| OCR Text |
Show REVIEWS 153 considering the results, Reed was able to gain insight into this aspect of the Ute prehistory to add to his existing synthesis. Another telling analysis that might not have otherwise been attempted was to compare deposits inside and down slope of a rockshelter, to determine if they were discrete activity areas. They were not significantly different except in numbers of artifacts, and the hypothesis that they represented separate activities was discarded. Analysis of the distribution of artifacts around the hearth in 42Gr2236 was prompted by the hypothesis that activities would be segregated into zones, characterized by areas of primary and secondary refuse. The distribution of artifacts indicated that most refuse was likely in its primary context, perhaps due to a short span of occupation. Other hypotheses concerning artifact distribution, structures, artifact material and manufacture, and size sorting are presented, and each discussed. Some of the hypotheses are supported, some refuted, some not addressable due to lack of data, but as a whole, this section provides a look at the results of the excavations that is most unusual and welcome. By designing the project to answer a series of questions, Reed has produced a CRM report that actually answers some questions. This stands in contrast to the standard procedure of reporting the data recovered as though they were ready-made answers to as yet unspecified questions. Questions which rarely materialize. Designing a project to answer questions means that at the end, some answers, some synthesis, some knowledge is presented that may be of significance to our understanding of prehistoric human cultural behavior. And that is, after all, the reason for contract archaeology-mitigation of adverse effects to sites thought to contain significant information relating to prehistory. We should expect archaeologists to extract and present that significant information, and in my opinion, Alan Reed has done that. The Utah Department of Transportation and Alpine Archaeological Consultants are to be commended for making the excavation of these three small sites result in a contribution to Utah prehistory and the methods by which it is investigated. Archaeology of the Eastern Ute, edited by Paul R. Nickens. Colorado CouncU of Professional Archaeologists, Occasional Papers No. 1. Denver, Colorado. 1988. 233 pages, tables, references dted. $10.00 Reviewed by: David B. Madsen State Archaeologist Utah Division of State History 300 Rio Grande Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Archaeologists have always seemed to me to be the most backwards of people. They seem to be far more fascinated by matters of antiquity than by matters of substance. "Older" always seems to be better. This is, perhaps, the necessary result of archaeology practiced as culture history-the older things are the less remains, in terms of both objects themselves and their contexts, and hence, each item recovered becomes increasingly important. Yet when archaeology is practiced as anthropology, exactly the reverse is true. The younger things are, the more they can contribute to understanding why people do what they do. This is particularly true when they are young enough that physical remains can be directly related to the behaviors which caused them; that is, when it is possible to link the archaeological record to the ethnohistorical record. In short (and at the risk of sounding like a heretic), the archaeology of the Late Prehistoric and protohistoric cultures of Utah has much more to contribute to anthropology than does the investigation of the earliest Paleo-Indian groups. Yet we know virtuaUy nothing about them. This is something that is gradually being realized by archaeologists in the intermountain west. Steven Simms and Joel Janetski, among others, are making extensive efforts to understand the Late Prehistoric record in Utah, while the pubUcation of the Archaeology of the Eastern Ute: A Symposium, produced by the Colorado CouncU of Professional Archaeologists, is an important step in rectifying this problem in the Colorado area. The volume, dedicated to Omer C. Stewart, consists of twelve papers together with a short introduction by Paul Nickens and a more extended summary discussion by WiUiam Buckles. With the 154 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1990 exception of Buckles's piece, virtuaUy all the papers have an essentially cultural-historical perspective and are, for the most part, descriptive. Buckles takes a more argumentative stance, and suggests that it is inappropriate to ascribe many Late Prehistoric archaeological phenomena to the Ute in the absence of data to support that assignment. Since I have always been a proponent of parsimony, it is not an argument to which I pay much heed (can a more likely assignment be made?), but it does point out an important problem when dealing with groups such as the Ute who can be traced from Late Prehistoric to protohistoric to ethnohistoric to ethnographic periods: they often changed so fast in terms of material culture, economic orientation, and even social organization, that it is often impossible to identify a single set of objects and behavior that is truly "Ute." It is not a problem that is easy to deal with. I recaU a rather heated discussion I had with Omer Stewart several years ago after a Plains Anthropology symposium during which he pointedly denied the Ute ever made pottery whUe I just as vehemently suggested they did. As in most such arguments, we were probably both right. It was simply that we were looking at opposite ends of a chronological continuum. Several papers in this Colorado CouncU of Professional Archaeologists volume address this issue. Papers by Alan Reed on "Ute Cultural Chronology" and by Steven Baker on "Historic Ute Culture Change in West-Central Colorado" provide some structure to a rapidly changing record. Neither is entirely