 Gamble,  Lynn H.

eScholarship - University of California

UC MercedJournal of California and Great Basin AnthropologyTitle Randall T. Milliken and Al W. Schwitilla: California and Great Basin Olivella Shell Bead GuidePermalinkhttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/77p521brJournalJournal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 35(2)ISSN0191-3557Author Gamble,  Lynn H.Publication Date2015 Peer reviewedeScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital LibraryUniversity of California336Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology | Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015) | pp. 336–340REV I EWSsouth-central California, and provides details on how to distinguish different types of beads. Both King and Gibson discuss beads and ornaments made from other materials, including stone, bone, clam, mussel, abalone, cowry, and limpets. It is important to remember that more than 21 species of shellfish were used for beads in the state. The most recent key publication on Olivella shell beads is an article by Randall Groza, Jeffrey Rosenthal, John Southon, and Randall Milliken (2011); it is significant because the authors provide a more recent version of Scheme D with a total of 140 AMS dates, versus the 103 that are in Milliken and Schwitilla. These new data have resulted in some minor differences in dates for particular periods. Whenever I undertake any analysis of beads, I always have copies of Bennyhoff and Hughes (1987)—who provide details on the distribution of Olivella bead types, in addition to other important information—King (1990), and Gibson (1992) at my side, among various other reports and publications. I now add Randall Milliken and Al Schwitilla’s shell bead guide to that list; it is a significant and useful addition to the current major publications on the subject.This new book differs from the others in that it is more of a hands-on guide, with beautiful color images of bead types, usually from at least two views. Milliken and Schwitilla’s classification system relies on that used by Bennyhoff and Hughes (1987), with significant updates, particularly with regard to chronology. A major update involves the use of the new “Dating Scheme D,” which is based on AMS dates of 103 Olivella shell beads. This new scheme has shifted some of the dates up to 200 years in time. A table in the book compares Dating Scheme D with Scheme B1, the one used by Bennyhoff and Hughes. For those who can afford it, the book also has a useful shell bead replica set made by Al Schwitalla, which is a significant resource that was previously unavailable. All of the major Olivella bead types found in California and the Great Basin over the last 10,000 years, especially in central California, are in this set of 154 polymer replicated beads. This collection represents a considerable effort, and it is helpful for both scholars who are new to shell bead analysis and to more experienced analysts. The book starts out with a brief section on California and Great Basin Olivella Shell Bead GuideRandall T. Milliken and Al W. SchwitillaWalnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc. 2012,viii+80 pp., $64.95Reviewed by Lynn H. GambleDepartment of Anthropology, University of California, Santa BarbaraBeads are one of the most ubiquitous kinds of artifacts in California and also one of the more challenging to classify accurately. Beads inform us about exchange, wealth, status, and social identity, and are one of the most chronologically sensitive artifact types in California. It is imperative that we identify them systematically, using standardized measurements and criteria. This short, well-illustrated book serves as an excellent guide to Olivella bead classification and should be on the shelf of every California archaeologist. It was not born from a void, but is based on decades of research.We are indebted to the early bead researchers in California, especially James Bennyhoff, for spending endless hours analyzing burial lots, and—through the use of seriation—creating detailed sequences of beads, ornaments, and other artifacts for many parts of central California. Bennyhoff relied on the work of Jeremiah Lilliard, Robert Heizer, and Frank Fenenga, who  published the first typology of shell beads in 1939. In 1947, Edward Gifford refined their descriptions and chronologies of beads and other shell artifacts. Eventually, Bennyhoff and Richard Hughes (1987), after years of research, published a new shell-bead classification system that became the gold standard for shell-bead identification and research, especially in central California and the Great Basin. In southern California, Chester King, who was mentored by Bennyhoff, analyzed burial lots of shell beads, ornaments, and other artifacts from the Santa Barbara Channel in his 1982 dissertation. This became a major resource for shell bead classification, especially after it was updated in 1990. More recently, Robert Gibson (1992) published an article that focuses primarily on shell beads from   REVIEWS | Gamble / Taggart 337the history and purpose of the replica set (written by Schwitilla), followed by the bulk of the book (written by Milliken), which basically presents the typology, with some commentary. Although the book is intended as an accompaniment to the replica set, it certainly stands on its own. In the main section, Milliken describes Olivella shell bead categories in terms of attributes and statistical indices of measurements, the latter of which provide even greater rigor in comparison to previous publications. After a brief discussion of differences between Olivella species, Milliken presents the different classes and types of shell beads. There are color photographs of the beads along with their descriptions, followed by sections on temporal significance and bead types that are similar; the latter is especially helpful for the identification of beads that might fall into two or more categories. The authors warn the reader when there are significant chronological differences between different regions. Nevertheless, the focus is on central California, as it was in Bennyhoff and Hughes (1987). The photographs, the systematic descriptions of beads, and the clear layout of the book are especially handy when searching for any given class or type. The book is a comprehensive analysis of Olivella beads, with sixteen classes described. I warn the reader, however, about the cover of the book, where several types of Olivella shell beads are displayed and the portion of the Olivella shell from which they originated is depicted. Unfortunately, this illustration is in error—I spent quite some time trying to figure out what they were showing, only to conclude that it does not make sense. I believe it may have something to do with the use of differing scales for the beads and the whole shell, but I am still uncertain. In this case, the old adage that ‘you can’t judge a book by its cover’ should be taken literally. However, this relatively inconsequential error does not take away from the usefulness of the book. The California and Great Basin Olivella Shell Bead Guide is an excellent resource for anyone working in California and the Great Basin.REFERENCESBennyhoff, James A., and Richard E. Hughes1987 Shell Bead and Ornament Exchange Networks Between California and the Western Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 64:2. New York: American Museum of Natural History.Gibson, Robert O.1992 An Introduction to the Study of Aboriginal Beads from California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 28(3):1– 45.Gifford, Edward W.1947 California Shell Artifacts. University of California Anthropological Records 9:1–114. Berkeley.Groza, Randall, Jeffrey Rosenthal, John Southon, and Randall Milliken2011 A Refined Shell Bead Chronology for Late Holocene Central California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 31:13 – 32.King, Chester1990  Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used for Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region before A.D. 1804. In The Evolution of North American Indians, David Hurst Thomas, ed. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.Lillard, Jeremiah B., Robert F. Heizer, and Franklin Fenenga 1939 An Introduction to the Archeology of Central Cali-fornia. [Department of Anthropology Bulletins 2]. Sacramento: Sacramento Junior College.

