LAUSR

captions. A particularly egregious case involves one petroglyph that is assigned to two different locations (figures 2.11 and 11.4), both of which are incorrect. Wording is sometimes repetitive, and punctuation problems exist. Organization throughout is a major issue. Worst of all, the placement of the photographs is random, confusing, and chaotic throughout the book, and the pictures selected commonly lack any connection to the topic being discussed.Overall, this volumehas the appearance of a hastily assembled first draft that should have received much more editorial attention and organizational revision prior to publication. At a time when the general public is increasingly aware of and intrigued by rock art and when site visitation is rising, Jones’s humanistic appeal was written for a worthy cause. When conceived of and appreciated as art, these rock paintings and petroglyphs are perhaps a little less likely to attract graffiti. Although this potential outcome and the intent of the book are positive, it is disappointing that greater care and editorial oversight were not given to its preparation and production.