612 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLQGIST [N. S . , 45, 1943

Father Berard would issue his text of this rite. He repeatedly speaks of Blessing Way as more or less the ‘yons et origo” of Navaho ceremonialism (a point of view with which we heartily concur), and it is therefore a bit curious that he bas been so slow to publish the Blessing Way text and commentary. One final critical observation doubtless arises from the sheer fact that Father Berard literally knows too much: many of his notes will be opaque to all but the most hardened specialists and a few (e.g. No. 5 ) are obscure to Wyman and me, a t least.

To the University of Chicago is due hearty thanks for making available this highly specialized material. Nevertheless the reviewer must comment that the typing is in- excusably careless. The numberless errors are more than annoying-in some places they actually destroy the sense.

If Father Berard and his publishers will continue to give his researches the light of day, we shall soon have a grasp of Navaho ceremonialism which is incomparably more substantial than that of any American Indian tribe.

HARVA~D UNIVERSITY CLYDE KLUCKHOHN

Two Prehistoric Village Sites at Brewerton, New York. Type Components of the Brewerton Focus, Laurentian Aspect. WILLIAM A. RITCHIE. (Researches and Transactions of the New York State Archeological Association. Vol. IX, No. 1. iii, 107 pp., 22 plates, maps. Rochester: Lewis H. Morgan Chapter, 1940.) (Research Records of the Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, No. 5 , Rochester, New York, 1940.)

This monograph describes and interprets the significance of the excavations at the Robertson and Oberlander sites located on the banks of the Oneida River in New York State. It is more than the usual account of archaeological work, for it is the author’s reward for his wide and painstaking search for the explanation of specific features of the aboriginal occupation of New York State. Nearly fifty years ago Beauchamp noted the existence of several types of arrow points, gouges, adzes, semi- lunar knives, copper artifacts and miscellaneous other implements. At that time the existence of these was not explainable. Arthur C. Parker, in 1922, likewise recognized these tools and, even though their exact provenience was not known, he postulated that they constituted a complex which he named the “Eskimo-Like Culture.” Until recently few, if any, of these artifacts have been uncovered by excavation in New York State and so the postulated association of these implements could not be verified. Neither could questions be answered concerning the relation of this complex to other aboriginal remains.

Ritchie’s discovery of many of the elements of this complex in the debris of these two sites adds materially to our knowledge of it. The excavations demonstrate the association of the complex with !i large variety of artifacts which were used or made during the industrial development of two thriving communities. This is indeed fortunate for it is no longer necessary to attempt reconstruction of ancient industrial develop- ment on the basis of a few types which have been removed from their cultural milieu. Ritchie believes also that the excavations have brought to light significant develop- ments in the stone industry and that, during the course of these, the ceramic industry was added to the aboriginal economy.

BOOK REVIEWS 613

Fortunately collateral excavations by other students have brought to light types of artifacts which were similar to those discovered by Ritchie and also types which were not found on the two sites under consideration. Ritchie has assumed that the im- pressive number and variety of artifacts discovered in these several sites represent, in some measure, a cultural unit and he has been led to formulate and assume the existence of the Laurentian Aspect. In so doing he has added a new category, in the classification of aboriginal culture, to the complicated and confused picture of industrial develop- ment in northeastern North America. From the shallow point of view of expediency and convenience of description this action may be sanctioned but it must be recognized that the foundation upon which such classification rests has not been clearlydefined nor is it universally acceptable.

The present description embraces a large variety of types of artifacts, the proveni- ence of which is known only in a relatively restricted area of a larger geographic region. The fact that many of these types have characteristic geographic distributions which are not always restricted to the region and which do not always correspond one with another presents a situation which does not promise to produce more than an extremely generalized definition of an assemblage of a number of discrete cultural units. Since the generalized definition will, perforce, change as the present restricted area occupied by the Laurentian Aspect is approached from different regions and as a time scale is ap- plied to northeastern North America there arises some question concerning its useful- ness, in fact it may unnecessarily complicate the eventual solution. Allied to the ideas outlined above is the application of the hypothesis that similar types of artifacts found over a wide area belong in the same classificatory category. Ritchie has noted the dis- tribution of some types which he considers important and from these suggests the prob- able wide distribution of the Laurentian Aspect. Lacking knowledge of exact proveni- ence, chronological factors and the possible association of these widely scattered types with artifacts which may form definable and contrasting cultural units, the assumption of relationship appears to be a rash one at this time.

The deposits of the two sites described are characterized by a layer of occupation debris ranging in thickness from more than one foot to less than three feet. The debris lay upon the very uneven surface of the “subsoil.” This surface was made more uneven by excavations for pits. The debris is described as being homogeneous, but a layer of black material was noted at the bottom, in some sections, and “spreads or patches” of sand and gravel were observed.

The description of the extremely careful excavation is necessarily lengthy and i t is revealing, but additions to the account would have made it easier to understand the detail and to check the author’s interpretations. I sympathize with Ritchie’s desire to omit the boring detail which would accompany illustrations of the cross sections but if these had been included in the relative obscurity of an appendix it is probable that it would have been possible for the reader to understand better the significance of the many measurements of depth which are given. Some such device would probably have made it easier, also, to accept the section on the “Distribution of Artifacts” (pp. 48-50), p. 88). In these sections, for some unexplained reason, the debris is divided into a lower and an upper half and percentages of different types of artifacts are referred to these levels. I t is presumptuous to be skeptical of this description but a t the same time, when one is interested in details, it does seem that a clearer and perhaps more precise treat- ment, even if it were longer, would have been to advantage.

614 AMERICAN ANTHROPOWGIST [N. S . , 45, 1943

The structure of the relatively thin layers of debris resting upon the uneven subsoil of these northeastern sites can be vital. Strata may be but an inch or so thick and very irregular. The location of a specimen by depth only is, under these circumstances, in- adequate. It is not always possible to identify strata or to determine the thickness of the layer of soil which covered the subsoil at the time of first occupation. In fact, at these two sites, the occupation of this original surface probably resulted in the burying of the first artifacts deposited so that they now appear on the subsoil. Possibly the origi- nal surface was rough, following the contours of the hummocks and hollows of the sub- soil. The gradual accumulation of debris may have tended to fill the original hollows first so that artifacts dropped on top of this fill would be at the same depths as earlier artifacts trampled into the top of a hummock. I n such cases measurements of depth from the present surface, when used to determine the association of types, can be mis- leading unless they are accompanied by data defining the location more precisely. This difficulty can be overcome, with varying degrees of success, by meticulous examination of the structure of the debris. Apparently there were not very many structural features which could have been of use on these two sites but there were patches of ash, “spreads” of sand or gravel and other characteristics which, regardless of indefinite boundaries, had they been plotted in plan and cross section, could have been used as points of refer- ence for the artifacts. This would have been of great aid, for it would have been con- vincing evidence of the validity of Ritchie’s interpretation of the vertical distribution of artifacts. Criticisms of like nature can be leveled a t the descriptions of the pits where associations of artifacts located in the debris above excavated depressions in the subsoil are affirmed or denied in the face of statements that the original walls and place of origin of the pits, in the debris, is unknown. The description of burials is satisfactory, except for some unfortunate loose sentences. Some burials are labeled intrusive without explanation of origin or description of what they have intruded upon. Such slips of the pen are important only because they sometimes result in the discarding of certain bits of evidence by a reader who analyses the report step by step.

It must be emphasized that this report is in many ways an excellent one. Perhaps it is the most valuable contribution which Ritchie has yet made and it is certain that it will occupy an important place in northeastern archaeology for years to come. This re- view should include specific comments upon the significance of this material. However, a t the time of writing we are eagerly awaiting the distribution of Ritchie’s new book which will discuss this material in the light of the mass of information which he has gathered before and since the present monograph was published. Under these circum- stances it is unfair to judge this three year old report, except as a piece of field work, on the basis of its former important place in the literature of the northeast. Neither is it fair to offer in the way of criticism, either favorable or unfavorable, information and ideas gained from nearly three years’ discussion of problems proposed by this publica- tion. Suffice it to say that, in spite of objections raised in this review, Ritchie has de- served the enthusiasm with which this report has been received. Furthermore, the discussion which i t has precipitated has advanced immeasurably our knowledge of northeastern archaeology.

FREDERICK JOHNSON R. S. PEABODY FOUNDATION ANDOVER, MASS.