ARCHEOLOGY 513

forms, is associated with the earliest-known settlements of southern Melanesia and west- em Polynesia, though to the north the situa- tion is rather more complex (e.g., in the Solomons and Bismarck archipelago). In view of its basal position in the Fijian and Tongan sequences, several authors have attributed it to the forerunners of the mod- ern Polynesians. Golson examines the plain ware of the Fijian and Tongan sites and concludes that the Samoan pottery is derived from the plain component of these Lapita assemblages, in particular from the late plain ware of Tonga. Groube’s recent important paper (1971) resolves the ap- parent chronological difficulties that Gol- son’s conclusions face, and presents a con- vincing calibration of the Fijian, Tongan, and Samoan sequences. Hopefully, the argu- ment over the status of the Samoan pottery will teach us that Lapita can only be under- stood as a polythetic evolving tradition, whose manifestations on each island group will differ according to the vagaries of ex- cavation as well as of culture history. Non- Pacific workers may express surprise that it has taken Pacific archaeologists so long to use common sense in their view of the industries generally lumped under the rubric of Lapita, and even greater surprise that some aspects of our theoretical framework in island Melanesia are more worthy of the nineteenth century than of the era of Clarke’s Analytical Archaeology.

Bulmer’s paper might be subtitled “a social anthropologist on the inadequacies of cu r ren t archaeological research.” Un- ashamedly didactic, his contribution should make all Pacific archaeologists take stock of their position. Ethnoarchaeology is a most fruitful area for research, yet there is a dearth of competent workers in this field. There is a strong temptation for the archae- ologist to fill the gaps, in between his other duties, by making a few observations on technology, though (as Bulmer emphasizes) there is more to ethnoarchaeology than that. He also highlights the lack of concern hither- to expressed by Melanesian workers for the basic principles and theory on which they are pursuing the study of man’s penetration into a unique oceanic environment. In a less didactic vein, Yen reminds us that Pacific man does not live on yams and taro alone, and emphasizes the importance of tree cul-

tivation. However, studies of botanical mate- rial from archaeological sites in the Pacific are hampered by a general paucity of bota- nists able to handle macro-fossils, while pollen analysis is still a luxury enjoyed by a fortunate few. No discussion of the eco- nomic history of the Pacific will be possible until this serious failing is rectified.

The Melanesian research reported in this volume leaves much to be desired, though it is easy to forget that for some areas, notably the British Solomon Islands, serious archae- ological research began only in 1969, and in other areas barely a decade earlier. While all of the Fiji papers deserve careful considera- tion for their culture history content, collec- tively they mark the end of an era of Pacific a rch aeo 1 o gy dominated by descriptive exercises, and those all too often concerned with migrations and origins. Perhaps future gatherings of archaeologists should attack more specific topics and more restricted geographical areas, perhaps even discuss some theory. With several major research programs under way in New Guinea and the Solomons, one can hope that future sym- posia will produce a much healthier picture.

Reference Cited

Groube, L. M. 1971 Tonga, Lapita Pottery, and Poly-

nesian Origins. Journal of the Poly- nesian Society, 80 :278-3 16.

Canadian Historic Sites. Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History, 2: Contribu- tions from the Fortress of Louisbourg, 1. Ottawa: Information Canada, 1971. $3.00 (single issue).

Reviewed by ALFRED K. GUTHE University of Tennessee

Recent years have Seen an increasing interest in the archaeological examination of historic sites. Some hold that such work involves a different approach from that developed for prehistoric archaeology. Prob- ably the principal difference is the utiliza- tion of documents prepared while the site was occupied. This provides guidelines enabling the archaeologist to anticipate the features and artifact types to be en- countered. Interpretive data is also available.

514 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [75,1973]

The description of work in the Fortress of Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, indicates the benefits of this relation- ship between archaeology and history.

The French began construction of the Fortress of Louisbourg in A.D. 1720 to protect their interests in New France. Major fortifications were completed some twenty years later. The defenses took the form of a double-crowned work following Vauban’s First System of Fortification. In A.D. 1745, following a siege, the British captured the fortress. It was returned to the French in A.D. 1748, only to have the British again lay siege, and take it, in A.D. 1758. They de- stroyed some of the fortifications in A.D. 1760 and abandoned the site in A.D. 1768. During the nineteenth century, only a few families resided there.

The site is now a National Historic Park under the jurisdiction of the Canadian De- partment of the Interior. This publication contains reports on some of the sys- tematic reconstruction programs initiated in A.D. 1961. There are three contributions: “Archaeological Research at the Fortress of Louisbourg, 1961-1965,” by Edward Mc M. Larrabee (pp. 8-43); “A ‘Rescue Excavation’ at the Princess Half-bastion, Fortress of Louisbourg,” by Bruce W. Fry (pp. 46-54); and “An Archaeological Study of Clay Pipes from the King’s Bastion, Fortress of Louis- bourg,” by Iain C. Walker (pp. 56-122).

Larrabee reviews the intent of the pro- gram indicating it is a concentrated team effort by historians and archaeologists. The purpose is to provide information for an accurate reconstruction and to obtain data which would be destroyed by the recon- st.ruction. All steps in this team effort are carefully recorded and a “mental reconstruc- tion” is reached. The actual reconstruction will be whatever the people in charge of policy may wish to make it. The chronicle of the excavation program which follows this review reveals it was concentrated on the Ring’s Bastion. The careful description of the archaeologically recovered data is made more meaningful by the historical informa- tion.

