REVIEWS 855

and his own earlier description of the Port Clar- of nineteenth-century Kotzebue Sound Eskimo ence Collection (VanStone, 1976). These de- material culture. It is clear from VanStone’s dis- scriptions are cross-referenced to the 49 black cussion of Bruce’s presumed collecting and white photographic plates contained in the methods, the lack of adequate documentation Appendix. The plates themselves represent 282 and the nature of the collection itself that the of the 684 catalogue entries or fully 40% of the material described is far from representative. extant collection. Overall, the quality of the VanStone, however, is aware of these dificul- photographs is good. Inseveral instances, excel- ties and forewarns the reader of the “definite lent line-drawings supplement the written de- limitations” of his approach (p.75). scriptions and plates. Both the plates and line- VanStone is to be commended for his con- drawings incorporate catalogue numbers allow- tinuing efforts to publish little known but signifi- ing the reader to cross-check with the complete cant collections of ethnographic materials. It catalogue listing also included in the Appendix. may behoped that this excellent monograph will Missing from the descriptive chapter is any stimulate other institutions or individuals with graphic summary of the collection as a whole. To access to important but unpublished collections get a grasp of the quantitative aspect of the col- to make their material public as well lection the reader is forced to grapple with the REFERENCES raw data contained in the Appendix. A simple table representing the eleven use categories, the NELSON, E.W. 1899. The Eskimo about Ber- various classes of implements and their relative ing Strait. Eighteenth annual report, Bureau frequency of occurrence would have alleviated of American Ethnology, Pt. 1. Washington, this problem. D.C. In his third chapter VanStone focuses on the OSWALT, WENDELL H. 1972. The Eskimos potential of the Bruce Collection for assessing of western . In: Oswalt, Wendell H. the degree of influence of Euro-American con- (ed.). Alaskan Native Material Culture. Uni- tact on Alaskan Eskimo material culture. Fol- versity of Alaska, Fairbanks. lowing Oswalt (1972) he divides the Kotzebue -. 1976. An anthropological analysis of Sound material into four categories, or “clusters food-getting technology. New York: John of material objects” that reflect “the presence or Wiiey and Sons. absence of historical introductions in collections VANSTONE, JAMES, W. 1972. The first Peary of Eskimo material culture and thus serve as a collection of Polar Eskimo material culture. rough measure of technological change” (p.71). Fieldiana: Anthropology 63(2). These categories include items of traditional -. 1976. The Bruce collection of Eskimo Eskimo culture; Eskimo-derived forms manu- material culture from Port Clarence, Alaska. factured on indigenous patterns from imported Fieldiana: Anthropology 67. materials; Westem-derived forms manufactured from local materials but modelling implements James W. Helmer of foreign origin; and direct Western imports. Department of Archaeology The sizable number of western-derived forms University of Calgary found in the Kotzebue Sound Collection leads Calgary, Alberta VanStone to the conclusion that “the process of T2N IN4 material culture change was already well ad- vanced 50 years after the first sustained contact THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF CAPE NOME, in western and northwestern Alaska” (p.73). ALASKA. By JOHNBOCKSTOCE, Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1979. Includes four The author also attempts to assess the relative “technological complexity” of the Bruce Col- appendices. $14.00 U.S. lection. Using Oswalt’s (1976) concepts of “sub- Justeast of Nome, Alaska on the Seward sistants” and “technounits”, Vanstone calcu- Peninsula coast lies Cape Nome, a significant lates an index of “complexity” which compares archaeological area with both beach ridge and favourably with the results of a similar analysis middendeposits. Cape Nome sites include mate- conducted on thePort Clarence Collection but is rial from Denbigh Flint Complex-related, Nor- significantly lower than the indexes computed ton, Birnirk, Cape Nome, and modern phases. for other easternand central Eskimo groups, the The Archaeology of Cape Nome, Alaska is a tradi- Caribou Eskimo excepted (Oswalt, 1976). Com- tional monograph that reports excavations by parable results are reported for a comparative author John Bockstoce. Based on Bockstoce’s analysis of ice-hunting harpoons alone. doctoral dissertation work at Oxford, this mono- Chapter Three is perhaps the least satisfactory graph presents data that will interest all students part of this book. The problems that VanStone of Alaskan prehistory. addresses assume that the sample of items con- Summarizing his work in the Preface, Bock- tained in the Bruce Collection is representative stoce notes that although research over thepast 856 REVIEWS

