{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01634665282823041, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008043591074208614, 'mean_word_length': 5.119047619047619, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Reviewing of Archaeological Books

In the last few years the editors of several anthropological journals, including American Antiquity (Zubrow 43 (1978):531-535), have discussed the many problems associated with book reviewing, especially the role of the book reviewer. These editorials have taken strong stands, stressing the responsibility of the reviewer to represent the book fairly, the need for truly critical evaluation as well as simple description, and the desirability of publishing timely reviews. Although I have perceived some positive results, by and large the response of the book reviewers in the profession, judging by the published reviews, seems to have been to continue the pattern of simply describing a book and then devoting only a sentence or two to reasoned appraisal and cogent criticism. It is curious that the much heralded progress in the last decade and a half of published volumes challenging the frontiers of archaeological method and theory has not had its counterpart in the reviewing of these books. Reviews in American Antiquity in the 1940s and 1950s seem little different from those currently being published. While it is true that it is difficult to envision theoretical or even methodological breakthroughs in the reviewing of learned books, the challenges of meeting the responsibilities of reviewing can and must be more adequately addressed. While editors for book reviews have made their dissatisfaction known, authors and reviewers themselves have also had complaints against the book review process. Authors complain most about biased judgments and the misrepresentation of their views. Unfortunately, there is little that a review editor can do about biased reviewing. The editor must carefully screen the potential reviewers in an attempt to eliminate those who might have a reason to be strongly biased for or against an author's views or who react in a personal rather than scholarly way. The editor also has the responsibility for rejecting those reviews, even though solicited, which are scurrilous or very obviously do not represent the contents of the book. The editor must also presume, although it is sometimes patently not the case, that those who have been asked to review books have had sufficient maturation as scholars that they do not need to be told what constitutes a thoughtful review. Reviewer complaints usually take the form of protests against word limits. A frequent response to the pleas of book review editors for brevity has been that length constraints placed on the reviewer have inhibited the adequate appraisal of a book. Undoubtedly there are some instances where the necessity of restricting the length of the review has hampered meaningful assessment; however, in most cases the task can be completed within the assigned word limits. After all, as Richard Woodbury (American Anthropologist 79:551-554) has noted, the King James version of the Bible tells the story of the Creation in less than 900 words. The second common complaint, that a cadre of select individuals are used as a pool from which reviewers are drawn, is certainly not the case. All book review editors, however, do have a limited knowledge about individual scholars and their specialties, and while editors rely on their colleagues to suggest names to increase the number of potential reviewers, the most appropriate individual may still remain unknown to the editor. Accepting unsolicited reviews would partially solve the problem by increasing the pool of potential reviewers, but it also greatly increases the possibility of biased reviewing. A review can be, and unfortunately sometimes has been, a vehicle with which to settle a grudge or repay a debt, and having the editor solicit the review reduces somewhat the chances of that occurring. Because of these potential problems, American Antiqui-