UC Merced Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology

Title Clemmer et al., eds.: Julian Steward and the Great Basin: The Making of an Anthropologist

Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0dx6245s

Journal Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 22(2)

ISSN 0191-3557

Author d'Azevedo, Warren L

Publication Date 2000-07-01

Peer reviewed

eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California REVIEWS 399 dioroughly describes his statistical mediodology, Julian Steward and the Great Basin: The Mak­ allowing other researchers to adopt diis mode of ing of an Anthropologist. Richard O. Clemmer, data analysis. L. Daniel Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Rud- Overall, this volume is a welcome addition to den, eds. University of Utah Press, 1999, 288 the growing literature on Great Basin rock art, as pp. bibliography, index, $45.00 (hard cover), rock art papers presented at conferences far too $19.95 (paper). rarely find their way into print. Unformnately, it is weakened by numerous poorly reproduced Reviewed by: figures. Better copy-editing would also have en­ WARREN L. D'AZEVEDO hanced the book's readability—the large number Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno, 89557. of typos, spelling errors, misnumbered and miss­ ing figures, and grammatical errors become rath­ The collection of essays contained in this re­ er tiresome. Regardless of these problems, each markable book will be read with avid interest by paper offers important analysis for specialists and all who seek a fuller understanding of the career others who are interested in learning more about of Julian H. Steward, his complex scholarly leg­ this interesting and ubiquitous archaeological re­ acy and, in this instance, his pioneering contribu­ source of the desert west. tions to the knowledge of the many groups of ab­ REFERENCES original peoples whose descendants continue to inhabit a vast region of the Intermontane West. Bettinger, Robert L., and Martin A. Baumhoff 1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Culttires Moreover, the reader will find in these pages dis­ in Competition. American Antiquity 47(3): cussions of the major disclaimers provoked by 485-503. Steward's theoretical constructs, his data and in­ Casjens, Laurel terpretations, and the lingering effect of defining 1972 The Ruby Valley Site Survey Data Sum­ a distinctive sociocultural area containing, in his mary. Report on file at the Nevada State Museum, Carson City. view, some of the simplest forms of human soci­ Heizer, Robert F., and Martm A. Baumhoff ety on an evolutionary level. 1962 Prehistoric Rock Art of Nevada and East- In their carefully considered and balanced in­ era California. Berkeley: University of troduction to the volume, Richard Clemmer and California Press. Daniel Myers affirm the extraordinary productiv­ Schaafsma, Polly 1986 Rock Art. In: Handbook of North Ameri­ ity of Steward's scholarship, his seminal role as can Indians, Vol. 11, Great Basin, Warren citizen, anthropologist, mentor and, in particular, L. d'Azevedo, ed., pp. 215-226. Wash­ as the "Great Basinist." They conclude their in­ ington: Smidisonian Institution. troductory review with the following statement Whitley, David S. on behalf of the anthropologists, historians, lin­ 1994 By die Hunter, For die Gadierer: Art, So­ cial Relations and Subsistence Change in guists, and political scientists whose papers from the Prehistoric Great Basin. World Ar­ the "Steward Retrospective" symposium of the chaeology 25(3): 356-373. 1996 Great Basin Anthropological Conference Woody, Alanah provide the chapters of this book: 1997 Layer by Layer: A Multigenerational Anal­ ysis of the Massacre Lake Rock Art Site. The history of anthropological theory—and of so­ University of Nevada, Reno, Department cial-scientific theory in general—is as much a his­ of Anthropology Technical Report 97-1. tory of how the wind blows at particular times in particular disciplines and how national and global political and economic events condition and con- textualize "social science as usual" and paradigm 400 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

