Great Plains Studies, Center for
Date of this Version
Spring 1985
Citation
Great Plains Quarterly Vol. 5, No. 2, Spring 1985, pp. 135-36.
Abstract
I suspect that academe, at least that portion called anthropology, will not approve of this book. I t lacks the paraphernalia of scholarshipthere are no citations in the text-at least I saw none, nor are there learned footnotes or BOOK REVIEWS 135 graphic displays of statistical data. There is, however, a remarkably inclusive text and an extensive bibliography that can lead the truly interested reader to a treasure-trove of information. Supplementary chapters include lists of relevant radiocarbon dates, a status report on current archeology, a "scrapbook" of archeologists active in Colorado, and perhaps most useful to the uninitiated, a discussion of archeological terminology. In essence, the latter introduces the reader to the arcane and esoteric world of cultural taxonomy. The taxonomic discussion is not entirely adequate: indeed much of the rationale and history is absent, but a careful study of the chapter will build a useful vocabulary and provide some inkling of why archeologists think as they do.
It should be apparent at this juncture that The Archeology of Colorado is aimed at the nonprofessional reader, that "intelligent layman" who is so often ignored by the scholarly and academic writer. In short, the author has produced a "popular" book intended to satisfy the widespread interest in archeology. I suspect it will satisfy that interest in Colorado rather well. It is unpretentious and never patronizes; moreover, the volume is informatively illustrated, and archeological sites are described and placed in appropriate contexts. The conscientious reader will gain a useful overview of Colorado prehistory, laced with enough hard data and local color to make it vital.
My assessment is generally favorable, but there are faults in the book. Some chapters, particularly those dealing with the plains, are cursive and not remarkably well informed. Failings are both predictable and forgivable considering the vast range of data that was assimilated, ordered, and synthesized. However, I was amazed to learn that the Blood, one division of the Blackfeet, are "aligned with the Apaches linguistically" (p. 187). I suspect that the Sarsi were intended. They did indeed speak an Athabaskan language allied to the Apache and were afHliated quite closely with the Blackfeet, whose language falls within the great Algonkian family. Errors of this sort are mere slips and do not attack the integrity of the book, which is a good one. Amateurs, intelligent general readers, and professional archeologists can profit from it'.
Comments
Copyright 1985 by the Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln