Memo to Paul H. Ezell: Yes, Paul, reviewing does make a difference! The editors of this second of four volumes projected to publish Adolph F. Bandelier’s journals moved the notes to the end as you suggested in your HAHR review (48: 3, August 1968, 552) of the first volume. Unfortunately, the printer set 667 notes in type just as small as that employed in the first book. Even worse, Paul, your comment about the value of “contemporary photographs of persons and places related to the context of the journal” went unheeded. You will find no visual material on Gila River Pima or other Indians like the Pueblo views in the first volume. Your plea for editorial identification of sketches brought no action; indeed, fewer are included in this volume. As you concluded, Paul, “probably only specialists will make much use of these journals.” Who besides someone seeking insight into pioneering research in the United States cares what a Swiss immigrant Indianologist saw from a train window, or even trudging over a site once occupied by prehistoric Indians? One cannot complain overmuch of economies by a publisher printing data for specialists.
The bulk of this volume presents specialists with Bandelier’s almost daily journal entries for 1883 and 1884 when he visited eastern and southern Arizona, northeastern Sonora and northwestern Chihuahua besides Río Grande areas from San Juan to El Paso. The passage of time has endowed these records with some value as historical sources, despite Bandelier’s specialized perspective. A good index lessens, Paul, the need for marginally perforated cards and code you foresaw a specialist requiring to mine the data.