English

 Randall T. Milliken and Al W. Schwitilla: California and Great Basin Olivella Shell Bead Guide

UC Merced
Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology
Title
 Randall T. Milliken and Al W. Schwitilla: California and Great Basin Olivella Shell Bead Guide
Permalink
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/77p521br
Journal
Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 35(2)
ISSN
0191-3557
Author
 Gamble,  Lynn H.
Publication Date
2015
 
Peer reviewed
eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library
University of California
336
Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology | Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015) | pp. 336–340
REV I EWS
south-central California, and provides details on how 
to distinguish different types of beads. Both King and 
Gibson discuss beads and ornaments made from other 
materials, including stone, bone, clam, mussel, abalone, 
cowry, and limpets. It is important to remember that 
more than 21 species of shellfish were used for beads in 
the state. The most recent key publication on Olivella 
shell beads is an article by Randall Groza, Jeffrey 
Rosenthal, John Southon, and Randall Milliken (2011); it 
is significant because the authors provide a more recent 
version of Scheme D with a total of 140 AMS dates, 
versus the 103 that are in Milliken and Schwitilla. These 
new data have resulted in some minor differences in 
dates for particular periods. Whenever I undertake any 
analysis of beads, I always have copies of Bennyhoff and 
Hughes (1987)—who provide details on the distribution 
of Olivella bead types, in addition to other important 
information—King (1990), and Gibson (1992) at my side, 
among various other reports and publications. I now add 
Randall Milliken and Al Schwitilla’s shell bead guide 
to that list; it is a significant and useful addition to the 
current major publications on the subject.
This new book differs from the others in that it is 
more of a hands-on guide, with beautiful color images of 
bead types, usually from at least two views. Milliken and 
Schwitilla’s classification system relies on that used by 
Bennyhoff and Hughes (1987), with significant updates, 
particularly with regard to chronology. A major update 
involves the use of the new “Dating Scheme D,” which is 
based on AMS dates of 103 Olivella shell beads. This new 
scheme has shifted some of the dates up to 200 years in 
time. A table in the book compares Dating Scheme D 
with Scheme B1, the one used by Bennyhoff and Hughes. 
For those who can afford it, the book also has a 
useful shell bead replica set made by Al Schwitalla, 
which is a significant resource that was previously 
unavailable. All of the major Olivella bead types found 
in California and the Great Basin over the last 10,000 
years, especially in central California, are in this set of 
154 polymer replicated beads. This collection represents a 
considerable effort, and it is helpful for both scholars who 
are new to shell bead analysis and to more experienced 
analysts. The book starts out with a brief section on 
California and Great Basin 
Olivella Shell Bead Guide
Randall T. Milliken and Al W. Schwitilla
Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc. 2012,
viii+80 pp., $64.95
Reviewed by Lynn H. Gamble
Department of Anthropology, University of California, 
Santa Barbara
Beads are one of the most ubiquitous kinds of artifacts 
in California and also one of the more challenging to 
classify accurately. Beads inform us about exchange, 
wealth, status, and social identity, and are one of the most 
chronologically sensitive artifact types in California. It 
is imperative that we identify them systematically, using 
standardized measurements and criteria. This short, well-
illustrated book serves as an excellent guide to Olivella 
bead classification and should be on the shelf of every 
California archaeologist. It was not born from a void, but 
is based on decades of research.
We are indebted to the early bead researchers in 
California, especially James Bennyhoff, for spending 
endless hours analyzing burial lots, and—through 
the use of seriation—creating detailed sequences of 
beads, ornaments, and other artifacts for many parts 
of central California. Bennyhoff relied on the work of 
Jeremiah Lilliard, Robert Heizer, and Frank Fenenga, 
who  published the first typology of shell beads in 1939. 
In 1947, Edward Gifford refined their descriptions 