shifts as it is a history of how individuals generat­ to generous or provisory acclaim, to outright cen­ ing grand ideas and the accumulation of data come sure of the man and his work. The reader will to influence and constitute an academic discipline. We hope that this first effort to evaluate the early find much that provides a richer understanding of work of one of the dolmens of American anthro­ a major figure in American anthropology, places pology will encourage ottier broad evaluations not him in specific social and historical perspective, only of Steward, but of other theorists as well (p. and offers penetrating criticism of his data and xxii). theories in the light of more recent knowledge- A somewhat less holistic commentary by Daniel including inevitably some rehash of old issues Gelo of the University of Texas, San Antonio, spiced with hyperbole. which graces a flap of the book jacket, offers the An intriguing biographical sketch by Kerns averment that its content "exhibits postmodern (Chapter 1) opens the collection, proposing that sensitivity to questions of authenticity and author­ the primary source of Julian Steward's theory of ity but doesn't throw the baby out with the bath­ culmral ecology was not his fieldwork among the water." Northern Paiute and Shoshone, but the years he Twenty-eight years after Julian Steward's spent as a youth at a college preparatory school death, a score of latter-day colleagues present al­ for boys in Deep Springs, California. It is here. most as many varied appraisals of his life and Kerns suggests, that he had the experience of legacy. This has produced a book of greater im­ "learning the land," which left a deep-rooted im­ pact and significance than its title might imply. In pression that influenced his later interests and fact, if one reads it through, one is left with the choice of career. Basing her view on intensive disquieting impression of having been inadver­ archival research and interviews. Kerns offers tently confronted by a critical junctore in the dis­ compelling insights into the formative years of an cipline itself. influential scholar. The resulting compendium contains a cache of The fact that Steward was, in his early years, reexamined assessments of Julian Steward as a as much an archaeologist as an ethnologist is dis­ man and scientist, and also of the "Great Basin" cussed by Janetski (Chapter 2), who points out as a variously defined "culmre area." The tone that he initiated the archaeological research pro­ of ardent revelation, of long-incubated disclaim­ gram at the University of Utah from 1930 to ers, and of new discoveries and insights, perme­ 1933. His fieldwork and emphasis on ecology in ates to such a measure that some readers are sure the publication of Basin-Plateau Aboriginal So­ to recollect how some 60 years ago, when an­ ciopolitical Groups (Steward 1938) had a crucial thropology was on the brink of an equally acute impact on the Desert Culture concept developed transition, this region figured predominately in by Jesse Jennings, which became the most endur­ the emerging disputations as an anomaly. It ing model of Great Basin prehistory in its combi­ caused Kroeber (1939:49) to throw up his hands nation of archaeological and ethnographic data. in quiet exasperation and declare that "California Despite continuing contention and reassessment, has generally been reckoned a distinct area ever Janetski (p. 34) holds that "Steward's legacy re­ since American culture began to be classified mains and will continue to influence the way ar­ geographically; but the Great Basin has been chaeology is done in Utah for the foreseeable bandied about." ftittire." The contributions to this book range in ap­ Arkush (Chapter 3) takes issue with Steward's proach and tenor somewhat wider than might be assertion that pronghorn antelope drives by Nu­ anticipated from the editorial introduction. They mic peoples so depleted die herds diat hunting span topics from insightful biographical probing. was restricted for years until they were replen- REVIEWS 401 ished. Arkush attributes this to a "historic bias," odology: neither should be taken for granted or which led Steward to mistake conditions created left unquestioned." by postcontact Euroamerican immigration with In a similar vein, Patterson and Laura-Perri- precontact conditions where recent evidence indi­ celli (Chapter 14) see Steward's concept of cul- cates a continuing abundance of herds. How­ ttire change as a "one way street" eventually ever, Arkush maintains that Steward was an steamrolling any traditional society (p. 230). The amazingly productive researcher who amassed a authors also make cogent examination of the great deal of information concerning Great Basin growing importance of area studies from the native peoples, and that it was among the best 1930s to the 1950s while Steward worked as a that could be produced under those early cir­ federal technocrat and researcher. With the sub­ cumstances. We now have access to new infor­ sequent decline of this approach, he seems to mation for assessing the reliability of previous have undergone a virtual abandonment of his re­ research and can "begin to distance ourselves search on North American native peoples that had from the historically biased interpretations that so profoundly affected the orientation of anthro­ have unduly influenced our view of prehistory" pology and archaeology, especially in the Great (p. 52). Basin where it all began. Fowler et al. (Chapter 4) evaluate Steward's Ronaasen et al. (Chapter 12) present a pene­ work among the Panamint or Timbisha Shosho­ trating analysis of the extent to which historic ne. Each of the authors has had extensive in­ events and political concerns conditioned the for­ volvement with these peoples as ethnographer or mation and uses of anthropological theory during consultant with regard to tribal concerns. While the claims case years. The dissension between noting specific aspects of his work that do not Omer Stewart and Julian Steward is brought to hold up against more recent research (e.g., in­ bear in this essay as a graphic illustration of how