UC Merced Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Title Byrd et al.: Prehistoric Settlement Along the Eastern Margin of Rogers Dry Lake, Western Mojave Desert, California Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/32s3f7kr Journal Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 17(1) ISSN 0191-3557 Author Schneider, Joan S Publication Date 1995-07-01 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California REVIEWS Prehistoric Settlement Along the Eastern Margin lated on this, their second publication. Making of Rogers Dry Lake, Western Mojave Desert, Cali­ data available to the archaeological community is fornia. Brian F. Byrd, Drew Pallette, and Carol an important scientific goal and this goal can be Serr, widi contributions by Susan Smidi and R. met through cultural resource management (CRM) Scott Anderson (Pollen Analysis), Jean Hudson publications of this type, in the absence of the (Vertebrate Remains), Margaret Newman (Im­ economic feasibility and time-consuming process munological Analysis), Thomas Origer and M. that is represented by refereed publications. Steven Shackley (Obsidian Studies), Lisa Klug Access to the data resulting from CRM studies is and Virginia S. Popper (Paleoedinobotanical greatly enhanced by a real effort, on the part of Analysis). San Diego: Brian F. Mooney Asso­ investigators, to disseminate reports of work-in- ciates Anthropological Technical Series 2,1994, progress or completed. Too often, the archaeologi­ ix -I- 192 pp., 58 figs., 66 tables, $25.00 cal community has limited knowledge of or accessi­ (paper). bility to the "gray literature" outside a very restricted geographical area (cf. Chartkoff 1987). Reviewed by: The "References Cited" in this volume is an JOAN S. SCHNEIDER excellent example of the "gray literature" prob­ Dept. of Anthropology, Univ. of Califomia, Riverside, lem. I counted 48 of the 243 citations in this CA 92521. volume (almost 20%) as being "gray literature," e.g., papers presented at professional meetings, This "in house" publication reports the data unpublished CRM reports, or drafts of articles or acquired from the archaeological testing of six sites reports that are not readily accessible to the along the eastern margin of Rogers Dry Lake at scientific community. This calculation does not Edwards Air Force Base, California. One site, include the Ph.D. dissertations and Master's theses CA-KER-526, is interpreted as an early Gypsum that are cited. If, indeed, the volume made no Period base camp, probably repeatedly occupied. other contribution (which it does), the listing of the There are two occupational phases, separated by at unpublished data available alone makes a contribu­ least one hiatus. Both the Gypsum occupation and tion to the regional study of the Antelope Valley the documentation of a stratified deposit are un­ and the Mojave Desert. usual for the western Mojave Desert. The major strong points in this publication are The other sites on the eastern margin of the well-represented by the cover figures; i.e., com­ playa are the results of short-term, nonrepetitious puterized map presentations of the sites and the occupations. The extended period of time (from faunal analysis. Indeed, these are some of the Gypsum times through ethnohistoric times) repre­ finest maps that I have seen and present the studied sented by both CA-KER-526 and die other sites is sites both clearly and concisely. I particularly significant in that the intermittent use of this playa- liked the artifact symbols used and the depiction of side locale over a long period of time is well deposit densities. The vertebrate faunal analysis by documented in this study. The authors have con­ Hudson is quite extraordinary in its presentation of sidered both intra- and inter-site relationships and the data and its discussion and interpretation. are able to make some interesting interpretations The majority of the faults in the publication are about distributions of artifacts and faunal remains. confined to the Project Background section (Part Brian F. Mooney Associates are to be congratu­ 2). Two major weak points include: (1) the ab- 136 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY sence of certain important key citations for Mojave is no information on the paleoenvironmental Desert archaeology; and (2) citations dial refer to aspects of the origin and longevity of ephemeral drafts or manuscripts that have already entered the lakestands in the Mojave Desert, information that published literature. This situation infers that the would likely have a direct bearing on this site authors are unfamiliar with the region and/or that complex, and which has been published in regional whatever references were handy on the office geomorphological literature. Tortoise is included bookshelf were used in the absence of performing under a list of economically important "mammals" an adequate and up-to-date literature search. For (p. 6). The statement Uiat "Warren (1984:423) ar­ example, there is no mention of Newberry Cave, gues that shell beads from Afton Canyon ... are a very important