and chronologies of beads and other shell artifacts. 
Eventually, Bennyhoff and Richard Hughes (1987), 
after years of research, published a new shell-bead 
classification system that became the gold standard 
for shell-bead identification and research, especially 
in central California and the Great Basin. In southern 
California, Chester King, who was mentored by 
Bennyhoff, analyzed burial lots of shell beads, ornaments, 
and other artifacts from the Santa Barbara Channel in 
his 1982 dissertation. This became a major resource for 
shell bead classification, especially after it was updated 
in 1990. More recently, Robert Gibson (1992) published 
an article that focuses primarily on shell beads from 
  REVIEWS | Gamble / Taggart 337
the history and purpose of the replica set (written by 
Schwitilla), followed by the bulk of the book (written 
by Milliken), which basically presents the typology, with 
some commentary. Although the book is intended as an 
accompaniment to the replica set, it certainly stands on 
its own. 
In the main section, Milliken describes Olivella 
shell bead categories in terms of attributes and statistical 
indices of measurements, the latter of which provide even 
greater rigor in comparison to previous publications. 
After a brief discussion of differences between Olivella 
species, Milliken presents the different classes and types 
of shell beads. There are color photographs of the beads 
along with their descriptions, followed by sections on 
temporal significance and bead types that are similar; the 
latter is especially helpful for the identification of beads 
that might fall into two or more categories. The authors 
warn the reader when there are significant chronological 
differences between different regions. Nevertheless, the 
focus is on central California, as it was in Bennyhoff 
and Hughes (1987). The photographs, the systematic 
descriptions of beads, and the clear layout of the book 
are especially handy when searching for any given class 
or type. The book is a comprehensive analysis of Olivella 
beads, with sixteen classes described. I warn the reader, 
however, about the cover of the book, where several 
types of Olivella shell beads are displayed and the 
portion of the Olivella shell from which they originated 
is depicted. Unfortunately, this illustration is in error—I 
spent quite some time trying to figure out what they 
were showing, only to conclude that it does not make 
sense. I believe it may have something to do with the 
use of differing scales for the beads and the whole shell, 
but I am still uncertain. In this case, the old adage that 
‘you can’t judge a book by its cover’ should be taken 
literally. However, this relatively inconsequential error 
does not take away from the usefulness of the book. The 
California and Great Basin Olivella Shell Bead Guide is 
an excellent resource for anyone working in California 
and the Great Basin.
REFERENCES
Bennyhoff, James A., and Richard E. Hughes
1987 Shell Bead and Ornament Exchange Networks 
Between California and the Western Great Basin. 
Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of 
Natural History 64:2. New York: American Museum of 
Natural History.
Gibson, Robert O.
1992 An Introduction to the Study of Aboriginal Beads 
from California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society 
Quarterly 28(3):1– 45.
Gifford, Edward W.
1947 California Shell Artifacts. University of California 
Anthropological Records 9:1–114. Berkeley.
Groza, Randall, Jeffrey Rosenthal, John Southon, 
and Randall Milliken
2011 A Refined Shell Bead Chronology for Late Holocene 
Central California. Journal of California and Great Basin 
Anthropology 31:13 – 32.
King, Chester
1990  Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study 
of Artifacts Used for Social System Maintenance in the 
Santa Barbara Channel Region before A.D. 1804. In 
The Evolution of North American Indians, David Hurst 
Thomas, ed. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Lillard, Jeremiah B., Robert F. Heizer, and Franklin Fenenga 
1939 An Introduction to the Archeology of Central Cali-
fornia. [Department of Anthropology Bulletins 2]. 
Sacramento: Sacramento Junior College.


https://escholarship.org/content/qt77p521br/qt77p521br.pdf?t=pttins

Randall T. Milliken and Al W. Schwitilla: California and Great Basin Olivella Shell Bead Guide

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eScholarship - University of California

eScholarship - University of California