INCREASINGLY DURING the past decade or two, archeologists, prehistorians, anthropologists, and practitioners of related disciplines have grappled with the problems involved in deducing population statistics from various types of merely indicative data. The results have seldom been satisfactory even to the authors themselves. The comment in a recent archeology text (Hole and Heizer 1969:306) seems to be typical of the current mood: Probably few kinds of archeological interpretation have more systematically built-in sources of potential error than have estimates of population, yet such figures are commonly given and used for making further inferences. It is safe to say that, because our concert:s in archeology turn more and more toward reconstructing social systems, we shall have to devise methods of obtaining better demographic data. The way to proceed, I suggest, may be to make fuller use of some of the techniques that demographers have devised to analyze populations in other contexts. 1 The content of this paper was first presented as several lectures in an experimental interdisciplinary course, cross-listed in anthropology and geology-mineralogy, organized by Ernest G. Ehlers at Ohio State University. Its purpose was to present techniques derived from several disciplines that are useful in classifying and interpreting archeological data. In preparing the article, I received welcome guidance from colleagues at Ohio State University: Emilio Casetti in the Geography Department and William M. Sumner,