literature that reaches the largest professional audiences. Descriptive works and studies of a specialized or geographically limited scope tend to fall to the smaller and occasional publishers of archaeology. When this pattern is coupled with trebling of book prices over the past few years, it is apparent that no individual or library can assemble a comprehensive or even representative collection of material. While this situation may not be desirable for the profession and its development, it does mean that a finite group of publications will be influential. It is on these that this review is necessarily focused. In part to overcome such limitations, I have called upon a number of colleagues for their assistance in locating innovative studies, suggesting topics for detailed cov'This paper is the fourth in a series of annual reviews exchanged between The American Journal of Archaeology and American Antiquity. The scope and history of "Americanist" archaeology were outlined in the first of these reviews, "Trends in Current Americanist Archaeology," AJA 83 (1979) 437-49. Abbreviations of journal titles infrequently cited in AJA follow those employed in the initial and subsequent reviews, "Americanist Archaeology: the 1979 Contribution," AJA 84 (1980) 463-78 and "Americanist Archaeology: the 1980 Literature," AJA 85 (1981) 429-45. 2 E. Zubrow, "The Concentration and Cost of Archaeological Information," AmerAnt 46 (1981) 443-46.