adequate linguistic competence, a tendency to directly the latter was influenced by federal legis­ view current data as representative of precontact lative concerns while serving as an expert wit­ conditions, misconstrual of seasonal migration ness. The authors conclude that "Despite Stew­ patterns), they nevertheless agree that Steward's art's and Steward's demurrings to the contrary, material remains "the most valuable detailed data there can be no doubt that Steward's theory of on the Timbisha homeland, and there will be few culmre change, theory of cultural ecology, and more to match them" (p. 59). concept of 'levels of socioculmral integration' Steward's obdurate though often revised view were honed in contexts that were as much politi­ of culture change engages Clemmer (Chapter 10), cal as they were scholarly" (p. 202). who believes that a major "gap" in Steward's Rusco (Chapter 7), a political scientist with work is the discrepancy between his theory and a long-standing interests in legislation affecting body of work to which he could have applied it, western Native Americans, addresses Steward's a disparity that allowed him to profess the ulti­ conflicting roles as scholar, administrative con­ mate assimilation of the Western Shoshone into sultant, and person during a significant phase of the dominant American society. Clemmer (p. his career. Noting that Steward was appraised by 163) gives Steward credit for recognizing the his contemporaries as one of the most important contradictions in concepts he had once embraced, andiropologists working in the United States noting that "as successors to Steward's legacy of during the first two-thirds of the twentieth cen­ Great Basin research, we are perhaps just now tury, Rusco points out that despite his explicit re­ realizing in our critiques and appraisals what jection of racism and the notion of superior/infe­ Steward realized long ago about theory and meth­ rior peoples, he nonetheless held personal views 402 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY common among many leading intellectuals of his shone people continues to pervade the literature, time "that were at best ethnocentric and at the providing a scientific endorsement of this false worst racist" (p. 107). This puzzles Rusco, who image to the public. The demeaning notion of accepts that anthropology was die first academic Shoshone cultural impoverishment has helped to discipline in the United States to reject white condition the general neglect of the richly en­ racist explanations for the differences between dowed legacy of music, dance, craft, and lore, Euroamerican and non-Western societies. much of it remaining still to be seen and heard by Interestingly enough, the issue of racism, as all who care to see and hear. One can under­ such, does not emerge in the papers of those from stand why Crum avers that his objective "is to whom it might be most expected. It came as no fiirther erode Julian Steward's vision of the Great real surprise for this reader to find that three of Basin" (p. 119). the most suasive of the adverse commentaries in Historian Ned Blackhawk (Chapter 13) makes this collection were written from a Native Ameri­ a cogent analysis of the precepts underlying an­ can perspective. These emphatically renascent thropological research and theory in the twentieth voices are concerned more with the humanity of centary, working principles given impressive representation and its consequences than with eth­ systematization and authority through the work of nographic detail or schema. Julian Steward. In his opinion, it is imperative to Though not Native American, Keboe's (Chap­ deal with Steward's more problematic assump­ ter 11) brief but penetrating cry "Where Were tions directiy in order to restore a constructive Wovoka and Wuzzie George?" rises unexpected­ use of his basic data, for although conceptually ly from among the chapters with the charge that troubling in context, they provide a wealth of Steward's monograph Basin-Plateau Aboriginal ethnographic, historic, and cultural information. Sociopolitical Groups is "bloodless ethnography" Blackhawk cautions, however, that such tex­ (p. 165) reflecting a "scientistic mode" (p. 167) tual critique alone is not enough to disclose the in which real people are irrelevant, and "clarifies more inclusive "imperial and colonial" contexts the tension in anthropology between respect for of Steward's representations, or the actual rela­ observed data and a proclivity to construct sche­ tions of power between Indians and non-Indians mata that inevitably reflect Western cultural as­ over centuries of confrontation: "By portraying sumptions" (p. 166). She concludes that "Stew­ Great Basin Indian societies in such a timeless ard was on to something," but that he "could not and simplistic fashion. Steward's texts implicitly leap over the coffee-filled moat around his smdy help legitimize the dispossession and impoverish­ to walk as a fellow human with Wovoka and ment of the Native peoples in the region" and Wuzzie George" (p. 169). "gave intellectual justification in the 1930s for In a similar vein, Crum (Chapter 8), a major attempts to deny federal recognition and treaty scholar of Shoshone and Great Basin culture and rights to different Western Shoshone peoples in history, faults Steward for producing the potent Nevada" (pp. 204-205). "gastric vision" of the Shoshonean peoples, low I have assigned the remaining chapters of the on a neo-evolutionary scale of existence, and book to a whimsical category of "totalizing cri­ whose arts and crafts were among the poorest in tique" in that Steward's work in the Great Basin America. Crum finds it curiously significant that is dealt with—not always unambiguously—as det­ the anthropological community has for so many rimental to our understanding of the people, their years regarded Steward as one of the most influ­ history and culture. Myers (Chapter 9) proposes ential scholars of modern times. Despite some a "new paradigm" as a corrective to the influ­ effective challenges, this biased view of the Sho­ ence of Steward's monumental Basin-Plateau Ab- REVIEWS 403