Gypsum Period site in the central evidence of trade . ." (p. 14) is incorrect; War­ Mojave Desert (Davis and Smith 1981); the pub­ ren was talking about the Oro Grande site, Afton lished Archaeology of the Afton Canyon Site is also Canyon was not excavated until 1985 (Schneider missing (Schneider 1989), along with its very 1989). There is no mention of what the relation­ important faunal analysis (Sutton and Yohe 1989), ship was between the Vanyume and the Serrano, while an unpublished CRM report on the same area that there were no Vanyume remaining when is cited (York 1988). Thediscussionof Pinto does ethnographies were written, and that almost all not mention recent articles on this subject that have Vanyume information is based on Serrano ethno­ appeared in the published literature (Jenkins 1987; graphic information. One gets the idea that the Vaughan and Warren 1987; Meighan 1989). Also background portion of this report was written only overlooked is Leonard and Drover's (1980) article from secondary sources and that errors from other on the exploitation of turquoise in the Mojave reports were carried over to this one. Desert, hut misinformation about the geographical Overlooking the above weaknesses, this is a location of the turquoise mines is included (p. 13). valuable publication. Research Orientation and The authors cite Sutton's (1981) manuscript, appar­ Objectives (Section 3) and Field and Analysis ently unaware that it was greatly expanded and Methods (Section 4) are well-presented. Resulting published in 1988 (Sutton 1988). Data (Section 5) are clearly presented in readable A third major weakness is editorial. The and usable format by individual site (CA-KER-526, writing is uneven and inconsistent; there is a great -533, -1180, -1765, -3377, -3379). Subsections for deal of extraneous verbiage, as well as unnecessary each site include Site Structure and Sttatigraphy, and undefined modifiers. Some examples of these Feattires, Artifact and Ecofact Assemblages, Intra- problems include inconsistency in form (e.g., Site Spatial Variabdity, and Conclusions. Section "micro-crystalline" versus "microcrystalline") 6 includes a series of Ecological and Economic and overuse of modifying terms without definition Studies: Pollen Analysis of Sediment Samples (e.g., "significant," "large," "small." "mod­ from CA-KER-526 (the major stratified Gypsum est," "formidable," "quitesatisfactory"). Some­ Period site), by Susan Smith and R. Scott Ander­ times statements are made that appear to have no son; Paleoethnobotanical Analysis of Sediment purpose and are simply there to fill space. For Samples from CA-KER-533 and CA-KER-3379, by example, it is stated (p. 95) that "The surface dis­ Lisa Klug and Virginia Popper; Immunological tribution of artifacts is well patterned both in terms Analysis of Lithic Artifacts from CA-KER-526 and of the overall distribution of artifacts and die CA-KER-1180, by Margaret Newman; and Verte­ location of particular artifact categories." This brate Remains from CA-KER-526, CA-KER-533, sentence is presented accompanying an excellent CA-KER-1180, CA-KER-1765, CA-KER-3377, map of the distributionof archaeological materials. and CA-KER-3379, by Jean Hudson. In Section The fourth category of major weakness includes 7, Inter-Site Comparison and Interpretation, all the errors or gaps in background information. There data are drawn together in a well-organized discus- REVIEWS 137 sion of site structure and site formation processes, Archaeology. Society for Califomia Ar­ chronological placement of each site and die entire chaeology Newsletter 21(3): 10-14. site complex, settlement organization and site func­ Davis, C. Alan, and Gerald A. Smith tion, and resource procurement, regional interac­ 1981 Newberry Cave. Redlands: San Bemardino County Museum Association. tion, and trade. Included in this final section are Jenkins, Deimis L. die findings from radiocarbon determinations, ob­ 1987 Dating the Pinto Occupation at Rogers sidian sourcing, and obsidian hydration analysis. Ridge: A Fossil Spring Site in the Mojave Desert, Califomia. Joumal of Califomia and One particular portion of die interpretation of Great Basin Anthropology 9(2):214-231. die sites is problematic, admittedly from my own Leonard, N. Nelson III, and Christopher E. Drover interest-centered viewpoint. Paleobotanical re­ 1980 Prehistoric Turquoise Mining in the Halloran mains from the site were limited to wood charcoal Springs District, San Bemardino County, fragments; almost no seeds were recovered. Ap­ Califomia. Journal of Califomia and Great parendy rabbits and hares were important and were Basin Anthropology 2(2):245-256. processed in quantity. Yet, the authors do not Meighan, Clement W. 1989 Further Comments on Pinto Points and Their consider the possibility that the milling/grinding Dating. Joumal of California and Great equipment at the site was used for other than Basin Anthropology 11(1): 113-118. seed/plant processing, although there is good Schneider, Joan S. evidence (both archaeological and ethnographical) 1989 The Archaeology of the Afton Canyon Site.