148 JOURNAL OF AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Association presented America B.C.. Fell's Kumeyaay —Paddle and A nvil Tech­ first archaeology (?) book, to the White House niques of . Gena R. as one of the best 250 books published between Van Camp. Socorro, New : Ballena 1973 and 1977. Press Anthropological Papers No, 15, Can you believe that? The White House! 1979, 104 pp., 15 illustrations, 3 maps, Anybody who thinks that archaeologists $6.95 (paper). should adopt a policy of "benign neglect" Reviewed by D. L. TRUE toward crackpot archaeology must be joking. Dept. of Anthropology Books like these must serve as barometers to Univ. of California measure the extent which we have failed to Davis, CA 95616 communicate with the public. Had we better The success of a paper depends on many explained the archaeology of the American factors, but the most important may be west, fewer people would have fallen prey to whether or not it accomplishes its stated goals. operators like Barry Fell. Van Camp states that the objectives of her My advice is, by all means, to read Saga paper are America. But try to borrow a copy; don't buy one. ... to examine the external characteristics of Southern California prehistoric and REFERENCES protohistoric pottery, to show how it was made, to outline its distribution as dis­ Fell, Barry covered by archaeology, to compare it to 1976 America B,C.: Ancient Settlers in the neighboring groups, and to chart the social New World. New York City: New York forces which might have shaped its distri­ Times Book Company. bution and development [page 11]. McKusick, Marshall While it is reasonable to assume that Van 1979 The North American Periphery of Camp invested a considerable amount of time Antique Vermont. Antiquity LlII (208): 121-123. examining the Museum of Man collections, in my opinion the paper Ross, Anne, and Peter Reynolds fails to achieve any of the other stated 1978 Ancient Vermont. Antiquity LII (205): objectives. 100-107. Reasons for the failure of this most promising study are manifold, but certainly include aspects of the following: 1. Poor organization of the material permits the Kumeyaay Pottery discussion (which should be the central theme) to get lost in a sea of generally unrelated comments; 2. The discussion of the technical aspects of ceramic technology is an awkwardly pre­ sented paraphrasing of Rogers (1936) and Shepard (1956), and adds little to our under­ standing of the subject matter. Rogers' mono­ graph and Shepard's detailed and very adequate study of ceramic technology and classification are both readily available; REVIEWS 149

3. Discussion of the archaeology is con­ contact with the Luiseno because these fusing and the data presented from the three materials are found near Pala in Luiseiio terri­ described regions (coastal, mountain, and tory. It is the case, however, that Pegmatite desert) are inadequate. The notion that there formations (the source of the indicated might be cultural or adaptational differences in material) are found as well at several locales the three cited environmental regions is not within Dieguefio territory at Ramona, Mesa entirely new. The idea that these differences Grande, Jacumba, and last but not least, at might be reflected in some way by the Banner which is just over the hill from site is interesting, however, and it is too bad that it W-384. was not systematically considered. The pro­ The representative site for the desert zone posed comparison collapses mainly because is C-144 in the Museum of Man series. It is an the data base, as presented, is inadequate and ethnographically identified site reportedly poorly organized. excavated by Rogers in 1929, and again in the The Spindrift site, cited here as the best early 1960's by Clark Brott. This very impor­ described coastal site in San Diego County, is tant site is disposed of here with one descriptive represented by a pathetic aggregate of artifacts paragraph (and part of another). Table 6 lists with minimal provenience information. the cultural inventory from C-144, and while Ceramics are represented by 145 potsherds it is longer than the listings from Spindrift which are undescribed (126 brown and 19 buff) and W-384, it is no more useful. There are no and one bow pipe. artifact descriptions, no provenience data, arid Failure to present useful information on the no breakdown of the reported pottery. Spindrift site can be rationalized (at least in Instead of developing data which could be part) on the basis of the poor sample which was used for comparative purposes (publication of collected many years earlier under generally the available data from C-144 would be justi­ uncontrolled circumstances. Such is not the fication for this monograph in its own right), case for the mountain site representing the the writer leaves us with a meaningless list of material from the upland interior region. Site