successful, but that may be more a product of Umited information than anything else. They are certainly useful starting points. The strength of the volume Ues in the many descriptive papers which add substantially to the material culture record of the protohistoric and historic Ute. These range from one on the use of pounded bark for food by Marilyn Martorano to one on Ute burial practices by Paul Nickens (several from eastern Utah are described) to another by Jonathon Horn on trade goods found in protohistoric Ute sites (again, a number of Utah sites are Usted). Four of these descriptive papers I found to be less than successful for different reasons. Two by BUI Kight and Robert Nykamp deal with the use of site records in the analysis of Ute prehistory-both are a cry for help and illustrate the Umited utility of most file data. One concerning the petrographic analysis of Ute ceramics by David HU1 and Allen Kane is Umited to southwestern Colorado and explores simUarities and differences with Anasazi and Navajo wares. It would be more useful if the growing Uterature on the pottery of Numic-speaking groups were at least referenced. A paper by SaUy Cole on Ute rock art suffers from the same problem that plagues many rock art studies-how do you know what is Ute and what is not? I was especiaUy taken with three papers that described Ute wickiup sites. One by Reed Terry and Cynthia Wood GUchrist reports a series of photographs of Ute sites along the lower Gunnison River drainage by Harold and Betty Huscher in 1939-1941. Given the rapid destruction of these sites (a new wave of wood stove fanatics seem to find them irresistible), such historic records may be one of the few sources of data on Ute architecture. Another by Donald Scott is a more generic discussion of wickiup sites. Scott stresses the fragUe nature of these sites and suggests that the only viable management/preservation strategy is to record everything possible about such sites when they are first encountered-there probably wUl not be another chance. Finally, the only site report in the volume, by Carl Conner, reports the surface mapping and sub-surface testing of a wickiup site near Eagle, Colorado. Such reports are rare and I was surprised by the amount of artifactual material associated with the structures. Most of the very few excavation reports of similar sites suggest that a limited amount of material remains occur in close proximity to structures. On the whole, Archaeology of the Eastern Ute: A Symposium is a very useful and welcome addition to the extremely limited Uterature on Late Prehistoric/protohistoric peoples of the intermountain west. There are a number of clear problems with the volume-the editing is marginal, there is very Uttle discussion of the extremely interesting Fremont/Late Prehistoric transition in northwestern Colorado, and, most importantly, there is virtuaUy nothing on the behavioral impUcations of the work. Despite these limitations, REVIEWS 155 however, I found the volume to be a valuable addition to my Ubrary. At this rate, the Colorado CouncU of Professional Archaeologists Occasional Papers may prove to be almost as worthwhUe as these UPAC/USAS UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY journals. The Great Journey, by Brian M. Fagan. Thames and Hudson, Inc., New York. 1987. 288 pages, 126 Ulustrations. $19.95 (hardback). Reviewed by: Bob Kohl Jennifer Jack-Dixie Chapter Utah Statewide Archaeological Society Post Office Box 1865 St. George, UT 84770 Utah Statewide Archaeological Society members may be roughly divided into three camps. There are the "diggers," those who truly enjoy getting their hands and knees dirty during field surveys, staking and gridding, troweling and screening under professional supervision. There are the "voyeurs," those who enjoy more moderate exercise in viewing petroglyphs and pictographs and sites under excavation. And there are the "armchair archaeologists," those who are eager to learn as much as possible about prehistoric peoples but lack the physical abUity or motivation to get beyond the speakers, films, and videos of chapter meeting programs. Particularly for the latter is The Great Journey recommended. It is both enjoyable reading and excellent material for the reference shelf for those who enjoy their exploration at fireside. The book could be catted a detective story after the manner in which the author pieces together the evidence for this subtitle, "The Peopling of Ancient America." After a brief look at some of the outdated theories of origin of American Indians, the author moves on to the archaeological clues which continue to add pieces that fit into what was once a humongous jigsaw puzzle. Then he pursues the whys and why-nots of archaeological theories into the "age of enttghtenment"-the coming of professional archaeology. Fagan traces the development of man from Africa, Europe, and Asia, and across the Bering Strait without missing any of the opposing views of man's entry into the New World. He traces man's cultural advancement from spear to atlatl to bow, from hunter to farmer, from nomad to villager, and from Paleo to Pueblo in easUy understandable language. Fagan is a master at using a vast body of evidence from bones and tools and ancient hearths to poUen and climatic data. As a bonus, Fagan adds chapter-by-chapter suggestions for further reading which could weU whet the knowledge appetite of the armchair group and send them to the local Ubrary or interttbrary loan for additional servings. Brian Fagan was educated at Cambridge University, England. He then spent seven years in Africa, as Keeper of Prehistory at Livingston Museum in Zambia, then as Director of the Bantu Studies Project at the British Institute in Nairobi. He has been Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, since 1967. His many books include four widely used textbooks on prehistory plus the beautifully illustrated The Adventure of Archaeology in 1985. |