Bruce Fry describes the data recovered from the Princess Half-bastion which was being destroyed by wave action. Following Larrabee’s exposition, this discussion ap- pears to be surprisingly limited in informa-

tion. It is simply an account of the archae- ologist’s observations without the historical input.

The study of clay pipes by Iain Walker is an attempt to correlate stratigraphic evi- dence and dating evidence suggested by al- most 1700 fragments. Part I (forty-two pages) describes and discusses those from Casemate 1 Right, an area 34’x 12’ which contained deposits 7’ deep. Twelve layers of deposition were discerned. Initial construc- tion debris occurred in the lowermost three. Layer 9, deposited in the 1740s’ contained material dating between A.D. 1700 and A.D. 1749-50. The remaining layers were added in the 1750s and 1760s. Part I1 (seventeen pages) considers pipe fragments from Case- mates 10-15 Right. These provided samples for the period between A.D. 1720 and A.D. 1732.

Each pipe fragment bearing a maker’s mark or significant ornamentation is de- scribed. Pertinent historical records are cited and comparative material from several sites in North America is noted. Some of the Dutch and English pipe fragments carried maker’s marks for which no historical data were located. The attempt to correlate the stratigraphic evidence and dating methods for pipes led Walker to conclude that Bin- ford’s straigh t-line regression formula pro- vided dates later than the stratigraphy and historical data indicated. The bore diameters of the Dutch pipe stems do not conform to the trend in English pipe stems. Binford based his formula on the English types. Walker concludes that Binford’s formula “should not be regarded as a substitute for historical research, but for deposits contain- ing little or no other evidence it is useful”

The reports comprising this volume ex- hibit a high degree of scholarship. They clearly demonstrate the value of a coopera- tive archaeological and historical effort on historic sites. Both disciplines gain. Archae- ologists may obtain new and historically relevant data and their interpretations are improved by using historical data. Walker’s contribution demonstrates this and provides a most impressive compendium of data on clay pipes to which many will turn for information.

It remains only to mention the attractive appearance of the volume. The paper cover

(p. 119).

ARCHEOLOGY 515

presents a color picture of the chateau at the Fortress of Louisbourg. The text is pre- sented in three columns per page and a bibliography accompanies each contribution. No typographical errors were noted. The use of coated paper throughout the volume re- sults in clean, sharp illustrations which are profuse in number.

Reconnaissance archeologique dans la region de la Baie de Wakeham (Nouveau- Quebec). GEORGES BARRE. Foreword by Robert McGhee. Montreal: SociCtC d’ArchCologie PrChistorique du Qukbec, 1970. 107 pp., figures, bibliography. n.p. (paper).

Reviewed by BRUCE LUTZ University of Wisconsin

Georges Barre’s monograph reports on his reconnaissance near Wakeham Bay, Ungava Peninsula (northern Quebec). Little archae- ological work has been attempted in this region, and BarrC states that many of the sites are being destroyed. While these sites have been located by others, BarrC’s work marks the first stage of a better under- standing of prehistory in this region.

The first chapter, after a brief introduc- tion to pre-Dorset, Dorset, and Thule cul- tures, gives a description of sixteen Dorset, Thule., or historic period sites in the vicinity of Wakeham Bay. Each site consists of semi- subterranean houses and/or circles of stone which are interpreted as tent rings. Eleven of the sites were test excavated, usually outside of the limit of the structures.

The second chapter is an analysis of the house and tent structures. The shape, presence or absence of an entrance passage, and presence or absence of wall foundations, are used to determine five classes of semi- subterranean house structures. The tent rings are merely described.

In the third chapter, Barrk analyzes the materials which were collected in the test excavations. He uses a system of attribute analysis of his own design, rather than depending upon already existing typologies. This is done, he states, because of the limited usefulness of existing typologies in areas outside of those in which they were

grouped into a number of categories on the basis of the attributes. Wherever possible, the categories are compared to those which have been developed for other Arctic sites of a similar nature.

In the final chapter, Dorset, Thule, and historic periods are each outlined in terms of traits ranging from diagnostic (artifacts or house types found only in a single period) to non-diagnostic (artifact types frequently found in all periods). BarrC then discusses each of his sites in terms of the artifact types found and their association with the classes of structures which were presented in the second chapter. From this is derived the period or periods of occupation of each of the sites. Thus, future work in this area can be guided by a knowledge of the age of a number of sites, and research can be planned accordingly.

This monograph is based upon pre- liminary data and many of the difficulties and gaps in presentation can be attributed to this. There is, however, one particular aspect which I find puzzling. BarrC, at least in this monograph, makes very little use of his own attribute analysis. After his initial presenta- tion of his attribute analysis, almost exclu- sive use is made of previously constructed typological systems, as, for example, when he defines the periods in which the sites were occupied. Why then, at this stage, do we need a new classification system? It seems to serve no real purpose. This is, however, a relatively minor point in an otherwise useful and clearly written mono- graph. Undoubtedly, future research in this area will rely upon Barr6’s contribution.

Prehistoric Villages in Eastern Nebraska. DAVID MAYER GRADWOHL. Nebraska State Historical Society Publications in Anthropology, 4. Lincoln: Nebraska State Historical Society, 1969. xii + 205 pp., figures, illustrations, tables, maps, 4 appendices, bibliography. n.p. (paper).

Reviewed b y ROBERT L. STEPHENSON University of South Carolina

This is a revision of Gradwohl’s doctoral dissertation and the fourth in a series of excellent monographs from the Nebraska

first developed. The artifacts are- then State Historical Society. The type, paper,