artifacts and wanders off down San Felipe SDMM-W-384 was excavated by E. L. Davis Wash dribbling unfocused, generalized com­ and Van Camp and adequate records should ments on site locations, the Salton Sea, arti­ be available. The essence of the Davis-Van facts, contemporary agriculture, modern Camp investigation of W-384 is presented here population, hot springs, trails, pictographs, in two short descriptive paragraphs and one and curing practices. table. Table 4 is a Hst of artifacts recovered. The primary contribution of the paper, it There are no artifact descriptions, no illustra­ seems, is a new proposal for designating tions of the artifacts, no typological consider­ Southern California pottery. According to the ations, and no artifact provenience data. A proposal, all pre-existing terminology and total of 1243 potsherds are listed, but there is concepts should be discarded and replaced no breakdown or description (buff versus with two large general categories: Southern brownware, plain versus decorated, etc). California Brown and Southern California Amongst the other elements listed are 33 Buff The writer, we are informed, is not undescribed projectile points, 245 undifferen­ interested in types (in the traditional sense), tiated bone fragments, 11 pine nut hulls, an and prefers to see the local pottery in terms of unstated amount of metal, sheet mica, and 18 what she designates styles. Under the two tourmaline crystals. On the basis of the sheet general headings she proposes that regional mica and tourmaline, the author proposes styles can be identified, and suggests the fol- 150 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY lowing sub categories: Kumeyaay Brown Shepard, A. O. Plain, Kumeyaay Brown Incised. Kumeyaay 1956 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Wash­ Brown Painted, Northern Dieguiio Brown ington: Carnegie Institution Publication Plain. Northern Dieguefio Brown Incised, etc., No. 609. with similar categories for the Cahuilla and Luiseno. The designations, as proposed, are based on "presumed ethnic affiliation" and presumed but not always recognizable inten­ tional surface treatment on the vessels or ^^^K^ sherds. The proposal is of course useless, since no Spanish & Mexican Records of the A merican real criteria are presented which serve to dif­ Southwest. Henry Putney Beers. Tucson: ferentiate the so-called styles. There is no way, University of Arizona Press, 1979,493 pp., for example, to differentiate Northern $8.95 paper, $18.50 cloth. Dieguefio Brown Plain from Luiseno Brown Reviewed by RICHARD H. DILLON Plain, from Cahuilla Brown Plain, from 98 Alta Vista Ave. Kumeyaay Brown Plain. Mill Valley, CA 94941 The bibliography is impressive with over Things are looking up, bibliographically 200 entries, but unfortunately only about 100 speaking, in the Southwest, On the somewhat of these are actually cited in the text. There are distant heels of David Laird's Hopi volume but in addition at least 20 other obvious biblio­ barely in advance of Stanley Paher's long- graphic errors, which under other circum­ awaited Nevada bibliography comes this excel­ stances would detract from the usefulness of lent, important, addition to our reference the paper. There are 15 illustrations. The shelves. The compiler covers private papers— quality of the photographs and line drawings unofficial records in manuscript collections— range from good to excellent, but they serve no as well as the more obvious public documents real purposes since none of them is keyed to the for the pre-Anglo period in the four states of text and no useful descriptive information is California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. provided. The result is a veritable bonanza of useful The printing here is excellent (consistent information. with the high quality of the series in general), and typos are literally non-existent. The paper In form, the book is really a bibliographical used is excellent and the format is attractive. essay rather than the typical barebones cata­ The somewhat optimistic foreword is well logue or research tool (usually as unreadable as written, but the text itself unfortunately leaves the phone book) with which we are accus­ a great deal to be desired. tomed. As a result of Beers' wonderfully rambling, almost gossipy, narrative, we lose Painting with a large brush, from which something in convenience when using the work most of the bristles are missing, produces an strictly as a finding aid. But we more than gain odd lot of streaks, scratches and smears. it back in the richness of his descriptions of the sources in this field. And, for a bibliography, REFERENCES his narrative style makes for pretty interesting Rogers, M. J. reading, though the vicissitudes of archives at 1936 Yuman Pottery Making. San Diego the vandalizing hands of bureaucrats and Museum Papers No. 2. Army of Occupation soldiers will make you