Archeology has to sometimes make such leaps of connection - as long as you accept that it is a leap and you wil be willing to change your mind when new facts present themselves. I accept the Meso-American explanation for the introduction of a social system that did not exist before or after this period.
>>I accept the Meso-American explanation for the introduction of a social system that did not exist before or after this period.
Could be. It's plausible and one that has been kicked around for almost a century, but like I said--ideas don't leave material evidence, so it is extremely hard to test. His evidence of human mutilation (based on my study) is irrefutable. All the signs point to cannibalism, but it is a dirty word and there are political forces that tried to squelch him. I've never heard of the UNM guy Peter Bullock--and I worked in New Mexico as a professional archaeologist. He must be one of those museum rats who has never seen the end of a trowel.
>>Archeology has to sometimes make such leaps of connection
Yes, we archaeologists have to make lots of inferential leaps, usually much to our own chagrin.
I think we'd have fun sitting down over a beer discussing this back and forth, but this forum really makes it tough to do point/counter-points effectively without a lot more time.
Suffice to say I disagree with some of the particulars of Turner's conclusions, but the bulk of his research is meticulous. The same can not be said for all archaeologists working in the SW.