40 years has told us a great deal about cultural economy focused on three resources: salmon, sequences in the region, it has told caribou, and small sea mammals. By the late part us little about what caused these changes and of the Norton phase, between 100and 300 A.D., what the effects of the changes were during diffe- however, salmon probably were no longer avail- rent phases. Three events in particular in- able because cooling climatic conditions had terested Bockstoce: (1) the disappearance of pushed their spawning area farthersouth. When Norton and Ipiutak from the western Alaska inland caribouresources also declined, an coast, (2) the appearance of Birnirk on the Amer- alreadystressed Norton culture disappeared ican side of Bering Strait, and (3) the post- from Cape Nome. Although Norton and Birnirk Birnirk development of three basic economic usually occupied different ecological settings, patterns - general coastal hunting and fishing, the position of Cape Nome between the two large sea mammal hunting, and interior hunting different areas meant that both groups might and fishing. Bockstoce attempts to explain these settle here. Birnirk people came to Cape Nome events in terms of (1) biological and climatolo- between 500 and 700 A.D. Despite the narrowed gical factors, (2) technological innovation, and resource base, they were able to survive because (3) change in hunting strategy and organization. they possessed specialized sea mammal hunting Chapter I introduces the Bering Strait area. technology, particularly dragfloats, that the Bockstoce briefly summarizes the area’s contact Norton people did not have. Later, after lo00 history, but devotes most of the chapter to a A.D. when the resource base again broadened to useful synopsis of previous archaeological work include not only sea mammals, but also caribou, in the area. Chapter I1 focuses more closely on and in some areas, salmon, the Cape Nome peo- Cape Nome, the circumstances that led Bock- ple repopulated the area and used these re- stoce to choose that area for his work, and the sources. In some locations, the broadly-based issues that hewants to address. Bockstoce economy supported large enough populations chose Cape Nome because it is located between and sufficient surplus accumulated so that spe- Bering Strait andNorton Sound, two areaswith cialized, intensive activities suchas whaling different biotic and physical characteristics, so could be successful. that Cape Nome’s archaeological record should The monograph concludes with four appen- reflect human response to change in both areas. dices summarizing the geology of the Cape In excavating at Cape Nome, Bockstoce was Nome-Safety Lagoon area (by David Hopkins), asking three questions: (I) How was Norton describing local raw material sources for lithic adapted to local conditions? (2) How has Norton and ceramic manufacture, listing implements changed over time? (3) Why did it disappear from the sites, anddefining the termsused in the around Bering Strait? The rest of the chapter monograph. In all, Bockstoce’s work is well- describes in greater detail, organized and clearly written. Although I found discusses the structureof beach ridge sites mak- a few typographical errors and I would have ing some interesting comparisons to Point Hope preferred a simpler map style, in general the and Cape Krusenstern, and concludes with de- editing and typography are competent and the scriptions of flora, fauna, andethnohistorically graphics are attractive and useful. known settlement locations and house types. Bockstoce’smonograph makes a valuable substantive contribution to Alaskan archaeolo- Chapter 111 constitutes thebulk of the report. gy. If it had been written 20 or 30 years ago, some It begins with a discussion of the different de- researchers undoubtedly would have viewed it posits found at the Cape Nome sites and thefield as an outstanding piece of research. But from a work conducted there between 1969 and 1976. 1980 perspective, it suffers badly from the Rip Following an extremely brief discussion of Van Winklesyndrome; the major recent theore- analytical methods, the rest of the chapter de- tical and methodological developments in scribes the features, organic remains, dating, archaeology have had little impact on Bock- and artifacts for each phase. The descriptions stoce’s work, and as a result, Bockstoce’s re- are well done with appropriate tables, illustra- search does not fulfill its potential. Instead of tions, and references to comparable material. just presenting a series of interesting speculative Except for the faunal remains, which receive postulates concerning events at Cape Nome, very cursory treatment, this section is the Bockstoce could have tested some of his hypoth- strongest part of the monograph. eses. In an era when funds are scarce, research Chapter IV reviews the findings and presents in the North veryis expensive, and development Bockstoce’s conclusions. The author discusses is rapidly advancing on vulnerable resources, each phase, shows how it differs from the others, researchers must make the most of their data. and then presents a series of postulates based on There are several reasons why the potential of his work. Very briefly, Bockstoce concludes the Cape Nome data is not realized; I would like that during the early part of the Norton phase to focus on two of them. Unfortunately, these between 400 and 100 B.C., people practiced an problems are not unique to Bockstoce’s work. REVIEWS 857