original Sociopolitical Groups. In diis work. are constructive or equitable, the nagging ques­ Great Basin societies were considered to be al­ tion remains before us: What now? most entirely explicable in terms of a limiting A ready and confident answer to this formida­ cultural ecology model and a speculative evolu­ ble query is proposed by Goss in the following tionary dieory. According to Myers (p. 138- chapter (Chapter 6). Goss (pp. 83-84) warns that 139), "Such a reified concept of culture does lit­ "Everything has to be taken apart and redone tle, if anything, to advance a theory antiquated by from the perspective of The People," adding that its own mediodology ... die Great Basin culture "Only if we take it all apart and put it back to­ area is not so easily defined." gether can we begin to have an 'inside' view of In contravention, Myers (p. 129) avows "a the present dynamic and, possibly, help with the more parsimonious 'cognitive' approach ... By fiiture dynamic options. The key now is to get defining culture as 'a system of thought and past our own false models and listen to The Peo­ knowledge' and the Great Basin as a research ple. .. . The People have understood anthropolo­ area, I suggest that a 'symbolic-strucmral' per­ gists much better than anthropologists have un­ spective be applied to Great Basin studies." This derstood The People." approach, together with "the notion of the Great As an ethnolinguist, Goss is justifiably con­ Basin as a 'research area' rather than a 'culture cerned with Steward's outright rejection of exclu­ area' will allow us to move beyond Steward's sive use of native nomenclature for the identity 'gastric metaphor' " (p. 142). Although Myers and distribution of Great Basin groups. He makes comes close to tossing the baby out with the bath­ a strong case for a long overdue reassessment of water, he chooses in the end to turn it over gent­ the terminology which has been generally adopt­ ly with a pat on the bottom. One would like to ed and which derives essentially from colonial think that we are on to something here, and look Spanish, Anglo-American, and other outsiders' forward to published examples of application. cormptions of what the people call themselves. Far less inclined to conciliation. Walker However, Goss exerts littie effort to advance the (Chapter 5) gives short shrift to culture area pro­ task by proposing practicable measures for im­ ponents. More excisionist than revisionist, how­ provement or remodeling. Rather, he chooses to ever, he opines that widespread use of Steward's divert attention from his useful analysis of custo­ Shoshone model has probably discouraged criti­ mary nomenclature by disparagement of an entire cal and ethnographic evaluation, in part because era of intensive research including, one would it satisfies the need for a "simplest of all cul­ remind him, that latter period in which he too tures" in neo-evolutionist theory. Moreover, participated as a serious and less vociferous con­ Steward's subsistence model is too impoverished tributor. and its kinship, economic, and political compo­ Reading this book has been a rewarding ex­ nents too simplified to account for the relative af­ perience, as it will be for many others over the fluence and complexity of various northern Nu­ coming years. Julian Steward and the Great Ba­ mic groups. In a final note, he makes brief sum­ sin: The Making of an Anthropologist is all that mary of his underlying theme: "The very brief its title promises. It provides a wide array of ap­ ethnographic research by Julian Steward among praisal concerning the man, his works, and his northern Numic groups must be viewed only as extraordinary part in shaping current presump­ ethnographic reconnaissance, rather than the sus­ tions and emerging conceptions of the Intermon­ tained, long-term ethnographic research typical of tane West during a fertile period of anthropologi­ Omer Stewart or Sven Liljeblad" (p. 73). Re­ cal research and theory. With few exceptions, gardless of whether one thinks that such contrasts the contributions to this book are insightful and 404 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY informative efforts. Equally valuable, however, REFERENCES is die opportunity to peruse, in one place, the Kroeber, A. L. varied viewpoints and approaches of nearly a 1939 Culttiral and Namral Areas of Native North score of individuals from anthropology and relat­ America. University of California Publica­ ed disciplines who rank among the leading schol­ tions in American Archaeology and Ethnol­ ars of Great Basin history and culture. In these ogy 38(1). respects alone, the book is a landmark. It should Steward, Julian H. 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical be obvious by now that this reviewer is con­ Groups. Bureau of American Edmology vinced that here is a book well worth the reading. Bulletin 120.