Search

An Archaeological Assay on Dry Creek, Sonoma County, California.Martin A. Baumhoff and Robert I. Orlins. Berkeley: University of California Archaeological Research Facility Contributions No. 40, 1979, 244 pp., 30 figs., 30 maps, index, 3 appendices, $8.00 (paper).'

Volume 9, No. 2, of Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology included two lengthy articles intended to clarify the nature and dating of so-called Pinto points (Jenkins 1987; Vaughan and Warren 1987). These discussions were laudable attempts to define a widespread point type in the Great Basin and to provide a dating for it. They grew out of the reality of Great Basin archaeology, which has few sites with any depth or undisturbed stratigraphy, and except for dry caves consists largely of lithic collections with few distinctive artifacts other than projectile points. The result is that the archaeology of this region is dominated by analysis of points, and to the outsider it looks as if Great Basin archaeology consists primarily of point types (cf. Michels 1965; Warren 1984; an exception is the series of reports on Hidden Cave beginning with Thomas [1985] which incidentally provide considerable data on obsidian dating and its application to Great Basin archaeology). While these point sequences have been variously suggested to equate with climatic changes and ecological variables, the validity of such interpretations is dependent upon a reasonably precise dating of the point types, and the controversy over dating impedes the drawing of general conclusions. Efforts to improve the dating of widespread point types such as Pinto are therefore essential if interpretive efforts are to move forward. I would like, however, to point to some general problems which were not clearly addressed by the articles cited.

In a recent review of the archaeological report on the site of Molpa, San Diego County, a number of important points were raised by Ken Hedges. This is not a reply to Hedges' review which is on the whole carefully thought out and more than fair. However, several points seem worth some additional comment.

Analysis of obsidian dating for 60 points from Harrington's excavations at Little Lake (Stahl site), yields the following conclusions: Obsidian in the southwestern part of the Great Basin has a quite different (and faster) hydration rate than obsidian from the northern and eastern parts of the Great Basin. (2) The cultural assemblage at the Little Lake site is essentially uniform; while the site was used for at least 2000 years, there is no detectable culture change so far as the point types are concerned. The major occupation of the Little Lake site was not far from Harrington's original estimate of 3000-4000 years ago. Based on the variability of contemporaneous points in the Pinto assemblage at Little Lake (in size, form, and workmanship), overly refined point typologies in the Great Basin may prove to have descriptive value only, and may not have as much cultural significance as the archaeologists would hope for.

Destruction of archaeological collections through the demands for reburial presents a serious conflict between religion and science. Archaeologists should not deal with these matters by 'compromise' alone, but must sustain their rights and duties as scholars.

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act represents a serious setback for US archaeology in the name of political correctness. The act's requirement for repatriation of human remains conflicts with the scientific need for data preservation. It also ignores the museum's role in holding such material for the public, as well as the wishes of donors, including many Indians, who wanted the items to be held for future generations. Much time and resources are being expended on inventorying collections, while it is unknown whether the majority of Indians favor reburial rather than scientific research.