First, Bockstoce has no explicit theoretical settlement system framework, Bockstoce would framework for his research. As a result, he is left have been stimulated to take a more regional with a poor fit between the problems he’d like to approach to his problems and to use data from solve and his data. Many have been caught in his inland surveys mentioned in his monograph, this bind; it often happens with doctoral disserta- but not described. Second, Bockstoce is looking tions. The site or set of data we’ve set out to at change over time in factors related to both investigate simply does not have the information culture history and adaptation with a classifica- to answer the question we set out to ask. Good tion that is ill-equipped to separate stylistic from research demands that we adjust the problem or functional forms and poorly constructed to mea- the data so there is a good fit. A strong theoretic- sure change over time. Bockstoce classifies his al framework and a multistage research design finds using the functional/formal approach provide a basis for reassessment as research established by Giddings and Ford and based on progresses and are important assets in coping ethnographic analogy. Yet form often has stylis- with such problems. Unfortunately Bockstoce’s tic implications and a functional/formal monograph shows no sign that he had either. approach is bound to confuse functional and Bockstoce’s implicit theoretical framework stylistic attributes in the classification. No appears to be a traditional culture history classification can effectively measure both at the approach. Good culture history is invaluable to same time; two classifications are clearly re- modern archaeology; it provides an essential quired. spatial-temporal framework. But there is much Further, the assumption that similar forms more to modern archaeology. Bockstoce clearly have similar functions, an important assumption recognizes that there are interesting questions of ethnographic analogy, not only is impossible beyond those of culture history, but he lacks an to test, but also has often proven erroneous. adequate theoretical framework for dealing with Ethnographic analogy also has additional prob- them. For example, in Chapter I1 he asks: how lems; it requires the researcher to assume that was Norton adapted to local conditions and how the use of objects has not changed over time, yet did it change over time? He suspects that the it prevents the researcher from postulating a use answer lies in resource changes, particularly the for items not found in the ethnographic present. loss of migratory salmon runs because of clima- These assumptions are not appropriate for re- ticchange. Yet his implicit theoretical search addressing questions involving change. framework built on culture history does not pro- An approach to classification and functional vide him with appropriate variables for solving analysis such as Thompson (1978) employs in the problem. He needsinstead a theoretical her study of culture change in the Northwest focus on the relationship between functional Coast would have avoided these pitfalls. Used forms and the environment. Perhaps because his with a more appropriate theoretical framework theory is implicit, its inadequacy is not readily to test Bockstoce’s hypotheses, these methods evident. would very likely have produced more interest- A theoretical framework based on an ecolo- ing and valuable results. gical approach using the conceptof subsistence- In summary, Bockstoce’s monograph makes a settlement system change would be much more valuable addition to the data base for western appropriate. For example, such a framework Alaska, but because the researchignores recent would include environmental variables focusing theoretical and methodological advances in more on climatic change. It would bevaluable to archaeology, it does not fulfill its potential for know what kind of climatic change might have expanding our understanding of the are’sprehis- brought about the postulated change in salmon tory. resources, and whether such changes occurred so their timing coincided with the changes in REFERENCE Norton. Yet Bockstoce makes only the briefest THOMPSON, G. 1978. Prehistoric settlement reference to the sizeable literature on climatic changes in the southern NorthwestCoast: a change. functional approach. University of Washing- Bockstoce also postulates that a decline in ton Department of Anthropology, Reports in inland caribou resouces may have been a key to Archaeology No. 5. Norton’s ultimate disappearance from Cape Nome. It would be valuable to know more about Wendy Haqford Arundale the settlement pattern of the inland sites on the Cooperative Park Studies Unit Seward Peninsula as well as their role in the University of Alaska economy.Working within a subsistence- Fairbanks, AlasrLn 99701