Placename Designations in the San Luis Rey Valley: A Cautionary Note
In short, our point is not that Fulmer and Rosen erred by including these possibilities in their much-appreciated reports, nor are we proposing that Oxendine added confusion to the record. It is clear that all the authors recognized the limitations in the available data. Furthermore, we agree in principle that the possible identification of prehistoric sites with ethnographic and/or historic data should be considered and mentioned whenever there is any reason to believe that a correlation exists. Our concern is with the increasingly common use of secondary sources without careful consideration of the intent or details included in the primary works. The likelihood that repeated secondary and even tertiary citations, starting out as qualified possibilities, will gradually translate into some level of unwarranted reality with attendant potential for misinterpretation, is worth some attention.